[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
BROADBAND: DEPLOYING AMERICA'S 21ST CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 21, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-15
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
25-494 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
FRED UPTON, Michigan BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ANNA G. ESHOO, California
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas GENE GREEN, Texas
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi DORIS O. MATSUI, California
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey KATHY CASTOR, Florida
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
PETE OLSON, Texas JERRY McNERNEY, California
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia PETER WELCH, Vermont
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia PAUL TONKO, New York
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
BILLY LONG, Missouri KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
BILL FLORES, Texas Massachusetts
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana TONY CARDENAS, California
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma RAUL RUIZ, California
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina SCOTT H. PETERS, California
CHRIS COLLINS, New York DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
TIM WALBERG, Michigan
MIMI WALTERS, California
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
Chairman
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois PETER WELCH, Vermont
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky RAUL RUIZ, California
PETE OLSON, Texas DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida ANNA G. ESHOO, California
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
BILLY LONG, Missouri G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
BILL FLORES, Texas DORIS O. MATSUI, California
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Tennessee JERRY McNERNEY, California
CHRIS COLLINS, New York FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota officio)
MIMI WALTERS, California
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Tennessee, opening statement.......................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Michael F. Doyle, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................ 3
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 5
Hon. Leonard Lance, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New Jersey, opening statement............................... 7
Prepared statement...........................................
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, prepared statement..................................... 170
Witnesses
Steven K. Berry, President and CEO, Competitive Carriers
Association.................................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Answers to submitted questions...............................
Michael Conners, Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe........................ 28
Prepared statement........................................... 30
Answers to submitted questions...............................
Thomas A. Murray, Founder and Managing Member, Community Wireless
Structures, and Chairman of the Board of Directors, Wireless
Infrastructure Association..................................... 36
Prepared statement........................................... 38
Answers to submitted questions...............................
Joanne S. Hovis, President, CTC Technology and Energy............ 48
Prepared statement........................................... 50
Answers to submitted questions...............................
Leroy T. Carlson, Jr., CEO, Telephone and Data Systems, Inc., and
Chairman, U.S. Cellular........................................ 62
Prepared statement........................................... 64
Answers to submitted questions...............................
James W. Stegeman, President, Costquest Associates, Inc.......... 128
Prepared statement........................................... 131
Answers to submitted questions...............................
Bryan Darr, CEO, Mosaik Solutions................................ 157
Prepared statement........................................... 159
Answers to submitted questions...............................
Submitted Material
Broadband coverage map of Iowa, submitted by Mr. Loebsack........ 171
Statement of Public Knowledge, submitted by Ms. Eshoo............ 172
Statement of the Satellite Industry Association, submitted by
Mrs. Blackburn................................................. 175
Statement of Rocket Fiber, submitted by Mrs. Blackburn........... 180
Statement of the American Cable Association, submitted by Mrs.
Blackburn...................................................... 183
Statement of CTIA, submitted by Mrs. Blackburn................... 192
Statement of Century Link, submitted by Mrs. Blackburn........... 197
Statement of the Information Technology Industry Council,
submitted by Mrs. Blackburn.................................... 198
Statement of various telecom groups.............................. 199
Statement of the Telecommunications Industry Association......... 202
BROADBAND: DEPLOYING AMERICA'S 21ST CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 2017
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
room 2322 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Marsha Blackburn
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Lance, Shimkus, Latta, Guthrie,
Olson, Kinzinger, Bilirakis, Johnson, Long, Flores, Brooks,
Collins, Cramer, Walters, Costello, Doyle, Welch, Clarke,
Loebsack, Ruiz, Dingell, Eshoo, Engel, Matsui, McNerney, and
Pallone (ex officio).
Staff present: Chuck Flint, Policy Coordinator,
Communications and Technology; Adam Fromm, Director of Outreach
and Coalitions; Gene Fullano, Detailee, Communications and
Technology; Giulia Giannangeli, Legislative Clerk, Digital
Commerce and Consumer Protection/Communications and Technology;
Kelsey Guyselman, Counsel, Communications and Technology; Alex
Miller, Video Production Aide and Press Assistant; David Redl,
Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; Dan Schneider,
Press Secretary; Gregory Watson, Legislative Clerk,
Communications and Technology; Jeff Carroll, Minority Staff
Director; Alex Debianchi, Minority Telecom Fellow; David
Goldman, Minority Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology;
Jerry Leverich, Minority Counsel; Lori Maarbjerg, Minority FCC
Detailee; Jessica Martinez, Minority Outreach and Member
Services Coordinator; and Dan Miller, Minority Staff Assistant.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Mrs. Blackburn [presiding]. The Subcommittee on
Communications and Technology will now come to order.
