[Senate Hearing 114-264]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-264
REMOVING BARRIERS TO WIRELESS
BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 7, 2015
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
20-043 PDF WASHINGTON : 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].
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking
ROY BLUNT, Missouri MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
MARCO RUBIO, Florida CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
TED CRUZ, Texas RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
JERRY MORAN, Kansas EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska CORY BOOKER, New Jersey
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin TOM UDALL, New Mexico
DEAN HELLER, Nevada JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
CORY GARDNER, Colorado GARY PETERS, Michigan
STEVE DAINES, Montana
David Schwietert, Staff Director
Nick Rossi, Deputy Staff Director
Rebecca Seidel, General Counsel
Jason Van Beek, Deputy General Counsel
Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
Chris Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
Clint Odom, Democratic General Counsel and Policy Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on October 7, 2015.................................. 1
Statement of Senator Thune....................................... 1
Statement of Senator Nelson...................................... 2
Statement of Senator Wicker...................................... 36
Statement of Senator Moran....................................... 39
Statement of Senator Gardner..................................... 40
Statement of Senator Daines...................................... 43
Statement of Senator Manchin..................................... 45
Statement of Senator Ayotte...................................... 48
Statement of Senator Udall....................................... 50
Statement of Senator Blumenthal.................................. 52
Statement of Senator Klobuchar................................... 56
Statement of Senator Markey...................................... 58
Statement of Senator Johnson..................................... 60
Witnesses
Douglas Kinkoph, Associate Administrator, Office of
Telecommunications and Information Applications, National
Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce......................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Hon. Jonathan S. Adelstein, President and CEO, PCIA--The Wireless
Infrastructure Association..................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Hon. Gary Resnick, Mayor, Wilton Manors, Florida................. 17
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Cory J. Reed, Senior Vice President, Intelligent Solutions, Deere
& Company...................................................... 21
Prepared statement........................................... 23
Bruce Morrison, Vice President, Operations and Network Build,
Ericsson Inc................................................... 27
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Appendix
Hon. Marco Rubio, U.S. Senator from Florida, prepared statement.. 67
Letter dated July 29, 2015 to Hon. John Thune and Hon. Bill
Nelson from Steven K. Berry, President and CEO, Competitive
Carriers Association........................................... 68
Letter dated October 6, 2015 to Hon. John Thune and Hon. Bill
Nelson from David F. Melcher, Aerospace Industries Association. 71
Response to written questions submitted to Douglas Kinkoph by:
Hon. Deb Fischer............................................. 73
Hon. Dan Sullivan............................................ 73
Hon. Steve Daines............................................ 74
Hon. Cory Booker............................................. 76
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Jonathan S.
Adelstein by:
Hon. Marco Rubio............................................. 76
Hon. Deb Fischer............................................. 77
Hon. Dan Sullivan............................................ 77
Hon. Cory Booker............................................. 78
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Gary Resnick by:
Hon. Deb Fischer............................................. 78
Hon. Steve Daines............................................ 78
Hon. Cory Booker............................................. 80
Response to written questions submitted to Cory J. Reed by:
Hon. Deb Fischer............................................. 82
Hon. Steve Daines............................................ 83
Hon. Cory Booker............................................. 84
Response to written questions submitted to Bruce Morrison by:
Hon. Marco Rubio............................................. 85
Hon. Deb Fischer............................................. 85
Hon. Dan Sullivan............................................ 86
Hon. Steve Daines............................................ 87
Hon. Amy Klobuchar........................................... 88
Hon. Cory Booker............................................. 88
REMOVING BARRIERS TO WIRELESS BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2015
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John Thune,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Thune [presiding], Wicker, Ayotte,
Fischer, Moran, Sullivan, Johnson, Heller, Gardner, Daines,
Nelson, Cantwell, Klobuchar, Blumenthal, Schatz, Markey, Udall,
Manchin, and Peters.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
The Chairman. This hearing will come to order. I want to
welcome our panel and thank you all for being here this
morning. Our committee meets to examine policies related to
spectrum and wireless broadband.
As I mentioned at our July hearing on Wireless Broadband
and the Future of Spectrum Policy, we have an opportunity to
develop meaningful legislation to further promote economic
development and the many benefits fueled by increased mobile
connectivity. Similar to the feedback from our last hearing, I
look forward to hearing from my many colleagues and our
witnesses about ideas that they may have for such legislation.
I also invite stakeholders not here today to share their
ideas with the Committee in the coming days and weeks. Opening
more spectrum for commercial use can bring in revenue to pay
down our national debt and fund other priorities. But, the more
lasting economic benefits spurred by spectrum availability--new
jobs, technological innovation, and increased consumer
welfare--depend on spectrum actually being used by individuals
across the country. That requires the design, construction,
deployment, and maintenance of physical facilities, including
towers, antennas, fiber optic cables, and servers.
The benefits of increased wireless deployment go well
beyond the value of improving mobile connectivity for
individuals where they live. There's also tremendous potential
in bringing connectivity to unserved areas where people may not
reside, but where they do work and play, like farmland and
parklands. Facilitating personal mobile devices and machine-to-
machine communications in these areas holds great promise to
improve public health and safety, increase agricultural
productivity, and better manage natural resources.
Telecommunication and broadband connectivity in rural
America not only opens doors for individuals and families, but
also enables new opportunities for farmers and ranchers when it
comes to the millions of acres of land that they actively
manage. Machine-to-machine and machine-to-farm communication is
already delivering new productivity gains and promises much
more benefit for American farmers, environmental stewardship,
and the economic future of rural communities. I look forward to
hearing testimony today about some of these innovative
solutions and how public policy can facilitate their ongoing
development.
Improving broadband infrastructure deployment has received
increasing legislative, administrative, and regulatory
attention in recent years. Most recently, the Broadband
Opportunity Council concluded a months-long review among 25
Federal agencies led by the Departments of Commerce and
Agriculture to produce recommendations to increase broadband
deployment through existing agency programs, missions, and
budgets. We are pleased to have NTIA before us today to explain
the recent report and discuss its role as a facilitator of
interagency activities related to broadband.
Universal broadband connectivity is a national objective,
but its pursuit ultimately involves thousands of decisions made
at the local level. These decisions are made by private
enterprises determining where to deploy facilities and where to
risk capital. They also are made by local and Federal
Government authorities who are charged with protecting their
constituents' interests, authorities like city planning
officials, military base personnel, and forestry managers.
Today, we're going to hear more detail about what goes into
these decision processes, how they operate in practice, and how
Congress can help to improve their efficiency.
I'm encouraged by the broad engagement of members on this
committee in efforts to promote wireless broadband deployment.
Members on both sides of the aisle are working on a bipartisan
basis to develop pragmatic concepts and actionable legislation
as well as trying to identify new and bright ideas.
I invite all of our members to continue working with one
another to understand these issues, to create a fulsome record,
and to craft broadband deployment legislation for action in
this Congress. I'm committed to these efforts and believe it is
among the most important work that can be done by this
committee.
Thank you. And I want to recognize now our Ranking Member,
Senator Nelson.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And what you said about having to rely on State and local
governments is one of the reasons that I requested that we have
one of my mayors, the Mayor of Wilton Manors, Mayor Resnick, be
part of the panel.
And just to back up what you said, Mr. Chairman, we're all
here because of the demand for and the reliance on wireless
broadband. And the additional need for spectrum always seems to
gather most of the attention, but we also, as we adopt a
forward-looking wireless policy, we've got to look at the
infrastructure side of the wireless situation.
As we continue to hear concerns about delay and the
processes required for getting additional wireless
infrastructure deployed, this is a part of the discussion that
we're going to have to tackle. And that's because building
these networks implicates a number of very important issues,
from historic preservation and environmental concerns to State
and local land-use policies to tribal sovereignty and to
national security. And so, our hope is that all the
stakeholders in this can work together to help us find ways to
balance these competing demands and, therefore, to meet,
ultimately, what the public must have.
And I also look forward to hearing from our NTIA witness
about the steps the administration is already taking to
increase opportunities for deployment of wireless
infrastructure on Federal lands and buildings.
The recent Broadband Opportunity Council report includes a
number of recommendations on ways to speed this deployment on
Federal lands. Just last week, GSA, under the guidance of
Congress, took significant steps to improve processes for
seeking access to Federal lands. And as we said in a previous
hearing, we stand ready to work with Chairman Thune and all the
stakeholders to find areas of bipartisan consensus so that we
can address the future of U.S. wireless policy.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
And we are, as I said, joined by a great panel today. And,
starting on your right and my left, we have Mr. Douglas
Kinkoph, who is the Associate Administrator of the Office of
Telecommunications Information Applications for the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration--put that on
a business card----
[Laughter.]
The Chairman.--Mr. Jonathan Adelstein, who is currently the
President and CEO of PCIA, the Wireless Infrastructure
Association, and also formerly the Administrator of the Rural
Utilities Service, and a Commissioner at the Federal
Communications Commission, and, I might add, a native South
Dakotan--so, Jonathan, welcome, good to have you here; Mayor
Gary Resnick is the Mayor, as Senator Nelson noted, Wilton
Manors, Florida; and Mr. Core Reed is the Senior Vice President
of Intelligent Solutions for Deere & Company, which will have,
I think, some interesting thoughts on applications in
agriculture, which is of great interest to many of us on this
panel; and Mr. Bruce Morrison, and he's the Vice President of
Operations and Network Build for Ericsson, in North America.
So, welcome, to all of you. It's great to have you with us.
Please feel free to begin with your remarks. And, if you could
confine them as closely to 5 minutes as possible, and then
we'll get into our questions.
And we'll start on my left with Mr. Kinkoph.
STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS KINKOPH, ASSOCIATE
ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS
AND INFORMATION APPLICATIONS, NATIONAL
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION
ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. Kinkoph. Thank you, Chairman Thune, Ranking Member
Nelson, and Committee members. I welcome other opportunity to
testify before you today on behalf of the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration.
My name is Doug Kinkoph, and I'm Associate Administrator at
NTIA and lead the agency's efforts related to broadband,
including leading NTIA's new Broadband USA Initiative.
As President Obama has declared, access to high-speed
broadband is no longer a luxury, it is a necessity for American
families, businesses, consumers, and critical to U.S. economic
growth and competitiveness. At NTIA, we have been working hard
over the past 6 years to advance broadband availability
nationwide through our $4 billion Broadband Grant Program.
We oversaw roughly 230 projects across the country that
have built critical network infrastructure, opened or upgraded
public computer centers, established broadband adoption and
digital inclusion programs. NTIA's State Broadband Initiative
invested another $300 million to help states collect broadband
data for the National Broadband Map and expand their statewide
broadband capacity.
Six years ago, when Congress funded this program, we made a
promise to communities across the country that they would
benefit from this funding. The Obama administration's
investment in broadband would create jobs, stimulate economic
development, spur investment, and open up new opportunities in
employment, education, and healthcare. Today, I'm proud to say
we've delivered on those pledges. Our broadband grantees
deployed more than 114,000 miles of new or upgraded network
miles, connected nearly 26,000 community anchor institutions,
such as schools and hospitals, connected--and installed or
upgraded more than 47,000 personal computers and public access
centers. And our grantees enrolled hundreds of thousands of
people as subscribers to broadband services for the first time.
As we move beyond these projects, we recognize that more
work needs to be done to ensure that no one is left behind.
Nearly 51 million Americans still do not have access at home to
a wired broadband connection in their homes today, and we
expect the need for speed to continue to increase.
Even though the Recovery Act Grant Program is coming to an
end, President Obama has continued to emphasize the importance
of broadband. Over the past several months, he has outlined a
series of initiatives aimed at closing the digital divide and
fostering investment in our Nation's broadband infrastructure.
Last March, the President created the Broadband Opportunity
Council, made up of over 20 Federal agencies, and directed it
to determine what actions the Federal Government could take to
eliminate regulatory barriers to broadband deployment and to
encourage investment in broadband network and services. NTIA
Administrator Larry Strickling served as the Co-Chair of the
Council at the designation by Senate--Secretary Pritzker.
On September 21, the White House released the Council's
report, which described concrete steps that 25 Federal agencies
would take over the next 18 months to eliminate barriers and
promote broadband investment and adoption. Four key themes
framed the recommendations and action items:
One, modernize Federal programs to expand program support
for broadband investment;
Two, empower communities with tools and resources to
attract broadband investment and promote meaningful use;
Three, promote increased broadband deployment and
competition through expanded access to Federal assets;
And finally, improve data collection and analysis and
research on broadband.
Once implemented, we believe that the recommendations will
make meaningful difference to communities seeking to expand and
enhance their broadband capacity. For example, more funds will
be available to support broadband projects, and local
governments will have new tools and resources at their
fingertips to bring broadband to their communities.
The recommendations of the Broadband Opportunity Council
represent an important next step in the administration's
ongoing campaign to expand broadband access and adoption. But,
what matters is--now is that the agencies implement the
recommendations and continue to identify additional steps that
can be taken and barriers that can be tackled.
At NTIA, we play an ongoing role in ensuring that the
Council's important work is carried out. NTIA's Broadband USA
Initiative will continue to work closely with communities
seeking to expand their broadband capacity. NTIA has learned a
lot over the past 6 years overseeing this broadband portfolio
of broadband infrastructure and adoption grants. NTIA has
learned that there is no one-size-fits-all approach. Through
our Broadband USA Initiative, we are now leveraging that
knowledge and expertise to help communities in their broadband
expansion efforts. We are offering them technical assistance
and support they need to overcome their unique challenges
through publication of products, workshops, and direct
technical assistance.
And I thank you again for the opportunity to participate in
today's hearing. And I will be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kinkoph follows:]
Prepared Statement of Douglas Kinkoph, Associate Administrator,
Office of Telecommunications and Information Applications, National
Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce
Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, members of the Committee,
thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) regarding
removing barriers to wireless broadband deployment. As President Obama
has declared, access to high-speed broadband is no longer a luxury; it
is a necessity for American families, businesses, and consumers and
critical to U.S. economic growth and competitiveness. NTIA contributed
to advancing broadband availability throughout the Nation by financing
roughly 230 projects across the country that have built critical
network infrastructure, opened or upgraded public computer centers and
established broadband adoption and digital inclusion programs from $4
billion from the 2009 Recovery Act. NTIA's State Broadband Initiative
Program invested another $300 million to help states collect broadband
data for the National Broadband Map and expand their statewide
broadband capacity.
Six years ago, when Congress funded this program, we made a promise
to communities across the country that would benefit from this funding:
the Obama Administration's investment in broadband would create jobs,
stimulate economic development, spur private-sector investment, and
open up new opportunities in employment, education and healthcare. Most
important, it would improve lives. Today, I am proud to say we
delivered on those pledges. Our broadband grantees deployed more than
114,000 miles of new or upgraded network miles, connected nearly 26,000
community anchor institutions such as schools and hospitals and
installed or upgraded more than 47,000 personal computers in public
access centers. And our grantees enrolled hundreds of thousands of
people as subscribers to broadband services.
These projects have already had a significant impact on economic
development. We commissioned an independent study from ASR Analytics
looking at the social and economic impact of our broadband grant
program and released that report earlier this year. The report showed
that on average, in only two years, communities that received our
broadband grant funds experienced an estimated 2 percent greater growth
in broadband availability than non-grant communities. The report also
concluded that the additional broadband infrastructure built by our
grantees could be expected to create more than 22,000 long-term jobs
and generate more than $1 billion in additional household income each
year. The report also showed that community anchor institutions, like
schools and libraries, served by our broadband infrastructure grantees
experienced significantly increased speeds and lower costs. As an
example, the median price paid by libraries in the sample was $233 per
megabit per month before the grant program, at a median speed of 3
mbps. As a result of the grant program, the median price dropped to $15
per megabit per month and median speed increased to 20 mbps.
With our infrastructure projects, one of our major goals was to
prime the pump for private-sector investment by supplying critical
middle-mile infrastructure that local providers can use to deliver
affordable broadband to more homes and businesses. That is why all
networks built with Recovery Act dollars are subject to open-access
rules that let all other carriers interconnect with these networks on
fair and non-discriminatory terms. Open access middle-mile fiber can
also be used for wireless tower backhaul. We also encouraged our
grantees to connect directly to the key anchor institutions in these
communities due to the higher bandwidth needs of schools, libraries and
other institutions.
In Massachusetts, there is a great example of a public-private
partnership that laid the foundation for broadband expansion throughout
the state. The $45.4 million grant to the Massachusetts Technology Park
(MassTech) delivered affordable, high-speed Internet to 123 communities
in rural western Massachusetts. The project was completed in January,
2014 and built 949 miles of new fiber and connected 1,233 community
anchor institutions. For this project and the Open Cape project, the
state of Massachusetts provided the project matching funds. In building
on the success of the Recovery Act projects, the state is making
funding available to 45 communities to support their community
broadband projects.
Another Recovery Act success story is South Dakota Network, LLC
(SDN), a partnership of 27 independent telecom companies covering most
of South Dakota. SDN used its $20.6 million grant to add 397 miles of
new middle-mile spurs that connected 512 community anchor institutions,
including schools, hospitals, libraries, clinics, public safety
agencies, courthouses, government buildings, and National Guard
facilities, to high-speed broadband. The new and improved broadband
access helped these institutions provide services that were previously
unavailable due to lack of access or slow connections speeds.
Healthcare providers can now offer telemedicine services and public
schools and libraries now provide distance learning opportunities.
To foster wireless broadband deployment, NTIA awarded a $9.5
million Recovery Act grant to Pine Telephone Company to deliver
affordable wireless broadband service to the underserved tribal lands
of the Choctaw Nation and its ten counties in rural southeastern
Oklahoma. Through its grant, Pine Telephone leveraged the power of
broadband to create economic growth and jobs and to enhance education
and public safety. Upon completion in June 2013, Pine Telephone had
constructed a new high-speed 344-mile network that used 3G universal
mobile telecommunications systems (UMTS) technology. In addition, Pine
Telephone constructed a last-mile wireless network that included 42 new
wireless links, 37 new towers, and 6 new/upgraded interconnection
points. Pine Telephone connected 22 community anchor institutions
(CAIs), including six K-12 schools and 16 public safety entities, and
provided last-mile broadband services to 497 residential subscribers
and 33 businesses. It also donated space on the new towers for
placement of emergency responder radio systems, which will help to
improve critical public safety communications during emergencies.
NTIA also awarded $32.2 million to the Navajo Tribal Utility
Authority (NTUA) to build out telecommunications infrastructure
throughout the Navajo Nation in northern Arizona, northwestern New
Mexico, and southeastern Utah. Completed in 2013, NTUA constructed over
1,345 miles, including 570 miles of aerial fiber and 775 wireless
miles. It also built 32 new towers to expand its existing microwave
network and provide broadband access over 15,120 square miles of the
Navajo Nation's 27,000 square mile area. It directly connected 50
chapter houses, which are the heart of each community and serve as
municipal buildings and central community meeting places. In addition,
NTUA's subrecipient, NTUA Wireless (dba Choice Wireless), provides
last-mile services via a 4G Long Term Evolution (LTE) network. Through
this LTE network, NTUA provides high speed broadband access to both
fixed and mobile customers to include 30,000 households (approximately
135,000 people) and 1,000 businesses in 15 of the largest communities
on the Navajo Nation, including Window Rock, Shiprock, Kayenta, Chinle,
and Tuba City.
In addition to the goal of economic development, NTIA also focused
on inclusion issues--how to make broadband available to all Americans.
We cannot lose sight of the importance of adoption. Once the facilities
are built, we need for people to subscribe to use the service. Today,
only 74 percent of Americans overall subscribe to broadband service.
Through our adoption programs, we have learned important lessons about
what works and what does not. An important takeaway is that digital
literacy is fundamental to sustainable broadband adoption. Our grantees
around the country have demonstrated that successful digital literacy
training must be tailored to the specific needs of the community and
the individual. Based on our grants, we now have developed a portfolio
of innovative approaches to offering this training. Sustainable
broadband adoption projects are reaching people who may never have even
turned on a computer--a group that includes a disproportionate number
of lower income Americans, senior citizens, and members of minority
groups--and teaching them how to navigate the Internet, set up an e-
mail account, write a resume, and even apply for jobs over the
Internet.
Through the Recovery Act, NTIA funded $250 million of sustainable
broadband adoption grants. A program called TechGoesHome provides an
illustration of one of these grants. The City of Boston's Department of
Information Technology partnered with a nonprofit called Open Air
Boston to provide digital literacy training, subsidized netbooks or
mobile devices and low-cost Internet access to low-income middle and
high school students and their families. TechGoesHome served 62 middle
and high schools and 35 community sites, and it equipped Boston
teenagers with valuable digital literacy skills that will help them
compete in a job market that takes these skills for granted.
As we move beyond these projects, we recognize that more work needs
to be done to ensure that no one is left behind in this digital
revolution. When we started the Recovery Act grants program in 2009,
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) still defined broadband at
a speed less than 1 Mbps. Today the FCC recommends download speeds of
25 Mbps. At that rate, nearly 51 million Americans still do not have
access to a wired broadband connection. And we can expect the need for
speed to continue to increase.
Even though the Recovery Act grant program is substantially
complete, President Obama has continued to emphasize the importance of
broadband. Over the past several months, he has outlined a series of
initiatives aimed at closing the digital divide and fostering
investment in our Nation's broadband infrastructure.
In 2013, the President launched ConnectEd, a public private
partnership to connect 99 percent of America's students to the Internet
through high-speed broadband within 5 years. Since the President's
announcement, the public and private sectors have committed more than
$10 billion of total funding and in-kind commitments as part of this
five-year effort.
Earlier this year, the President announced ConnectHome, a new
initiative with communities, the private sector, and Federal Government
to expand high speed broadband to more families across the country. The
pilot program is launching in 27 cities and one tribal nation and will
initially reach over 275,000 low-income households. Through the
program, Internet service providers, non-profits and the private sector
will offer broadband access, technical training, digital literacy
programs, and devices for residents in assisted housing units.
Last March, the President created the Broadband Opportunity
Council, made up of over twenty Federal agencies, and directed it to
determine what actions the Federal Government could take to eliminate
regulatory barriers to broadband deployment and to encourage investment
in broadband networks and services. On September 21, the White House
released the Council's report, which describes concrete steps that 25
Federal agencies will take over the next 18 months to eliminate
barriers and promote broadband investment and adoption.
Many of the agencies involved had never considered broadband to be
part of their core mission. So an initial part of the task was for each
agency to look internally at policies and programs to explore whether
there was flexibility to do more.
The Council also solicited stakeholder input on ways that the
Federal Government can incentivize broadband investment, drive
competition and remove regulatory and policy barriers at the community
level. We heard from more than 200 parties, including community groups,
trade associations, broadband experts, state and local governments,
private entities and individuals. Their feedback was important to
shaping the report.
Four key themes framed the recommendations and action items.
1--Modernize Federal programs to expand program support for
broadband investments.
2--Empower communities with tools and resources to attract
broadband investment and promote meaningful use.
3--Promote increased broadband deployment and competition
through expanded access to Federal assets.
4--Improve data collection, analysis and research on broadband.
Once implemented, we believe that the recommendations will make a
meaningful difference to communities seeking to expand and enhance
their broadband capacity. For example, more funds will be available to
support broadband projects, and local governments will have new tools
and resources at their fingertips to bring broadband to their
communities.
The first set of recommendations targets modernizing Federal
programs to expand program support for broadband investments.
Not all Federal programs fully reflect the changing conditions that
reflect the need for broadband. In some cases, programs that can
support broadband deployment and adoption lack specific guidelines to
promote its use. We asked agencies to clarify whether their programs
supported broadband investment. As a result, agencies have committed to
13 actions which clarify or open up additional options for Federal
funding for broadband in programs totaling $10 billion. Examples
include the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Community
Development Block Grant and the Department of Commerce's Economic
Development Assistance Programs.
The second set of recommendations relates to empowering communities
with tools and resources to attract broadband investment and promote
meaningful use. While Federal leadership is essential, many decisions
about broadband investment are local. They are made by local
governments in partnership with industry and guided by state law. To
address the gaps, the Council recognized the need for Federal agencies
to provide communities with targeted, easily accessible resources that
share best practices from their peers around the country.
NTIA's BroadbandUSA effort has been working with communities across
the country and we have heard time and again the challenges facing
these communities to identify sources of funding for broadband, and to
know where to turn to within the Federal Government for answers to
their questions. One key action, which NTIA will spearhead, will be to
create a portal for information on Federal broadband funding and loan
programs to help communities easily identify resources as they seek to
expand access to broadband. This will help communities find broadband-
related policy guidance, key agency points-of-contact and best
practices. Last week, NTIA announced the release of our Broadband
Funding Guide, which provides a roadmap on how to access Federal
funding to support broadband planning, public access, digital literacy,
adoption, and deployment.
The third set of Council recommendations relates to expanding
access to Federal assets. Specific actions here include a commitment
from the Department of Transportation to issue policy guidance to
leverage highway rights of way for broadband. The White House's Office
of Science and Technology Policy and National Economic Council will
also lead the creation of an online open data inventory of Federal
assets that can help support faster and more economical broadband
deployments, both wireline and wireless to remote areas of the country.
Additionally, NTIA will assist the Department of the Interior (DOI) in
developing an initiative to leverage over 4,000 towers and other assets
on DOI-managed property to support wireless broadband deployments. This
effort could reduce barriers to entry, increase competition, and
improve service over 500 million square acres of land in unserved and
underserved communities.
The fourth set of recommendations revolves around improving data
collection, analysis, and research on broadband. Research on broadband
deployment, competition and adoption has not kept pace with the massive
digital changes that permeate our economy and society. To address this
issue, the Council, led by the National Science Foundation and NTIA,
will develop a comprehensive broadband research and data collection
agenda. This will allow Federal and private funders to coordinate and
prioritize future research plans to support American competitiveness.
The recommendations of the Broadband Opportunity Council represent
an important next step in the Administration's ongoing campaign to
expand broadband access and adoption, but what matters now is that
agencies implement the recommendations and continue to identify
additional steps that can be taken and barriers that can be tackled. We
welcome continued dialogue with all stakeholders in this effort.
At NTIA, we will play an ongoing role in ensuring that the
Council's important work is carried out. NTIA's BroadbandUSA initiative
will continue to work closely with communities seeking to expand their
broadband capacity. NTIA has learned a lot over the past six years
overseeing this broad portfolio of broadband infrastructure and
adoption grants. NTIA has learned that there's no one-size-fits-all
approach that works. Every community has unique needs and challenges.
Through our BroadbandUSA initiative, we are now leveraging that
knowledge and expertise to help communities in their broadband
expansion efforts. We are offering them the technical assistance and
support they need to overcome their unique challenges through
publication of products, workshops, and technical assistance.
Thank you again for the opportunity to participate in today's
hearing.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Kinkoph.
Mr. Adelstein.
STATEMENT OF HON. JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN,
PRESIDENT AND CEO, PCIA--THE WIRELESS INFRASTRUCTURE
ASSOCIATION
Mr. Adelstein. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member Nelson, and members of the Committee. I really
appreciate the opportunity to testify today, and I appreciate
the focus on infrastructure. Your opening statements really hit
the nail on the head. Without it, we can't have wireless
broadband.
As you indicated, Mr. Chairman, I'm CEO of PCIA--The
Wireless Infrastructure Association. We represent the companies
that build, design, own, and manage wireless telecom
facilities. Our members include the infrastructure providers,
wireless carriers, equipment manufacturers, and professional
service firms that build that network and maintain it. Our
mission is to expand wireless broadband everywhere. I think
that's a mission consistent with what this committee has talked
about and what you've talked about this morning. We help our
members provide the facilities to meet consumers' growing
demand for mobile data. Put simply, wireless infrastructure
enables the delivery of innovative applications, like
telemedicine, like distance learning. It's a catalyst for
economic growth and job creation. A PCIA study found that the
industry's investments--we invest roughly $35 billion a year,
but they have outsized impact on the economy because of all the
direct and indirect effects. We're expected to generate $1.2
trillion in chairman growth over 5 years and 1.3 million new
jobs out of those investments. But, those investments have to
flow, and that's what this committee's task that you sent to us
today is, to figure out how to help that happen.
This committee has shown great leadership in eliminating a
number of barriers to infrastructure deployment. Most notably,
Section 6409 of the Spectrum Act, which you enacted in 2012,
has had a real and direct impact on speeding the deployment of
4G infrastructure by eliminating local regulatory barriers to
upgrading existing wireless infrastructure. And the FCC has
done an outstanding job of implementing it with a clear
framework of rules. Our members report real progress on the
ground. This committee's work has improved the speed, cost, and
ease of deploying 4G networks. We're grateful for your
visionary leadership.
We're also grateful for the cooperative spirit of
representatives of local governments, like Mayor Resnick here,
and all the associations that he serves on. We've worked
together to implement on the ground those provisions that you
enacted. And I think it has been very effective in helping get
the word out and getting it done smoothly.
Still, we face a lot of challenges. Wireless data demand is
projected to explode by 700 percent over the next 5 years. And
the question is, How are we going to meet that demand? One way
is more spectrum, as you indicated this morning. There's a lot
that we need, in terms of spectrum. We need as much as we can
get, as fast as we can get it. This committee's done great work
on that front, as well. Spectrum, of course, is expensive,
scarce, and takes a lot of time to get into use for consumers.
Another avenue is through technological efficiencies, which
also improve data throughput, squeezing more out of existing
spectrum. But, again, this takes time to develop.
A third way to address the wireless data crunch is through
the rapid deployment of infrastructure. Wireless infrastructure
provides additional capacity as soon as it's deployed.
Solutions range from tall towers that provide wide coverage and
capacity to small cells and distributed antenna systems that
fill the gaps in high traffic areas.
Despite the assistance this committee has provided,
roadblocks do remain. For example, some municipalities require
proof of need before authorizing infrastructure builds. These
requirements are both unnecessary and costly. Local governments
shouldn't be in the CTO business of deciding what level of
service is appropriate, or forecasting demand. Our members
invest their limited capital where it's needed to serve
consumers. Localities aren't in a good position to second-guess
these technical questions.
Another way Congress could promote broadband is by
streamlining the process of siting wireless infrastructure on
Federal lands. GSA finally took a step last week to implement
Congress's 2012 directive to provide standard forms and
applications for wireless siting. Despite this law, an
Executive Order by the President, many challenges remain in
siting infrastructure on Federal property. Further legislation
is needed to facilitate access on Federal lands, especially
because they benefit rural areas so significantly.
PCIA supports S. 1618, the Wireless Innovation Act, which
is being considered by this committee, as well as other efforts
that are being made by this committee to address that.
Mr. Chairman, you and this committee are rightly focused on
finding ways to focus on accelerating broadband deployment in
rural America. PCIA completed a white paper in conjunction with
our member, John Deere, who's testifying today, on steps to
enhance private investment. One critical mechanism is the Rural
Utility Service, provides loans for broadband buildout. And
these loans need a predictable level of support that enables
borrowers to plan and invest in infrastructure. The Connect
America Fund and its wireless component, the Mobility Fund, can
help rural areas build infrastructure.
Wireless broadband helps drive America's innovation economy
and fuels the Nation's economic future. Continuing to upgrade
America's wireless infrastructure is necessary to connect more
Americans with broadband. Policymakers from Congress to local
governments need to eliminate regulatory barriers so our
industry can invest their capital where it's needed most. We
can't afford costly burdens and delays that will slow the
rollout of wireless broadband.
Our member companies are grateful for the bipartisan
recognition of the centrality of wireless infrastructure by
this committee, by Congress, by the administration, by the FCC.
We look forward to making continued progress together.