The Chair now recognizes herself for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
And I do want to welcome everyone to the Communications and
Technology Subcommittee hearing titled, appropriately,
``Broadband: Deploying America's 21st Century Infrastructure''.
Also, a thank you to the witnesses for appearing as we
examine the barriers to deployment and consider discussion
drafts to facilitate the deployment of communications
infrastructure.
Broadband is the infrastructure challenge of this decade,
and the digital divide continues to frustrate so many
Americans. We must cut through the red tape by streamlining
permitting processes and implement accurate availability of
data in order to solve the broadband dilemma.
Lack of broadband access, particularly in our rural areas,
is an issue which affects the constituents of numerous members
of this subcommittee, Republican and Democrat. We are all tired
of hearing stories about parents driving their children to the
local McDonald's for internet access in order to finish
homework assignments. We owe them better, period.
The 5G revolution is upon us, and we should modernize our
laws to address issues such as tower siting and federal rights-
of-way which are tying the hands of our private sector.
Let's consider the small cell phenomenon. Many carriers are
now deploying small cells, the size of pizza boxes, as opposed
to large towers. Small cells can be easily attached to
freestanding poles, mitigate the risk of adverse environmental
impacts, and are less likely to upset local zoning ordinances.
They simply do not require the depth of review contemplated by
outdated laws designed for larger towers.
Each administration has attempted to spur broadband
deployment, beginning with the Clinton administration's efforts
in 1995 when GSA tried to streamline the permitting process for
wireless antennas. $7.2 billion in federal grants and loans
were awarded through NTIA's Broadband Technology Opportunity
Program and the RUS Broadband Initiative Program as a part of
the Obama administration's American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009. President Trump has signaled that broadband will
be a significant part of his administration's planned
infrastructure package.
Therefore, we will be considering two discussion drafts
that expedite broadband deployment. The first will assist these
efforts by doing things such as creating an inventory of
federal assets that can be used to attach or install broadband
infrastructure. And two, requiring all landholding agencies to
use common templates when leasing space for wireless broadband
attachments. And No. 3, streamlining processes for
communications facilities location applications at the
Department of Interior and the Forest Service. The second,
Representative Eshoo's ``Dig Once'' initiative, would mandate
the inclusion of broadband conduit during theconstruction of
certain highway projects that receive federal funding.
In addition to reducing barriers to deployment, we must
accurately collect and aggregate data to update the National
Broadband Map. The map has not been updated since June 2014,
when BTOP funding ceased. It is imperative that we fix these
maps, but doing so is a fool's errand without precise data.
This will ensure that private and federal investments are
targeted at unserved areas.
Unleashing broadband will create economic, educational, and
healthcare opportunities for millions of hardworking taxpayers.
A recent Accenture report notes that smart cities growth could
result in a $500 billion impact on GDP over 10 years.
People want broadband as much as new roads. Republicans and
Democrats are eager to work together to solve this problem.
Thank you, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Blackburn follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Marsha Blackburn
Welcome everyone to the Communications and Technology
Subcommittee's hearing titled: ``Broadband: Deploying America's
21st Century Infrastructure''. Also, thank you to the witnesses
for appearing as we examine barriers to deployment and consider
discussion drafts to facilitate the deployment of
communications infrastructure. Broadband is the infrastructure
challenge of this decade and the ``digital divide'' continues
to frustrate many Americans. We must cut through red tape by
streamlining permitting processes and implement accurate
availability data in order to solve the broadband dilemma.
Lack of broadband access, particularly in rural areas, is
an issue which affects the constituents of numerous Members of
this subcommittee, Republican and Democrat. We are all tired of
hearing stories about parents driving their children to the
local McDonald's for Internet access in order to finish
homework assignments. We owe them better, period.The 5G
revolution is upon us and we should modernize our laws to
address issues such as tower siting and federal rights of ways,
which are tying the hands of our private sector.
Let's consider the ``small cell'' phenomenon. Many carriers
are now deploying small cells the size of pizza boxes, as
opposed to building large towers. Small cells can be easily
attached to freestanding poles, mitigate the risk of adverse
environmental impacts, and are less likely to upset local
zoning ordinances. They simply do not require the depth of
review contemplated by outdated laws designed for larger
towers.