And I thank you for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Adelstein follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jonathan S. Adelstein, President and CEO,
PCIA--The Wireless Infrastructure Association
Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and members of the
Committee, thank you for holding this important hearing and for the
opportunity to testify on the urgent topic of removing barriers to
wireless broadband deployment. I am the President and CEO of PCIA--The
Wireless Infrastructure Association (PCIA), the principal organization
representing the companies that build, design, own, and manage
telecommunications facilities in the U.S. and throughout the world. Our
over 230 members include infrastructure providers, wireless carriers,
equipment manufacturers, and professional services firms. PCIA focuses
on ensuring that the infrastructure is in place to make mobile devices
work. As mobile devices and applications continue to evolve, they share
a common requirement of a wireless connection to a wired network--often
provided through a tower. Our mission is to expand wireless broadband
everywhere, helping our members provide wireless facilities that enable
consumers to meet their growing mobile data needs anytime, anyplace.
The wireless broadband infrastructure industry is honored to work
with this Committee and Congress on sound policies to encourage
deployment of broadband for all Americans, regardless of location or
economic status. The premise of this hearing demonstrates the
importance of broadband deployment.
Wireless Infrastructure Enables Broadband that Creates Jobs and
Economic Growth
When it comes to meeting the growing wireless data demands of
Americans and consumers throughout the world, the wireless
infrastructure industry plays an indispensable role. Put simply, our
industry enables wireless communication and applications. Similar to
roads and bridges, which carry physical traffic, wireless
infrastructure is the essential platform for digital traffic that
carries innovative applications like Uber, Instagram, Twitter, and
YouTube, as well as life-altering broadband services like telemedicine,
distance learning, improved public safety response, mobile banking, and
a host of industrial and manufacturing functions. Efficient wireless
infrastructure buildout will promote innovation and solidify America's
historical competitiveness in the technology sector, and virtually
every other sector of the economy.
Wireless infrastructure enables the economic growth and
technological innovation that accompanies wireless broadband, including
the Internet of Things, the app economy, and many future efficiencies
and commercial opportunities that wireless broadband enables. A PCIA
study found that private investments in wireless infrastructure between
2013 and 2017 are expected to generate as much as $1.2 trillion in
economic growth and create 1.3 million net new jobs--including those
directly attributable to wireless infrastructure and those created by
it in other American business enterprises.\1\ Sustaining such
investments will strengthen America's competitiveness and allow the
U.S. to remain the leader in wireless innovation and thus in the global
economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Wireless Broadband Infrastructure: A Catalyst For Gdp And Job
Growth 2013-2017 (2013), available at http://www.pcia.com/images/
IAE_Infrastructure_and_Economy_Fall_
2013.PDF
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Committee has shown great leadership for its work to eliminate
a number of barriers to infrastructure deployment. Most critically,
this Committee's work on Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief
and Job Creation Act of 2012 has made an enormous difference in
speeding the deployment of wireless infrastructure. Specifically,
Section 6409(a) established a new Federal law governing state and local
review of requests for modification of existing wireless towers or base
stations, including collocations for additional providers of wireless
services. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) outstanding and
aggressive implementation of this law grounded Congress' work with a
clear regulatory framework that we are confident the courts will find
legally sound. Our members report real progress on the speed, cost, and
ease of their efforts to deploy 4G networks as a direct result of this
Committee's work, so we are grateful for your visionary leadership.
Regarding implementation of Section 6409(a), PCIA, along with
CTIA--The Wireless Association, has worked in good faith with national
organizations representing state and local governments to implement the
law at the suggestion of FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn. Over the last
several months, we have met with the National Association of Counties,
the National League of Cities, and the National Association of
Telecommunications Officers and Advisors. We formed a working group
together that has released several educational resources and
participated on panels across the country. Together, we have produced
resource materials for local governments, including (1) a checklist to
streamline review processes; (2) best practices used by jurisdictions
able to review and approve applications in less than 60 days; (3)
webinars and contacts for education and assistance regarding
application process; and (4) a model ordinance and application. Members
of the working group posted these on their respective websites. It is
precisely this kind of cooperation that has enabled significant
progress toward fulfilling the promise of the legislation Congress
enacted. I commend these organizations, and my fellow witness Mayor
Gary Resnick, for their commitment to work together to expedite
broadband deployment for the citizens of their communities.
Mobile Broadband is the Future of Broadband
As a variety of reports demonstrate, Americans are quickly moving
towards mobile broadband as their primary way to access the Internet.
For example, according to Cisco, last year's mobile data traffic was
nearly 30 times the size of the entire global Internet in 2000. And
this trend is expected to continue.\2\ Cisco also reports that U.S.
mobile data traffic will grow two times faster than U.S. fixed IP
traffic over the next four years and traffic from wireless and mobile
devices will exceed traffic from wired devices by 2019.\3\ These
statistics underscore the need for government policies that reflect the
growing demand for mobile data and address the challenges of meeting it
by efficiently deploying wireless infrastructure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Cisco Visual Networking Index: Global Mobile Data Traffic
Forecast Update, 2014-2019 1 (2015), available at http://www.cisco.com/
c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/visual-networking-index-
vni/white_paper_c11-520862.pdf
\3\ Cisco Visual Networking Index: Forecast And Methodology, 2014-
2019 2 (2015), available at http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/
collateral/service-provider/ip-ngn-ip-next-generation-network/
white_paper_c11-481360.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
America is facing an economic and technological challenge, which I
have termed the wireless data crunch. The wireless data crunch refers
to the need to meet the nearly insatiable and increasing demand for
wireless mobile data with the network's capacity to deliver it. The
demand for wireless data will increase 700 percent over the next five
years. That's on top of the explosive growth we have already witnessed
in the last five years. This tremendous growth is both encouraging and
sobering at the same time. The challenge for the wireless
infrastructure industry, the telecommunications sector at large, and
for this Committee is: how are we going to meet this demand? The
projections should serve as a wake-up call that industry and government
need to continue to work together to maintain the U.S.'s position as
the global leader in wireless innovation, as this Committee has long
recognized.
To ensure capacity meets consumer demand, we need to build and
deploy all manner of wireless infrastructure including more traditional
towers, small cells, distributed antenna systems, and 1Wi-Fi offload.
This integrated infrastructure ecosystem results in greater spectral
efficiency. Using spectrum, a finite and limited resource, as
efficiently as possible, allows more data to flow over existing
frequencies.
Network engineers recognize three basic ways to deliver more
wireless data: (1) additional spectrum, (2) increased technological
efficiency, and (3) expanded wireless infrastructure. I will briefly
discuss spectrum and technological efficiency. As PCIA's focus is
providing the infrastructure that makes mobile devices work, I will
highlight on this aspect of the delivery of wireless data.
Additional Spectrum
Clearly, more spectrum must be made available--as much as we can
get as fast as we can get it. And of course, spectrum is of great
value. Thanks to the excellent work by members of this Committee, the
FCC was able to auction 65 MHz of AWS-3 spectrum for over $45 billion.
Let me put that in context. There were already 550 MHz of spectrum in
commercial cellular use. Thus, we've just increased the amount by
around 12 percent. The usefulness of this spectrum is affected by the
lag time between when the spectrum is auctioned and when it is ready
for use. This includes the need for the spectrum to actually be
allocated and cleared, antennas and other infrastructure to be
upgraded, and a whole generation of handsets to be swapped out.
Significant amounts of time are needed before these bands begin to
offload traffic from existing frequencies, and it is not likely to be
fully phased in for up to five years.
This Committee and the industry are carefully monitoring the next
auction--the incentive auction for broadcast spectrum. This auction is
not slated to begin until next year, and will likely take over five
years to yield any significant spectral relief. Beyond that,
significant additional spectrum is not yet in the pipeline. Critical
efforts are underway to clear unused Federal Government spectrum for
commercial use, including the commitment by the Obama Administration to
clear 500 MHz by 2020. Notably, Senator Rubio reintroduced the Wireless
Innovation Act (S. 1618), which seeks to identify and allocate Federal
spectrum to commercial use. However, as this Committee is well aware,
it is extremely complicated, and expensive, to move Federal agencies
off their current frequencies. Clearing and auctioning Federal spectrum
is necessary, but it will not help ease the wireless data crunch in the
very near future. We certainly need more spectrum, and I urge you to
pursue policies to make more available for commercial use.
Technological Efficiencies
Technological efficiencies also help ease the wireless data crunch.
Each new network generation brings with it new technologies, more
network capacity for data per user, and the potential for better voice
quality, lower latency and greater data throughput. For example, 4G is
much more efficient than 3G, allowing for more economic use of
allocated spectrum, and 4G LTE Advanced is yet more efficient. But even
as we build out 4G, traffic immediately diverted to these new and more
efficient data channels--there's lag time here, too, with old 3G and
even 2G handsets still in use. Carriers can incentivize customers to
use more efficient handsets, but this also takes time. Industry plans
to begin field testing 5G as early as next year, but the technology is
not expected to be introduced in the U.S. until around 2020.
Technological efficiencies are absolutely critical, and more is needed,
both on the network layer and on the software and content layer. Again,
however, technological innovation alone will not enable the wireless
industry to meet growing consumer demand, even when combined with new
spectrum projected to come online.
Infrastructure
As noted, additional spectrum and technological efficiencies are
necessary tools in the effort to address the data crunch. The third
critical resource is the rapid deployment of the physical network, the
infrastructure that supports spectrum and any new technological
upgrades. This is the primary focus of PCIA.
The physical wireless infrastructure now being deployed and
upgraded offers a solution that is already carrying an immediate and
heavy load to address the wireless data crunch. It consists of major
investments of private capital that ushers this technology to market.
With the appropriate regulatory guidance, today's wireless industry can
better plan for the network of tomorrow. Too often, misunderstandings
and misrepresentations about wireless infrastructure can stall the
deployment of these life-changing technologies. Wireless infrastructure
has the power to transform a city in economic decline into an
innovation hub. It can breathe new life into aging commercial zones,
and provide rural areas the ability to compete in the innovation
economy.
Today, there are an abundance of choices available to network
planners. The traditional tall towers effectively provide most of the
coverage and capacity necessary. The industry is also deploying
distributed antennas systems and small cells to fill the gaps or
overlay capacity in high traffic markets. Further, the networks
themselves are getting smarter. Self-optimizing networks and the
combination of intelligent software and hardware design allows a
network to anticipate usage and provide greater resources to areas of
need in real time, providing users with responsive service. Wi-Fi
continues to play an important role in this system, offloading traffic
to the wired network and providing greater headroom for cellular
services.
The densification of wireless infrastructure plays a critical role
in meeting wireless data demand. In fact, infrastructure appears poised
to play the largest role of any of the available solutions in the next
five years, and perhaps more, to address the wireless data crunch.
Spectrum and network densification are fungible--roughly speaking,
doubling the amount of spectrum in an area could provide a similar
boost to network capacity as doubling the number of cell sites. The
availability of network densification as an alternative to spectrum
purchases puts a cap on the cost of spectrum--and carriers regularly
weigh them against one another. The mobile carriers paid high prices
for spectrum in the AWS-3 auction, which is understandable because this
could be one of the only available opportunities for significant new
spectrum in the near future other than the 600 MHz auction. Today's
infrastructure will provide the foundation upon which the wireless
industry will deliver the Internet of Things, 5G, and the applications,
services, and jobs that will fuel the U.S. economy into the future.
Broadband Opportunity Council
Earlier this year, President Obama created the Broadband
Opportunity Council to focus on increasing broadband investment and
adoption. The Council is co-chaired by Department of Commerce Secretary
Penny Pritzker, working with the National Telecommunications and
Information Agency (NTIA), and Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom
Vilsack, working with the Rural Utilities Service (RUS), where I was
previously Administrator. It includes over twenty-five different
government agencies, united around clear policy objectives, including
identifying regulatory barriers impeding broadband deployment.
On September 21, the White House released a formal report that
included recommendations to improve broadband across the country. The
Council recommended that Federal agencies should further streamline
access to Federal lands, structures and rights of way in order to help
speed broadband deployment nationwide. The report also notes that there
is significant room for improvement in local and state government
practices. Local and state regulations, the report points out, cannot
be addressed through executive action, but the Federal Government can
encourage best practices. The Council has also sought to create an
online inventory of data on Federal assets, and maintain the points of
contact tasked with overseeing broadband buildout. Faster and more
efficient broadband deployment is the goal. Nevertheless, as the report
notes, many of the recommendations provided by commenters require
congressional action. This report provides clear recognition of the
crucial role Congress plays in taking broadband deployment forward.
Congress' Role in Encou raging Br oadband Deployment
Wireless infrastructure is the backbone of all wireless voice and
data communications. The industry is constantly innovating with new
wireless technologies. Without sound regulations and policy at the
local, state, and Federal levels, the innovation and competitiveness of
the wireless industry will suffer. Even with all the positive strides
in broadband deployment over the past five years, there remain a number
of barriers to broadband deployment for Congress to address.
We've seen how misinterpretations of congressional intent can cause
delays in broadband deployment. Too often, local jurisdictions have
denied siting applications without full reasoning and accountability as
required by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Telecom Act). This left
capital tied up and broadband projects languishing or abandoned. It
took action by the Supreme Court in T-Mobile v. Roswell to help resolve
one roadblock. In January, the Supreme Court agreed with our assessment
that the Telecom Act requires localities to provide clear, written
reasons when applications to build wireless facilities are denied. The
Court sided with industry and found that wireless providers must be
informed in a clear-cut and timely manner. We were pleased with this
ruling, but we should not have to petition the highest court in the
land to resolve these types of delays in the name of broadband buildout
and all that it enables.
One suggestion for Congress to consider that would alleviate
roadblocks to wireless siting at the local level would be removing
requirements that a provider demonstrate ``proof-of-need'' or show a
``gap-in-service'' when siting a wireless facility. Proof-of-need is
used as a barrier to building new facilities because it is simple to
reject an application based on a local government's subjective
evaluation that the applicant failed to sufficiently demonstrate that a
facility serves a purpose. Moreover, varied judicial interpretations of
Sections 332 and 253 of the Telecom Act allow a jurisdiction to deny an
application on the basis that ``sufficient'' wireless coverage already
exists in the area. The test is extremely subjective in practice, makes
it more difficult to site wireless facilities, and thereby slowing
broadband deployment and preventing wireless facilities from
alleviating data capacity constraints. As the need to meet consumer
demand moves from coverage to capacity, communities are not well
positioned to second-guess costly investment decisions that are guided
by experienced radio frequency engineers to improve customer service.
In many cases, such obstruction can undercut service to the very
citizens local governments are elected to serve.
Another way Congress can encourage investment in broadband
deployment is by maintaining an appropriate regime for the tax
treatment of Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs). Long-standing tax
policies, established in the 1960s, and IRS guidance, have always held
that communications towers have been considered real estate for REIT
qualification purposes. Transmission tower companies lease vertical
real estate--communications towers and the land beneath it--to multiple
tenants. Tenants own the equipment and lease space on the towers
generally over a long period of time. Transmission tower companies
eliminate the need for each tenant to construct its own towers, which
prevents overcrowding neighborhoods and communities with multiple
towers. This model enhances competition in the wireless industry by
lowering costs for mobile wireless service providers and other tenants
to enter new markets. Transmission tower companies allow these
competitors to operate without having to raise capital to build their
own tower networks.
Today, the properties of tower companies play a critical role in
broadband deployment. Continued buildout of towers is essential to
meeting the demand for wireless data, and the current REIT structure
promotes this necessary capital investment. As the National Association
of Real Estate Investment Trust (NAREIT) stated in its April 2015
submission to the Senate Finance Committee, ``Today, investment through
and by tower REITs is one way the national demand for real estate
specialized to meet the needs of mobile phone providers and users is
met.''
Congress can also encourage broadband deployment by enacting
bipartisan legislation to promote an open Internet. Only congressional
action can give the certainty for broadband providers looking to
invest. As Congress looks to enact open Internet legislation, it should
provide the FCC the necessary legal authority to map out clear rules of
the road for broadband providers while encouraging investment in
broadband networks.
Another barrier to broadband deployment is the byzantine process of
siting wireless broadband infrastructure on Federal lands. This
Committee on a bipartisan basis has expressed interest in this issue
and we appreciate your leadership. The Federal Government owns or
administers nearly thirty percent of all land in the U.S., as well as
thousands of buildings. Broadband providers currently face significant
challenges when working to secure access to Federal lands and
buildings. Deploying wireless infrastructure on these properties is
absolutely critical for public safety and economic development.
Wireless facilities can be sited on Federal property in an
environmentally responsible way that is sensitive to areas historic
significance.
Predictability and consistency are vital to network planning and
investment in any arena, but this need is amplified when deploying
broadband on Federal property, which often requires burdensome
interagency review and coordination. PCIA is actively working with
agencies across the Federal Government, Congress, and the White House
to find ways to expedite the siting process. In 2012, Congress, with
the leadership of this Committee, put forward a framework to make it
easier to site communications facilities on Federal lands and
properties through standard applications and agreements. Also in 2012,
President Obama issued Executive Order 13616 to promote infrastructure
buildout on Federal lands and created a cross-agency working group
charged with meeting the mandate of speeding deployment on Federal
lands and properties.
Unfortunately, even with an Executive Order and direction from
Congress, the process to site wireless infrastructure on Federal lands
has not sufficiently improved. Further legislation will spur agencies
to work with the industry to bring broadband service to difficult-to-
reach Federal lands and Federal buildings. As such, PCIA supports the
Wireless Innovation Act (S. 1618) to address this very issue. By
facilitating access, the Federal Government can increase revenues
through lease payments to the Treasury while at the same time improving
broadband access for its citizens. Better access to Federal lands and
property will also help increase broadband availability in rural areas.
The importance of expanding rural broadband is clear. Many of the lands
and properties that would benefit from streamlined siting are by
definition rural. We look forward to continuing to work with both
chambers on legislation to streamline and expedite the process of
siting broadband infrastructure on Federal property.
As our member John Deere has indicated in its testimony, along with
work on Federal lands, it is important for the public and private
sector to work together to ensure that buildout can accelerate in Rural
America. One critical mechanism is the loans provided by the Rural
Utilities Service for broadband buildout. These loans are repaid with a
significant portion of funding from the Universal Service Fund (USF).
For these funds to meet their intended purpose there must be a
predictable level of support to the USF so that loan recipients can
plan, borrow, and invest in infrastructure. Lastly, the Connect America
Fund (CAF) is a sustainable cost-recovery mechanism for rural areas
where subscriber densities are too low to motivate providers to build
infrastructure and offer service. CAF's wireless component, the
Mobility Fund, is targeted at the expansion of mobile broadband
networks. We think these programs will go a long way to accelerate the
deployment of wireless broadband in rural communities.
Similarly, more work is needed to provide connectivity to native
nations so that these communities can take advantage of the benefits
that broadband provides. PCIA has long worked with tribal leaders and
communities to promote their access wireless broadband, including
commenting in various dockets related to historic preservation and
environmental protection. PCIA has also participated in the FCC's
annual workshops on this topic, providing a platform for information
exchange between industry and those representing native nations to
better understand the cultural differences and shared experiences. In
the spirit of collaboration, PCIA would urge a reexamination of certain
tower siting processes at the FCC, whereby, for example, an application
to site communications facilities in downtown Chicago triggers a full-
day review and fees associated with a tribe many miles away. Our
industry understands the critical nature of sovereignty and respects
the value of protecting sensitive historic sites. Still, there must be
a more efficient and rational approach that is more appropriately
targeted so that we may all benefit from a stronger network.
Both state and Federal policies require pole attachment rules that
promote the deployment of broadband access and the new technologies
that enable it, while providing fair treatment for pole owners. Among
other things, Congress added ``provider[s] of telecommunications
services[s]'' to the category of attachers entitled to pole attachments
at just and reasonable rates, terms and conditions under Section 224 of
the Telecom Act. This Section has been modernized through action by the
FCC, which has helped to provide greater access to poles for wireless
attachers, shortened timelines for make-ready and other work, and
established rates in greater harmony with other like attachments.
However, many jurisdictions have been slow to adopt the FCC's
standards. In these states, the telecommunications industry must re-
legislate and re-litigate the efforts taken before the FCC. Greater
national certainty and clarity with respect to the rights of wireless
attachers in these jurisdictions would spur further broadband
deployment.
Last, Members of this Committee have been working on legislation to
require that broadband conduits be installed as a part of certain
highway construction projects, also known as ``dig once.'' This
initiative would help facilitate broadband infrastructure deployment
and reduce duplicative Federal reviews for work at the same location.
PCIA looks forward to working with the Committee on this legislation.
Conclusion
The wireless infrastructure industry faces a number of legal and
regulatory hurdles that slow investment and deployment. By providing
certainty and lowering some of the barriers noted above, Congress can
play a constructive role in ensuring broadband to all Americans. In
closing, there are number of specific steps Congress can take to
encourage broadband deployment. This Committee should look to remove
requirements that a provider demonstrate ``proof-of-need'' or show a
``gap-in-service'' when siting a wireless facility. Next, Congress
should look to expedite and streamline the process for citing wireless
broadband infrastructure on Federal lands. In addition, ensuring that
the current REIT structure that dates back to the 1960s is maintained
is another way Congress can increase deployment. Further, harmonizing
rates and providing greater national clarity on pole attachments would
promote deployment as well. And finally, installing broadband conduits
as a part of certain highway construction projects would reduce
duplicative Federal reviews for broadband deployment.
Wireless broadband helps drive America's innovation economy and
fuels the Nation's economic future. The U.S. has always been the global
leader in wireless broadband innovation, and private investment in
wireless infrastructure is a big the reason why. Continuing to upgrade
America's wireless infrastructure is a necessary component of
connecting more Americans with broadband.
The mobile broadband revolution holds incredible promise for
economic growth, job creation, public safety, education, healthcare and
many other benefits. At the same time, there are warning signs on the
road ahead. Our industry is determined to meet consumer demand, even as
it rises swiftly. That is capital intensive, costly and operationally
demanding. We need policies that allow that allow us to invest that
capital efficiently, and to target areas that need additional coverage
and capacity. To maximize the promise of wireless broadband for
economic growth, job creation and technological innovation,
infrastructure builders need the capital to invest--and we need
regulators and Congress to help, as this Committee has long realized
and as the purpose of this hearing recognizes. We are deeply grateful
for the bipartisan recognition of the importance of infrastructure by
this Committee, by Congress, by the FCC and the Administration. All
have implemented policies to promote wireless broadband deployment, and
all are working to build on recent successes.
Thank you again Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson for
holding this hearing and inviting me to testify. I look forward to
continuing to work with you and the rest of the Committee to continue
to make progress on these very important issues.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Adelstein.
And we move now to distinguished mayor. Mayor Resnick,
please proceed with your remarks.
STATEMENT OF HON. GARY RESNICK, MAYOR,
WILTON MANORS, FLORIDA
Mr. Resnick. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Thune,
Ranking Member Nelson, and members of the Committee.
I am Gary Resnick, Mayor of the City of Wilton Manors,
Florida, and long-term member of the National League of Cities
and the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and
Advisors. The cities and towns in your states are very likely
members of NLC and NATOA. I also have the privilege of serving
as chair of the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee of the
Federal Communications Commission. In addition, my background
as an attorney with the Florida firm of Gray Robinson,
representing businesses and local governments for over 20 years
in connection with communications issues, and my role as mayor,
has allowed me to work effectively with public and private
entities and local citizens to improve wireless communications.
I want to thank the Committee for calling attention to the
importance of wireless communications services by holding this
hearing, and I appreciate the opportunity to provide the unique
perspective of local governments in our role in ensuring our
communities have access to wireless broadband services.
No one wants broadband deployment and competitive choice
more than local governments. We are not only regulators of the
deployment of this infrastructure, we are large consumers of
these services, and often local governments are providers of
broadband services. For years, communities across the country
have taken innovative steps to increase the deployment of
critical infrastructure, including towers, carefully balancing
the health, safety, and welfare concerns of our residents and
communities. The recent tragedy in Oregon and events in the
Carolinas are just the latest examples demonstrating the
importance for local governments and our first responders to
have reliable access to vital wireless communications and
broadband services.
While various stakeholders' approaches to increasing
wireless broadband may differ, all of us have the same goal: to
ensure that all Americans have affordable access to advanced
broadband services. Our need for additional broadband
deployments must be balanced with the critical need for local
governments to maintain reasonable control and authority over
the placement of these facilities in our communities. Federal
policies must respect our ability as local officials to manage
public rights-of-way as well as land uses on public and private
properties. Disruption to neighborhoods, open spaces, streets,
sidewalks, and business can have a negative impact on public
safety and industry as well as on the sustainability of our
communities.
The vast majority of projects in our communities are
reviewed and deployed in a timely manner, respecting both the
needs of providers and tower owners and also the desires of the
communities they serve. In fact, many communities with industry
input have taken steps to streamline their siting practices in
an effort to provide certainty in the permitting and zoning
processes. Any assertion that most local governments are
barriers to wireless infrastructure deployment is simply wrong.
As mayor, I know firsthand how vitally important communications
services are to our first-responder, police, and fire
personnel, the vast majority of whom are local government
employees.
In 2009, the FCC adopted a declaratory ruling establishing
time frames within which local governments must act on tower-
siting applications. Prior to that FCC action, the Florida
legislature adopted similar time frames for local government
action. To date, these time frames have worked well in my state
and throughout the country. In a related facility siting report
and order adopted in 2014, the FCC declined to adopt an
additional remedy in the event that time frames were not being
met, in large part because of a finding that the existing rules
were working well. In its 2014 wireless broadband facilities
order, the FCC recognized the vital role that local governments
play in bringing advanced communication services to all
Americans. The FCC did so in a way to preserve local land-use
authority, protect camouflage and concealment measures, and
allow local communities to protect aesthetic and safety
interests.
In conjunction with the 2014 order, NLC, NATOA, and the
National Association of Counties worked cooperatively with CTIA
and PCIA on educational initiatives and materials that provide
communities with resources to encourage increased broadband
deployment. Cooperation between local governments and industry
is evident by the sheer number of sites deployed to date.
There may be instances where deployment does not occur as
quickly as either industry or local governments would like. If
there are delays to deployment, it should be understood that
we, as local leaders, are managing a variety of infrastructure
needs, just as the industry is managing a variety of issues. It
would not be productive for the legislative process to portray
each other as obstacles to wireless broadband deployment.
Reaching consensus, which is the mainstay of the government
process at the local level, would be most effective. We look
forward to continuing our demonstrated effective working
relationship with the wireless industry and our Federal
colleagues using a collaborative approach to promote broadband
deployment in a manner that respects the legitimate interests
of all interested parties.
Billions of dollars are being invested in broadband
projects through various Federal programs. Local governments,
the government closest to the people and most accountable to
our joint constituents, want to see these investments succeed.
We will continue to play an important role in helping to ensure
that these initiatives are deployed in a timely and efficient
manner while protecting the unique needs and interests of the
communities they seek to serve.
Again, on behalf of NLC and NATOA and local governments, I
would like to thank the Committee for inviting me to
participate in this hearing today. I urge you to view local
governments as strong partners in ensuring that affordable
broadband services are available to all Americans.
Thank you again, and I look forward to any questions you
may have.
And I want to just acknowledge the presence here today of
many of my colleague city officials from Florida, and
appreciate their support in coming to this hearing.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Resnick follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Gary Resnick, Mayor, Wilton Manors, Florida
Good morning, Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson and Members of
the Committee. I am Gary Resnick, Mayor of Wilton Manors, Florida and
long-term member of the National League of Cities (NLC) and the
National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors
(NATOA). The National League of Cities is the Nation's largest and most
representative membership and advocacy organization for city officials,
comprised of more than 19,000 cities, towns, and villages representing
more than 218 million Americans. The National Association of
Telecommunications Officers and Advisors is the premier local
government professional association that provides support to its
members on the many local, state, and Federal communications laws,
administrative rulings, judicial decisions, and technology issues
impacting the interests of local governments. The cities and towns in
your states are very likely members of NLC and NATOA.
I also serve as Chair of the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee
(IAC) of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The IAC provides
guidance to the FCC on a broad range of issues of importance to state,
local and tribal governments including cable and local franchising,
public rights-of-way, facilities siting, universal service, broadband
access, barriers to competitive entry, and public safety
communications. My background as an attorney with the Florida firm of
GrayRobinson, representing businesses and local governments for over 20
years in connection with such communications issues, and my role as
Mayor, has allowed me to work effectively with public and private
entities, and local citizens, focused on improving wireless
communications.
I want to thank the Committee for calling attention to the
importance of wireless communications services by holding this hearing
and appreciate the opportunity to provide the unique perspective of
local governments and our role in ensuring our communities have access
to wireless broadband services. No one wants broadband deployment and
competitive choice more than local governments. We are not only
regulators of the deployment of these services for the benefit of our
residents, we are large consumers of these services and often local
governments are providers of broadband services. For years, communities
across the country have taken innovative steps to increase the
deployment of critical infrastructure--including towers--carefully
balancing the health, safety and welfare concerns of our residents and
communities.
The recent tragedy in Oregon and the preparations for Hurricane
Joaquin are just the latest examples demonstrating the importance of
local governments and our first responders having reliable access to
vital wireless communications and broadband services.
Role of Local Governments in Increasing Wireless Broadband
While various stakeholders' approaches to increasing wireless
broadband may differ, it is safe to conclude that all of us have the
same goals--to ensure that all Americans have universal, affordable
access to advanced broadband services and that deployment occurs as
efficiently as possible without compromising the public's health and
safety. It is undeniable that the growing demand for wireless broadband
services, coupled with the growing use of personal wireless devices,
requires the deployment of additional infrastructure. Increased access
and better wireless broadband services bring a wealth of benefits to
America's municipalities and counties, including increased economic
development and job creation, enhanced public safety, telemedicine,
distance learning, and improved civic engagement.
Our need for additional broadband deployments must be balanced with
the absolute need for local governments to maintain reasonable control
and authority over the placement of these facilities in our
communities. Because of our responsibility as local leaders to protect
the health, safety, and welfare of our residents, Federal policies must
respect our ability as local officials to manage public rights-of-way
as well as land uses on private and public property. Disruption to
neighborhoods, open spaces, streets, sidewalks, and businesses can have
a negative impact on public safety and industry, as well as the
sustainability of our communities. As such, local governments have, and
must maintain, authority to regulate land use, zoning and access to
public rights-of-way.
Not a Barrier to Deployment
Local governments believe that the vast majority of projects in our
communities are reviewed and deployed in a timely manner, respecting
both the needs of providers and tower owners, and also the desires of
the communities they serve. In fact, many communities, with industry
input, have taken steps to streamline their siting practices in an
effort to provide certainty in the permitting and zoning processes.
Many communities have enacted ordinances that express a preference for
collocations and encourage such siting requests by limiting government
review solely to a staff process. Any assertion that most local
governments are barriers to wireless infrastructure deployment is
simply wrong. As Mayor, I know firsthand how vitally important
communications services are to our first responder police and fire
personnel--the vast majority of whom are local government employees.
Additionally, wireless broadband is critical for the economic and
social welfare of our residents, educational institutions, libraries,
and businesses and we strive to ensure they have affordable, reliable
access to these services.
In 2009, the Federal Communications Commission adopted a
declaratory ruling establishing time frames within which local
communities must act on tower siting applications. Prior to that FCC
action, the Florida Legislature adopted similar time frames for such
local government action. To date, the time frames have worked well in
my state and throughout the country. In a related facilities siting
Report and Order adopted in 2014, the Commission declined to adopt an
additional remedy in the event the time frames were not met, in large
part because of a finding that the existing rules are working well.
Furthermore, in its 2014 wireless broadband facilities siting
order, the FCC recognized the vital role that local governments play in
bringing advanced communications services to all Americans. While
taking steps to eliminate what it viewed as unnecessary review
procedures with respect to small-sized wireless broadband facilities on
existing structures, the FCC did so in a way to preserve local land use
authority, protect camouflage and concealment measures, and allow local
communities to protect aesthetic and safety interests.
In conjunction with the 2014 order, NLC, NATOA, and the National
Association of Counties worked cooperatively with CTIA and PCIA on
educational initiatives and materials that provide communities with
resources to encourage increased broadband deployment and choice for
our residents and businesses, consistent with the new Federal rules. We
are eager to work with all stakeholders. Proof of cooperation between
local governments and industry is evident by the sheer number of sites
deployed to date.
There may be instances where deployment does not occur as quickly
as industry or local governments would like. We understand that the
wireless industry is undergoing many changes and has many pressures
that may delay deployment of infrastructure. Similarly, wireless
infrastructure is just one of the many responsibilities that fall on
the shoulders of local governments. If there are delays to deployment,
it should be understood that we, as local leaders, are managing a
variety of infrastructure needs, just as the industry is managing a
variety of issues. It would not be productive for the legislative
process to portray each other as obstacles to wireless broadband
deployment. Reaching consensus, which is the mainstay of the government
process at the local level, would be most effective. We look forward to
continuing our demonstrated effective working relationship with the
wireless industry and our Federal colleagues using a collaborative
approach to promote deployment in a manner that respects the legitimate
interests of all interested parties.
FirstNet
Public and private stakeholders are working collaboratively to
deploy a new nationwide, interoperable, wireless broadband network for
public safety communications (``FirstNet'') to serve both urban and
rural America within the next several years. As a result, challenges to
timely wireless deployment may increase. However, let there be no
mistake--local governments actively encourage and want the deployment
of this new network and will strive to ensure it is built in a timely
manner.
Any assertion that local governments would act in any manner to
delay the deployment of FirstNet ignores the long-established role that
local governments play in providing public safety communications and
protecting life and property.
Conclusion
Billions of dollars are being invested in broadband projects
through various Federal programs, such as the Connect America Fund and
E-Rate, with much of it in rural parts of our country. Local
governments--the government closest to the people and most accountable
to our joint constituents- want to see these investments succeed. We
fully recognize that local governments will play an important role in
helping to ensure that these initiatives are deployed in a timely and
efficient manner, while protecting the unique needs and interests of
the communities they seek to serve.
On behalf of NLC and NATOA, I want to thank the Committee for
inviting me to participate in this hearing today. I offer the ongoing
assistance of local governments as you examine ways to increase
broadband deployment across our Nation. I urge you to view local
governments as strong partners in ensuring that broadband services are
available to all Americans.
Thank you again. I look forward to any questions you might have.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mayor. It's nice to have mayors
and local officials here, because they're actually people who
have power to get things done.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. So, next up, Mr. Reed.
STATEMENT OF CORY J. REED, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, INTELLIGENT
SOLUTIONS, DEERE & COMPANY
Mr. Reed. Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and
members of the Committee, good morning. My name is Cory Reed,
and I'm the Senior Vice President for Intelligent Solutions at
John Deere. That's the precision ag business at John Deere.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
John Deere is a global manufacturer and provider of
agriculture, construction, turf, and forestry equipment and
services. We serve customers around the world who cultivate,
harvest, and build upon the land to meet the growing need for
food, fuel, fiber, and infrastructure. Deere has been providing
innovative equipment and services to serve these customers
since 1837. Today, Deere is pioneering state-of-the-art data
and information solutions designed to greatly enhance
productivity and sustainability.
This topic is of central importance to the vitality of
rural America, and, in particular, the U.S. agricultural
sector. Despite the remarkable growth and innovation in
broadband technologies nationwide, too many rural communities
today lag behind in access to those technologies and the
benefits that they bring. John Deere is acutely aware of this
gap and the challenges it presents for agriculture.
The modern economics of farming have transformed production
agriculture into a technology-driven sector increasingly
dependent on access to broadband. The Internet of Things in
rural America includes not only smart meters and appliances,
but also smart tractors, combines, and production systems. In
fact, the rapid adoption of data-driven technologies and
services across the ag economy today is as transformational as
was the introduction of mechanization to farming nearly 100
years ago.
With this in mind, I'd like to share five specific ideas
that Deere believes can close the gaps between those that have
access to broadband and those that do not:
First, rural broadband programs must make deployment in
agricultural areas a priority to address the needs of U.S.
farmers and rural communities. Farmers are compelled by long-
term demand trends to achieve and sustain unprecedented high
levels of productivity by increasing yields and managing input
costs with finite amounts of land and water. And the stakes for
the future of the U.S. ag sector are high. As you know, rural
populations have declined over the last several years, and
rural economic growth has lagged the country as a whole. These
pressures in rural America are felt in the ag economy, as well.
But, we also know that increased agricultural productivity
arising from technology innovation and adoption can help
revitalize these same rural communities.
Second, broadband deployment policies must include mobile
as well as fixed services. Wherever possible, farmers are using
precision agriculture technologies, including GPS-enabled
technologies, that depend on high-speed wireless broadband to
communicate with customers and vendors to obtain realtime
information on field conditions, weather, and other
environmental factors, to follow commodity markets, and to
manage fleets. New technologies enable more prescriptive use of
soils, water, fertilizer, herbicides, and fuel. They allow
farming practices and applications to be tailored to the
specific conditions of an individual field. With access to
mobile broadband services, farmers can employ innovative
machine-to-machine operations in the field and machine-to-farm
communications from the field, and achieve significant
improvements in productivity and cost management.
Mobile broadband services are essential to broadband
deployment in rural areas where infrastructure, land
acquisition, and right-of-way cost to serve large areas can be
high, and the potential subscriber population can be small
relative to urban and suburban areas. To enable realtime
sharing of data and communications, including machine-to-
machine and machine-to-field interactions, precision
agriculture requires access to both reliable wireless and
wireline broadband services. However, today's reality is that
access to mobile and fixed broadband coverage in the fields
where ag equipment operates falls short of what's needed and
will be needed. For these reasons, Deere supports the retention
and expansion of the FCC's Mobility Fund and other funding
sources, as well as infrastructure policies and rules aimed at
supporting expansion of rural mobile services.
Third, Federal policies and programs should assess
broadband coverage goals based on geographic area and
functional use, including deployment in active croplands. Deere
believes Federal agencies should review broadband availability
through an expanded lens, one that incorporates a geographic
and functional-use metric aimed at advancing deployment to
commercial and economic activities where access has fallen
behind. Historically, FCC, NTIA, and USDA funding programs
supporting broadband deployment have focused on last-mile
connections to residential consumers and anchor institutions.
Cropland areas where farming is done have lagged behind in
adequate mobile coverage. To address this gap, the metric of
broadband access in active croplands and farm buildings should
be considered in identifying areas of need. Cropland coverage
can be assessed using USDA's GIS data for crop operations, the
U.S. Geological Service's Land-Use Classification, or other
data bases. Given their economic and commercial importance to
rural communities, farming operations should receive priority
in implementing rural broadband support, and should be
considered anchor institutions for purposes of existing support
programs.
Fourth, broadband deployment funding programs need to be
updated and expanded. Deere endorses the expansion of the
Universal Service Fund to include backhaul capacity and a
variety of middle-mile projects. Effective rural broadband
services require backhaul capacity to keep up with expanding
broadband demand. Further, all providers should be eligible to
receive support for middle-mile facilities that support
wireline backhaul for mobile broadband, not just for middle-
mile facilities that support wired last-mile connections.
Finally, infrastructure policies should be evaluated to
promote rural and agricultural access to broadband. Deere
supports efforts to promote the expansion of the infrastructure
necessary for wireless broadband deployment in rural and
agricultural areas. In particular, we would encourage actions
to streamline procedures for siting wireless towers and
infrastructure and installing conduit. We must ensure that all
unnecessary barriers are removed.
In conclusion, let me reiterate that the future of our
rural communities is closely linked to the strength of American
agriculture. That future in an increasingly technology-
dependent global environment will be determined by whether
agricultural operations have full access to advanced wireless
services, including high-speed wireless broadband.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to share Deere's
perspective on this critically important topic, and I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Reed follows:]
Prepared Statement of Cory J. Reed, Senior Vice President, Intelligent
Solutions, Deere & Company
Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and members of the
Committee, thank you for holding this important hearing and for the
opportunity to testify today on behalf of Deere & Company. John Deere
is a global leader in the manufacture of agricultural, construction,
turf and forestry equipment. Deere provides advanced agricultural and
other equipment and services to customers that cultivate, harvest,
transform, enrich and build upon the land to meet the world's
dramatically increasing need for food, fuel, fiber and infrastructure.
Deere has been providing innovative equipment and services to customers
since 1837, and today, is pioneering state-of-the-art data and
information solutions designed to greatly enhance productivity and
sustainability.
This topic is of central importance to the economic vitality of the
Nation's rural communities, generally, and to the agricultural sector,
in particular. Today, access to mobile broadband services is an
essential component of a healthy and growing national economy. Rapid
developments in broadband technology have not only opened unprecedented
opportunities for economic activity, but also for education, health
care services and cultural development. Despite the remarkable
nationwide growth and innovation in broadband and advanced
technologies, however, too many rural communities in the United States
lag significantly behind in access to those technologies and the
extraordinary benefits that they can bring.
We at John Deere are acutely aware of this technology gap and the
special difficulties it presents for the agricultural sector. The
challenging economics of farming and the need to meet long-term demand
have transformed agriculture in the U.S. and many other countries into
a technology-driven sector increasingly dependent on access to
broadband. The ``Internet of Things'' in rural America includes not
only smart meters and smart appliances, but also smart tractors,
combines, and production systems. In fact, the rapid adoption of
information technologies and services across the agricultural economy
today is no less significant than was the introduction of mechanization
to farming almost 100 years ago.
Deere greatly appreciates this opportunity to discuss with the
Committee the urgent need that we see for actions that will promote
rapid deployment of broadband facilities and services in the
agricultural sector. I am pleased to share several recommendations for
steps that can be taken to bridge the gaps between those that have
access to broadband and those that do not.
Rural Broadband Programs Must Make Deployment in Agricultural Areas a
Priority to Address the Expanding Needs of American Farmers and
Rural Communities
Megatrends in the today's global agricultural sector make
accelerated deployment of expanded broadband systems and services
critical. Farmers are compelled by long-term demand to sustain
unprecedented high levels of productivity by carefully managing costs
while increasing yields from a finite amount of land. World population
is projected to climb from approximately 7 billion today to more than 9
billion by 2050. This means that every hour, there are an additional
9,000 new mouths to feed globally, which equates to roughly enough new
people to fill Washington Nationals Park more than five times each and
every day. As incomes around the world rise, animal protein becomes a
larger component of average diets. This, in turn, generates greater
demand for grains. In most of the world there is a rising trend in farm
sizes, scale and specialization as economies develop. Environmental
sustainability and compliance is a growing challenge, and the supply of
skilled labor for agriculture is not enough to meet the demand.
The stakes for the future of the Ag sector are high. Agriculture
and agriculture-related industries contributed $789 billion to the U.S.
gross domestic product (GDP) in 2013, a 4.7-percent share.\1\ The
agricultural economy extends to a wide range of other sectors that
contribute added value to the economy. In 2013, 16.9 million full-and
part-time jobs were related to agriculture--about 9.2 percent of total
U.S. employment. Direct on-farm employment provided over 2.6 million of
these jobs. Employment in related industries supported another 14.2
million jobs.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See USDA, Ag and Food Sectors and the Economy, available at:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-
the-essentials/ag-and-food-sectors-and-the-economy.aspx.
\2\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the U.S. economy is now in its sixth year of recovery from
recession, it remains fragile in some aspects, especially in rural
areas. Urban employment now exceeds pre-recession levels but rural
employment persists at levels well below its 2007 peak.\3\ Rural
populations have declined over the last several years, and 779 rural
counties continued to lose jobs in 2014.\4\ The population, economic
and employment pressures in rural America continue to affect the
agricultural sector. Between 2007 and 2012, the number of U.S. farms
decreased by 4.3 percent.\5\ One important bright spot in today's rural
areas is increased productivity, arising from technology innovation and
adoption that has fueled growth in U.S. agriculture.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See USDA, Rural America at a Glance, 2014, at 1, available at:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1697681/eb26.pdf.
\4\ See id. at 1.
\5\ See USDA, Preliminary Report Highlights, U.S. Farms and Farmers
(Feb. 2014), available at: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/
2012/Preliminary_Report/Highlights.pdf.
\6\ See USDA, Agricultural Productivity, available at: http://
www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/agricultural-productivity.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Broadband Deployment Policies Must Include Mobile, as Well as Fixed
Services
The impacts of these megatrends are an everyday reality for
American farmers who face constant pressure to improve efficiency,
environmental stewardship, and output. For this purpose, farmers look
to advanced smart farming technology solutions, including solutions
that take advantage of mobile and fixed broadband access. Today,
producers are able to farm to within a few centimeters of accuracy
thanks to innovative GPS-enabled positioning systems that are now
standard on virtually all modern farming equipment, as supplemented
with data available from satellite signals. Using these high precision
techniques, advanced agricultural equipment and services now include
technology that provides real-time agronomic data that can be analyzed
to optimize the precise amount of seed, fertilizer and pesticides
needed, reduce costs for fuel, labor, water, and identify best
practices for fields in a given location. (Deere's Precision Ag
Technologies, for instance, gives farmers access to detailed agronomic
information in the field essential for improved decision-making with
respect to managing costs and recourses.)
Where possible, producers using these precision agriculture
techniques communicate via high-speed wireless broadband with customers
and vendors, follow commodity markets, obtain real-time information on
field conditions, weather and other environmental factors, and manage
fleets and regulatory compliance. With access to mobile broadband
services, farmers can also employ innovative machine-to-machine
(``M2M'') operations in the field and machine-to-farm (``M2F'') from
the field that enable producers to make significant improvements in
real-time productivity and cost management.
Today these technologies are making an enormous contribution to
improved used of limited resources, regulatory compliance and Ag
sustainability. Precision technologies are enabling more efficient,
prescriptive use of soils, water, fertilizer, herbicides and fuel by
allowing producers to tailor farming practices and applications to the
specific conditions of an individual field.
For example, when the farmer leaves his field in the fall, he is
able to share harvest yields directly and immediately with trusted
agronomist advisors. This helps the advisor to prescribe the
appropriate amount of nutrients to be added back to the soil, based
only on what the farmer took off at harvest, and ensure those nutrients
are added and incorporated before winter. The farmer can also make
decisions on which seeds to buy for next year, taking advantage of
early order price discounts. By reducing inputs, improving resource
management, minimizing land impacts and lowering costs, these
technologies are delivering the promise of sustainability on the farm.
The economic impact of these technologies is significant. According
to recent reports, data-driven decisions about irrigation,
fertilization and harvesting can increase corn farm profitability by $5
to $100 per acre, and a recent 6-month pilot study found precision
agriculture improved overall crop productivity by 15 percent.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Kurt Marko, Forbes, Precision Agriculture Eats Data, CPUC
Cycles: It's a Perfect Fit for Cloud Services (Aug. 25, 2015),
available at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtmarko/2015/08/25/
precision-ag-cloud/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We must take steps now to bridge the gap between rural broadband
availability and urban and suburban broadband availability. Mobile
services, not only wireline fixed services, are essential to broadband
deployment in rural and remote areas where infrastructure, land
acquisition, and right-of-way costs are higher on a per capita basis
than that of urban and suburban areas. To enable real-time sharing of
data and communications, including in the context of innovative M2M and
M2F interactions, precision agriculture technology requires access to
both reliable mobile and wireline broadband services.
However, the harsh reality in the rural U.S. is that there is a
significant lack of access to adequate mobile and fixed broadband
coverage in the fields where agricultural equipment operates. Today,
many John Deere customers are challenged by this lack of adequate
mobile coverage. Deere's JDLinkTM data service, for example,
currently relies on the cellular telephone network to transmit
telemetric machine operation data. The lack of coverage needed for
these solutions to transmit telemetric data from the machines, already
a concern, will only become more problematic as data volumes increase.
In rural areas where farm machines operate today,
JDLinkTM data transmissions have a 70 percent successful
call completion rate. Without significant improvements in cell coverage
in agricultural areas, Deere expects that this figure could drop to
about 50 percent in two to three years as agricultural demand for
wireless broadband services increases. For these reasons, Deere
supports the retention and even expansion of the FCC's Mobility fund
and other funding sources as well as infrastructure policies and rules
aimed at supporting expansion of rural mobile services.
III. Deployment Policies and Programs Should Assess Broadband Coverage
Goals Based on Geographic Area and Functional Use; Croplands
Require Coverage and Farms Should be Treated as Anchor
Institutions
Deere believes it is time for Federal agencies with broadband
deployment mandates to view broadband availability through an expanded
lens--one that incorporates a geographic and functional usage metric
aimed at advancing broadband deployment to industries and economic
activities where access to this key input has fallen behind. Broadband
access in active croplands, in particular, should be included as a
metric in identifying areas of need and farm operations should be
treated as ``anchor institutions'' for the purposes of existing support
programs. While fixed broadband has penetrated the residential and
business areas of many rural communities, the cropland areas where
farming is done lags far behind in adequate mobile broadband access.
Yet agricultural operations are no less important to the economic
vitality of these same communities than are those commercial entities
served by fixed broadband. By supporting increased wireless broadband
deployment in areas where most farming operations occur (i.e., in the
fields), rural communities and the U.S. economy will benefit through
increased economic growth, improved environmental stewardship, and
enhanced food security.
Historically, Federal funding programs at the FCC, NTIA and USDA
aimed at spurring broadband deployment have focused on enabling last-
mile connections to residential consumers and ``anchor institutions,''
defined generally to include healthcare providers, schools, and
libraries, as well as middle-mile facilities that enable last-mile
connections to these ends. This assessment framework overlooks
significant geographic and functional-use areas of broadband demand and
coverage, and the benefits that deployment to such unserved and
underserved areas can create. Large swaths of agricultural land in the
United States--where people do not reside, but where they work and
contribute to the rural and national economy--are wholly lacking
broadband coverage.
To address this gap, broadband access in active croplands (and farm
buildings) should be included as a metric for identifying areas of
need. There are a number of ways that ``cropland'' coverage can be
assessed including by using the USDA's GIS data for crop operations or
the U.S. geological Survey's (USGS) Land Use classification.
It should be noted that farms represent a significant center of
rural commercial activity. Owners, employees, buyers and vendors all
conduct business in farm facilities and thus are important locations in
rural communities. On that basis, as ``anchor'' institutions, farm
operations should be given priority in implementing rural broadband
support programs.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Although the USDA reports that sixty-seven percent (67 percent)
of U.S. farms had Internet service (DSL, wireless, cable, and
satellite) in 2013, compared with sixty two percent (62 percent) in
2011 these figures do not reflect connectivity acreage under active
crop production and whether the access that is being detected to the
farmhouse is in fact sufficient to support today's smart farming
operations. See USDA, NASS, Farm Computer Usage and Ownership (Aug.
2013), available at: http://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/
Methodology_and_Data_Quality/Computer_Usage/08_2013/fmpc0813.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deere also recommends that government broadband support programs
should count machine-to-machine mobile broadband transmissions, by
agricultural equipment in the field and associated operators' mobile
devices, when assessing the status of mobile broadband deployment. By
counting the number of machines with modems working the 300+ million
acres of cropland in the United States, program administrators will
have better information to more accurately assess the availability and
lack of availability of advanced broadband services in rural areas, and
can then consider targeted ways to strengthen funding to those rural
areas of the country that need it most. Counting only rural populations
fails to account for the growth in modems imbedded in agricultural
machinery or the economic impacts of the Ag sector.
IV. Funding Programs Need to Be Updated and Expanded
Deere endorses the expansion of the Universal Service Fund (USF) to
include backhaul capacity and a variety of middle-mile projects.
Effective rural broadband service requires backhaul capacity to keep up
with expanding broadband demand. Further, all providers should be
eligible to receive support for middle-mile facilities that support
wireline backhaul for mobile broadband, not just for middle mile
facilities that support wired last mile connections.
We should also allow USF support for standalone broadband services
not tied to traditional telephone services. The widespread availability
of standalone broadband service will give consumers greater choice in
service and providers and will avoid rules that effectively force
consumers to purchase services they do not want.
V. Infrastructure Policies Should be Evaluated to Promote Rural and
Agricultural Access to Broadband
Finally, Deere supports efforts to promote expansion of the
infrastructure necessary to expand wireless broadband deployment in
rural and agricultural areas. In particular, we would encourage actions
that streamline procedures for siting wireless tower infrastructure and
installing conduit. We must ensure that all unnecessary barriers are
removed, including delays and expense associated with permitting,
federal, state and local siting approvals, and approvals to access
highway and other rights of way. ``Dig once'' policies that avoid
repeated excavations and the attendant costs delays, and disruptions,
should be encouraged.
Conclusion
The future of our rural communities is closely linked to the
strength of American agriculture. Today, the outlook for both is
challenging but bright given the resourcefulness of American farmers,
the advent of precision agriculture and other innovative farming
technologies and the Nation's extensive agricultural resources. Whether
our rural communities are able to thrive in an increasingly technology-
dependent world will be determined by whether we are successful in
ensuring that agricultural operations have full access to advanced
wireless services and technologies including high-speed broadband.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide the Committee some
perspective on this critically important topic. Thank you all for your
work and engagement in exploring solutions. I look forward to answering
your questions and being an ongoing resource to the Committee. Thank
you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Reed.
Mr. Morrison.
STATEMENT OF BRUCE MORRISON, VICE PRESIDENT, OPERATIONS AND
NETWORK BUILD, ERICSSON INC.
Mr. Morrison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Mr.
Nelson, and good morning to all the members of the Committee.
My name is Bruce Morrison, and I lead the team that builds,
deploys, and manages networks for Ericsson here in North
America. That includes real estate acquisition and permitting
tower erection, leads base-station radio installation, and
everything in between. Ericsson has thousands of employees and
subcontractors handling the deployment of broadband networks in
the United States, including the integration of tens of
thousands of communications sites in the last year alone. In my
15 years of infrastructure deployment, I have seen tremendous
change in progress, and I look forward to sharing some of that
experience with you here today.
At Ericsson, we believe in a networked society, where
individuals and industries are empowered to reach their full
potential. Our infrastructure services and software enable and
improve the efficiency of networks around the globe. Forty
percent of the world's mobile traffic is carried over an
Ericsson network. Those metrics indicate just how far Ericsson
has come since its founding, 139 years ago. Back then, the
Senate was made up of only 76 members, and the wonder known as
Mount Rushmore wouldn't break ground for another 50 years. As
you can imagine, we have learned a great deal since then.
Mr. Chairman, you understand the importance of networks
driven by access deficient--sufficient spectrum, and we would
like to applaud your efforts, and those of this entire
committee, to identify spectrum for licensed use. Licensed
spectrum remains the best option available today to meet
insatiable consumer demand. It also ensures that the networks
we build and operate handle traffic as efficiently as possible.
For example, underserved communities will benefit from the
Federal Communications Commission upcoming 600 megahertz
auction, spectrum ideally suited for rural communities. That's
where the importance of unfettered infrastructure deployment,
the subject of today's hearing, comes into play.
Decades ago, wireless deployment served only a narrow
purpose for a narrow constituency. Today, it provides nearly
limitless ways to make life easier for all people through the
power of mobility. As we enter the next generation of 5G
technology, we know that mobility encompasses more than
telecommunications, and that includes enhanced user experience
through the Internet of Things and enterprise applications such
as utility smart grids. The key to all this, however, is
connectivity through both access and coverage.
Now more than ever we must think beyond our coverage bars
on our phones and to bandwidth capable of streaming video,
supporting wireless applications, and connecting smart
appliances. With every innovation comes the need for more
wireless infrastructure, and not simply the 300-foot-towers-
along-the-highway variety. We're talking about small cells,
low-powered radio access points that mobile operators use to
extend service coverage and increase network capacity on light
and power poles, including building facades, and even on bus
stops, all to provide connectivity on each city block. With
spectrum being so scarce, it is small-cell technology that will
allow you to launch your favorite application or stream a video
in downtown Washington in the year 2020.
Today, Ericsson's focus is centered on delivering the
highest-quality speed and service to meet ever-increasing
customer demand. Ericsson's own statistics, released in August,
cited a 55-percent growth in data traffic year-over-year
between the second quarters of 2014 and 2015 alone. To help
satisfy that need, we're implementing new approaches, like
using small cells and micro facilities installed on light and
utility poles, upgrading existing antennas with better capacity
and the ability to use multiple frequency ranges, replacing
older T1 backhaul with higher-capacity fiber, and finally,
deploying temporary facilities for festivals, parades, and
sporting events to meet short-term demand.
For its part, the Federal Government has made some
important strides to help remove existing barriers to broadband
deployment. For example, the FCC shot clock has reduced to
months, a zoning and permitting approval process that often
dragged on for years. In addition, Federal efforts to assist
local jurisdictions to expedite the deployment of equipment for
facilities that meet certain criteria have been very helpful.
And, of course, Federal programs such as the Connect America
Fund, or CAF, provide badly needed resources for broadband
services in our rural communities.
These efforts have been effective, but there's still plenty
more that can be done. In my submitted testimony, I provide in
greater detail ways that Congress and the Federal Government
can even--be even more helpful in removing barriers to
deployment. But, for the purpose of this statement, I will
highlight three key suggestions: streamlining access and
jurisdictional processes for the installation and deployment of
dark fiber and small-cell technology; streamlining access to
light and utility bowls to standardize deployments; and
finally, standardizing the application process for the
deployment of wireless infrastructure on federally owned
buildings and property, the idea incorporated into the Wireless
Innovation Act.
Mr. Chairman, these steps to reduce regulatory bureaucratic
red tape may not sound terribly exciting, but they're
absolutely critical to our ability to carry out our vision and
your vision to reduce the cost of deploying wireless broadband
services.
Looking ahead, the future is exciting and our mission
remains clear: to transform networks, which will, in turn,
transform businesses and communities, nations and governments,
and, most importantly, lives. Ericsson remains committed to
delivering on this promise, have a networked society, and looks
forward to working with Congress and the Federal Government to
accomplish that goal.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity today to
be here, and I look forward to answering any questions the
Committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Morrison follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bruce Morrison, Vice President, Operations and
Network Build, Ericsson Inc.
Summary of Key Points
At Ericsson, we believe in a ``Networked Society,'' where
individuals and industries are empowered to reach their full
potential.
Licensed spectrum remains the best option available today to
meet insatiable consumer demand.
Decades ago, wireless deployment served only a narrow
purpose for a narrow constituency. Today, it provides nearly
limitless ways to make life easier for all people through the
power of mobility.
With every innovation comes the need for more wireless
infrastructure such as small cells--low-powered radio access
points that mobile operators use to extend service coverage and
increase network capacity.
To help deliver the highest quality speed and service to
meet ever-increasing demand, Ericsson is implementing new
approaches like:
Using small cells and micro-facilities;
Upgrading existing antennas;
Installing high-capacity fiber;
Implementing new strategies for complex environments;
and
Deploying temporary facilities to meet short-term
demand.
For its part, the Federal Government has made some important
strides to help remove existing barriers to broadband
deployment such as the Federal Communication Commission (FCC)
shot clock and `Connect America Fund' (CAF) funding.
These efforts have been effective, but there is still plenty
more that can be done, such as:
Streamlining access and jurisdictional processes for
the installation and deployment of dark fiber and small
cell technology;
Streamlining access to light and utility poles to
standardize deployments; and
Standardizing the application process for the
deployment of wireless infrastructure on federally-owned
buildings and property, an idea incorporated into S. 1618,
``The Wireless Innovation Act.''
Ericsson remains committed to delivering on the promise of a
networked society and looks forward to working with Congress
and the Federal Government to accomplish that goal.
Written Testimony of Bruce Morrison, Ericsson Inc.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to all the members of the
Committee. I want to thank you for the kind invitation to be here
today.
My name is Bruce Morrison and I lead the team that builds, deploys,
and manages networks for Ericsson here in North America. That includes
real-estate acquisition and permitting, tower construction, radio base
station installation, and everything in between. Ericsson has thousands
of employees and subcontractors handling the deployment of broadband
networks in the United States, including the integration of tens of
thousands of communication sites in the last year alone. In my fifteen
years of infrastructure deployment, I have seen tremendous change and
progress, and I look forward to sharing some of that experience with
you here today.
At Ericsson, we believe in a ``Networked Society,'' where
individuals and industries are empowered to reach their full potential.
Our infrastructure, services, and software enable and improve the
efficiency of networks around the globe. Forty percent of the world's
mobile traffic is carried over Ericsson networks.
Those metrics indicate just how far Ericsson has come since its
founding 139 years ago. Back then, Senator Hannibal Hamlin, Abraham
Lincoln's Vice President, walked these very halls; the Senate was made
up of only 76 members; and the wonder known as Mount Rushmore wouldn't
break ground for another 50 years. As you can imagine, we have learned
a great deal since then.
Mr. Chairman, you understand the importance of networks driven by
access to sufficient spectrum. And we would like to applaud your
efforts, and those of this entire committee, to identify spectrum for
licensed use. Licensed spectrum remains the best option available today
to meet insatiable consumer demand. It also ensures that the networks
we build and operate handle traffic as efficiently as possible. For
example, underserved communities will benefit from the Federal
Communications Commission's (FCC) upcoming 600Mhz auction, spectrum
ideally suited for rural communities. That's where the importance of
unfettered infrastructure deployment, the subject of today's hearing,
comes into play.
Decades ago, wireless deployment served only a narrow purpose for a
narrow constituency. Today, it provides nearly limitless ways to make
life easier for all people through the power of mobility. As we enter
the next generation of 5G technology, we know that mobility encompasses
more than telecommunications. It includes enhanced user experience
through the ``Internet of Things'' and enterprise applications such as
utility smart grids. The key to all of this, however, is connectivity
through both access and coverage.
Now, more than ever, we must think beyond the coverage bars on our
phones to bandwidth capable of streaming video, supporting wireless
applications, and connecting smart appliances. With every innovation
comes the need for more wireless infrastructure and not simply the 300-
foot-towers-along-the-highway variety. We're talking about small
cells--low-powered radio access points that mobile operators use to
extend service coverage and increase network capacity--on light and
power poles, building facades, and even bus stops, all to provide
connectivity on each city block. With spectrum being so scarce, it is
small-cell technology that will allow you to launch your favorite
application or stream a video in downtown Washington in the year 2020.
Today, Ericsson's focus is centered on delivering the highest
quality speed and service to meet ever-increasing demand. Ericsson's
own statistics, released in August, cited a 55 percent growth in data
traffic year-over-year between the second quarters of 2014 and 2015
alone. To help satisfy that need, we are implementing new approaches
like:
Using small cells and micro-facilities installed on light
and utility poles;
Upgrading existing antennas with better capacity and the
ability to use multiple frequency ranges;
Replacing older T1 backhaul with higher-capacity fiber;
Implementing new strategies for complex environments like
stadiums; and
Deploying temporary facilities for festivals, parades, and
sporting events to meet short term demand.
For its part, the Federal Government has made some important
strides to help remove existing barriers to broadband deployment. For
example, the FCC's shot clock has reduced to months, a zoning and
permitting approval process that often dragged on for years. In
addition, Federal efforts to assist local jurisdictions to expedite the
deployment of equipment for facilities that meet certain criteria have
been very helpful. And of course, Federal programs such as the
``Connect America Fund'' or ``CAF,'' provide badly needed resources for
broadband services in our rural communities.
In addition, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 allowed
jurisdictions to rewrite relevant rules which have allowed for cell
site facilities. Many jurisdictions have also allowed a hierarchy for
siting priority that streamlines deployment for facilities. Examples
include:
Collocations on existing structures/buildings/water tanks
that were exempt from zoning requirements;
Exemption from public hearing and public notice requirements
for facilities that meet certain requirements;
Exemption or administrative review process for facilities in
commercial or industry zoning classifications;
Exemption or administrative review process for facilities
designed with stealth technology;
Expansion of new locations and designated contacts
established for cell site facilities available on Federal and
state land, on city and county parks, in utility districts
(water tanks, power poles, transmission towers, etc.), and on
right of ways.