Each Administration has attempted to spur broadband
deployment beginning with the Clinton Administration's efforts
in 1995 when GSA tried to streamline the permitting process for
wireless antennas. $7.2 billion in Federal grants and loans
were awarded through NTIA's Broadband Technology Opportunity
Program and the RUS Broadband Initiative Program as a part of
the Obama Administration's American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009. President Trump has signaled that broadband will
be a significant part of his Administration's planned
infrastructure package.
Therefore, we will be considering two discussion drafts
that expedite broadband deployment. The first will assist these
efforts by doing things such as: 1) creating an inventory of
federal assets that can be used to attach or install broadband
infrastructure; 2) requiring all landholding agencies to use
common templates when leasing space for wireless broadband
attachments; and 3) streamlining processes for communications
facilities location applications at the Department of Interior
and Forest Service. The second, Representative Eshoo's ``Dig
Once'' initiative, would mandate the inclusion of broadband
conduit during the construction of certain highway projects
which receive federal funding.
In addition to reducing barriers to deployment, we must
accurately collect and aggregate data to update the National
Broadband Map. The map has not been updated since June 2014
when BTOP funding ceased. It is imperative that we fix the map,
but doing so is a fool's errand without precise data. This will
ensure that private and federal investments are targeted at
unserved areas.
Unleashing broadband will create economic, educational and
healthcare opportunities for millions of hardworking taxpayers.
A recent Accenture report notes that smart cities growth could
result in a $500 billion impact on GDP over ten years. People
want broadband as much as new roads. Republicans and Democrats
are eager to work together to solve this challenge.
Mrs. Blackburn. At this point I recognize Mr. Doyle for 5
minutes for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this hearing
today, and to all of the witnesses for appearing before us
today.
Access to affordable broadband remains one of the great
challenges faced by people in this country, and far too many
people in this country either have no access, limited access,
or overpriced access. Broadband is an essential tool for
participation in modern life. We use it to find employment,
educate our children, get access to health care, and connect
with our communities. But far too many Americans don't have the
type of connectivity that they want or need, and certainly in
many parts of the country the free market has failed to close
these gaps.
As many of the witnesses point out in their testimony,
carriers that provide connectivity under the Universal Service
Program will not be able to raise enough capital to build out
or sustain rural broadband networks on their own. As major
cities are looking at the challenges and opportunities of
gigabit or multi-gigabit 5G wireless deployments in the next
few years, rural carriers will be working over the next 10
years to deploy basic LTE services.
I think moving forward with this program is critical, but
the challenge we face as a nation is that servicing rural
America will require greater sustained investment if we hope to
prevent communities from being left behind. Tax credits and
toll booths can't sustain infrastructure in places that don't
have economically-viable markets.
The draft bills offered by the majority today are fine
bills that address a number of challenges to deploying
broadband, but they don't get at the real problem, which is
that there isn't a business case for investing in these
regions. I was looking through some of the data submitted by
CostQuest Associates from the second panel. Some members here
have districts with as few as 11 percent of the household
served by terrestrial broadband. Recent studies have also shown
redlining in cities like Cleveland, which have resulted in low-
income communities being left behind while affluent parts of
the city receive upgraded service.
And access isn't our only challenge. The FCC found that 82
percent of the country has only one provider to choose from for
high-speed broadband. With numbers like that, if we were
talking about health care, Republicans would be fighting to
repeal and replace internet service in this country.
The Consumer Federation of America found that a lack of
competition results in Americans overpaying roughly $60 billion
a year for broadband that amounts to $250 billion over the past
five years. According to CostQuest Associates, that overage
alone would pay for the buildout of a ubiquitous high-speed
network that could support high consumer use, autonomous
vehicles, and future demand. We can't ignore the impact that a
lack of competition has on cost to consumers or the pace of
deployment.
At this time, Madam Chair, I would like to yield the
balance of my time to Ms. Matsui.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Doyle, for yielding me time.
Technology plays a role in nearly every sector of our
economy. Yet, across our country too many families face a
digital divide. This has real consequences on the American
people and their ability to compete. Not having access to
broadband could mean a child is unable to do research online or
send a homework assignment on time.