These efforts have been effective, but there is still plenty more
that can be done by Congress and the Federal Government to help
removing barriers to deployment. They include:
Streamlining access and jurisdictional processes for the
installation and deployment of dark fiber and small cell
technology;
Standardizing the application process for the deployment of
wireless infrastructure on federally owned buildings and
property, an idea incorporated into S. 1618, The Wireless
Innovation Act;
Streamlining access to light and utility poles to
standardize deployments;
Distinguishing process requirements so that the installation
of equipment on a flag pole isn't considered the same as doing
so at a stadium or a hospital;
Assisting jurisdictions to process the use of small cells;
Providing relief from onerous Federal requirements that lack
technical descriptions;
Advancing a regulatory approach that allows the quick
deployment of small cells in metropolitan jurisdictions;
Updating the current rules surrounding ``Local Exchange
Carriers'' support and deployment requirements for backhaul;
Improving the ``Mobility Fund'' by targeting infrastructure
funding to truly unserved areas. Senator Joe Manchin recently
sent a letter to the FCC supporting this idea;
Improving the ``Spectrum Relocation Fund'' to increase its
flexibility and to provide for new allowable uses of funds to
facilitate improved spectrum planning and relocation while
improving spectrum utilization. These reforms would hasten the
transition of government spectrum for commercial use which we
strongly endorse. Senators Jerry Moran and Mark Udall recently
sent a letter to the Office of Management and Budget outlining
areas where improvements can be made;
Developing requirements or support for shared infrastructure
and hardening. For example, at a typical cellular tower, each
wireless carrier has its own generator. Shared infrastructure
would mean that only one generator is required per site; and
Implementing a requirement to incorporate dark fiber or
green field (empty) conduit attached to all federally-funded
roadway projects.
Mr. Chairman, these are just a few areas where Congress could
assist infrastructure companies like Ericsson in carrying out your
vision to ``reduce the cost of deploying wireless broadband services.''
Looking ahead, the future is exciting and our mission remains
clear--to transform networks which will in turn transform businesses
and communities, nations and governments, and most importantly, lives.
Ericsson remains committed to delivering on the promise of a networked
society and looks forward to working with Congress and the Federal
Government to accomplish that goal.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to be here today
and I look forward to answering any questions the Committee has.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Morrison.
We'll proceed to 5-minute rounds of questions.
And I would just point out that this particular tool [holds
up smartphone] right here, if connected, is a very powerful
tool that can keep me, hopefully, if I know how to use it,
somewhat productive. But, without the infrastructure and
facilities to support it, it's really nothing more than an
expensive paperweight. And that's why the discussion that we're
having here today is so important in the overall goal that we
have of further getting deployment of broadband across this
country.
And, with that in mind, I wanted to turn to Mr. Reed for
just a moment. Rural America is well represented on this panel.
And so, we understand the unique challenges that are faced in
these areas when attempting to spur growth in and ensure the
vitality of America's rural economies. So, as such, your
mention of a rural technology gap is quite concerning. And you
note that cost for infrastructure, land acquisition, and
rights-of-way for rural broadband deployment are higher than in
urban areas, which I have to say seems somewhat
counterintuitive. So, could you perhaps elaborate or address
the cause of these costs and the associated impact on our
Nation's agricultural sector?
Mr. Reed. Yes, I can probably best describe the demand side
of what's driving the need, and potentially talk a little bit
about the cost.
On the need side, agriculture is going through a
transformation, and the competitiveness of that industry is
enabled through these services. Customers who in the past--and
producers who in the past--have farmed on the average across
their operation are today employing technologies that allow
them to farm their fields in sub-inch level of accuracy,
applying just the right amount of nutrient, the right amount of
seed, the right amount of water to get the best response for
both agricultural productivity, increase in yield, as well as
cost management, not to mention the environmental effects. What
this has created is an increasing demand on the infrastructure
across rural America. That infrastructure's been met with the
need to expand it. And along that expansion, it--a lot of the
incentives available for carriers to do that are not available
to them to extend their coverage areas into rural America.
Our proposal would include including cropland as a metric
for how we determine and use funds available to providers and
coverage areas and understand the coverage of rural America.
Reducing--we need to reduce the overall cost associated with
siting new facilities for those areas. Technically, what's
happening is, increasing numbers of machines--it's not just the
population; the rural employment is a very small number,
overall, of people, but the machines that are going out with
these technologies are increasing at increasing levels. Every
large ag piece of equipment going into the North American
market today is going out equipped with a 3G modem. In the
future, it'll be 4G and, in the future, 5G. There's a lot of
talk of the auto industry's approach to this. This has been
going on in agriculture for nearly a decade. What that's
created is tremendous potential, but also tremendous need and
demand on the infrastructure that doesn't always cover those
areas of the country, because people now are the primary
metric. And, while there are certainly people in communities
that depend on that technology, the population is
disproportionate to the economic impact and the drivers for
production agriculture.
The Chairman. So, yes, and you're primarily talking about
government programs or forms of public assistance that are
more----
Mr. Reed. Universal Service Fund, the Mobility Fund, those
types of funds that are made available for the increase and
extension of that infrastructure to not only meet the current
demand, but to keep up with what we expect is an increasing
growth in demand in the rural community.
The Chairman. It just seems that the planned acquisition,
right-of-way, those sorts of things shouldn't be as much of a
obstacle, you might characterize it that way, as it would be in
a more urban setting. That was, I guess, what I was trying to
sort of get at there.
Mr. Adelstein, in your testimony, you stressed the need to
alleviate roadblocks to wireless siting at the local level. And
you have specifically proposed removing requirements that a
provider demonstrate proof of need or show a gap in service
when siting a wireless facility due to the subjective nature of
these determinations. So, I guess the question is, How,
specifically, would you propose changing the law to remove
these deployment barriers while still preserving the right of
localities to have a corresponding role in the siting process
at the local level?
Mr. Adelstein. Well, Mr. Chairman, we would propose
eliminating the gap-in-service test in Sections 332 and 253 of
the Act. I think that Mayor Resnick is exactly right, there is
a major role for localities in making sure that their
consumers' needs are met, but is that role extending to
deciding where service is needed? In the old days, people would
say, ``Well, there's no coverage here, so we need coverage,
because there's no bars.'' But, we've moved from a coverage era
to a capacity era. And now what's really driving investment is
the need to meet that capacity. So, an extremely complex
decision made by our radio-frequency engineers of the carriers
and infrastructure providers that determine where there's going
to be capacity, where there's going to be demand for it that's
going to exceed that capacity. And it's something that's not
really in the expertise of local communities. For them to
second-guess and say, ``Oh, there's no business case here,
there's no need, there's no gap in service. I see bars on the
phone''--literally, we've heard of consultants running around
with a phone, saying, ``You know, this phone works.'' But, they
don't understand the complexities that go into it, nor should
they; that's not the role of localities. There's an important
role for them, I don't think that's one of them. And hopefully
we could reach agreement with them on that.
Many localities don't do this. Let's, you know, put--make
this clear, that it's those that are the sort of bad actors,
the ones that are dragging their heels. Many local
communities--and Mayor Resnick has said--have really gotten on
it. Ten states have passed laws. But, those that are using this
kind of an excuse to delay deployment, I think, is something
that the Act could resolve.
The Chairman. All right, and I'll come back to some other
questions later, but right now I'll turn to Senator Nelson
because my time's expired.
Senator Nelson. Mr. Reed, when you were talking, it
occurred to me--Is John Deere planning for the future of
driverless tractors?
Mr. Reed. So, agriculture has gone through tremendous
change, and that change started with mechanization. Automation
is the next of that phase, but, ultimately, optimization
through information systems. We've, in fact, in your home
state, been operating autonomous vehicles in confined
situations in orchards for a number of years. That technology
exists today. The ability to automate at that level exists
today. And it has enabled, through both the use of GPS
technology, machine-to-machine communication, machine-to-farm
and to carrier-type technologies. So, the answer is yes.
Senator Nelson. And would the wireless technology, in
addition to the GPS if you're operating directly off the
satellite--does that enhance the ability for----
Mr. Reed. It--yes--absolutely enhances the ability. They're
complementary to one another. What wireless cannot do is give
the level of precision of GPS. With GPS, we're able to get to
sub-inch-level accuracy----
Senator Nelson. Right.
Mr. Reed.--within 2 centimeters of accuracy. What wireless
does is allow broad access to data communications on and off of
the machine, which supplements that and moves both machine and
agronomic data on and off of machines to both raise production
and lower cost.
Senator Nelson. So, Mr. Chairman, you could be a gentlemen
farmer. You could be plowing your field while you're sitting
back drinking your cup of coffee in the farmhouse.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. That's the kind of farming I would like, yes.
Senator Nelson. Mr. Adelstein, what has this shift in
technology meant for infrastructure siting? Is it more
difficult or is it easier to get approvals for small cells?
Mr. Adelstein. Well, we're working closely with the FCC on
small cells to facilitate deployment of them and distribute
antenna systems. And I think the FCC's made some progress
trying to make sure that there's a ability to get it sited on
poles, in particular. We find that, inside of buildings,
there's no real regulatory issues. It's more the outside
deployments that can run into issues. And we want to make sure
that we respect historical and local concerns, but, at the same
time, we need to facilitate small cells.
So, I think that, you know, localities are increasingly
getting it. I have to hand it to Mayor Resnick and the others
that--they have these devices, too, and they know, as he said,
what it means to their communities. So, we're seeing a number
of states act to facilitate deployment. We're seeing some
localities do it. But, there are some that don't, and that, for
some reason, resist. And those are the ones I think we need to
sort of bring everybody up to the excellent level of those that
recognize that this is essential to their communities. And the
shift to small cell and DAS is because of this capacity issue I
was talking about. That's targeting in, particularly, urban
areas, many of which, in your State, require more capacity in
downtown or dense areas, where there might not be room for a
macro tower, a smaller cell.
Senator Nelson. Mr. Mayor, tell me, how has the
availability of small cell technology affected the local review
of the siting process?
Put your microphone on, please.
Mr. Resnick. All right, thank you.
As Mr. Adelstein said, many local governments and states
have amended their codes and how they process applications,
particularly for small cells. We generally encourage and
support co-location. And so, if small cells can co-locate on
existing facilities, whether they're buildings or existing
towers in the rights-of-way or towers on other property, that's
certainly an easier review for local governments. Generally,
it's just an administrative permitting review, and that's it.
There's not a public hearing required for review of co-
locations in those circumstances.
So, many local governments actually need more education as
to how small cells work, how they're going to be deployed, and
how they can support the communications services in their
communities.
Mr. Adelstein. Mr. Chairman, could I just add one point to
that, which is that sometimes localities are telling us, ``Hey,
you could put a DAS system or a small cell system in, when a
macro tower might make a lot more sense.'' It's a lot more
expensive, it doesn't provide the same level of coverage. And
that's an area where we get a little bit concerned about it.
They try to dictate what the technology is as most efficient.
Frankly, there's not enough capital to go around, and we need
to do this as efficiently as possible. Sometimes----
Senator Nelson. Are we getting to the point, for our local
elected officials, that the technology has advanced so much
that the harassment and the huge controversies that would occur
over the big tower that was so ugly, that now you've got this
capability of putting these small cells that are almost
undetectable--have we gotten to that point, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Resnick. Well, I still see, and I hear from my
colleagues, that there still are plenty of applications for
large towers. Yes, the small-cell technology seems to be
growing and does offer a lot of alternatives to constructing
these huge towers, which have a lot of issues, have a lot of
problems, but the applications for large towers actually is not
diminished, at least with respect to the communities that I'm
familiar with in Florida. And NLC is indicated, as well, around
the country. They're still--it seems, actually, to be growing
now, the need for the industry to want to construct large
towers, as opposed to small cells.
Senator Nelson. Well, when you get a controversy over a
large tower, do you have any magic solutions on this?
Mr. Resnick. Generally--a lot of local governments do. And
many local governments have actually been proactive in this
matter. My city, for example, has a large tower that we rented
park space to construct the tower on, and that worked out well,
because it's camouflaged facility, it's actually a--it's used
as a light structure in a ballfield, so it fits with the design
of our facility where we rented it. It works for the three
carriers that are on it, in terms of providing coverage. When
we redid the park--we just spent a million and a half dollars
to redo the park--it still fit into the plans for the park. And
many, many communities are doing that, they're proactively
identifying locations within their communities where they would
like to see towers build. They're not saying, necessarily, ``If
you apply, we're going to approve it in that area,'' but
they're being proactive about identifying areas where they
think it would be appropriate to construct towers, which also
the industry likes, because it can streamline the approval
process. Communities are identifying those locations, having a
sense already of whether there's going to be a lot of public
opposition. And so, it could streamline the public hearing
process. And it often can give the carriers access to
residential areas, where they wouldn't ordinarily be able to
find sites. Like, for example--and you may be familiar with
this, Senator, but Miami Dade County School District, which is
one of the largest school districts in the country--I think
it's the fourth-largest school district in the country--has
made a policy decision to rent school sites for towers. The
carriers and the infrastructure companies would not otherwise
get access in those residential areas for towers. They're
adjacent, for the most part, to single-family homes. But, this
gives them access to property as well as coverage in areas
where they ordinarily would not have coverage.
So, yes, in answer to your question, local governments
around the country are coming up with their own innovative ways
to support large towers, which still need to be constructed.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
Senator Wicker.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER F. WICKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI
Senator Wicker. Thank you.
Mayor Resnick, I appreciate your testimony. You mentioned
that, as a result of a collaborative effort, there might be
delays in wireless deployment. What is it about the
collaborative effort that would stand in the way of wireless
deployment?
Mr. Resnick. I'm not sure I meant to say that collaboration
between local governments and the industry would result in
delays, but that delays can come from either party. I mean,
we've seen tremendous changes in the industry side with respect
to technology, how the industry is structured, et cetera, that
we've seen, at the local level, result in delays in deployment.
For example, a community I work with has had numerous
applications from various carriers to co-locate antennas on
existing towers in that community, and then they ask the
community to stop processing those applications because the
industry--that applicant--is going through a change of
structure, ownership, whatever. And often those requests for
delays will sit for months, years, whatever, until they
determine what they're doing, who's acquiring them, who they're
acquiring, and whether they still need that site, or not. So,
it's not a collaboration between local governments and the
industry that causes delays, but it could be delays as a result
of different things occurring in the industry.
Senator Wicker. Do you have any suggestions for us in that
regard?
Mr. Resnick. That's a great question.
Senator Wicker. You can take that for the record.
Mr. Resnick. All right, thank you.
Mr. Morrison. Mr. Chairman, could I add to this subject?
Senator Wicker. Briefly, yes.
Mr. Morrison. The Mayor is right, there are still
applications coming in for the larger towers. However, Mr.
Nelson also pointed out, ``Is there a difference between the
large towers, which everybody's familiar with, and small
cells?'' And there is. Again, I would argue that the--or make a
point that I did in my testimony that the jurisdictions are
actually getting more wireless-friendly. And we have a defined
process. It's a defined timeline. It's gone from being a 2 to,
you know, year process, it's down to months. So, we
thank the local jurisdictions for that.
However, when we do talk small cell, if you just go outside
on any urban street, you'll see the light poles. You know,
we're looking to go on every third light pole. So, what we
would argue is that, you know, putting a, you know, less-than
3-foot, less-than 90 pound piece of equipment shouldn't have
the same process or timeline to put up a 300 foot site. So,
again, it is industry's job, but we also need the Federal
Government to help support us, you know, get that message
across that the applications are very different, moving
forward.
Thank you.
Senator Wicker. That makes sense to me.
Mr. Kinkoph, given the challenges of achieving sufficient
mobile broadband coverage over the Nation's vast rural areas,
how will FirstNet assure that public safety personnel in
smaller cities and rural communities have reasonably comparable
access to the devices and coverage?
Mr. Kinkoph. First, that is an independent agency within
NTIA, and it doesn't fall within my area of responsibility, but
I would be happy to take back your question to FirstNet.
[Mr. Kinkoph later replied as follows:]
Congress created FirstNet as an independent authority within NTIA
responsible for deploying a nationwide, interoperable public safety
broadband network. FirstNet reports that it has taken significant steps
to meet the requirements set forth in the Middle Class Tax Relief and
Job Creation Act of 2012, such as substantial rural coverage milestones
in each phase of the network's deployment. These steps have included
holding 55 state/territory consultations and collecting over 11,000
data surveys from states and territories to learn directly from public
safety where they need coverage, how many and what kinds of devices
they may need, as well as their rural deployment priorities.
Additionally, FirstNet has held numerous industry days to engage
with rural telecommunications providers and associations to understand
their capabilities and gauge their interest in participating in the
deployment of the FirstNet network. These industry days are aimed at
fostering creative solutions to public safety needs and encouraging
partnerships among a diverse set of organizations. FirstNet has also
taken steps to ensure that partnerships with rural telecommunications
providers are part of the evaluation criteria for the upcoming
nationwide Request for Proposals (RFP) that will be key to deploying
the nationwide network.
Senator Wicker. OK. So, we'll take that for the record.
Let me get back to John Deere. You know, I--Mr. Reed, I've
been trying to wrap my brain around precision agriculture for
15 years now. It's absolutely fascinating. We're going to need
to feed and clothe billions of more people in the world. And
precision agriculture is part of that, don't you agree?
Mr. Reed. It's absolutely part of it. It's one of the
critical enablers with population growth and the needs for
increasing productivity. We're able to use this technology to
actually put the precise correct amount of seed, nutrients,
water, herbicides, crop protection products down only where and
when it's needed.
Senator Wicker. So, Senator Thune is sitting in his air-
conditioned, huge, multiple-hundred-thousand-dollar implement
in South Dakota, drinking his cup of coffee, and there is an
inch of soil, I think you've said, and the first half-inch of
that soil needs more herbicide than the second half-inch of
soil. Is that what you're saying? Or more water or----
Mr. Reed. Yes.
Senator Wicker.--or less fertilizer----
Mr. Reed. It's a continuum. Historically, most of farming's
been done on the average across the farm--average number of
seeds--30,000 seeds of corn or 200 pounds of nitrogen. What's
happening is, the tools--the connectivity and the analysis
tools and the flowing data have allowed us to prescribe to
higher and higher levels of resolution the precise amount of
input and need, down to the local level. And that moved from
acre to square meter. And in institutions like Purdue or
University of Illinois, they're working on crop-level, plant-
level sensing so that you can provide to the plant exactly what
it needs. That's the future. Today, largely that's done at the
acre or even square meter level. We're getting to the point
where it's moving even higher resolution down, potentially, to
the individual plant level.
Senator Wicker. OK. Can you tell us, when you talk about
these gaps, what you wish FCC would do and what you wish
Congress would do to help us with these gaps?
Mr. Reed. I think there are a number of things. You know,
we mentioned earlier the cost. Often, the cost is evaluated on
a per-capita basis, not as a lens of what's it enabling, in
terms of the industry, and cropland being one of those. The
opportunity to expand coverage to cropland and expand the use
of funds to ensure that cropland is considered as one of the
coverage factors is extremely important. To sustain and use the
Universal Service Fund to extend support for middle-mile
capacity, each one of these--each one of these systems in the
geography requires a middle-mile carrier to take that
information back and to communicate it back. The ability to
increase the Mobility Fund--most of these--and there's a lot of
plans that allow for wired facilities, wired broadband into
local agricultural communities. These are roving machines.
These are wireless machines that need the same connectivity
you'd have in a mobile phone to be able to connect to those
machines. The Mobility Fund is extremely important. And allow
rural carriers to retain their support when they offer
standalone broadband that might be decoupled from telephone
services. This service is unique from that. And those same
rules should apply for standalones--allow delivery to
standalone broadband technology.
Senator Wicker. Thank you very much.
And thank you all.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Wicker.
Senator Moran.
STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MORAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS
Senator Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Let me address my question, initially, to Mr. Morrison.
Senator Udall and I, along with a number of members of this
committee back in April, wrote a letter to the Office of
Management and Budget asking them about how they would suggest
we improve the Spectrum Reallocation Fund. You've mentioned
that letter in your testimony. Pleasing to me is, OMB responded
in a very specific and detailed way. It appeared to me they
didn't just treat this as a typical congressional response, and
I value the input that they're providing. The end goal, here,
is to introduce legislation that deals with the issues that
they raise, and others, on the topic of spectrum.
What I want you to do is to tell me, about Ericsson or
others, what the industry is doing to make mobile broadband
technologies more spectrally efficient, and what the result of
that could mean, as far as availability of spectrum.
Mr. Morrison. That's a very good question, Senator.
Ericsson, like other vendors, has worked with many
operators that have limited spectrum holdings. And that has
forced us and the rest of the industry to come up with
innovative technologies for maximizing spectral efficiency in
order to keep up with mobile broadband traffic growth. For
example, techniques such as carrier aggregation, multiple
antenna, MIMO--which is multiple input, multiple output--
network coordination, and LTE broadcast. It allows us to
increase LTE network capacity and to deliver high-definition
video more efficiently without adding new spectrum or new cell
site locations.
Network efficiency is continually improving with each new
software release, and there are more technology innovations to
come. However, these technologies do have their limits, and so
it's important that we continue to explore the ways to free up
more spectrum for mobile broadband services even as we continue
to introduce more efficient radio technology.
Senator Moran. I think what you're saying is that spectrum
efficiency is valuable, important, creates a greater
opportunity to use less spectrum in specific applications, but
it isn't the total solution to availability of spectrum. We
still need access to additional spectrum. That correct?
Mr. Morrison. That's spot on. The bottom line is that, as a
product manufacturer, our customers expect us to be as
efficient as possible with the equipment we provide. However,
there are limitations. Again, we are looking towards 5G and,
again, you know, the benefits that it will bring, from an
efficiency perspective, but, at the end of the day, we need
more spectrum.
Senator Moran. Mr. Adelstein indicated he'd like to
respond.
Mr. Adelstein. Yes. Well, there's really three basic ways
you can get more throughput on existing spectrum. There's
additional spectrum. There's better technology, which Mr.
Morrison was talking about. And there's infrastructure, a
subject of today's hearing. Now, infrastructure, if you densify
the network and put more cell sites in, you can reuse the same
spectrum over and over again. So, roughly, if you put ten times
as many cell sites in one little area, you can get ten times
the throughput. Not exactly, but it's very roughly that way.
If you look at the three different, basically, leverage you
can use to get more throughput to address the fact that we have
700-percent increase in demand over the next 5 years projected,
technology, we expect, will be maybe 100 percent of that. We
just sold $45 billion worth of spectrum that you enacted the
ability of FCC to sell. Twelve percent additional spectrum went
into that--12 percent more. So, for $45 billion, we got 12
percent. So, there's--12 percent, you got 100 percent, we're
still down to 588 percent of that 700 percent to deal with.
And, largely, I think, in the next 5 years, infrastructure is
going to play the key role for that. And I think that's why
this hearing is so critical today.
Senator Moran. Thank you very much.
Mr. Kinkoph, what can you learn from the private sector, as
far as efficiencies?
Mr. Kinkoph. Well, I--from an NTIA standpoint, the spectrum
area does not fall in my area of responsibility, but NTIA is
currently working on the directive from the President to
allocate or identify 500 more megahertz of spectrum. And I--my
understanding is, they're about halfway to that. So, I think
that's a critical step in ensuring that, over the--by 2020----
Senator Moran. When is that to be concluded?
Mr. Kinkoph. By 2020 was the directive. I'd be happy,
though, to have our spectrum folks that are working on that
meet----
Senator Moran. And I may have interrupted something you
else--something else you wanted to say.
Mr. Kinkoph. No, I think we're good.
Senator Moran. OK.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Moran.
Senator Gardner.
STATEMENT OF HON. CORY GARDNER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you all for being here today.
Mr. Reed, I wanted to talk a little bit more about
agriculture broadband needs. And, you know, I can remember when
we started in the--first with precision farming, that we would
sell subscriptions to a satellite to try to get it if you
didn't have a Coast Guard beacon nearby, where you could do
some of the work on positioning. And, of course, I know in your
testimony you stated you had a 6-month pilot study that found
precision ag improved overall crop productivity by 15 percent.
I would note that if you used red tractors, not green tractors,
that would be 20 percent increase in productivity.
[Laughter.]
Senator Gardner. But, appreciate the willingness to--as a
red tractor dealer, I have to continue to get my jabs in on the
green guys. So----
[Laughter.]
Senator Gardner.--thank you for letting me do that. I'm
just kidding.
But, wanted to just maybe get a bigger picture of what--
when you pull into a field--when a farmer pulls into a field
and they're either, you know, going in with a combine--and what
happens to that combine, or maybe a planting is a better
example--what happens, if you don't have adequate broadband, to
that farmer?
Mr. Reed. We can use either of those examples. Essentially,
the system for communicating, if it's not available, a lot of
the tools available to give customers a more precise use over
the land start to get very difficult to use. It reverts to
manual approaches of phone calls, people walking on and off of
machines, using data sticks, providers having to drive trucks
and infrastructure out to connect with the machines to take
soil samples. The things that are automated today are possible
in a manual state, they're just not scalable that way.
So, today, as the tractor enters the field to plant, the
prescription for seed delivery, for nutrient delivery, is
wirelessly loaded onto the machine. They press a button, and
it, in an automated fashion, executes that prescription across
the field. That's the state-of-the-art today. And that's only
available when there's communication available to sync between
that roving machine and a network that allows it to move back
and forth freely.
Senator Gardner. You know, one of the highest costs,
obviously, for a farmer are the inputs to the fertilizer and
others that they put into the field. And before precision
agriculture, before the ability to really prescribe
fertilization application for your particular farm, based on
precision farming capabilities, how many times did the co-op,
the local co-op come out and have a tank of fertilizer, and
that tank was always empty by the time it left the farm. Now,
with precision agriculture, that tank isn't always empty. There
may be some left over, which means we're doing a much better
job of managing our inputs, managing costs, and it's better for
the environment that way.
Mr. Reed. I think you point out two benefits, both the cost
of--both the economics and the environmental side of this are
aligned, in that, when we use only the nutrients required or
only the seed required or only the crop protection required in
a given acre, it's both a cost effect for the production cost
side, the competitiveness of the industry, it's also very much
an environmental effect, which is only using what's necessary
to grow the productivity. Not only can they use less, but,
ultimately, by putting what's needed in the right place, they
can grow more using those same inputs.
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Reed.
Mr. Kinkoph, the Wireless Innovation Act, which Senator
Rubio introduced and I'm cosponsoring, requires NTIA, in
consultation with the Commission and the Director of the Office
of Management and Budget, to develop a framework for
determining the commercial value of each Federal spectrum band.
Further, every 5 years, the bill requires agencies that use
Federal spectrum to compare the opportunity cost of that
spectrum to the projected cost of relocating--co-locating,
leasing, or contracting out their spectrum use to a commercial
provider. Do the agencies have the tools on hand right now that
they need to do that sort of economic analysis?
Mr. Kinkoph. As I've indicated, spectrum does not fall into
my area of responsibility, but I would be happy to take that
back to our spectrum team and----
Senator Gardner. Fantastic. If you'd do that for the
record, that would be great.
[Mr. Kinkoph replied as follows:]
While NTIA is not in a position to evaluate the resources of other
agencies, it is highly unlikely that many agencies that use Federal
spectrum currently possess the tools, expertise, or relevant
information needed to conduct the expansive economic analysis required
under the proposed framework. NTIA does not currently have the
expertise or resources to develop the framework required by the
proposed legislation.
There are numerous challenges in even considering the development
of such a framework. Besides requiring a very large commitment of
resources, one of the challenges with developing and implementing the
proposed framework is the lack of quantifiable data necessary to
account for the value of each Federal agency's congressionally-mandated
mission. Under statutory changes enacted in 2012, NTIA is responsible
for balancing ``the best possible and most efficient use of
electromagnetic spectrum resources across the Federal Government. .
.with the needs and missions of Federal agencies.'' (47 U.S.C.
Sec. 902(b)(2)(U), added by Pub. L. 112-96, title VI, Sec. 6410, 126
Stat. 234 (2012)) Determining the opportunity cost of Federal spectrum
based on the potential commercial value of the spectrum alone would not
adequately account for or incorporate the social value of the
government missions or programs that rely on this spectrum. The
economic and non-economic societal benefits from meeting the public
interest goals that led to Congress mandating and funding an agency's
spectrum-dependent missions are difficult to quantify in economic
terms. Consequently, quantifying the economic value to ``the highest
commercial alternative use'' would not provide an informative proxy for
assessing the total social and economic value of a Federal spectrum
assignment. Additionally, since in most cases it is not a single
Federal agency utilizing a spectrum band, allocating economic value
between the various agency uses would be challenging.
Even if a framework for determining opportunity cost is developed
and implemented for a given Federal band, it does not resolve whether
it is possible and or practicable to make spectrum available while
still ensuring no loss of mission or capability to the Federal
agencies. Nearly every band used by the Federal Government is shared
among several agencies and developing a relocation or sharing plan with
associated costs is difficult, time consuming, and resource intensive.,
Requiring the agencies to determine potential relocation or sharing
costs for every Federal system in every band in which the agencies
operate is not practicable and may not lead to a scenario where a
comparative cost analysis is possible.
Senator Gardner. And you may or may not be able to answer
this. OMB and NTIA currently, are they working with the
agencies so they understand the economic value of their
spectrum use?
Mr. Kinkoph. I would also have to take that question back
for you.
[Mr. Kinkoph replied as follows:]
As directed in a 2013 Presidential Memorandum, the Administration
is continuing to work with the Federal agencies, through the White
House Spectrum Policy Team and the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), to evaluate spectrum efficiency in procurements and market-based
incentives for the efficient use of Federal spectrum. For years, OMB
guidance in Circular A-11 has instructed Federal agencies to consider
the economic value of spectrum in weighing alternative proposals for
deploying spectrum-based services. This guidance is intended to ensure
proper stewardship of the spectrum resource and requires a
certification from NTIA for the development or procurement of major
spectrum-dependent systems (and all satellite systems) using
congressionally appropriated funds.
Senator Gardner. Thank you.
And another question to you. The Broadband Opportunity
Council recommended the expediting of permitting on Federal
lands. Was the Council able to do a comparison of Federal
agencies and their efficiencies--or inefficiencies and
determine why some are better than others?
Mr. Kinkoph. No, that was not part of the review by the
Broadband Opportunity Council. However, they are taking on and
continuing on the 1316 616 work to ensure that we look at--and
also the historical preservation to ensure that we kind of
expedite the current permitting process.
Senator Gardner. And were you able to come up with a list
of your series of best practices as a result of that?
Mr. Kinkoph. That would be part of the work that will be
ongoing now that the report has been released.
Senator Gardner. Thank you.
And, Mr. Adelstein, as you may know, Senators Klobuchar,
Daines, and I plan to introduce a broadband infrastructure bill
that promises a ``dig once'' policy to couple broadband
expansion with new highway construction and improve the
broadband siting process on Federal lands. In your testimony,
you described the current process of installing and improving
broadband infrastructure on Federal lands as byzantine, and
argue that you need predictability and consistency to encourage
investment in this space. Do you believe our legislation would
move us toward these goals, if you're familiar with it, and
simplify the current process? And what does that mean for
broadband investment and infrastructure?
Mr. Adelstein. Absolutely. We support the Klobuchar-Gardner
bill. I think it's a fantastic idea. It requires broadband
conduits to be installed as part of certain highway
construction projects. I think that's important for rural and
urban areas alike. It's to--designed to reduce the number of
repeated excavations that are required, lowers the costs for
deployment by avoiding duplicative Federal reviews and the need
for multiple permits for work performed at the same location. I
think it assists in connecting wireless facilities to larger
network by getting those conduits in place. As demand
increases, we'll be able to use those to move forward, whether
it's for macro cell towers, DAS, or small cells that we talked
about earlier. All of these facilities require backhaul.
Basically, the wireless antenna's got to get back to the wired
network, and these conduits that you would enable through your
legislation will facilitate that. So, I think it would be very
important legislation to promote broadband deployment.
Senator Gardner. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Gardner.
Senator Daines.
STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE DAINES,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Couple of weeks ago, we had a high-tech job summit in my
hometown of Bozeman. Six hundred people showed up. Couple of
our keynote speakers--one was Dr. Craig Barrett, of Intel fame,
joined Intel in 1974, rose, became CEO 1998, and served as CEO
til 2005. We had Doug Burgum there, of Intel, of--which, when
it went through the--really, the high-growth phase--we had Doug
Burgum there, the founder of Great Plains Software, as
keynotes. And why were they in Montana, keynoting an event?
Because they were on their way to hunt, with their bows, elk
and mule deer. And you have an intersection now of elk and
electrons that are creating this revolution going on in the
high-tech world, this high-tech ecosystem that we are seeing
across much of western Montana.
But, one of the challenges that we face, certainly, is
broadband and connectivity. In fact, this year members of the
Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation will have, finally, access
to 3G service for the first time. So, we're not fighting for 4G
and 5G right now in parts of Montana, we're happy to get to 3G
at this moment here, and the Northern Cheyenne finally will
have access to it. But, the fact is, many of our rural
consumers and our tribes lack access to basic service and
access to any kind of broadband on most tribal lands in
Montana. It's virtually nonexistent.
And we've seen these high-tech jobs are growing ten times
faster than other sectors in our economy, at least in Montana.
And they're paying twice our average wages that we see in our
state.
So, I want to start with Mr. Adelstein. In your testimony,
you mentioned PCIA's involvement in working with tribal
leaders. Can you tell me specifically what PCIA has done to
work with tribal communities? And what are the biggest barriers
to broadband deployment on tribal lands?
Mr. Adelstein. Yes, you're certainly correct, Senator
Daines, that tribal areas are the most difficult to serve. I
mean, Chairman Thune and I are from South Dakota. We've seen
the--both the potential and the challenges in tribal areas in
our state. They're most in need of broadband because of the
economic challenges they face, and yet they're the most
difficult to build in. Part of it has to do with the land law
and the fact that those parcels are divided up, so it's very
hard to get access to rights-of-way. PCIA has participated in
the FCC's annual workshops on this, and the FCC's made a real
effort to try to help. We would love to serve tribal lands, but
these processes can be--make it very, very difficult to do so.
We also are having issues, increasingly, with tribes in
areas that aren't tribal areas, in getting their approval to
site new builds because of some of the review processes that we
think need to be streamlined somewhat. So, we'd like to work
with tribes on both getting broadband to their communities as
well as to all communities in the country, and respecting
tribal sovereignty and respecting the historic preservation
needs. At the same time, the need to get broadband out is
essential.
Senator Daines. Thank you.
Mr. Kinkoph, question. Your testimony states that past
partnerships with tribal authorities have been effective. Is
NTIA working to form these partnerships and help facilitate
projects in other states like Montana to connect these tribal
communities?
Mr. Kinkoph. Yes. We've, through our BTOP program,
connected eight different tribal networks throughout the United
States. And we continue to provide technical assistance, as
needed, through Broadband USA. We're currently working with
Merritt Networks, up in Michigan and Wisconsin area, with some
of the tribes to help them with their current connection
issues.
I think the Broadband Opportunity Council, though, presents
several options to helping move this issue forward. And one
is--the first one is, the DOI is looking to conduct a tribal
summit on broadband with--throughout the United States. So,
bring in the tribes and have a sitdown and a discussion on
broadband issues that they're facing across the United States.
And that would be a multi-agency summit.
Second, the DOI has stepped up and has agreed to launch an
interagency tribal school tech initiative to help bring more
technology into the tribal schools.
Third, there is the DOL, which has agreed to start to
expand tech-based job training into the tribal lands.
And then the fourth one that is part of the BOC is that DOI
is looking to make available the 4,000 towers that they own on
tribal and rural land available to the private industry, which
I think will go a long way in bringing connectivity to some of
those areas.
Senator Daines. Thank you. That's a good update. Appreciate
it.
I want to, as I close here--run out of time--Mr. Morrison,
your testimony talked about the importance of a networked
society. I couldn't agree more. We've seen what happens in
places like southwest Montana, where you have a blue ribbon
trout stream in your backyard, and you have connectivity--you
can work where you also like to play, as we say in Montana.
Congress needs to do away with the regulatory roadblocks, and
helping these communities streamline investment for broadband
infrastructure is one of the key components. Senator Gardner
mentioned the bill he'll be introducing with Senator Klobuchar
to address these roadblocks.
What can Congress, the Federal Government, do to
incentivize companies to build out rural America?
Mr. Morrison. Senator, that's a really good question. And
it's an important one.
Senator, a very good question. I really believe, though,
that the--that question would be better answered by the
commercial carriers than by Ericsson at this time.
Senator Daines. OK. All right.
I'm out of time. I'm out of time, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Daines.
Senator Manchin, followed by Senator----
STATEMENT OF HON. JOE MANCHIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Manchin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate it.
And thank you all for being here.
This, I guess, would be to Mr. Morrison.
Mr. Morrison. Yes, Senator.
Senator Manchin. In preparation for the hearing, I reached
out to the U.S. Forest Service to see if there was anything I
could do to expedite permit approvals of the towers at
Monongahela National Forest, which is predominantly in West
Virginia. It turns out there are 14 towers located in the
Forest Service property, and the Forest Service has received a
grand total of zero applications for cellular or broadband
installations in West Virginia. Zero.
While I'm committed to working with my colleagues to
streamline the Federal permitting process, we have a much more
immediate need in West Virginia, attracting enough private
investment to build out basic wireless infrastructure. As you
noted in your testimony, I believe that $70 million has been
returned to the Mobility Fund. I think you said $73 million to
Mobility. It could be a great place to start. And I've invited
Chairman Wheeler to come see firsthand the rural communications
challenges that remain in rural America, mostly West Virginia.
What can we do, in your opinion, to attract investment in
truly unserved areas? And do you think that the Mobility Fund
could play a role in this?
Mr. Morrison. Senator, that actually wasn't in my
testimony.
[Mr. Morrison later amplified his testimony in writing
below:]
Ericsson supports improving the ``Mobility Fund'' by targeting
funding allocated for infrastructure to the truly unserved areas that
still exist in our Nation today. In our written testimony, we
highlighted this support and acknowledged Senator Manchin's recent
engagement with the FCC on this issue. We appreciate his leadership on
this effort and recognize that he knows firsthand the challenges rural
America faces with access to infrastructure. In terms of states with
advanced wireless penetration, West Virginia ranks as one of the
lowest, and that needs to change. Without investment by the Federal
Government as well as incentives for private investment in such areas,
states like West Virginia will never experience the full benefits of a
networked society.
Senator Manchin. Seventy million? Well, somebody's
testimony. Which one of you want to speak up?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Adelstein. I can certainly address the issue, Senator
Manchin.
I think one of the reasons you're not seeing any
applications for Forest Service in your State----
Senator Manchin. I think you mentioned it, sir, but that's
all right.
Mr. Adelstein.--is because our members that build these
facilities are loathe to go into Federal lands, because it's
almost impossible to get sited. You go----
Senator Manchin. No, we're--we have 14 towers. We've got
nobody on them. Towers are there.
Mr. Adelstein. But, are they available, really, for use? I
think the Broadband----
Senator Manchin. Sure.
Mr. Adelstein.--Opportunity Council made it much easier to
use those, but there's a need for----
Senator Manchin. Well, the permitting process is tough. We
know that.
Mr. Adelstein. Right.
Senator Manchin. But, we have 14 towers in the national
forest right now, and we're not utilizing the towers to the
extent they could be. I don't know why you're not--who--how
come you're not wanting to get on those towers?
Mr. Kinkoph. NTIA does----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Kinkoph. You know, I think the issue is----
Senator Manchin. We just want service is all we want.
We want just a little bit of service. Not much, just a
little bit.
Mr. Kinkoph. As Jonathan was going to say--is that it is
a--the BOC is looking at ways to streamline the process and get
it on. What of the things I do know is that agencies--the
recent Middle-Class Tax Cut Relief Act--GSA just finished
helping to streamline that process through master templates.
But, even there, there's not an obligation for each Federal
agency to adopt and use those. They're not required to. So,
there is work to be done, and the BOC will continue to try to
move that forward to improve efficiencies.
Senator Manchin. Well, you all work on the map, too, don't
you?
Mr. Kinkoph. The map----
Senator Manchin. Do you all do the map?
Mr. Kinkoph. The map was actually transferred to the FCC
the end of June. So, the FCC is now in charge of the map.
Senator Manchin. In charge of it. I know that you're
showing my state, West Virginia, with 97 percent coverage. I
would say you'd better look at that map again.
Mr. Kinkoph. We'll do that.
Senator Manchin. Who--I mean, it doesn't--it's not
accurate.
Mr. Kinkoph. The map--the development of the map over time
has evolved and become more and more accurate. The data
collection came from--the State collects it from the providers.
It is then provided to NTIA, and we have it uploaded by the
FCC, historically. Now, the FCC has----
Senator Manchin. I'm saying you had Indiana, Mississippi,
Kansas, Illinois, and Louisiana, and Texas at 100 percent.
Mr. Kinkoph. Yes.
Senator Manchin. Now, whoever represents--if--I'm sure if
Senator Wicker was here, he would tell you that--maybe good old
Mississippi is not quite there.
Mr. Kinkoph. Yes. Some of the----
Senator Manchin. I know we're not at 97 percent.
Mr. Kinkoph. Yes. Some of the verification--the states were
obligated to do the verification, and that came down to
resources. I know, in South Dakota, we were informed that they
drove over 40,000 miles, literally, to check the cell-site
reaches. So, they did it, basically, manually. That's how it's
done. And some states have not had the resources to do that to
the full extent.
Senator Manchin. Final question I would have is on the
spectrum auction that was held. And I think you mentioned, I
think, Mr. Adelstein, you said $45 billion, and that reduced
our deficit by $28 billion. How do you believe private
companies can help accelerate the transition process? And what
Federal regulations might prevent them from playing a role in
that process, for us to be able----
Mr. Adelstein. In terms of using the--spectrum?
Senator Manchin. Absolutely.
Mr. Adelstein. Yes, I think it--we need to clear that as
quickly as possible. One of the problems with that spectrum is,
it's encumbered by Federal users. NTIA has done a good job, I
think, of trying to corral them, but we need to get that
spectrum that was paid for so dearly into use as quickly as
possible.
Senator Manchin. What's taking it so long?
Mr. Adelstein. Well, it----
Senator Manchin. Why do you find that--you're stating it
could be a 5-year transition?
Mr. Adelstein. It--well, there are a number of reasons why
it takes so long to implement spectrum. One of them is the need
to relocate Federal users and get them moved, but also there's
a need to build the infrastructure and get it all sited.
There's a need for handsets to be changed out.
Senator Manchin. But, the private will move a lot quicker
and then--than what we're--the Federal. I'm saying, if we're
the impediment, this is a committee that you should work with
and give us an idea of what we can do to release that or kind
of spur the Federal Government in releasing that spectrum,
letting it go.
Mr. Adelstein. I think it's urgent for NTIA to do
everything they can to help move those fellow users. I know
they're taking that responsibility very seriously and they're
doing it. It can't be done quickly enough.
But, there are not only, you know, Federal issues. I mean,
it takes time to, basically, get spectrum into use. Already I
think very shortly we'll be able to use some of the----
Senator Manchin. Mr. Resnick, you said--Honorable Mr.
Resnick here is shaking his head like the dickens, no.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Resnick. Well, we've got the--thank you, Senator. And
I'm not the expert in this area, either, but it's----
Senator Manchin. You've got an----
Mr. Resnick.--known in the communications industry that
many entities that purchase this spectrum do so not necessarily
with the intent to use it right away, but to hold it in the
event that their business plans change and they may need it or
to prohibit competitors from obtaining it and boxing them in to
not having access to it. So, there's a tremendous amount of
spectrum out there that's held now by satellite companies
that----
Senator Manchin. Speculated, right? Speculation?
Mr. Resnick. Yes.
Senator Manchin. So, what you're saying is, when we sell
the spectrum, it--basically, you should use it or lose it?
Mr. Resnick. Like any other permit.
Senator Manchin. Gotcha.
The Chairman. The Senator from West Virginia. And I think
the statement you were looking for was in the cloud.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. That's a--you're way ahead of the rest of us,
Senator Manchin, so----
Senator Ayotte.
STATEMENT OF HON. KELLY AYOTTE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Ayotte. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Kinkoph, I wanted to ask you--one of the goals of the
Broadband Opportunity Council is, of course, to modernize
Federal programs to expand support for broadband investment.
You've heard a number of my colleagues asking about, How do we
do that, particularly in rural areas? New Hampshire is one of
the states under the Universal Service Fund that continues to
be underfunded. I think my constituents get a pretty raw deal,
because we're receiving 41 cents for every dollar that we
contribute. I would welcome any of you to come drive around my
state in Coos County, in Grafton, and even areas of Cheshire,
that you cannot get full access to broadband, which is very
important to economic development and access in general. I also
would ask, How do we reform this program, and what can the
Rural Utilities Service and NTIA, along with other Federal
agencies, do to encourage the FCC to tackle USF contribution
reform? Because I have to say to my constituents, ``I'm sorry
you're paying all this on your phone bills, because you're not
getting it back.'' We still have a lot of needs. And so, I'm
kind of like, Why are we doing this? Is there any look at
reforming USF to make it more viable--more responsive to what
we need in the country?
Mr. Kinkoph. I would defer that to the FCC, who has
jurisdiction over that program.
I would say that the Broadband Opportunity Council has many
options in front of it, or several options in front it, that
could be beneficial----
Senator Ayotte. With all respect, as the Broadband
Opportunity Council, I would hope that you would make
recommendations as to what the FCC could do to take this issue
up, because it's a very important issue.
Mr. Kinkoph. Thank you. So, on the--so, some of the issues
that would have a benefit to your state in helping to promote
broadband would be--the Department of Transportation is
currently looking at pushing down the rules and clarifying
rules to the states for providing opportunities to access the
conduit, the pole attachments in those states today. There's a
lot of clarity that needs to be pushed out to the states as to
how current infrastructure related to the Department of
Transportation could be used for broadband. I think that's
going to go a long ways in letting people understand how to
utilize it.
The DOI, as I mentioned earlier, the towers that are
throughout all the rural and Federal lands--there's 4,000 of
them--that, you know, clarity on how the private industry can
get access to those to provide wireless is also a critical step
in that direction.
And then there is the open data inventory, which--of
Federal assets--which is one of the BOC initiatives, which is
an inventory of all the assets that are available that external
private industry can look at and potentially utilize to help
leverage those to provide broadband, whether wirelessly or
wired.
So, I think those are three big steps for rural states and
other states around the country that it will help expand and
promote the use of broadband.
Senator Ayotte. Mr. Adelstein, do you have any comment on
USF? It seems to me this is an important issue as you look at
opportunity to expand broadband and how we're using Federal
resources effectively to do that, and properly.
Mr. Adelstein. I think you're absolutely right. And we'd
love to see the Mobility Fund--the FCC's created, but not
funded the Mobility Fund--to make sure that there's--is funding
for wireless systems to build the infrastructure to provide the
business case to build that.
It's also important that there be predictability. I used to
head the Rural Utility Service, and some of the changes in USF,
I think, undercut the ability of rural communities to apply for
loans and get them repaid, because they weren't certain what
the revenue flow would be. You know, if you take out a loan,
you have to know what the revenue's going to be if you want to
build a wireless system or a wired system. I think it's very
important for there to be predictability and consistency and
understanding, going forward, of what that's going to be.
You know, the challenge in rural areas is one for our
industry of trying to find the capital return on investment.
And having these Federal programs are really essential to make
up for the fact that you have lower densities and similar fixed
costs.
Senator Ayotte. It's just really hard sometimes for me to
justify this fund to my constituents. If they could keep this
pot of money in New Hampshire, and our Governor and legislature
could have it to build out broadband and opportunity, they
could get a lot more efficiency out of it and probably cover
much greater parts of our state. That's what the challenge is,
because we feel like we're subsidizing areas that aren't rural,
actually, and so the fund sometimes is used to build out
duplicative areas. Do you see that as an issue that needs to be
addressed?
Mr. Adelstein. Well, certainly a lot of the fund is going
also to individual phones, called the Lifeline Program, which
is very helpful, but there's been some abuse of the system.
We'd like to see the funds go into infrastructure.
Senator Ayotte. Where everyone can benefit.
Mr. Adelstein. Right.
Senator Ayotte. Yes.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Ayotte.
Senator Udall.
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Udall. Thank you, Chairman Thune. Thank you very
much.
And being from South Dakota, Chairman Thune, I know you
understand the digital divide and the real challenge facing
rural areas.
Having no cell phone reception is not just an inconvenience
for people, it can mean not being able to call 911 in an
emergency. And I know you all realize that. And the--during the
years, we've had many people come forward and talk about some
of those devastating consequences, in terms of not being hooked
up to the emergency network.
Mobile broadband also enables innovation and new
opportunities for job creation. And that's something we really
want to see in New Mexico in our rural areas. Our constituents
living in rural areas should not be left behind.
So, I'm glad, Chairman Thune, that you're focusing the
Committee on this subject.
Mr. Adelstein, when you were RUS administrator--you just
mentioned that--I had the pleasure of hosing you in Moriarty,
New Mexico, for a broadband and smart-grid summit. And I know,
you know, you enjoyed that. You've got a smile on your face
still. So, I know you understand that building broadband
infrastructure in New Mexico and other rural states can involve
approvals from multiple Federal agencies, such as the Bureau of
Land Management, the Forest Service. And I want to ask you
about ways to streamline the permitting process for broadband
deployment on Federal lands. Could you discuss potential
changes that could reduce the cost of deployments, such as
piggybacking on existing rights-of-way? For example, installing
a fiber optic line along an existing powerline or other
infrastructure where the ground has already been disturbed,
rather than chopping it up for a new line.
Mr. Adelstein. Yes, thank you. We--I hope we've made
progress on broadband in New Mexico since then, but I know----
Senator Udall. We have. We have, with your good help.
Mr. Adelstein. And your great leadership. I know you've
been committed to this issue for a long time. And I think
Federal lands, which control so much of your State, are really
critical, because those are vast rural areas that have
virtually no coverage, because our industry is afraid to go
there, because they get caught up in these reviews.
There's actually a bill--I see Senator Klobuchar is here,
that she's considering legislation on this. Senator Rubio's
introduced legislation, S. 1618. Senator Gardner talked about
this earlier. We think that there are things you can do. You
can create a standard fee schedule so our people know exactly
what the rates are going to be across different agencies, and
have it be based on real costs. You can have fee retention by
agency, which that bill would enable, which would allow the
agency, basically, to take a piece of the pie to help pay for
other cost of doing the processing of those forms so that they
have an incentive to get these things done instead of agencies
that, like, you know--I'm not going to name any agencies that
are going to be mad at them--but, you know, just put it at the
bottom of their pile, because their job is to manage Federal
lands, not to enable broadband. I think having common forms and
contracts would be extremely helpful. It's in that bill. Have
an expectancy of lease renewal. Sometimes on Federal lands, we
get very short lease periods. You want to invest a huge amount
of capital to build, say, a tower, for example, that's got a
30-year life, and you get a 5- or 10-year lease expectancy,
it's very helpful if you can get a longer term. We--the bill
calls for point of contact. And--oversee a negotiation process
to get that done, to make sure if something gets caught up,
that it gets moved. And regular reporting on progress to
Congress.
I think the Broadband Opportunity Council had a lot of
great ideas. There are other ideas that could build upon it
that this committee could address through legislation.
Senator Udall. Yes. Well--no, thank you very much for that
answer. And it's really good to see fellow Senators working on
this, including Senator Klobuchar and Senator Gardner.
Do--other members of other panel, do you have ideas on this
specific area?
Please.
Mr. Kinkoph. The Broadband Opportunity Council will be
addressing this issue. And we have sat down with several
providers that have shared very similar lists as PCIA, here.
So, I think that it goes a long ways in sharing that
information with the Committee as we move forward to try to
implement some of this streamlining.
Senator Udall. Great.
Mayor? Please.
Mr. Resnick. Thank you, Senator. Again, it's a privilege to
be here.
My committee at the FCC, the Intergovernmental Advisory
Committee, consists of mayors and State legislators and Indian
tribe members from around the country. So, we have a broad
perspective of the status of broadband and what needs to be
done around the country.
But, one of the things that we've recognized is that there
are many Federal programs, especially dealing with
transportation initiatives, that do not allow broadband to be
built under the grants that are awarded under those programs. I
have two members of my committee from Kansas, and I, as well,
even though I'm from an urban area in Florida. We wanted to use
grants that we receive from four transportation projects, and
we were not--to install conduits--and we were not allowed to
install conduits as part of those projects. So, if there are
ways of eliminating some of those barriers under existing
Federal programs, that would be helpful.
Senator Udall. Great. Thank you very much.
I've run out of time, but if you want to give a very quick
answer, with the Chairman's permission----
Mr. Morrison. I was just going to echo the sentiments of
the representative from PCIA, but also add that each department
within the Federal Government sometimes has its own processes.
If the process was the same, it would be quicker and more
commercially viable for commercial carriers to deploy quicker.
You know, one checklist would be very helpful, moving forward.
Senator Udall. Great.
Thank you for those answers.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Udall.
Senator Blumenthal.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
having this hearing on a really important topic that has
national implications, I think in every state in the country.
In Connecticut, for example, a recent article by AP
reporter Stephen Singer, which appeared widely in our state,
entitled ``Digital Divide: Northwest Hills of Connecticut
Struggle to Gain Broadband Access,'' demonstrated very
graphically how the northwestern part of our state suffers from
great gaps in coverage and laggard reception in many areas.
This area has about 22 towns and 200,000 residents, including
Meryl Streep and Henry Kissinger and a number of other
boldfaced names that would be well known to you, but it is
covered in a way that local officials and residents say is
extremely limited--in fact, lacking--so that business growth is
stalled, schools are undermined, not to mention ordinary
households suffering from a lack of coverage.
I ask that this article be placed in the record.
The Chairman. So ordered.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
[The information referred to follows:]
The Register Citizen
Digital Divide: Northwest hills of Connecticut struggle to gain
broadband access
(AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
By STEPHEN SINGER, AP Business Writer
POSTED: 10/04/15, 12:11 PM EDT UPDATED: ON 10/04/2015
HARTFORD >> Connecticut's Litchfield hills, which boast premier
antique shops, vineyards and 18th century inns, also feature cellphone
dead zones and super-slow Internet service that infuriate residents and
frustrate businesses.
Telecommunications companies say hilly terrain and dense woods are
to blame and angry residents accuse the companies of refusing to wire
the region because the investment doesn't pay in sparsely populated
areas.
``We're not going under, but it's increasingly painful,'' said
Klaus Knuth, innkeeper at the Blackberry River Inn in Norfolk.
Guests expect to connect to the Internet on their phones, tablets
or laptops, but Wi-Fi is only ``so-so'' in the building that houses
most of the inn's rooms, he said. ``The rest is dead,'' Knuth said.
Some businesses such as Founders Insurance Agency in Salisbury and
Torrington rely on coaxial cable that transmits data, but not graphics
or video. Frank Buonocore, a company vice president, called the service
reliable and ``adequate for our purposes.''
Others, such as Steve Bowen, a retired advertising executive, make
private arrangements to secure broadband. He said he paid $5,000 to
bring a line to his Sharon home and now advises residents and officials
how to market their campaign for expanded broadband access.
``We can wait 10 years for it to come here naturally or we can jump
the gun,'' Bowen said.
Known for its natural beauty on the doorstep of the Berkshires in
Massachusetts and New York's Hudson Valley, the Litchfield hills are
home to celebrities such as Meryl Streep and Henry Kissinger and are a
destination for tourists and New Yorkers who can afford second homes.
But local officials and residents say limited cellphone and high-
speed Internet access stall business growth and undermine schools that
depend on the web.
``It's difficult to attract people to that kind of a landscape,''
said state Consumer Counsel Elin Swanson Katz.
Connecticut officials promoting an initiative for super-fast
Internet cannot force unregulated telecommunications firms to expand
broadband. ``We're sort of a catalyst,'' said Bill Vallee, the state's
broadband policy coordinator.
State Rep. Roberta Willis, D-Salisbury, accuses telecommunications
companies of failing to do enough to build broadband networks.
``You just can't say it's the topography and walk away,'' she said.
``If electricity companies were deregulated like this there would be no
electricity in my district.''
Comcast spokeswoman Laura Brubaker Crisco said the
telecommunications firm has extended its network nearly 62 miles in
northwest Connecticut since 2005 and completed nearly 100 projects
extending fiber more than 10 miles in the past two years.
``However, there are some low-density areas where it is not
economic for Comcast or other providers to build out,'' she said.
David Snyder, vice president for engineering for the east region of
Frontier Communications Corp., said due to the area's topography,
``it's just natural the investment and the time become more
challenging.''
Frontier has connected broadband to 40,000 households in
Connecticut, including the northwest region, since it began operations
in the state a year ago, he said.
How many residents in the region are without broadband is not
known. Katz and Kim Maxwell, the technical adviser to the group of
officials and others working to extend broadband, said about 10 percent
of homes in rural areas are estimated to have no access. Vallee said it
could be more.
Closing the so-called digital divide separating those with and
without high-speed Internet access has drawn funding from the Federal
Communications Commission and the telecommunications industry. Alex
Phillips, president of the Wireless Internet Service Providers
Association, which serves rural areas, said too much money is spent on
studies, ``but the regular guy still doesn't have adequate choice or
adequate service.''
Northwest Connecticut includes about 22 towns with about 200,000
residents in 85,000 households, Maxwell said. Extending broadband in
much of the area could be completed by 2018 at a cost of as much as
$350 million financed by bonds, he said.
``People want this to happen,'' he said. ``I'd be really surprised
if this doesn't happen.''
Senator Blumenthal. So, let me ask you, Mr. Resnick--you've
mentioned in your testimony, I think, some of the ways that
Internet access can be--and wireless--can be broadened. Co-
location, I think, is one of the methods. Can you suggest some
others that local communities can use, as a mayor?
Mr. Resnick. Thank you, Senator.
Yes. Many of us had--used to have access to institutional
networks, fiber networks, that were used by the local
governments, whether a county or a city, and we could get
anchor institutions on those networks, as well as our own
government facilities, so they could provide interconnection
communications services for our police and fire, but also we
could have schools, we could have hospitals, we could have
other anchor institutions as part of those networks.
Most of us lost the ability to obtain those networks when
State cable franchising came into play. And so, that might be
something that, as a Federal--at the Federal level, we might
want to relook at, because State franchising doesn't provide
for the continuation of institutional networks. And so, now
these entities that, before, built it, had it paid for through
their fees, are now telling us that, ``Oh, if you want to
continue using this fiber, it's going--you're going to be under
a managed solution, and it's going to cost us hundreds of
thousands of dollars a year.'' So, as a result, we're now
paying for broadband connectivity to schools and libraries,
police stations, fire stations, hospitals, where, before, it
was provided as an amenity as part of that process. That would
be one solution.
Senator Blumenthal. And the telecommunications companies
often blame the terrain or woods. And northwestern Connecticut
has plenty of both, hilly terrain and dense woods. Residents
there believe that the telecommunications companies have
avoided the investment because these areas are sparsely
populated.
What about other methods, such as spectrum-sharing? I don't
know whether any of the folks who are here today have
perspectives on that issue.
Mr. Kinkoph?
Mr. Kinkoph. As I've said, spectrum is not in my area of
responsibility, but NTIA does believe spectrum-sharing is
critical to opening up enough spectrum for the broadband--
wireless broadband community, and it is one of the ways that
they envision--that NTIA envisions reaching the 500 megahertz
goal by 2020. So, we do support it.
Senator Blumenthal. And in your experience, Mr. Resnick,
how ready and willing are the telecommunications companies to
cooperate with you?
Mr. Resnick. Well, as I indicated in my testimony, there's
been a greater degree of cooperation with the industry
associations and the local government associations. In
particular, we issued a joint information in response to recent
FCC regulations. So, I think--and Mr. Adelstein and I have a
long history of working together--that there is an interest in
cooperation. It doesn't do either of us any good to try and
point fingers and say, ``You're the reason why infrastructure
cannot be deployed as quickly as we would like.'' And so, I
think the area of--the intent of cooperation would continue.
Senator Blumenthal. There really is a common goal here.
Mr. Resnick. Absolutely. As I indicated in my testimony,
the communities definitely want access to advanced broadband
services at an affordable rate throughout all of our
communities, not just rural, but also urban. I live in a very
urban area, and there are portions of my area that do not have
access to advanced broadband services, either. And so, it's not
just a rural issue, it's--there are a whole host of reasons why
people do not subscribe to broadband services. Yes, there are
issues with it being available, but the FCC, at least,
according to information that was presented to my committee,
the majority of folks that do not subscribe to broadband do so
either because it's not affordable or because they don't see
the value in it. They do not understand how it would improve
their lives. And so, my city, for example, wanted to build a
digital literacy center using CDBG funds, which we receive, and
we were told that we're not allowed to use that Federal program
for building a digital literacy center.
So, there are restrictions on funds that are already out
there that might be--and I think that's part of the Broadband
Opportunity Council's recommendations--is to look at those
restrictions and open things up so that these Federal programs
can be used for broadband deployment.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you very much.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal.
Next up is my neighbor and best-selling author, Senator
Klobuchar.
[Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I was kind of smiling, looking knowingly at Senator Thune when
Senator Blumenthal was talking about all the rural parts of his
state that are sparsely populated.
[Laughter.]
Senator Klobuchar. Which the Mayor has acknowledged that is
true in every state in the country. But, we just have a little
bit more of it.
And I appreciate your leadership, Mr. Chairman, in having
this hearing, and also in the work that we have done to push
the FCC to do something different with the Universal Service
Fund and some of those requirements so we can free up more
money.
I've really been struck, being at home the last year
especially, with the number of people that are raising this
issue. I've sort of figured out what happened, is they had some
access in the rural areas, but it now--technology has changed,
and their work is changing, and farmers are expected to, you
know, go in to their suppliers and tell them exactly what's
happening every day with the temperatures where their turkeys
are being kept and other things. And so, what's basically
happening is that their work is changing--in schools, not just
in businesses--so that the high-speed aspect of this and having
high-quality Internet is becoming incredibly important.
I've heard stories, on a reservation, of one house that had
Wi-Fi, and the entire group of kids would be over in the yard--
just try to picture it--trying to hook up to that Wi-Fi in one
house's yard.
Or the story of farmers and small business owners that go
to the McDonald's every day to be able to report back to some
of their customers and suppliers, because they're not able to--
while they might have Internet, they're not able to send--and
they don't have the capacity to send the kind of documents and
videos and other things that they have to send to do their
jobs.
So, this is a real issue right at a time where our economy
is stabilizing, we're seeing improvements, but we're still
actually seeing a lot of rural poverty. We just saw some
numbers on that. And so, this is, to me, not a crisis as much
as an opportunity to make some improvements. And that's why I'm
introducing the bill today, with Senator Daines and Senator
Gardner--and I appreciate their support, and I'm sure others--
to make some changes in how we streamline and invest in the
broadband infrastructure. And that's the ``dig once'' concept.
When there's Federal projects, it's also requiring the GSA to
work with Federal agencies to consolidate and streamline
contracts and fees for deploying broadband infrastructure.
And maybe I'll start with you, Mr. Adelstein, since you've
been positive about this bill. And I know my colleagues have
mentioned it, as well. Could you talk about the importance of
doing that? And also, this issue of how population density
drives where spectrum is built out and what more we can do to
reframe the deployment process to get more of this going in
rural areas.