In order to ensure our families are equipped with tools
they need to participate in today's digital economy, we need to
make real, sustained federal investments in broadband
deployment. This is going to require more than tax cuts and
deregulatory action.
Our country has always been committed to the principle of
universal service and recognized that there is a public sector
role for places the private sector will never go. Millions of
Americans could lose out if we don't make a commitment now to
build the infrastructure we need for all of us to compete in
the 21st century.
Thank you, Mr. Doyle. I yield to anyone else who wants
time.
Mr. Doyle. Yes, reclaiming, would anybody like the last
minute? Yes, Mr. Lujan.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member Doyle,
for the time today.
Access to broadband, as we know, is a critical resource for
all Americans today. It is how they learn, find jobs, do
business, communicate with family, follow the news. But in my
state and too many rural states, we have been left behind.
Congress plans to advance a long overdue infrastructure
package, and it must include meaningful investments in
broadband.
We must also be creative in how we support such
investments, which is why I am working to develop legislation
that seeks to assist broadband buildout, not through direct
government investments, but through federal incentives. My
discussion draft, the Broadband Infrastructure Finance
Innovation Act, creates low-interest financing opportunities
for public/private partnerships as well as state and local
authorities. These opportunities include lines of credit,
secured loans, loan guarantees, and interest rates pegged to
that of Treasury bonds.
So, I look forward to today's discussion and, with that, I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back, and we are
waiting for a couple of members on our side to come from the
Capitol. So, Mr. Pallone, I will recognize you for 5 minutes. I
know you are just coming in, and I know Mr. Loebsack wants a
portion of that time. So, I will seek the leadership, your
guidance on this. Do you want to claim the time or Mr.
Loebsack?
Mr. Pallone. Yes, I will.
Mrs. Blackburn. You will claim the time. The gentleman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. I will make sure, yes, that I yield at the end
to Mr. Loebsack.
I want to thank you, Madam Chairwoman and our Ranking
Member Doyle, for the hearing, and our witnesses.
In these uncertain economic times, deploying more secure,
high-speed internet means providing more opportunities for more
people, opportunities to get a proper education, to apply for
new jobs, or to train for a new career. And that is why the
Democratic members of this subcommittee have introduced bills
to maximize this potential, especially for those that are
struggling to find good jobs.
Our bills also give the FCC a key role in keeping our
networks secure. These efforts are critical because secure
broadband could help give all Americans a fair shot, even in
the corners of this country that are hardest to reach.
During the last Congress we worked to draft a discussion
bill that had bipartisan support here in our committee. We are
also happy to move forward with Congresswoman Eshoo's Dig Once
bill. And we are ready to get back to work again this year.
But, without prior consultation, Republicans unilaterally
revised this bipartisan bill, and at this point we are still
reviewing the new draft. But I would have hoped that the
Republican majority would have consulted with us prior to
revising the legislation and announcing this legislative
hearing.
At the same time, the proposal in this bill will only get
us so far. More critically, we must include broadband in our
efforts to overhaul the nation's infrastructure. Congress needs
to invest in a connected future, and I have seen some suggest
that tax incentives will somehow increase broadband in rural
and tribal areas. But tax cuts alone won't get it done,
especially in areas where there is not a strong business case,
like tribal lands.
The FCC staff recently released a report showing what it
would actually take to deploy to these remote areas and
explaining that it will cost at least $40 billion to reach 98
percent of the population. The costs go up dramatically to
reach the last 2 percent, and that is a serious investment that
we should be discussing as part of any infrastructure bill.
Unfortunately, the Trump administration is ignoring the
needs of the people in rural America and tribal lands. The
President's budget would brutally cut off agencies like the
U.S. Economic Development Administration and the Appalachian
Regional Commission. These agencies are critical to support
deployment in the parts of the country that could use the jobs
that come with more broadband. And this Congress must reject
the President's budget and we must pass a real infrastructure
bill that includes at least the $40 billion to make sure 98
percent of the country gets broadband.
So, today's witnesses are the types of experts we need to
hear from to lay the foundation for that legislation.
And I would like to yield my time, I guess I am yielding 1
minute. You already spoke, Mr. Lujan? All right, then, I will
yield the rest of the time to Congressman Loebsack.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Madam
Chair, for this hearing.
Broadband is not a luxury for rural America; it is
survival. And I think everybody who is here today understands
that.
Communities cannot thrive if they are left behind as the
rest of the country moves forward. Investing in broadband
creates jobs and it helps communities grow. There are two
critical things we need to connect these communities, dollars
and data. We are talking about dollars, but we also need data.
We need direct investment in fixed and mobile broadband, just
like we invest in other types of infrastructure, and we need
data. Right now, the data the FCC is using to determine where
to invest in wireless shows that the entire state of Iowa, for
example, is covered.
Madam Chair, I would like to request unanimous consent to
enter into the record a map I have here of coverage of Iowa.
Mrs. Blackburn. So ordered.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Loebsack. As you can see, folks, according to the FCC,
all of Iowa gets 4G LTE coverage, according to the FCC, at the
moment. Now I am constantly driving through my 24 counties to
meet with constituents in Iowa, and I can tell you, and they
can tell you as well, that this is not a reality. It is just
not a reality. We have dead spots; we have dropped calls; we
have poor speeds, and we have more in some areas.
That is why I have recently introduced the Rural Wireless
Access Act to improve these maps. We have to have good data. We
have to have good maps. We have to get the data right, so we
can target the resources to fix the problem. So, data,
absolutely critical folks, not just the money.
Thank you so much, Mr. Pallone, for yielding, and I will
yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Pallone. I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Lance, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LEONARD LANCE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Lance. Thank you very much, and I want to thank the
distinguished panel for appearing before us today. And I
certainly commend the Chair for her distinguished work in this
area.
Commerce has always been reliant on infrastructure.
Innovations from the Transcontinental Railroad in the 19th
century to the interstate highly in the 20th century have
succeeded in connecting more businesses with consumers,
decreasing the cost of doing business, expanding markets, and
improving America's quality of life.
As the committee tasked with regulating interstate and
foreign commerce since 1795, it is the Energy and Commerce's
job to encourage the deployment of the infrastructure of the
21st century, broadband internet, which has the potential to
connect every business and consumer in the country and around
the world.
While the district I serve in New Jersey is not among the
most unserved or underserved, I believe striving to connect
those households that lack broadband access is a worthy goal
that will benefit all Americans. As our economy becomes
increasingly more digitized, bringing broadband access to more
areas of the country, connects more consumers and small
businesses to the internet economy for the economic benefit of
all, improved broadband infrastructure will also pave the way
for future technologies like 5G, which has the potential to add
millions of jobs and billions of dollars in GDP growth to the
economy.
However, as we seek to decrease this digital divide and
expand our broadband infrastructure, it is imperative that we
learn from the mistakes of the past and ensure that we have the
necessary accurate data to deploy our resources efficiently and
effectively.
I look forward to hearing the testimony of both panels and
continuing the subcommittee's work on this important topic.
And I am certainly willing to yield to other members who
wish to have an opening statement.
Mr. Shimkus?
Mr. Shimkus. I thank my colleague.
And as the chairwoman said, in my district my district
staff knows that I am a McDonald's afficionado and the No. 1
meal is my go-to meal. So, if my parents had a chance to get me
to go to McDonald's to do my homework, I probably would have
been all in on that.
[Laughter.]
But it is interesting listening to the comments on both
sides because there is, obviously, a great opportunity, I
think, to work together to move issues. A couple of things that
I would like to talk about are, and Ms. Matsui mentioned
Universal Service Fund should be properly directed, and I think
that is a key for underserved areas.
We have adequate maps. The Chairwoman Blackburn mentioned
adequate maps and real definitions. My point would be adequate
definitions. What is high speed? What are we going to decide?
And many of you in this sector know that I talk about this all
the time because what is high speed to one is not high speed to
another. This should be part of an infrastructure package, as
we tee this up. If there is ever going to be a $1 trillion
infrastructure rollout, obviously, this should be part of that.
Also, we are addressing Anna Eshoo's bill, too, which had a lot
of support in the last Congress, and that dovetails right into
infrastructure.
So, I think properly managed, as we move this process
forward, Madam Chairman, I think we should be able to move on a
bipartisan package that should have some legs, and I look
forward to working with you on it.
I yield back.
Mr. Lance. Thank you very much.
Are there other members on our side who would like to
speak?
Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. I thank you for yielding.
This is a very, very important hearing. And I have heard
some of the comments by my colleagues. I represent Appalachia.
There are many places in my district that young people, high
school children, college kids even, have to go to a neighboring
town or a public library or some other facility to get access
to the internet to do their school projects. You can't educate
young people in 2017 in the kind of high-tech-driven world that
we live in when they have to go to that extreme.