Mr. Adelstein. Senator Klobuchar, I'm thrilled that you're
introducing bipartisan legislation today to address this issue,
these many issues, actually. Your bill would take care of
improving broadband deployment on Federal lands, which, of
course, comprise much of Minnesota. It also helps with the
``dig once'' policy, as I understand it, which is really
critical to getting the backhaul that we need. Your cosponsor,
Senator Gardner, also raised this issue, and we discussed the
fact that every one of these antennas, which is increasingly
where people are getting and--receiving and transmitting their
data, has to connect back to fiber, ideally, and having that
ability to get access to those conduits. Whenever something is
being built in a rural area or in an urban area, we ought to
have the opportunity to use that for broadband connectivity,
because those are really the roads and bridges of the future.
And so, when we're building today's roads, let's also build
those digital highways so that we can continue to expand
capacity to meet it.
So, your bill, I think, really hits the right notes, both
for urban and rural areas, to expand broadband connectivity.
Senator Klobuchar. Could you talk about the lack of
consistency and the resulting uncertainty that's affecting your
member companies' ability to deploy wireless broadband? What
else can we do about that?
Mr. Adelstein. Do you mean on Federal lands, in particular?
Senator Klobuchar. Uh-huh.
Mr. Adelstein. Yes. Each agency tends to have its own
process. We were thrilled that GSA finally completed its model
forms that you asked them to do back in 2012. Congress had to
put a lot of pressure on them, but they got that done. And
that'll help, but there's a lot more that needs to be done. I
think that, you know, negotiations with the Federal Government
take, on average, 4 years, compared to less than 2 for the
private sector, and sometimes it can take 10 and more. The
Federal Government's foregoing revenue, because our members
will literally go right next door to Federal property rather
than use Federal lands to site, even if Federal land might be
in a better location to get service where it's needed.
So, I think that we need to have, like, a standard fee
schedule that your bill proposes. We need fee retention for the
agencies so that they can use those funds to process the
applications. We need common forms and contracts. There's no
reason that each agency needs to have their own separate
process, and we have to run into all of these roadblocks that
your bill would address.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much.
Last, Mr. Kinkoph, could you talk about why coordinating
broadband deployment with highway construction is important?
Mr. Kinkoph. In the BOC, we have--there is a commitment
from the Department of Transportation to push down and clarify
the--that broadband should be considered a part of the
opportunity when digging once. I mean, it is a clear benefit to
the country to have these rules clarified to the States. A lot
of this is run by the States, so it's really a clarification
from the Federal level to the states that they can utilize and
deploy conduit when they dig, et cetera. So, I agree with
Jonathan that we should be laying conduit wherever possible.
Senator Klobuchar. OK, thanks.
I'm beyond my time, but I'll ask you one for the record
later, Mr. Morrison, so we don't have to go into it, but it's
this issue of towers being built, but the Federal permitting
process actually slows it down. And so, it basically renders
the tower useless if you can't get the broadband in there. So,
I'm sure you're familiar with this.
Mr. Morrison. Most definitely.
I did want to answer one of the questions that you asked
earlier about what the Federal Government could do to move
quicker as--when we talk about application processes. And let
me just give you an example. As a--you know, we'll call it a
landlord at the Federal Government, if we have an opportunity
in wireless community to go to a roof, it's a quick sale to a
commercial rooftop owner, ``Sir, ma'am, you know, how much
revenue is your rooftop generating?'' ``Well, it's actually
costing me $5,000 a year to maintain.'' ``Well, you know what?
We'll go ahead and install a commercial antenna on there, and
we'll actually pay you double that, so you'll cover your cost
of maintenance, plus you'll have a little bit of money left
over.'' Those transactions can happen as quickly as in 2 weeks.
Sometimes, on average, maybe 2-3 months. Anytime we go through
a process with the Federal Government to lease any kind of
property--and we're not talking about the permitting, we're
talking about the business aspect of it, the numeration--it is
months, if not years, to make that negotiation. So, my
suggestion would be that the Federal Government take a look at
what the process is from a business perspective, just to be a
little bit more nimble.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar.
Next up, Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Markey.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Markey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
This hearing is about the future, obviously. This is where
we should be the leader. And spectrum is the oxygen of the
wireless world, and we need more oxygen so that more innovation
can occur. And that doesn't make any difference that exists on
this committee. If you want to be wirelessly following the
Green Bay Packers or the Minnesota Vikings or the New England
Patriots, you want a wireless device. And you can be out in the
Berkshires and have bad system out there, so we need to do
something about it.
And I think one of the areas that we can look at is how the
Federal Government can move more of its spectrum out into the
private sector. That's what happened in 1993. The Defense
Department wasn't happy about it, but we took it, and it
created the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth cell phone
companies in America.
So, I've actually joined with Senator Fischer in
introducing a bill, the Federal Spectrum Incentive Act, because
this really does know no State boundaries. And what the bill
does is, it incentivizes Federal agencies to give up spectrum
by allowing them to receive a portion of the spectrum auction
proceeds. Like 1 percent. That's all they get. But, it says to
them, ``Start thinking now about what spectrum you can give
up,'' and, as quickly as possible, you get your one percent
return. And that's kind of a win-win, because you're not
deciding which spectrum should go, but you're leaving it up to
the agency and saying, ``You get a reward for doing it.''
And over on the House side, that's bipartisan over there,
as well. It's Doris Matsui and Representative Guthrie, a
Republican from Kentucky, OK, who have introduced the same
bill. They're having a hearing on that today. And the bill has
been endorsed by the Consumer Electronics Association as
something that they believe will help to telescope the time
frame it takes in order to get that spectrum out and into the
marketplace to reduce the crunch that exists.
So, Mr. Morrison, maybe you could talk about that. What do
you think about that as an idea that can help to move the
spectrum out and into the private sector?
Mr. Morrison. I appreciate the question, Senator, but I
can't really provide an answer at this time. I'm happy to
confer with appropriate parties within Ericsson and get back an
answer that we'll submit in to the Committee for inclusion in
the hearing. But, that's not my personal area of expertise.
[Mr. Morrison later submitted the following for the
record:]
Ericsson supports the advancement of legislative efforts, including
the ``Federal Spectrum Incentive Act,'' to clear underutilized spectrum
currently held by the Federal Government for commercial, licensed
broadband use. We applaud the leadership of Senators Markey and Fischer
whose bill offers new incentives for Federal agencies to relinquish
badly-needed spectrum. This will ultimately make our networks more
efficient, create jobs, raise revenue at a time when budgets are
constrained, and foster innovation.
Senator Markey. OK.
Mr. Adelstein, do you think we should be incentivizing the
Federal agencies to start moving the spectrum out? And do you
think this is a potentially workable way of accomplishing that
goal?
Mr. Adelstein. Absolutely. I think it's an excellent bill,
and I think that the agencies need incentive to move it.
They've got--they're sitting on enormous amounts of spectrum.
NTIA is trying to get them to move. But, if you actually have
them have a piece of the pie so that they can pay for their own
costs of moving to new systems, also they can maybe buy new
radio systems--some Federal systems are very antiquated--and if
you can say, ``Look, if you'll get off the spectrum, you can
use new equipment, use it more efficiently. Here are some funds
to do it.''--it takes Congress to do that, because right now
the law requires that all proceeds from spectrum auctions go
straight to the Treasury. Why not let some go to the agencies
that need those costs to recover the cost of them to move? I
think that bill would help to move more spectrum into the
commercial mobile use, which we urgently need, as we've
discussed throughout this hearing.
Senator Markey. Yes. I think we do need to find some way,
Mr. Chairman, of incentivizing all these agencies to move, and
maybe finding a little revenue stream that helps them with--pay
for their costs.
And so, you know, I'd like to work with you--I know my
staff's been talking to your staff about it, but I'd love to be
able to work with you and Senator Fischer and try to find some
smart way of kind of replicating what we did in the past. These
agencies have more spectrum than they need. And hopefully we
could work together to accomplish that goal.
Do any of the other witnesses want to speak on that bill?
Mr. Kinkoph. From an NTIA standpoint, while it's not my
area of expertise on the spectrum side, I do know that our
Office of Spectrum Management is currently reviewing that. Be
happy to put our staff in contact with yours.
Senator Markey. That would be helpful to us.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The Senator from Massachusetts is right, the
Federal Government is sitting on a large share of that
spectrum. We need to figure out how to break that loose. So, I
look forward to working with you.
The Senator who represents America's team, the Senator from
Wisconsin.
[Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF HON. RON JOHNSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN
Senator Johnson. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm
sure the Chairman would also agree with me that we obviously
need that spectrum to broadcast Green Bay Packer games, you
know, primarily.
[Laughter.]
Senator Markey. We'll see you in the Super Bowl.
[Laughter.]
Senator Johnson. I hope so.
[Laughter.]
Senator Johnson. Mr. Morrison, I want to kind of pick up
where you left off, talking about the difficulty of negotiating
with the government. Tell me, from your perspective, why that
is. I mean, what is the impediment?
Mr. Morrison. I think, first and foremost--and we talked
about it earlier, my colleague with--from the PCIA --one, each
Federal department has its own process. So, again, as we
approach the Federal Government, it's, ``OK, which organization
within the Federal Government?'' So, it's not standardized. The
second thing is, the rules aren't the same. And then, the third
component is that there's no set checklist. So, again, the
Federal Government typically is good about, you know,
providing, you know, lots of documentation on policies and
procedures. In this particular area, we just need a simple
checklist. We're happy to fill out all of the requirements.
Just give us the checklist, let's stick to the checklist. And
again, there really should be something driving the timeline--
the timeliness of this, and that would greatly help the
industry.
Senator Johnson. Mr. Adelstein, just last week the GSA
indicated to my staff that it has taken steps to implement some
of the siting provisions we included in the Spectrum Act of
2012. From your perspective, have they taken adequate actions?
And, if not, what do they need to do?
Mr. Adelstein. I think they could do more. I think it was
very helpful. You know, you talk about long it takes the
Federal Government to do things. Congress mandated they do that
in 2012, and here we are in 2015, almost 2016, and they got it
done. So, you wonder what takes so long. We talked about the
fact that you have to renegotiate sometimes every site is
different. And we've asked, and you've talked about legislation
that would help to improve that process. I think that there's a
lot that the Broadband Opportunity Council could do further. I
think they've done a lot. The report was very helpful, as far
as it went. But, I think Congress can do more on Federal lands.
The legislation that Senator Rubio and Senator Klobuchar talked
about introducing with Senator Gardner today, and, I think,
with your support, the Federal lands would be--would speed the
deployment coming up with more standardized processes so each
time we have to negotiate for a lease, it doesn't have to be
reinventing the wheel every time with some bureaucrat who,
frankly, doesn't care that much. I mean, it--to their own
credit, they have other responsibilities, they're busy, they've
got a big pile on their plate, and they're not thinking about
broadband. But, the President has said, ``You should be
thinking about broadband.'' He put together a council to talk
about it. He issued an executive order. And GSA still took 3
years to basically even put together a common lease form. So,
there's a lot more that needs to be done. I think that the work
by this committee in enacting legislation to promote that in--
with your support and leadership, I think can really help to
expedite, at least on Federal lands, getting broadband
deployed.
Senator Johnson. You know, in order to get some of this
legislation passed or some of these policies implemented, it's
really nice to have a really good anecdotal story. Do you have
any stories that just kind of speak to how absurd this is?
Mr. Adelstein. Well, you know, I was talking to somebody a
little while ago about--they were trying to get something
through in the California area, which can be notoriously
difficult, and it--he had planned on, ``You know, OK, it's
going to take a while. I need 5 years.'' Ten years later, he's
still trying to get it sited there, an area where there is no
broadband coverage, you're going down a major highway, and
everybody gets their calls dropped there. So, you'd think, OK,
this is the place to do it. It's a desert, where there's really
not a lot you need to worry about. You put a tower there,
it's--you know, might disturb a lizard or something, but,
basically, what is, you know, the problem, here, when people
are trying to get work done as they're commuting or somebody
might be in the car, traveling with them. You shouldn't be on
your cell phone in the car, but, you know, if you're--need that
service as you're driving down--emergencies and public safety--
why can't we get that done? Why does it take 10 years? And
today, he still hasn't gotten that approved.
Senator Johnson. Mr. Morrison, do you have any a example?
Or anybody else want to offer up a good anecdote to help get
these things implemented?
Mr. Morrison. I would just reiterate that, again, 15 years
in the industry, I have several examples that corroborate that,
that what should have taken one, maybe two, years, from a
government perspective, drag on from 5 to 10 years. That's
absolutely not uncommon.
Senator Johnson. Again, just basically put up a tower.
Mr. Morrison. That's correct.
Senator Johnson. Yes.
I have no further questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Johnson.
I want to follow up. Mr. Morrison, you mentioned, in your
testimony--you were talking about how long it takes to get this
stuff done--how the FCC's 2009 shot clock action has
significantly decreased the time spent on zoning and approval
processes, and reducing a widely recognized barrier to
deployment. And this question has to do with whether or not a
similar shot clock applied to Federal agency decisionmakers
could be similarly helpful.
So, I'd like to get the opinion of the full panel, and
start with you, Mr. Morrison, about your thoughts on a shot
clock for other Federal agencies, and how that shot clock might
be implemented.
Mr. Morrison. The shot clock, in my opinion, is very
effective. I would acknowledge that not every jurisdiction
necessarily follows it to the letter, but it has had a
significant impact in reducing what could have been 18-24 month
process, in some of other bigger jurisdictions, down to 6
months or less. So, in my opinion, though it's not 100 percent
coverage or fully in effect, it's had a very significant
impact, in that, yes, if the Federal Government were to adopt
something similar, again, not just for permitting and zoning,
but also for the lease opportunity, it would have a positive
impact.
The Chairman. Others on the panel? Shot clock.
Mr. Adelstein. Yes. I think--you know, shot clocks have
been very effective in implementing broadband deployment. One
of the things that Congress had to do was to tell localities
that, ``You can't require zoning again on a tower you've
already zoned.'' That was literally what they were doing. If
you have a shopping mall, you don't have them rezone it just
because, you know, Kmart's moving out and somebody else is
moving in, but that's what was happening.
So, it took great bipartisan leadership in this committee
to get that done. And the FCC, in its wisdom, said, ``OK, look,
at the end of the process, if--even after all that, if you
can't get it done within the period of the shot clock, we're
going to deem it granted. We're going to say you've got to make
a decision now.'' A shot clock doesn't require a decision in
the affirmative. It just says you've got to decide within a
reasonable period of time.
And on a situation like a co-location, I think it made
sense that the FCC said, ``If you're just putting something up
to expand capacity on an existing already zoned facility, let's
just deem it approved if you can't get it done within a certain
period of time.'' And that's something that you might consider,
as well.
Senator Johnson. Mayor?
Mr. Resnick. Mr. Chairman, just--in my testimony, I
mentioned that Florida adopted these time frames--similar time
frames--actually, 3 years--prior to the FCC's shot clock. And
that--those time frames were adopted in cooperation by cities
working with the industry and coming up with the language of
that statute. So, this was something that we worked
cooperatively with the industry in coming up with, and it's
worked well.
There are some important exceptions to those time frames
written into the Florida statute that are not written into the
FCC's order that you might want to think about, like, for
example, if there's an emergency and it's impossible to have
the meetings or whatever that has to take place to process the
application, there's tolling of the time frames. If there's a
hurricane hitting Florida and the Governor sets forth a state
of emergency, the time frames are tolled. Similarly, if the
local government cannot have their review process conducted in
that timeframe, just because it's not possible to schedule the
public reviews that might be necessary, the time frames are
tolled, as well as the applicant and the local government can
agree to extend. And, in my experience in Florida, as--even
after the FCC shot clock was announced, most of the times the
extensions come at the request of the applicant. They're just
not ready to proceed with all the information needed to pursue
the application or to address questions that are going to come
up at a public hearing.
So, I think if you set forth time frames for the Federal
agencies--and I don't know how their review processes take
place--but, you might want to build in to some of those time
frames the exceptions to allow the time frames to toll.
With respect to the remedy if they don't meet the time
frames, that's important. You can't just say, ``It's deemed
approved. Go build your tower.'' Because, one, it's going to be
very difficult--Mr. Adelstein can talk more about this than I
can--but, it's my understanding that it's going to be very
difficult to get insurance to cover that construction and that
tower if they're doing it without a permit. So, there is--
there's still value in saying, ``It's not deemed approved. You
can go construct your tower, but you still need to get a
permit.'' Whatever process is required for that under a Federal
level, they should still have to go through the permit.
The one that you might want to consider, local governments
have gotten very swift at negotiating leases for local property
with infrastructure providers. Maybe as a remedy, have the
Federal property be turned over to a local government. And I'm
sure they'd be willing to take it, and we can negotiate a lease
much swifter than the Federal Government, apparently.
The Chairman. That would be a reverse power grab, I guess--
--
[Laughter.]
The Chairman.--which I think many of my constituents would
support.
But, it sounds like what you're saying is, you think what
you have done could be applied to Federal agencies in the way
that you----
Mr. Resnick. Right. I mean, it's worked. I'm not aware of
any instances, really around the country, where there's been
tremendous fights because of not meeting the time frames.
Perhaps Mr. Morrison might have specific examples. But, for the
most part, it has worked, and the industry and the local
governments continue to work cooperatively on processing these
applications in a timely fashion. And again, I'm not familiar
with the review that's required by the Federal agencies, but
it's worked, from the local government standpoint.
The Chairman. OK.
Mr. Kinkoph, you have extensive experience implementing
coordinating programs aimed at increasing broadband deployment
across the country. And, as you know, a broadly supported
recommendation is to create a national data inventory of
existing Federal property assets that may be suitable for
facilitating broadband deployment and infrastructure. Such an
inventory would include data on the condition, availability,
location, and ownership of Federal property. It seems that NTIA
is well positioned to manage such a data base, particularly
considering the work your agency's already done on the national
broadband map. Can NTIA, with support from Congress, obtain
from other Federal agencies the key information needed to
create this inventory?
Mr. Kinkoph. NTIA is currently going to be part of a team
that is doing that through the Broadband Opportunity Council.
And if so, it is being led by OSCP and NEC, and NTIA will be
part of that team to gather that information and provided it on
an open data source so that other organizations can create
maps, or whatever they need to do with it. But, at this time,
I'm not in a position to say that NTIA would take that on.
The Chairman. OK. Can't say that, but----
Mr. Kinkoph. I would have to----
The Chairman.--it could happen?
Mr. Kinkoph.--back.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. OK. Well, that's--I mean, if we were to give
some direction there, you seem well suited and positioned----
Mr. Kinkoph. Yes.
The Chairman.--your agency does, to do that.
Mr. Kinkoph. Resources are always an issue.
The Chairman. Right. OK. Well, that would certainly have to
be addressed, as well.
In addition to the types of information that I mentioned,
which--you know, location, availability, ownership, et cetera--
what other types of data do you think ought to be included in
that type of an inventory? And I direct that to you, and if
anybody else wants to take a shot at that.
Mr. Kinkoph. It's a--you know, my view is, it's--I don't
have a checklist, but, you know, location of towers, conduits,
fiber, and--you know, there's other issues that have to be
addressed that hasn't been addressed here, and I'll just raise
it: national security, national--you know, Homeland Security's
part in the BOC, and all those issues have to take in as you
become--and you publish those--that type of information. But, I
believe that it should be as broad and as sweeping as possible
to help the industry know and be able to deploy quickly
throughout the U.S. But, I don't have a checklist currently
with me.
The Chairman. OK. All right.
All right. Well, if there are no other questions, we
certainly appreciate your testimony today and thank you for
your responses. There were a couple of questions for the record
that we'll try and get, and, if you can, get those back to us
as quickly as possible.
Of course, the hearing record will remain open for 2 weeks.
During this time, Senators are asked to submit any questions
for the record. And, upon receipt, the witnesses are requested
to submit their written answers to the Committee as soon as
possible.
Thank you all very much.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Hon. Marco Rubio, U.S. Senator from Florida
The Internet is the greatest invention of our generation. The
possibilities it has created--from enabling a single mom to attend
college online, to allowing a human rights activist to make their voice
heard on Twitter--are virtually endless. It has been a transformative
innovation that has changed our world and brought greater
opportunities, prosperities and freedom within reach of more people.
None of this is assured forever, especially as policies are debated
nationally and internationally that would fundamentally change the
Internet as we know it.
For example, in 2010 the Federal Communications Commission
identified the need for additional spectrum, the finite resource that
makes the use of the Internet and wireless broadband possible. As we
move toward an increasingly mobile digital economy, our national demand
for spectrum will only increase. Unfortunately, the Federal gove1nment
is relying on 20th century governance to oversee decisions regarding
the future of our Internet and broadband capabilities.
Today and further into the 21st century, we will need greater
commercial access to the infrastructure, including spectrum, that has
made the types of innovation we have become familiar with possible. For
this reason, I introduced the Wireless Innovation Act, which has been
supported by five of my colleagues on the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation. This bill would release government-owned
spectrum to increase commercial use, identify ways to increase the
efficient and transparent use of spectrum by Federal users, and
incentivize the deployment of broadband on federally-owned property.
I believe this framework is vital in bringing us closer to creating
the infrastructure necessary for greater wireless access and closer to
a global economy supported by the Internet of Things. That is why I
have been working with my colleagues to pass the Wireless Innovation
Act in order to bring our Federal plan for governing these resources
more in line with 21st century realities.
We should be identifying federally-owned spectrum and reallocating
those resources through an auction pipeline to commercial entities. In
the age of our growing Internet, the Federal Government should be
helping, not hindering, innovation and investment through this process.
We should also recognize there is a role for unlicensed and shared
spectrum, and approach the process of reallocating spectrum in a
comprehensive manner that facilitates the best use of our existing
resources, without creating an approval or authorization process that
prohibits growth and innovation.
This process will in turn help to create more transparency and
analysis around the use and the value of existing spectrum held by the
Federal Government. We should know how our spectrum is used and, where
possible, find ways to make it even more efficient. We should also have
a streamlined process for the deployment of wireless infrastructure on
federally owned or controlled property. This will allow data to move
more quickly and allow for increases in coverage and capacity. Our
government should not be a barrier to deployment because of outdated
regulations.
One reason I believe the Internet has worked so well because, for
the most part, the Government hasn't stepped in to ruin it. Let's keep
it that way.
______
Competitive Carriers Association
Washington, DC, July 29, 2015
Hon. John Thune,
Chairman,
U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Bill Nelson,
Ranking Member,
U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson:
Competitive Carriers Association (CCA) respectfully submits this
letter for the record regarding today's hearing on ``Wireless Broadband
and the Future of Spectrum Policy.'' CCA commends the Committee for
beginning a bipartisan process to consider ways to meet future demand
for wireless services through a long-term legislative solution.
Mobile broadband is a critical component of modern life, and
spectrum is the lifeblood of mobile services. CCA represents over 100
competitive wireless providers ranging from small, rural carriers to
regional and nationwide providers, as well as approximately 200
associate members consisting of small businesses, vendors, and
suppliers that service carriers of all sizes. All CCA members depend on
procompetitive policies that support their ability to access critical
spectrum resources and continued growth of mobile broadband to meet
their customer's needs.
In addition, mobile broadband powers advanced telemedicine,
limitless education, employment prospects, public safety, precision
farming, and other innovative new services and opportunities, both in
urban population centers and in rural America. Indeed, nearly half of
all United States households are now ``wireless only'' and PEW Research
recently found that ``nearly two-thirds of Americans are now smartphone
owners, and for many these devices are a key entry point to the online
world.'' While carriers continue to make impressive progress to provide
innovative services, there is still work to be done. CCA supports the
Committee's focus on fueling broadband investment and growth with
additional access to spectrum and by promoting policies that remove
barriers to competition and facilitate the next disruptive innovation.
Ensure Competitive Spectrum Policies
Building on the Spectrum Act and the progress made implementing it,
Congress has a key role to play in creating durable, enduring processes
to meet our wireless nation's spectrum needs. Looking over the horizon,
rather than focusing on a particular spectrum band or technology,
policymakers should foster efficient spectrum management that maximizes
utilization of this finite, taxpayer-owned resource.
While we all must cooperatively work to identify additional
spectrum resources for mobile broadband use, competitive principles
currently in place should guide future spectrum policy. For example,
spectrum must be interoperable to support open ecosystems that allow
carriers of all sizes and technologies to maximize use of spectrum to
unleash new services. Interoperability was required for the original
Cellular spectrum band, and policies requiring or restoring
interoperability in other spectrum bands provide carriers with the
certainty that scarce spectrum resources can be used to enhance
competition and service offerings. Future spectrum allocations must be
interoperable to support a competitive mobile ecosystem.
Additionally, the FCC should continue to allocate spectrum in
smaller geographic license sizes. CCA applauds efforts to reinforce
this principle, and commends Chairman Thune's repeated support in
previous hearings for using smaller geographic license sizes to
encourage interest in rural areas. Smaller geographic license sizes,
like Cellular Market Areas or Partial Economic Areas, are necessary for
smaller carriers to be able to compete for spectrum at auction and
support utilization nationwide, particularly in rural areas.
Furthermore, policymakers should consider appropriate build-out
requirements and, as required by the Communications Act, policies that
help to avoid excessive spectrum aggregation that impedes competition.
The Next Band: A Broad Range of Solutions Should Be Considered
There is no one-size-fits-all solution to making more spectrum
available for mobile carriers, and each additional spectrum band will
have unique utilization challenges and opportunities. Congress should
consider a broad range of ideas that collectively add up to new and
enhanced opportunities for access to additional spectrum resources.
Market-based proposals, like those contemplated in the Rural Spectrum
Accessibility Act (S. 417), provide incentives for wireless carriers to
enter into business agreements to partition or disaggregate a spectrum
license to make unused spectrum available to small carriers or for
carriers to serve rural areas, particularly when this spectrum may
otherwise go unused.
Despite recent efforts to repurpose the AWS-3 band, the Federal
Government remains the holder of the largest amount of spectrum. While
Federal users must retain access to resources necessary to complete
their missions, Congress should consider policies to support
reallocation where appropriate. A good example is the Wireless
Innovation Act (S. 1618), which supports identifying Federal spectrum
that can be reallocated for mobile broadband use and encourages
deployment on Federal buildings and lands. Another example, the Federal
Incentive Auction Act (S. 887) provides monetary incentives for Federal
users to reallocate spectrum for commercial use in exchange for a
percentage of the auction proceeds. These legislative efforts provide
opportunistic uses of spectrum which encourage more efficient use. As
FCC Commissioner Rosenworcel has articulated, carrots to incentivize
spectral efficiency among Federal users allow the mobile broadband
industry and the Federal Government to cooperate to identify
opportunities to maximize use of otherwise under-utilized spectrum.
Increasing demand for spectrum, and the limited amount of new
spectrum resources available for license, requires policies that
consider opportunities that unlicensed spectrum offer for innovators,
entrepreneurs and existing mobile operators to maximize spectral
resources. Unlicensed spectrum, as a compliment to licensed spectrum,
helps to support enhanced services and competition. In identifying
future spectrum bands for potential reallocation for commercial use,
higher frequency spectrum can support on-the-spot capacity solutions,
while continued work to identify lower frequency spectrum to support
wide area coverage, particularly in rural areas. Progress in
identifying spectrum for unlicensed use in the 3.5 GHz and 5 GHz bands
provides a good example of ways to support new technologies while
enhancing licensed carrier services. Stakeholders prefer exclusive use
of licensed spectrum, yet facing today's realities all options should
be on the table. Access to new frequencies and technologies, with open
ecosystems that support the availability of devices in all spectrum
bands, for all carriers, should be encouraged.
Role of Technology
Spectrum availability, as vital as it is, requires sound standards-
setting to support both competition and meet growing wireless demands.
Policymakers should continue to play a role as standards are developed
to ensure all Americans benefit from new innovations and technology
advancements. Establishing core competitive principles for emerging
technology while avoiding unnecessary regulation will help bridge the
digital divide between urban and rural areas. New technologies like
LAA, LTE-U, smart antennas, dynamic spectrum access and cognitive radio
may help alleviate network congestion and provide carriers with new
avenues to offer faster, more efficient service to otherwise unserved
areas. This is a particular focus of CCA members that do not have the
same spectrum portfolios of their largest rivals. Ensuring the
capabilities of future networks now will help us to meet the needs of
urban and rural consumers alike and in turn will spur development of 5G
services. The United States has led the world in 4G deployment. The
same should be true of 5G deployment, and these policies will foster
that leadership. Policymakers should keenly emphasize that new
technologies and services are available nationwide to maximize spectrum
utilization and make sure that rural areas are not left behind as new
services evolve.
Infrastructure
While spectrum is the invisible infrastructure over which mobile
services ride, carriers also depend on towers and other physical
network components. Wireless broadband is necessarily dependent on
costly infrastructure to provide services. Competitive carriers depend
on reasonable facilities siting policies to deploy critical wireless
services. Many competitive carriers serve the most rural areas of the
United States and often face challenges obtaining prompt collocation or
tower construction permits or rights of way for siting on Federal
lands. Efforts to streamline the siting process and remove unnecessary
red tape encourage faster deployment of mobile broadband infrastructure
and services to consumers.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Parks Service (NPS),
United States Forest Service (USFS) Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and
other Federal agencies own, manage, or administer significant portions
of land, particularly in western and rural states. Competitive carriers
seeking to deploy mobile broadband in these areas face unreasonable
delays and other impediments to constructing and siting on these lands.
Barriers to deployment often raise a carrier's cost through onerous
administrative, legal and regulatory requirements. Consolidating
Federal requirements, and trimming excessive or duplicative rules when
multiple Federal agencies are involved in approving the same
infrastructure project would help to streamline an otherwise laborious
process. For example, creating an application clearing house to
coordinate all Federal permitting required for a project would reduce
delays and utilize limited resources more efficiently.
Similarly, carriers depend on timely responses from state and local
governments on siting applications. Shot clocks and other defined time
frames and parameters allow for efficient application consideration
without creating unnecessary delays or obstacles for carriers to expand
their facilities. The Supreme Court's ruling in T-Mobile South LLC v.
City of Roswell, which requires local and state governments to act
expeditiously and clearly state their objections to a tower siting
application, is a step in the right direction. Should further disputes
regarding state and local authority continue to arise, we encourage
Congress and the FCC to provide additional guidance to provide clear
rules of the road for tower siting.
Certainty Regarding Other Inputs to Wireless Broadband Supports
Continued Investment
While today's hearing is focused on spectral inputs for continued
growth of mobile broadband services, CCA would be remiss not to mention
the need for certainty regarding access to other inputs and incentives.
For example, carriers, non-nationwide carriers in particular, require
access to reasonable data roaming, access to devices, and certainty
regarding the Universal Service Fund (USF) to continue to invest to
meet growing demands. Congress created USF to provide reasonably
comparable services to urban and rural consumer alike, requiring that
support be predictable and sufficient. These policies have enabled
years of expansion of mobile wireless services in rural America. USF
injects a healthy dose of funding to supplement and compliment
competitive carriers' private sector investments to expand mobile
broadband service in rural and high cost areas that are otherwise
uneconomical to serve. Any uncertainty regarding existing and future
support has the potential to delay or prevent deployment of broadband
infrastructure.
Uncertainty regarding existing and future support has the chilling
effect of stalling deployments and forcing carriers to make difficult
decisions regarding existing and planned mobile broadband services. In
addition, this uncertainty has the potential to strand existing
investments, leaving behind a legacy of rusty towers and reduced
services. Congress must continue its oversight to ensure that USF
support is sufficient and predictable to support wireless service
throughout rural America.
Similarly, uncertainty regarding the availability of devices to
utilize new spectrum allocations or access to backhaul and roaming to
provide services limits smaller carriers' ability to invest and provide
services in rural and underserved areas. As the legislative process
continues, CCA encourages the Committee to focus on providing carriers
of all sizes with access to all inputs necessary to meet continually
growing demands.
In conclusion, CCA applauds and supports committee efforts to
provide additional spectrum resources for mobile broadband and welcomes
the opportunity to help craft a proactive approach to potential
solutions. Enacting policies that provide competitive carriers with
certainty while eliminating or streamlining burdensome procedures and
creating innovative solutions to access finite spectrum resources will
encourage investment and expansion in mobile broadband infrastructure
and foster continued innovation and economic growth. Consumers across
the United States, especially in rural areas, will benefit from
Congress's continued focus on policies that support competition and
investment in mobile broadband. CCA appreciates the opportunity to
contribute to the record for today's hearing, and looks forward to
continued work with the Committee, its Members, and the FCC on these
important issues to increase mobile broadband services and support
competition in the industry. Please do not hesitate to contact me with
any questions.
Sincerely,
Steven K. Berry,
President and CEO.
______
Aerospace Industries Association
Arlington, VA, October 6, 2015
Hon. John Thune,
Chairman,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Bill Nelson,
Ranking Member,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson:
The Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) represents an industry
that directly employs more than one million workers across the country,
and provided $220 billion in revenue and $118 billion in exports in
2014 alone. This industry supports a broad swath of the American
economy, including the civil aviation industry, which contributed $1.5
trillion to the Nation's economy in 2012. Equally importantly, our
members design, develop and manufacture the cutting-edge aircraft,
satellites, and weapon systems that keep our Nation safe and protect
U.S. national interests around the globe.
As you know, many of the technologies the aerospace and defense
industry depends upon, develops, and delivers are spectrum-dependent.
Without continued and reliable access to spectrum, Federal agencies and
military service members may not be able to accomplish their missions
effectively. Consequently, our industry is a critical stakeholder in
the debate on spectrum policy and the management and use of spectrum by
the Federal Government. We understand that the civilian economy demands
increased access to additional spectrum for commercial broadband.
However, changes in spectrum policy must take care to ensure that any
such transition not be conducted to the detriment of our national
security, intelligence capabilities, or new entrants to our economy
such as the integration of unmanned aircraft into our national
airspace.
Existing manufactured systems should be taken into account when
considering spectrum policy changes. Many aerospace and defense systems
are developed in accordance with international standards to operate in
certain frequencies. Many missions and applications require
technologies to operate on specific frequencies given the constraints
placed on technology by the laws of physics. Yet, as technology
advances and subscriber usage and markets evolve, the frequencies where
some services can operate may also change. For example, the commercial
wireless industry has pursued higher and higher frequency bands to
complement their existing systems, whereas it was once thought that
only lower frequencies could be technologically or economically
feasible. As such, AIA requests that policymakers undertake a cautious
approach and determine the readiness of alternative technology
solutions and associated impact to end users by working collaboratively
with the U.S. aerospace & defense industry in formulating policy.
The systems built by our members are primarily developed and
manufactured in the United States. All of AIA's members are U.S.
manufacturers. We have an established industrial base and supply chain
that makes enormous contributions not only to our country's economy,
but also to our Nation's safety and well being. Our ability to
accomplish these goals relies on the continued availability of spectrum
to support our systems and solutions.
I respectfully request your approval, if appropriate, to place a
copy of this letter in the hearing record of your October 7, 2015
hearing titled ``Removing Barriers to Wireless Broadband Deployment.''
We greatly appreciate your expertise and leadership on spectrum issues,
and as you pursue changes in spectrum policy in the current Congress, I
hope you will consider the needs of our industry and consider us a
resource in future stakeholder discussions.
Sincerely,
David F. Melcher.
______
Aerospace Industries Association--Issue Paper
Spectrum--Critical to U.S. Aerospace & Defense Industry Contributions
to U.S. Economy and Global Leadership
AIA Recommends Spectrum Principles for U.S. Policymakers
The Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) recommends that U.S.
policymakers advance spectrum principles that:
Include the interests of all spectrum stakeholders,
including U.S. aerospace & defense industry.
Recognize that our industry contributes high-tech jobs,
exports, technology innovation, research and development (R&D)
benefiting both the U.S. economy and U.S. national security.
Enable the aerospace and defense industry to continue as the
single largest U.S. net exporter of technologically-advanced
systems and solutions.
Promote U.S. economic growth by ensuring continued safe,
stable and secure operation of U.S. systems and technologies--
aeronautical, radar, satellite--that enable critical weather
forecasting, public safety, air traffic control, navigation,
flight testing, earth monitoring, and national security
activities.
Ensure our industry's ability to access critical spectrum to
support R&D, and safe, efficient and secure facility and
manufacturing operations.
Key Facts About the U.S. Aerospace and Defense Industry
Employs more than 1 million workers across the United
States.
In 2014 generated over $220 billion in revenue and exported
over $118 billion.
The U.S. civil aviation industry contributed $1.5 trillion
to the U.S. economy in 2012. Last year 848 million passengers
flew on U.S. domestic flights and on foreign airlines serving
the U.S.
Discussion
Spectrum is vital to everything that the U.S. aerospace and defense
industry creates, so it is critical that policymakers take the needs
and concerns of the industry into account in debates on spectrum
sharing, Federal spectrum repurposing, and commercial spectrum
requirements. The performance of high-tech, advanced platforms, systems
and solutions that we innovate, develop, manufacture, and deploy are
dependent on spectrum preservation and access. Therefore, we have a
vital stake in discussions about Federal spectrum policy.
Critical Spectrum Uses for Technology Operation and Development
Spectrum is an enabler of advance aerospace and defense systems,
solutions and services provided to commercial, Federal and
international customers. The U.S. aerospace & defense industry invests
substantially in new and existing technologies that rely on spectrum,
including:
Civil Aviation and NextGen
Unmanned Aircraft Systems
Commercial Space Transportation
Critical Infrastructure Protection
The Global Positioning System
Radars
Earth Observation
Weather Forecasting
Secure Global Communications
Maritime Communications
Missile Launch Warning
The U.S. aerospace and defense industry is comprised of large
manufacturers, as well as medium and small suppliers, which rely on
certain frequencies with specific technical characteristics in the
manufacturing and testing process. These cutting-edge technologies must
be safely and securely tested to ensure our systems meet the safety
requirements of our customers. Civil aviation users include airlines,
business aviation, and private pilots. Government users include the
U.S. military, law enforcement, customs and immigration enforcement,
and state agencies.
Technological Considerations
Existing manufactured systems should be taken into account when
considering spectrum policy changes. Many aerospace and defense systems
are developed in accordance with international standards to operate in
certain frequencies. Many missions and applications require
technologies to operate in specific frequencies given the constraints
placed on technology by the laws of physics. Therefore, it is not
always possible to simply move technologies to new frequencies. While
our industry is open to discussions on relocation and sharing where it
makes technological and financial sense, sometimes it may not be
feasible for a particular application or mission, due to the technical
operating characteristics of specific frequency bands--including signal
range, power requirements, signal penetration into objects like
buildings, and interference with other systems.
Yet, as technology advances, the frequencies where some services
can operate may also change. For example, the commercial wireless
industry has pursued higher and higher frequency bands for their
systems, whereas it was once thought that only lower frequencies could
be economically feasible. As such, AIA requests that policymakers
undertake a cautious approach and determine the readiness of
alternative technology solutions and associated impact to end users by
working collaboratively with the U.S. aerospace & defense industry in
formulating policy.
Summary
AIA supports a long-range vision that provides reliable access to
spectrum for the aerospace & defense industry, the wireless broadband
industry, and government investments alike. AIA looks forward to
engaging with U.S. policymakers, both as a stakeholder and as a
resource to ensure the U.S. has a robust, balanced, and inclusive
spectrum policy that preserves our Nation's civil aviation,
communication and navigation systems, and national security.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Deb Fischer to
Douglas Kinkoph
Question. Earlier this year, Senator Klobuchar and I introduced the
Rural Spectrum Accessibility Act, which would incentivize wireless
carriers to lease unused spectrum to smaller rural carriers. Have any
of the witnesses had an opportunity to review this proposal or others
to incentivize spectrum sharing? Do you believe this would help expand
access?
Answer. NTIA manages Federal use of spectrum while the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) manages non-federal use. Thus, the FCC
may be in a better position to comment on the specifics of the proposed
Rural Spectrum Accessibility Act. The Administration has not taken a
position on this specific proposal. However, NTIA generally supports
appropriate initiatives to expand access to spectrum and facilitate
efficient use of scarce spectrum resources, which are clear objectives
of the proposed measure.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to
Douglas Kinkoph
Question 1. Companies in my state that are currently trying to
build much needed broadband infrastructure have been delayed by
unexpected requirements in the permitting process. How can we improve
transparency in the permitting process to avoid this?
Answer. State, local, and Federal permitting delays often impact
broadband construction projects, and all levels of government should
work to increase transparency to facilitate the permitting process. At
the Federal level, President Obama recognized the importance of
transparency when he issued Executive Order (EO) No. 13616,
``Accelerating Broadband Infrastructure Deployment,'' to facilitate
wired and wireless broadband infrastructure deployment on Federal
lands, buildings, and rights-of-way. While Federal agencies have made
significant progress in streamlining Federal processes, the 2015
Broadband Opportunity Council (Council) received input from
stakeholders indicating that the Federal Government can still do more
to help service providers obtain the necessary permits and permissions
to build out broadband networks on Federal lands and use Federal assets
or cross Federal rights-of-way, particularly by streamlining Federal
permitting processes. Building on the EO 13616 actions, the Council's
report includes agency commitments to create an online inventory of
data on Federal assets, such as the Department of Interior (DOI)
telecommunications towers, that can help support faster and more
economical broadband deployments to remote areas of the country.
Additionally, the Administration is committed to streamlining the
applications for programs and permitting processes to facilitate
broadband deployment and foster competition. The implementation of
these agency actions should help to improve transparency and minimize
delays in gaining access to Federal assets for increased broadband
investments.
Question 2. Companies in my state have explained that they try to
build their infrastructure across State, private, or Alaska Native
land, rather than deal with the problems associated with crossing
Federal land. Do you agree that it is a problem that the private sector
is avoiding building broadband infrastructure on Federal land,
especially when more than 60 percent of Alaska is owned by the Federal
Government?
Answer. Federal lands, buildings, and assets are important conduits
for broadband deployment and should be readily accessible for
deployment of broadband infrastructure. The Broadband Opportunity
Council (Council) heard from multiple stakeholders urging Federal
agencies to take action to streamline processes and standardize
timelines for the review and processing of permitting applications and
make such documentation easily accessible. One of the Council's guiding
principles is that the Federal Government should strive for uniform
definitions and common permitting and application processes to reduce
the burden on local government, state government, non-profit, and
private applicants applying for Federal resources. The deployment of
broadband requires collaboration between the public and private sectors
and often cooperation across multiple levels of government. Federal
agencies should work closely with the private sector and local and
state governments to ensure Federal policies facilitate investment in
broadband services.
Question 3. I, along with some of my colleagues, sent a letter to
the Co-Chairs of the Broadband Opportunity Council. In it, we asked for
an analysis of current broadband initiatives. Can you point to any
specific initiatives that are working particularly well? Can you point
to any that are not?
Answer. NTIA was responsible for implementing the broadband grants
programs established by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. We
believe this program was a resounding success. It fully delivered on
its pledges to create jobs, stimulate economic development, spur
private-sector investment, and open up new opportunities in employment,
education, and healthcare. NTIA's broadband grantees deployed more than
115,000 miles of new or upgraded network miles; connected more than
25,500 community anchor institutions; installed or upgraded more than
47,100 personal computers in public access centers; and prompted more
than 670,000 people to subscribe to broadband services.
Through the ongoing BroadbandUSA initiative, NTIA is leveraging the
expertise gained by overseeing this broad portfolio of broadband
infrastructure and adoption grants to help communities expand their
broadband capacity. NTIA's technical assistance ranges from workshops
and webinars to more personalized one-on-one community assistance. NTIA
can help communities navigate government rules and grant programs; find
the best way to design and deliver a broadband adoption program; and
attract broadband investment. To date, NTIA has held four regional
workshops to bring community and industry stakeholders together to
discuss how best to support their broadband needs. NTIA has also
released field-tested guides such as our Broadband Adoption Toolkit,
Public-Private Partnership Primer, and Guide to Federal Funding of
Broadband Projects to inform community broadband efforts. NTIA has
received very positive feedback on its broadband initiatives and plans
to issue additional publications on broadband topics over the next
several months.
Additionally, through the Broadband Opportunity Council (Council)
all member agencies were surveyed to identify programs that could be
modified to support or further support broadband. The Council then
developed 36 immediate actions, with associated milestones, that the
member agencies agreed to undertake. Once implemented, we believe that
these recommendations will make a meaningful difference to communities
seeking new tools and resources to promote broadband investments.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Steve Daines to
Douglas Kinkoph
Question 1. Mr. Kinkoph, you talked about the FCC's recommended
download speed of 25 megabits per second and how over 50 million
Americans' current broadband connection does not meet that standard.
But does the average consumer really need 25 megabits per second? You
can stream HD video at 4 megabits per second and 10 megabits per second
is considered industrial strength. So why are we focusing on upgrading
download speeds for Americans who already have broadband when there are
still plenty of people--many in Montana--who have no connectivity at
all?
Answer. NTIA recognizes that consumers' needs for broadband speeds
will vary depending upon their broadband usage or the types of
applications they demand. In its February 2015 Broadband Progress
Report, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) updated its
broadband benchmark speeds to 25 Mbps for downloads and 3 Mbps for
uploads to reflect advances in technology, market offerings by
broadband providers, and consumer demand. The FCC noted that high-speed
broadband is essential to support video, telemedicine, distance
learning, and other applications needed by such end users as hospitals,
schools, and libraries. In many cases residential broadband connections
serve multiple people as well as a variety of devices within a single
household therefore increasing bandwidth needs and the demand for high-
speed broadband. Additionally, consumers using broadband to stream and
download HD video will require higher speeds to ensure they receive an
acceptable quality of service. Still, NTIA knows that there are many
areas of our country, particularly in very rural areas and tribal
lands, where any broadband connection would be an improvement over what
exists today.
NTIA has demonstrated a longstanding commitment to promoting
broadband deployment and adoption in unserved and underserved areas,
including parts of Montana. Through the Broadband Technology
Opportunities Program, for example, NTIA awarded a $13.7 million grant
in 2010 to Ronan Telephone Company (RTC) to deploy a new high-speed
middle-mile network to expand broadband services and promote economic
development and recovery for underserved communities of Montana,
including the Blackfeet and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai
Tribes. As of June 2015, the project deployed 299 miles of new fiber
and upgraded 106 miles of existing fiber. RTC also signed agreements
with local Internet service providers to facilitate more affordable and
accessible broadband service for households and businesses in the area.
To date, RTC has connected 34 Community Anchor Institutions (CAIs),
including educational institutions, government facilities, public
safety entities, and medical facilities. RTC also partnered with Health
Information Exchange of Montana to facilitate telemedicine and improved
healthcare delivery for rural residents.
While much progress has been made, challenges still remain in
bringing broadband to unserved areas of the country. Much of the easy
work has been done--building out broadband infrastructure where the
business case is compelling or encouraging broadband adoption and use
among those who are already digitally ready. NTIA is committed to
tackling the hard work that needs to occur to reach those communities
where geography and economics render broadband deployment, competition,
and adoption difficult to fully realize. NTIA is taking action through
its BroadbandUSA initiative to offer communities the technical
assistance and support they need to overcome their unique challenges
hindering investment in broadband infrastructure and adoption.
Question 2. Mr. Kinkoph, NTIA has several different programs and
partnerships to carry out its mission with respect to broadband, as do
dozens of other Federal agencies. In fact, as you mentioned, the
Broadband Opportunity Council report gave recommendations to over
twenty Federal agencies. That sounds like a lot of agencies involved in
carrying out the one common goal to bring broadband connectivity to
Americans. What programs and policies does NTIA have in place to ensure
that there is no overlap or waste?
Answer. The President created the Broadband Opportunity Council
(Council) to provide a vehicle for strategic coordination among Federal
agencies to promote greater broadband deployment and adoption. While
there are several Federal agencies involved in promoting broadband use
and adoption, many of the agencies named to the Council had never
viewed broadband to be part of their core missions. So an initial part
of the Council's task was for each agency to look internally at their
existing policies and programs to explore whether there was flexibility
to do more to promote broadband. This exercise helped raise the profile
of broadband as a tool that these agencies could use to fulfill their
missions and further agency goals. Council members collectively became
more informed about barriers and issues facing stakeholders trying to
deploy broadband and promote broadband adoption.
NTIA will continue to co-chair the Council to promote coordination
among Federal agencies and monitor implementation of the agency
actions. Additionally, interagency coordination is a key component of
NTIA's BroadbandUSA initiative. BroadbandUSA regularly receives
requests from other Federal agencies to provide input on broadband
policies, review proposed legislation and rulemaking on broadband
issues, and participate in their workshops or outreach activities
related to broadband. In this role, NTIA can strive to minimize any
overlap or duplication in Federal agencies' various broadband
initiatives.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Cory Booker to
Douglas Kinkoph
Question. It is clear from the recent spectrum auction, which
attracted over $44 billion in bids, and from your testimony that the
demand for licensed wireless spectrum is growing. While Congress is
addressing the need for licensed spectrum, we must also take seriously
the need to expand our reserve of unlicensed spectrum for Wi-Fi and
other purposes. Just how important is unlicensed spectrum and Wi-Fi to
the continued expansion of mobile device communication?
Answer. Wi-Fi, and unlicensed spectrum use more broadly, continues
to be a tremendous innovation success story. The Administration has
stated that both licensed and unlicensed spectrum must be part of the
country's spectrum policy. The Federal Communication Commission's (FCC)
upcoming incentive auction will open up bandwidth by allowing
unlicensed wireless use in the resulting guard bands. Earlier this
year, NTIA collaborated with the FCC to enable a three-tier licensing
approach that includes more traditional incumbent and priority access
as well as general authorized access licenses (which provide low-
barrier access to spectrum, much like unlicensed use) to frequencies in
the 3.5 GHz band through the adoption of innovative mechanisms for
sharing the spectrum with incumbent Federal systems. Even in areas
where all priority licenses are in use, this sharing regime will make
up to 80 megahertz of spectrum available to users who simply need
certified equipment to operate, which could potentially help create a
new space for innovative services to flourish. NTIA also is working
closely with the FCC, other Federal agencies, and industry to evaluate
and facilitate compatibility between unlicensed devices and incumbent
systems to enable spectrum sharing in the 5 GHz band. Finally, NTIA is
also working with the FCC on innovative approaches to increasing
unlicensed access in the 64-71 GHz band.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Marco Rubio to
Hon. Jonathan S. Adelstein
Question. I've introduced The Wireless Innovation Act to free up
more spectrum for commercial use and to streamline wireless
infrastructure deployment, particularly on Federal property. I'd like
to know whether within the Federal Government there are agencies that
your members find to be particularly challenging?
Answer. The myriad of processes and procedures among different
Federal agencies often poses insurmountable obstacles to siting
wireless infrastructure on Federal property. PCIA strongly supports the
Wireless Innovation Act (``WIA'') you introduced because, among other
important provisions, it includes a number of critical reforms to the
Federal siting process. WIA would be a tremendous help in making the
siting process on Federal property friendlier to wireless broadband
buildout. A more standard approach to siting would allow easier
interaction with agencies borne of varied histories and comprised of
different cultures and values. The agencies have good people doing good
work, but to date there have been bad processes or a lack of processes.
Congress is well suited to provide direction and clarity that is
otherwise lacking in the broadband deployment process on Federal lands
today.
Just recently, the GSA indicated that it has at last taken steps to
implement some of the siting provisions included in Section 6409 of the
2012 legislation and that would be required under the Wireless
Innovation Act. From what you know of GSA's actions, have they acted in
a way that will expedite the process for siting on Federal properties?
If not, what remains to be done?
PCIA commends GSA's recent actions to follow its statutory
mandates, albeit they late in implementing them. Its actions are
certainly a step in the right direction but much more needs to be done.
For instance, all landholding Federal agencies are not currently
mandated to use the GSA forms or contracts. Without a requirement to
standardize these forms across agencies, GSA's actions could be for
naught. In addition, further congressional action is necessary to
encourage long-term leases, swift renewal processes, and publicly
available fee schedules. Moreover, without individuals at each agency
who understand the important Federal mandate to spur broadband
deployment and are empowered to approve or deny applications that have
stalled at the field level, these projects will languish or will be
abandoned. Even in light of GSA's recent actions, many of the
provisions contained in the Wireless Innovation Act are necessary to
further improve the process to site wireless facilities on Federal
lands.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Deb Fischer to
Hon. Jonathan S. Adelstein
Question 1. Mr. Adelstein, in your written testimony, you discussed
challenges related to the ``wireless data crunch.'' You also provided
several examples of how to address the challenge including spectrum
access, efficiencies, and infrastructure. Can you please expand upon
your comments, particularly as it relates to infrastructure solutions
and rural consumers?
Answer. As I mentioned in my testimony, there is today an abundance
of choices available to network planners to address the wireless data
crunch. Traditional tall support structures effectively provide much of
the coverage and capacity necessary for wireless broadband. To fill
coverage gaps and overlay capacity in high traffic markets, the
industry is also increasingly deploying distributed antennas systems
and small cells. Further, the networks themselves are getting smarter.
Self-optimizing networks and the combination of intelligent software
and hardware design allows a network to anticipate usage and provide
greater resources to areas of need on the fly, enhancing the user
experience. Unlicensed spectrum similarly continues to play an
important role in this system, offloading traffic to the wired network
and providing greater headroom for licensed mobile services. Today's
infrastructure will provide the cornerstone of the Internet of Things,
5G, and the applications, services, and jobs that will make up the
economy of tomorrow. This is especially true in rural areas. As
technology improves, it may become easier to serve rural communities.
Now, network planners have an abundance of choices to serve a diverse
set of areas.
Question 2. Earlier this year Senator Klobuchar and I introduced
the Rural Spectrum Accessibility Act, which would incentivize wireless
carriers to lease unused spectrum to smaller rural carriers. Have any
of the witnesses had an opportunity to review this proposal or others
to incentivize spectrum sharing? Do you believe this would help expand
access?
Answer. As I mentioned in my testimony, we need as much spectrum as
we can get, as fast as we can get it. Whether it's new spectrum or
reusing or repurposing current spectrum allocations, it is important to
look at all potential solutions to ensure that all Americans and all
communities are able to enjoy the enormous benefits that comes from
wireless broadband.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to
Hon. Jonathan S. Adelstein
Question 1. The construction season in Alaska is shorter than most.
This does not allow for delays caused by roadblocks in the Federal
permitting process. How can we improve the timeliness of permitting on
Federal lands?
Answer. The current process for siting wireless infrastructure on
Federal lands is fraught with complications. Each landholding agency
has their own process for siting, with different requirements and often
different fees. PCIA has worked closely with Members of both the House
and Senate on legislation to streamline and expedite the process. It
would be very helpful, for example, if all Federal landholding agencies
were required to use a common set of forms and contracts. Further,
providing leases with a public and transparent fee schedule would
provide the necessary certainty when deciding whether to invest in new
infrastructure and shorten the timeline for individual site specific
fee negotiations. The availability of long term leases and automatic
renewal would also improve the Federal siting process, as would fee
retention for the landholding agency.
Question 2. One of our carriers in Alaska experienced delays and
increased costs in getting permission to install towers in building out
their network. This situation involved only a few towers, with a small
footprint, in a large national wildlife refuge. Is this a situation
where a ``shot clock'' could help speed up the permitting process?
Answer. Yes. Applying a reasonable time limit on siting
applications is helpful in the build-out of wireless broadband
infrastructure on Federal or state lands. PCIA members are often
frustrated with unreasonable and unnecessary delays in obtaining
permits. It is not necessary to usurp local authority, but only receive
a timely ``yes'' or ``no'' answer from the local government or agency.
Question 3. Alaska has some of the most remote, sparsely populated
communities in the U.S. Access to high speed broadband Internet enables
these communities to connect locally and globally. Given Alaska's
topography, and the remoteness of many communities, there is a strong
need for wireless broadband to help serve these unserved and
underserved communities. Considering that the Wireless Infrastructure
Association (PCIA) works with federal, state, and local governments to
remove barriers to wireless broadband deployment, how does PCIA work
with Alaska Native leaders to identify and overcome barriers to
wireless broadband deployment on Alaska Native lands?
Answer. I have visited Alaskan Native lands and leaders in your
state, and recognize the pressing need for connectivity there. PCIA has
consistently highlighted that wireless is the most cost-effective
infrastructure for low-density regions. Wireless infrastructure has the
power to provide rural areas like those in Alaska the ability to
compete in the innovation economy. One of the barriers to deployment in
rural areas that PCIA has emphasized is access to Federal lands and
property. Many of them that would benefit from streamlined siting are
by definition rural. Having better access to Federal lands and property
will help increase broadband availability in rural areas. PCIA
recognizes that much of Alaska is Alaska Native land. We have worked
with Native leaders through organizing and participating in workshops
at the FCC that provide education on tribal wireless siting review
processes and the importance of broadband deployment on Native lands.
PCIA has also forged relationships with Tribal Historic Preservation
Office leaders by inviting them to attend and speak at our Wireless
Infrastructure Show.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Cory Booker to
Hon. Jonathan S. Adelstein
Question. It is clear from the recent spectrum auction, which
attracted over $44 billion dollars in bids, and from your testimony
that the demand for licensed wireless spectrum is growing. While
Congress is addressing the need for licensed spectrum, we must also
take seriously the need to expand our reserve of unlicensed spectrum
for Wi-Fi and other purposes. Just how important is unlicensed spectrum
and Wi-Fi to the continued expansion of mobile device communication?
Answer. Spectrum is a critical component for economic growth,
international competitiveness and wireless innovation. As I noted in my
testimony, more spectrum must be made available--as much as we can get,
as fast as we can get it--because the demand for wireless mobile data
continues to explode. Licensed spectrum remains a top priority because
it allows for the greatest level of certainty and quality of service.
However, both licensed and unlicensed spectrum are needed to continue
incentivizing the incredible amount of investment that has made the
U.S. the global leader in wireless innovation. Unlicensed spectrum is
an important testbed for new applications in the consumer and
enterprise space, and as wireless data demand increases, unlicensed
spectrum is handling more and more of the offload and backhaul
requirements.
In order to continue to encourage private investment in wireless
networks, Congress needs to modernize spectrum policy for both licensed
and unlicensed spectrum uses. This is why PCIA supports S. 424, the Wi-
Fi Innovation Act. Your bill recognizes that the U.S. faces both an
unprecedented wireless data crunch and a digital divide that puts
lower-income Americans at a disadvantage. This bill is a crucial step
toward the adoption of policies that will ease the wireless data crunch
and help bridge the digital divide.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Deb Fischer to
Hon. Gary Resnick
Question. Earlier this year Senator Klobuchar and I introduced the
Rural Spectrum Accessibility Act, which would incentivize wireless
carriers to lease unused spectrum to smaller rural carriers. Have any
of the witnesses had an opportunity to review this proposal or others
to incentivize spectrum sharing? Do you believe this would help expand
access?
Answer. I have not had an opportunity to review this proposed
legislation and do not currently have a position on it.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Steve Daines to
Hon. Gary Resnick
Question 1. Mr. Resnick, you mention in your testimony that local
leaders are managing many infrastructure needs and that sometimes there
are delays to deployment. Can you expand on that and tell us what the
sticking points are and what you, as local leaders, are up against that
cause difficulty in moving the deployment process forward?
Answer. Thank you for this question. As an initial matter, it is
important to note that the industry has reduced, voluntarily, the
number of wireless infrastructure sites between December 2013 and
December 2014. (Source: http://www.ctia.org/your-wireless-life/how-
wireless-works/annual-wireless-industry-survey.) Moreover, according to
informtion provided to me, the industry is not seeking to add a
significant number of new sites in 2016. Thus, there is not a crisis in
terms of the industry looking to add new wireless infrastructure sites
and not being able to do so. Quite the contrary, largely because of how
many sites have been successfully processed by local governments and
constructed, the industry is not seeking to add as many sites as it has
in prior years. There are certainly no issues created by local
governments with respect to deploying new facilities.
To expand on challenges faced by local leaders, we have many
challenges to provide services with limited government resources. The
vast majority of local governments nationwide do not have a large
number of staff members to process applications, and these staff
members review, provide comments, inspect and manage a wide variety of
activities in response to applications and inquiries from the private
sector, in addition to handling government initiated projects to
improve the quality of life for citizens and economic development
activities. These functions are in addition to processing applications
for deployment of communications facilities that may be filed. Local
leaders and staff manage infrastructure deployment both in the rights-
of-way and on government and private property. These management
responsibilities include public works and utilities staff and land use
and planning staff. Such activities range from engineering work for
utilities and roads, land use planning and zoning compliance, drainage
impacts, parks planning, development impacts on groundwater, hazardous
materials, legal issues and other issues as well.
I am not suggesting that there are deployment delays because these
are communications facilities. Rather, I was referring to the need to
address all of our staffs' obligations in due course, given limited
staff and resource constraints. The industry as well has challenges and
does not have unlimited resources to pursue the deployment of wireless
facilities.
Perhaps the best way to address the question is to provide an
example using my City, Wilton Manors, FL, as an example. We have a
population of approximately 12,000, but are fortunate to be able to
budget significant resources to be able to pursue and respond to land
use and planning activities than many local governments our size.
During our budgeting process for our 2015-16 Fiscal Year, we identified
several large-scale private development and infrastructure projects
expected to be submitted, as well as government initiated land use and
planning activities we determined to address. For example, we have two
fairly large private developments that will be submitting applications
for approvals this year that will have significant government resources
in terms of plans review, comments, public hearings, permitting and
inspection. IN addition, our private electric utility will be applying
for permits for significant infrastructure utility pole replacements in
our ROW. Further, the private railroad that bisects my city will be
expanding its ROW and seeking permits for construction and blocking
roadways. The staff resources for these projects are expected to be
over 4,000 hours. We are aware of these projects because the
corporations involved, smartly, met with my City leaders to give us a
``heads up'' so we can plan accordingly. In addition to these private-
initiated projects, for economic development purposes we decided to
rezone a significant portion of an area of our City. We have also
budgeted to undertake major water and sewer system improvements.
Further, we have obtained grants in excess of $3 million for
significant roadway improvements that are in various stages of design,
engineering and construction. Like any business, we budget to ensure we
have sufficient and appropriate staff or contractors engaged to handle
this work, but of course, will not waste taxpayer dollars by hiring
staff and engaging contractors that may not be needed. Because of the
level of activity for our 2015-16 Fiscal Year, we decided to hire an
additional full-time planner at a cost to our taxpayers of
approximately $120,000 and pursued an RFP to engage an outside planning
firm and expanded the contracts for our City engineering firm and
building officials.
We also recognize that in addition to these known projects, there
will be hundreds of other projects and applications that arise that
cannot be anticipated. My City staff generally process 40 permit
applications per month.
The wireless industry generally does not alert local governments to
applications they anticipate filing, prior to actually submitting an
application. We are unsure if we can require pre-application filing
meetings as we do with other development projects, or if such process
would commence the shot clock. If a wireless infrastructure application
is filed, we will process it in due course. Actually, because of the FL
shot clock (which pre-dated the FCC's and actually affords less time),
such application will force our staff to delay processing other
applications, delaying the railroad, utility infrastructure and private
development projects, as well as government initiated water and sewer
and economic development. However, the FCC determined that such
applications are more important than any other projects the City may be
addressing. Thus, to comply with Federal requirements and avoid a
lawsuit, we will move such wireless application to the head of the
pack. What is further frustrating, is that often after submitting
applications, the wireless communications industry will revise its
needs and plans and seek to place applications on hold, or delay
providing information needed to move applications forward. That has
been the experience with the last three applications submitted by the
industry. We understand that this industry is in constant flux with
mergers, acquisitions, changed business plans and new technologies. But
starting and stopping government processing is not an efficient use of
limited resources.
Of course, time is money for all these projects. If the railroad,
electric utility or private developers complain about delays, frankly
it's easy for local leaders to blame Congress and the FCC in deciding
that instead of a first come, first serve, process, the wireless
communications industry gets special treatment.
I hope this elaborates sufficiently on what I meant that local
leaders face many challenges.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Cory Booker to
Hon. Gary Resnick
Question 1. No discussion of facilitating greater wireless
broadband infrastructure is complete unless it addresses issues of
local access. It has been my experience that local governments are
often best suited to provide innovative solutions to the toughest
challenges facing communities. Do you agree that local governments
should be free to adopt municipal broadband networks?
Answer. Absolutely. Local governments should have the freedom and
flexibility to determine whether municipal broadband is an appropriate
and viable option for their communities' technology and communications
needs. The Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) of the FCC, which
I have the privilege of chairing, submitted a recommendation to the
Commission supporting local authority to adopt municipal broadband
networks.\1\ The IAC acknowledged the many and diverse broadband
networks provided by local governments. In many community/local
government broadband networks, the private sector has been involved in
helping design, build, and/or operate the network, creating new
business opportunities and jobs in the process. We further mentioned
that we have noticed firsthand that the private sector has provided
better and more affordable broadband service in response to communities
even considering deploying their own broadband networks. The IAC noted
for example, in the case of the City of Chattanooga, which Petitioned
the FCC to overturn Tennessee's ban on municipal broadband, it was
offering 1 Gigabit per second broadband service for approximately $70/
month to consumers. Such local governments should be commended for
their commitment to their residents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Intergovernmental Advisory Committee to the Federal
Communications Commission Advisory Recommendation No. 2015-3, submitted
February 2, 2015. (https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/intergovernmental-
advisory-committee-comments)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are many areas of this country where residents and businesses
do not have access to broadband services or where there is only one
provider of broadband. There may be many reasons why the private sector
decides not to invest in broadband networks in a certain community.
When only one service provider serves a market, the quality of service,
rates, and customer satisfaction suffer in comparison with customers
who live in competitive markets. When the private sector does not
create a robust competitive market, local governments, on behalf of
their residents, should have the option of developing a broadband
system that will serve the needs of their local residents and
businesses.
In addition, the National League of Cities, National Association of
Counties, and National Association of Telecommunications Officers and
Advisors all have policies which support local authority to adopt
municipal broadband networks.
Question 2. What can we do at the Federal level to enable and
empower localities with the flexibility and tools necessary to provide
access to broadband to their constituents?
Answer. There are many and important actions the Federal Government
can undertake to enable and to empower localities with the flexibility
and tools to provide access to broadband to our residents.
First, the Federal Government can ensure that local governments
have a seat at the table when it comes to discussions and potential
legislation about broadband. Often times, localities are left out of
the discussion/consultation process, yet we are most in tune with our
communities' broadband needs and the challenges and opportunities at
the local level. For example, the ``Dig Once'' legislation has a lofty
purpose, but there have been few opportunities for input from local
governments, many of which have already adopted similar legislation and
may be responsible ultimately for implementing components of the
effort.
Second, the Federal Government should support the removal of
barriers to localities providing broadband to our constituents, either
directly or in public private partnerships. The FCC's recent action
overturning certain states' bans on municipal broadband is an example
of Federal Government action that allows greater local flexibility.
Third, other issues being addressed at the Federal level will
affect local governments' flexibility and tools that may be available
to address broadband access. For example, there are discussions
underway about continuing the tax exempt status of municipal bonds,
restricting certain local taxes, or making permanent the ban on
taxation on Internet service. If local governments do not have access
to financing and sufficient revenues, broadband access provided by
local governments may be harmed. In a similar manner, Federal funding
for transportation and infrastructure projects will enable local
governments to consider deploying infrastructure to enable greater
broadband access as part of such construction initiatives.
Finally, there exists significant fiber and conduit deployed
already in rights-of-way, which may be abandoned, unused, or used
currently by local governments for limited purposes. Often such fiber
and conduit may be subject to restrictions so that local governments
are not able to use such resources to enable broadband access for their
constituents. Many such restrictions are relics of antiquated policies
or anticompetitive goals put in place to limit local governments'
ability to use broadband networks. The Federal Government should
explore measures through which such valuable, but unused and underused
fiber and conduit resources, can be used by local governments to
provide broadband access to residents and businesses, particularly when
broadband service is otherwise lacking in the community. Below please
find several examples of restrictions that limit local government
flexibility to support broadband:
There are some federally funded projects, specifically
traffic signal automation, where many cities and counties have
installed conduit and other infrastructure that could be used
to support broadband deployment projects. However, because of
conditions on the Federal grant, these governments have been
reluctant to use conduit/fiber for wireless communications and
broadband or non-governmental purposes. In particular this is
the situation facing the City/County of San Francisco. These
facilities are conveniently located with mounting assets in the
form of traffic signals. If such restrictions were removed, it
could free up miles of existing assets already in place,
especially in urban and suburban settings, and not require
digging rights-of-ways and property.
In my City of Wilton Manors, FL, while we are a small city,
we have many residents who do not subscribe to broadband either
because of the cost or because they do not see the value in
their lives. We attempted to create a digital literacy center
using Federal CDBG funds to provide broadband for free to those
who could not afford it and to teach residents how to use
broadband effectively. Unfortunately, CDBG funds cannot be used
for such purpose. Removing such restrictions on Federal
programs would provide localities with more flexibility.
In Martin County, FL, the County has inventoried more than
90 cell towers that are within one mile of the County's
Community Broadband Network, which it constructed for its own
communications needs to avoid escalating prices for such
services by the private sector. The County has engaged in
discussions with private communications providers about
utilizing the County's network and aggregating providers'
backhaul. There are much more opportunities for DAS deployments
on this network as well. Unfortunately, several years ago the
State of Florida adopted restrictions on local governments
offering communications services, which calls into question the
viability of the County pursuing such endeavors with private
providers.
Many local governments utilize fiber INETs constructed by
their franchised cable operators. Cable operators imposed
restrictions on the use of such fiber to prohibit use for non-
governmental purposes. Even though the cable operators have
been paid many times over for the costs to construct such
INETs, the restrictions remain in place. There are many methods
to remove such restrictions, allowing local governments to
utilize such fiber for greater purposes. One of the questions
asked at the hearing was what the communications industry could
do to remove barriers to broadband. Certainly, if the industry
agreed to remove such restrictions, it would allow greater
flexibility for governments to use industry-constructed fiber
networks.
Question 3. Can municipal broadband networks be an important part
of expanding wireless availability in cities by providing additional
support for small cell and other wireless networks?
Answer. Unequivocally, yes, city and county broadband networks can
be an important part of expanding wireless broadband availability. As
noted above, often municipal broadband networks are limited by
antiquated restrictions, either established in state law or by
conditions imposed by private entities that constructed such networks.
Thus, such networks used by local governments in the U.S. cannot be
used to their full potential. Municipalities and counties have been at
the forefront of creating solutions for the wireless communications
industry to expand wireless services, particularly in areas that lacked
satisfactory coverage. Local governments control significant fiber and
other resources that, if restrictions were eliminated, could be used to
provide backhaul, redundancy and other vital technical support for
small cell and other wireless systems.
Local governments have a long history of utilizing their
infrastructure to support wireless communications. For years, local
governments have been leasing government owned towers erected for
public safety communications, water towers and buildings to wireless
providers for installation of communications antennas and related
devices. In addition, governments with unrestricted fiber and
infrastructure already support wireless uses. By way of example:
City and County-owned fiber can support wireless as a means
of backhaul (including DAS) and can serve as backbone or middle
mile for public or private last mile broadband deployment. If
we put a list together, it would run to hundreds of communities
that already do variations on both of these strategies. One
quick illustration: Washington, DC's own fiber supports public
safety wireless and a wide range of other City uses, while its
unrestricted fiber is offered to commercial providers that use
it to service the last mile.
In Arlington County, VA, much of the County's Public Safety
Ring, as it's known, co-opted the available ConnectArlington
conduit used for traffic and general county purposes. Arlington
County is completing a fiber backhaul project for its microwave
tower used for simulcasting emergency and public safety
officers handheld communications across the County.
The examples in response to question 2, with San Francisco
and Martin County, FL, further demonstrate the ability of
cities and counties to use infrastructure, already in place in
many cases, to support wireless and small cell networks.
In conclusion, local governments support broadband deployment. We
are not only regulators of the infrastructure installation and seek to
ensure that our constituents have access, but we are large consumers of
these services. In many cases, local governments can provide creative
solutions to improve broadband access, either on their own or by
facilitating deployment by private entities. Often local governments
are reluctant to explore such creative solutions because of antiquated
laws that restrict the use of funds or infrastructure, or
anticompetitive restrictions imposed by private entities. As a result,
much existing infrastructure owned and controlled by local governments
that could be utilized to support broadband and communications services
remains unused or underused. Thank you for the opportunity to respond
to these questions.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Deb Fischer to
Cory J. Reed
Question 1. Mr. Reed, you stated in your testimony that John Deere
supports allowing the Universal Service Fund to cover only broadband
services, instead of requiring both broadband and voice. Earlier this
year we had a letter with 61 senators that supported that proposal as
well. Can you expand on the importance of this issue?
Answer. Universal Service Fund support for stand-alone broadband is
important to ensure that rural end users of communications service,
both business and residential, have the same ability to subscribe to
broadband-only services as end users in urban areas. The FCC's 2011
Connect America Fund Order redirected the universal service system from
supporting voice to supporting broadband. Until recently, however, the
CAF provided support for broadband-only lines offered by the larger
incumbent providers but not the smaller, rural providers. Congress
directed that all consumers in our Nation should have access to
advanced telecommunications services, which includes broadband
connections that are increasingly necessary for active participation in
the global economy. Providing CAF support for broadband-only services
gives rural end users the same ability as urban end users to choose the
technologies that best meet their needs for various communications
services. Rural businesses need the flexibility to tailor their
technology solution--whether fixed or wireless or some combination of
both--in a way that best meets their particular needs. For example, a
farmer that spends time in the field may prefer to ``cut the cord'' for
voice communications, purchasing only broadband from the wireline
provider and broadband plus voice from the wireless provider. Now that
the FCC has amended its rules to give rural providers CAF support for
broadband-only lines, rural consumers should have increased access to
affordable wired broadband with or without wired voice service. This
should help make broadband more affordable in rural areas, promoting
greater broadband adoption. The FCC should be commended for updating
its rules to support stand-alone broadband in all areas of the country.
Question 2. Earlier this year Senator Klobuchar and I introduced
the Rural Spectrum Accessibility Act, which would incentivize wireless
carriers to lease unused spectrum to smaller rural carriers. Have any
of the witnesses had an opportunity to review this proposal or others
to incentivize spectrum sharing? Do you believe this would help expand
access?
Answer. Spectrum partitioning and/or leasing are important means of
freeing up underutilized spectrum that has been licensed to one carrier
to make it available for use by other providers serving users that need
spectrum. As just one method of making better use of our finite
spectrum resources, laws that permit and even encourage spectrum
``disaggregation'' and leasing play an important role in meeting demand
for wireless services and promoting innovation across multiple
industries. Innovation in wireless services and networks is an American
success story that includes the modern cell phone network to the
plethora of wireless devices emerging in the Internet of Things in a
wide variety of applications. Deere's precision ag technologies are one
just one example. Those wireless systems incorporate GPS-enabled high
precision agricultural equipment wirelessly transmitting real-time
agronomic and equipment data machine-to-machine and machine-to-farm.
Farmhouses communicate wirelessly with domestic and world market
interfaces, suppliers, customers, government agencies. These precision
farming technologies are now available to any producer to improve his
or her yields, significantly lower costs, and improve environmental
sustainability. However, rural areas where agricultural operations are
located often lack adequate wireless coverage.
Businesses and consumers should be able to resort to every
available strategy to make better use of spectrum resources in urban
and rural areas. To the extent we free up underutilized spectrum
through spectrum portioning or leasing, we enable the development of
new services and applications while preserving important existing
services. Just in the past few years we have seen creative and flexible
approaches to finding new spectrum resources through mandating greater
channel efficiencies, repurposing spectrum, creating new sharing
schemes, etc. The broadcast incentive auction, the AWS-3 auction, the
FCC's 3.5 GHz Citizen's Band service and White Spaces decisions, are
all examples of strategies to make greater use of spectrum resources
and help expand wireless coverage.
Ironically, evidence shows that unused spectrum in rural areas is
actually in abundant supply but it is often not easily accessible.
There may be multiple reasons for this that call for a broad-based
response. Not only can the business case for building wireless
infrastructure in lightly populated areas be challenging but, according
to some smaller providers, the FCC's auction and licensing rules
sometimes make it difficult for smaller rural carriers to participate
and gain access to spectrum. Therefore, there may be lightly used or
unused spectrum in rural areas under large wireless carrier licenses
that could be put to great use by smaller rural carriers. The Rural
Spectrum Accessibility Act would take a significant step toward
addressing this imbalance by creating an incentive for wireless
carriers to offer their unused spectrum to rural and smaller carriers
and expand wireless coverage. This measure, and other measures, will be
necessary to address the inadequate wireless coverage in rural areas
that persists today.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Steve Daines to
Cory J. Reed
Question. Mr. Reed, you mentioned the need to update and expand
USF, particularly the Mobility Fund. Several Montana companies were
beneficiaries of the Mobility Fund Phase I and were able to connect
communities to mobile broadband for the first time. But now it appears
as though the FCC is scaling back the Mobility Fund and pushing funding
for fiber rather than mobile broadband. Is this trend concerning to
your company? And how will the underserved rural farmers become
connected without these programs?
Answer. Thank you for asking specifically about support for
wireless broadband and the Mobility Fund. Ag producers need access to
all broadband technology options to reap the full benefits that new
precision agriculture offers. John Deere customers need flexibility to
adopt the appropriate technology solutions depending on ag equipment
used, crops, livestock, terrain, climate, proximity to broadband
interconnection points and population centers, and barriers to local
land acquisition and access. However, we are concerned that the FCC's
rural broadband support programs do not place sufficient priority on
providing access to the full suite of technology options--wired, fixed
and mobile wireless. Fiber, including fiber in the middle mile that
supports last mile fiber and last mile wireless, is important to
broadband coverage but it must not be the exclusive technology choice.
In some circumstances, wireless access may be the best or even the only
feasible solution.
This is why it is so important to preserve and even expand the
Mobility Fund. The FCC created a support fund dedicated exclusively to
mobile services for the first time in 2011. The Mobility Fund was
created to ensure the availability of mobile broadband networks in
areas where a private-sector business case was not supporting needed
wireless services. The FCC's early plans contemplated a Mobility Fund
Phase II but today, more than 5 years later, that fund is yet to become
a reality. The Commission has since revised the program to retarget
funds to support 4G LTE mobile broadband and voice service and in 2014,
the FCC asked for further input on how best to distribute Mobility Fund
Phase II support. Now, 2 1/2 years later, the FCC has yet to adopt
rules to implement Mobility Fund Phase II and the effort appears to be
stalled. Instead, despite the growing demand for and importance of
mobile services in rural areas, the Commission's current commitment to
the Mobility Fund is in real question and the Commission has even
suggested that it may not continue the fund.
The Commission should confirm that expanded broadband in rural
areas is a current priority by issuing a decision that preserves and
even expands the Mobility Fund Phase II. While there is a need to
update these support programs to better ensure coverage of agricultural
areas, the Commission can and should act promptly to confirm the status
the Mobility Fund Phase II while considering further updates.
Another area where policy preferences for fiber over wireless
should be overcome is in the distribution of Connect America Funds
(CAF) support. The method by which CAF funds are distributed will
determine whether rural families and businesses in agriculture will
have the flexibility required to apply the technology solution--whether
fixed, wireless, or some combination of both--that best meets their
particular needs. The ``tiered'' approach that the Commission has
proposed would enable only wireline providers to bid in the first round
of an auction, thereby giving wireline an advantage over wireless
technologies. Carriers interested in providing wireless service could
be excluded from accessing support funds; ultimately users' flexibility
to employ the most appropriate technology solutions to meet a wide
variety of circumstances would be limited. If a wireless service is a
superior option for particular users (based on the cost and other
efficiencies that apply to the equipment, terrain, distance and other
specific attributes of a locale to be served), then wireless providers
should not be precluded from bidding in the first round to meet these
needs.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Cory Booker to
Cory J. Reed
Question 1. It is clear from the recent spectrum auction, which
attracted over $44 billion dollars in bids, and from your testimony
that the demand for licensed wireless spectrum is growing. While
Congress is addressing the need for licensed spectrum, we must also
take seriously the need to expand our reserve of unlicensed spectrum
for Wi-Fi and other purposes.
Answer. John Deere certainly agrees that there is an important need
for additional, unlicensed spectrum to be made available for mobile
applications. This is especially true for the development and adoption
of current and future innovations in production agriculture.
Question 2. Just how important is unlicensed spectrum and Wi-Fi to
the continued expansion of mobile device communication?
Answer. John Deere believes that unlicensed spectrum is as
important as licensed spectrum for continued expansion of mobile device
communication. It is true that the demand for licensed spectrum
continues to grow, fueled by soaring consumer and business demand for
continuous voice, data, and video connectivity. Congress and the FCC
have acted to meet licensed spectrum demand in several ways: through
the digital TV transition, advanced wireless auctions, and the
impending 600 MHz incentive auction.
Today, however, mobile technologies include a broad range of
services and devices that operate on unlicensed as well as licensed
spectrum. Unlicensed devices complement licensed services, and meet a
wide range of consumer and business needs that contribute tens of
billions of dollars to the U.S. economy each year. Unlicensed spectrum,
made available for public use decades ago, has become an essential
platform for a thriving ecosystem of device and service innovations
that are now a part of everyday life.
For example, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth are integral to many consumer,
business, medical, industrial and other devices. Unlicensed spectrum is
critical to the burgeoning ``Internet of Things'' in today's economy.
This includes connected automobiles, wearable health technologies,
remote energy monitoring, automated manufacturing, logistics and
inventory control, and countless new applications that are still to be
developed for commercial use.
As applied to the agricultural sector, GPS technologies and
unlicensed spectrum combine to connect agricultural machinery operating
in croplands, thus enabling farmers to achieve unprecedented levels of
productivity, as well as energy, resource and environmental
conservation. John Deere is pioneering such innovations in modern, high
precision, data-driven farming and believes that access to unlicensed
spectrum will continue to spur innovations that deliver important new
public benefits.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Marco Rubio to
Bruce Morrison
Question. Delays, needless paperwork, and moratoria mean higher
costs for wireless infrastructure companies, correct? And would you
agree that these factors contribute to less deployment? Would it be
correct to conclude that many regulations ignore the realities of
modern wireless technology--for instance, applying the same rules for
constructing a new 200-foot tower to swapping out new antennas for
older, existing ones?
Answer. Yes, Senator Rubio, the cost to deploy or build facilities
is a key consideration when determining how to provide coverage to
certain areas. Applying the same rules, regardless of the scope of the
facility, typically slows down deployment however. Looking at low-
impact sites (attaching antennas to existing structures, right of way
deployment, and replacing existing equipment) under the same view as a
full new tower site deployment typically incurs longer time frames and
costs despite the fact that any impact on the environment or community
is usually negligible.
Also, due to new technologies, there is an increased need for
smaller, low-visibility sites that need to be deployed to handle gaps
in the network based on customer demands. These sites typically cover a
lot less area than a typical wireless site, so the ability to deploy in
a quick, cost-effective manner allows for a more efficient build out.
Many jurisdictional codes and processes already account for different
deployment methodologies outside of wireless. Policymakers could help
industry by applying similar approaches to wireless deployment.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Deb Fischer to
Bruce Morrison
Question 1. Mr. Morrison talked about a few new technologies that
could change broadband infrastructure. Federal policy, however, can
slow the implementation of these technologies or inhibit them
altogether. Do you think there are structural changes that could be
made to Federal agencies that would encourage the integration of new
technologies?
Answer. Yes Senator Fischer, Federal policy can assist technology
implementation by continuing to improve processes as they relate to:
local jurisdictional review timelines (so-called shot clocks),
environmental review processes, and use in the public right of way. New
technology typically requires the swapping out or addition of new
wireless equipment and as a result, having a streamlined process for
carrier site modification is very important. This is not always
captured however in shot-clock policy as deployment can involve
replacing existing equipment (ground and antennas for example) or the
expansion of additional equipment for other carriers.
Also, with new technologies comes the increased need for smaller,
low-visibility sites that must be deployed to handle gaps in the
network. These sites typically cover a lot less area than a typical
wireless site, so the ability to deploy in a quick, cost-effective
manner is very important and allows for better infrastructure build
out. Many of these micro or small-cell sites have a minimal footprint
and can be located in public right of ways such as rooftops and
billboards.
It is important to note though that small-site technology shouldn't
be subject to the same scrutiny and processes as a full macro-site
deployment. Many jurisdictions account for this methodology outside of
wireless. For example, the permitting process to construct an addition
to an existing house is much more streamlined than one for an entirely
new construction project. Wireless broadband infrastructure should
benefit from a similar methodology.
Question 2. Earlier this year Senator Klobuchar and I introduced
the `Rural Spectrum Accessibility Act,' which would incentivize
wireless carriers to lease unused spectrum to smaller rural carriers.
Have any of the witnesses had an opportunity to review this proposal or
others to incentivize spectrum sharing? Do you believe this would help
expand access?
Answer. Ericsson believes that efforts to make broadband service
available to unserved areas can reduce poverty, enable development, and
foster better lives. Ericsson has the capability and capacity to
support rural broadband infrastructure deployment at the request of our
commercial customers, yet cost remains the biggest challenge in this
area.
Proposals, such as the ``Rural Spectrum Accessibility Act,'' that
seek to incentivize major wireless carriers to collaborate with their
smaller providers should be considered with the goal of expanding
wireless broadband access to rural and underserved communities.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to
Bruce Morrison
Question 1. Thank you for providing the rural perspective at the
Commerce Committee's broadband infrastructure hearing. While your
testimony focused on agricultural areas, the needs and challenges are
similar in areas where construction, forestry, and mining machines
operate. What can we do to encourage broadband deployment in rural
areas, not only where people are living, but also where they are
working?
Answer. Deere agrees that it is important to promote policies that
foster broadband deployment to rural areas where people work and
travel, not only where they live. This includes areas where
construction, forestry, and mining operations are conducted. Existing
government efforts to promote broadband deployment in rural areas have
historically assessed broadband availability or unavailability based on
the state of broadband coverage in population centers, namely
residential areas, along with ``anchor institutions'' identified as
schools and hospitals. While this approach identifies needs of people
at their homes, it often can mask a severe lack of broadband access in
business and commercial locations in rural areas thus overlooking the
need for broadband access to the very locations that are the economic
lifeblood sustaining the rural community.
Deere is intensely interested in expediting the deployment of
mobile broadband services to rural areas where, by definition, farming,
ranching, and other agricultural operations are concentrated.
Therefore, Deere respectfully suggests that U.S. government agencies
with broadband deployment mandates, including the FCC, update the way
they assess the need for broadband in rural communities. In particular,
Deere recommends that agencies with deployment mandates view
availability through an additional lens--one that incorporates
geographic and functional usage that captures the importance of
promoting broadband access to economic centers.
An important example of this is the need to assess broadband
availability in areas of agricultural operations--specifically,
croplands and the farmhouse center that manages the farming operations.
Broadband infrastructure and services are sorely needed to support the
growing demand in the agricultural sector for machine-to-machine
services to optimize efficiencies in operations, provide real time
access to market data and transactions, and manage vendor and materials
resources. Together, croplands and farmhouse centers represent the
economic drivers to most rural communities in the United States. As
such, farmhouses should be considered an ``anchor institution'' in
those programs that provide support to specific functions. Similarly,
existing support programs do not adequately consider broadband
availability in rural areas where construction, forestry and mining
operations are concentrated. Ensuring that these locations also have
access to broadband services--in addition to population centers and
traditional ``anchor institutions''-is essential to supporting rural
communities today and in the future.
In addition to treating farm institutions as ``anchor
institutions,'' for those rural areas that are identified as needing
support for broadband deployment, policies should ensure that
sufficient funds exist to support mobile broadband deployment,
including in the Mobility Fund, which is of particular value in areas
where wireline coverage over very large areas is costly and difficult.
Specifically, Deere supports:
Retention and expansion of the Mobility Fund
Addition of ``cropland'' as a metric to assess need and
funding awards
Treatment of farmhouses as ``anchor institutions''
Increased broadband speeds but not rigid performance
thresholds that may discourage deployment of intermediate
speeds or technologies that greatly improve on existing access
to broadband.
Funding of middle mile facilities for rate of return
carriers
Policies facilitating stand-alone broadband to foster
deployment in rural areas.
Eliminating barriers to infrastructure deployment, including
streamlined environmental review of infrastructure projects,
steps that make it easier to deploy infrastructure on Federal
lands, ``dig once'' policies, etc.
Use of public funds on sharable and open backhaul capacity
Question 2. I want to emphasize how important it is for the rural
carriers in my State that there is certainty in our funding mechanisms
for funding broadband infrastructure. Could you elaborate on this
point?
Answer. All businesses, including providers of rural broadband and
telecommunications services, need certainty to invest in new
infrastructure to grow their business and bring cutting edge
technologies to their customers. Understanding the rules of the road
and knowing that they will not change mid-stream is imperative to long-
range business planning. Rate-of-return carriers still cannot receive
universal service support for stand-alone broadband and middle mile
backhaul four years after the FCC adopted rules governing such support
for price cap carriers. Similarly, wireless carriers are still waiting
for FCC rules governing ongoing support in the Mobility Fund or
elsewhere for upgrading wireless services in rural areas to offer high-
speed broadband. The FCC needs to act, on its own or pursuant to
legislative direction, as soon as possible to end this period of
prolonged uncertainty so rate-of-return and wireless carriers can plan
and execute broadband investments in rural America.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Steve Daines to
Bruce Morrison
Question. Mr. Morrison, removing barriers to broadband deployment
doesn't guarantee that companies will invest in networks in rural
America. From your experience, what are some incentives that can
encourage companies to serve rural consumers?
Answer. Thank you for the question Senator Daines. As a leader in
the ICT industry, Ericsson aims to provide significant and measureable
contributions to a sustainable ``Networked Society,'' a world where
individuals and industries are empowered to reach their full potential.
To that end, Ericsson believes that efforts to make broadband service
available to unserved areas, including those in Montana, can reduce
poverty, enable development, and foster better lives. Ericsson has the
capability and capacity to support rural broadband infrastructure
deployment at the request of our commercial customers, yet cost remains
the biggest challenge in this area.
Federal subsidiaries and allocation of funds to help with
development have spurred deployment in the past. Additionally,
facilitating the access or rights for low-band spectrum makes rural
deployment more feasible due to signal strength. In addition, any
incentives that can be provided to land and facility owners (public and
private) for the placement of wireless equipment or to access utilities
for power and backhaul needs would prove helpful as well.
Finally, to the extent that the Federal Government can incentivize
investment by wireless carriers, through programs such as the `Connect
America Fund' (CAF) and the `Mobility Fund,' rural and underserved
communities will benefit greatly.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to
Bruce Morrison
Question 1. Mr. Morrison, there have been cases in which a tower is
built in a rural area but the Federal permitting process slows down the
deployment of wireline backhaul rendering the tower useless. Is it
sometimes the case that the barrier to broadband access is the
permitting process which slows down deployment of wireline backhaul
infrastructure?
Answer. To help avoid situations like the one you describe,
wireless operators almost always develop a backhaul plan prior to the
construction of a communications tower. The case you reference may
occur when a tower is built for a government communication system that
is also offered for collocation by wireless carriers. Without adequate
backhaul from the tower location, those carriers may not have an
interest in collocating. I don't believe that the permitting process
renders a tower useless, but it certainly can delay and increase the
cost of the development process significantly. Allow me to offer some
additional insight and context into these processes.
Any cellular facility requires a connection to an appropriate
backhaul source with enough capacity to handle the large amount of data
being consumed for customer needs. Typically, that can be accomplished
with fiber or in some cases, cable. Rural deployment of a proper
backhaul network does create a barrier to tower placement and can be
hampered by construction requirements (locating cables underground for
example) and franchise/right of way agreements which dictate how and
where equipment can be deployed.
This is the similar predicament for rural homeowners that do not
have access to proper backhaul networks and must resort to dial-up or
satellite options. One solution to satisfy this backhaul need is by
utilizing a point-to-point microwave to connect to a fiber backhaul
option. Even that option is not free of challenges however due to line-
of-site, tower structural capacity, and microwave height
considerations.
Question 2. What are the other barriers to deploying this
infrastructure?
Answer. Lack of a sound business case that allows wireless
operators to recoup the higher costs of infrastructure development and
deployment in rural areas is one of the most significant challenges to
wireless broadband infrastructure deployment.
The cost challenges to deploy in rural areas include: long
distances, mountainous geography, shorter construction windows due to
seasonal inclement weather, a lack of power availability, upfront
costs/approvals for access roads, land clearing, government land
ownership issues, and tower height limitations.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Cory Booker to
Bruce Morrison
Question 1. It is clear from the recent spectrum auction, which
attracted over $44 billion in bids, and from your testimony that the
demand for licensed wireless spectrum is growing. While Congress is
addressing the need for licensed spectrum, we must also take seriously
the need to expand our reserve of unlicensed spectrum for Wi-Fi and
other purposes.
Answer. Ericsson supports both licensed and unlicensed platforms
and integrates both types of solutions in our product offerings to
customers. Ericsson is a member of, and contributor to, all of the
technological development and standards groups furthering both licensed
and unlicensed platforms (e.g., the Third Generation Project
(``3GPP''), the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
(``IEEE'') and its many working groups, and the Wi-Fi Alliance
(``WFA'')). We support the advancement of LTE-U/LAA, we support Wi-Fi,
and we are committed to continued innovation and equitable access for
multiple technologies using unlicensed platforms. LTE-U/LAA will allow
a mobile network operator to combine licensed spectrum operations with
access to unlicensed spectrum to opportunistically enhance users' data
rates, performance, and experience. It offers a technology choice for
offloading traffic using unlicensed resources, integrated with the
licensed carrier's network. LTE-U/LAA is standards-based and designed
to co-exist with other technologies using unlicensed bands, including
802.11/Wi-Fi.
Question 2. Just how important is unlicensed spectrum and Wi-Fi to
the continued expansion of mobile device communication?
Answer. The world is fast becoming what Ericsson describes as the
``Networked Society,'' where connectivity is the linchpin for new ways
of innovating, collaborating and socializing. The transition to this
Networked Society represents a fundamental shift in technology
comparable to the Industrial Revolution. In the Networked Society
everyone and everything will be connected everywhere in real time--and
that, of course, requires additional spectrum. Whether it is through
solutions utilizing licensed, unlicensed (Wi-fi is one of many
unlicensed technology innovations along with Bluetooth, an Ericsson
invention), or shared spectrum, wireless communication is driving
innovation and sparking new activities.
Ericsson's most recent forecast projects that North American mobile
data traffic will balloon many times by 2020, and U.S. policy must
embrace a combination of licensed and unlicensed spectrum initiatives
if industry and innovators can hope to keep up. The mobile networks of
today and in the future will need to use multiple, evolving aspects of
licensed and unlicensed technologies to deliver the best mobile
experience possible in any given environment. Access to more licensed
spectrum is a critical element, but unlicensed spectrum is also an
integral component for meeting the growing demand for mobile broadband.
[all]