We have got to solve this problem, and I look forward to
hearing what our panel has to say today. And I look forward to
working with you, Madam Chairman, to address these issues.
Mr. Lance. Thank you very much.
Anyone else?
Seeing none, I yield back the balance of my time, Madam
Chair.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back, and this
concludes our member opening statements.
I will remind all that, pursuant to the committee rules,
all members' opening statements will be made a part of the
record.
We want to thank all of our witnesses. We are so grateful
that you are here today and grateful that all of that testimony
got in early. We thank you for that, and we thank you that you
are here to testify.
We will have two panels, just as a couple of our members
have mentioned. Each panel of witnesses will have the
opportunity to give an opening statement, followed by a round
of questions from members. Once we conclude with the questions
on the first panel, we will take a brief reset and bring the
second panel forward.
Our first witness panel for today's hearings includes, and
we welcome, Mr. Steve Berry, who serves as the President and
CEO of Competitive Carriers Association; Mr. Michael Conners,
who is the Sub Chief of the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe from
California; Mr. Thomas, or ``Tam'', Murray, who is the Founder
and Managing Member of Community Wireless Structures, which is
based out of northern Virginia; Ms. Joanne Hovis, who is the
President of CTC Technology and Energy, and Mr. Ted Carlson,
Jr., who is the CEO of Telephone and Data Systems and Chairman
of U.S. Cellular.
We appreciate all of you being here today and preparing for
this hearing. We will begin the panel with you, Mr. Berry. You
are now recognized for 5 minutes for your statement.
STATEMENTS OF STEVEN K. BERRY, PRESIDENT AND CEO, COMPETITIVE
CARRIERS ASSOCIATION; SUB CHIEF MICHAEL CONNERS, SAINT REGIS
MOHAWK TRIBE; THOMAS A. MURRAY, FOUNDER AND MANAGING MEMBER,
COMMUNITY WIRELESS STRUCTURES, AND CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS, WIRELESS INFRASTRUCTURE ASSOCIATION; JOANNE S.
HOVIS, PRESIDENT, CTC TECHNOLOGY AND ENERGY; LEROY T. CARLSON,
JR., CEO, TELEPHONE AND DATA SYSTEMS, INC., AND CHAIRMAN, U.S.
CELLULAR
STATEMENT OF STEVEN K. BERRY
Mr. Berry. Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, and
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to
testify about broadband infrastructure.
I am here today on behalf of CCA, representing nearly 100
wireless carriers and nearly 200 vendors and suppliers.
I agree with your observations, Chairman Blackburn, that
broadband is the infrastructure issue of this decade. Mobile
broadband, in particular, drives jobs creation, drives economic
development, connecting Americans while providing new
applications for services that were really unthinkable only a
few years go.
Demand for mobile broadband is growing exponentially, and
we are on the verge of an evolutionary leap into 5G services.
Qualcomm projects, with 5G, it will support 22 million jobs and
generate $3.5 trillion in revenue. 5G will build upon 4G LTE,
and it is not a replacement for LTE, especially in rural
America. So, there is no time to wait. This is not a
telecommunication issue only. It is a jobs issue. It is an
education issue and a public health and a public safety issue,
and an American competitiveness issue.
I am pleased to support the committee's efforts to expand
infrastructure. Also, FCC Chairman Pai is off to a good start
with his Digital Empowerment Agenda and proposing the Broadband
Deployment Advisory Committee. The record is sufficient for FCC
to act now.
Let me identify five areas for action.
First, any infrastructure proposal must include support for
mobile broadband. A bipartisan group of Members of Congress,
including 12 members of this committee, recently wrote
President Trump to that effect. This should include direct
support, tax incentives, access to spectrum, reduced fees, and
streamlined procedures. Most importantly, direct support should
be distributed through the FCC and used to provide additional
resources for the Mobility Fund.
Second, we must take steps to streamline the process at
every level. Barriers to deployment remain. It sort of reminds
me of that famous line in a classic movie Cool Hand Luke,
``What we've got here is a failure to communicate.''
To provide wireless service, carriers need to deploy
towers, small cells, conduit, antennas, and, yes, even wires.
The process for approval is a regulatory nightmare. Let me
share with you a visual of the incredibly burdensome steps and
potential pitfalls that carriers have to endure. I think you
have it up on your screen and before you.
One look at this infographic and it is abundantly clear
that we need to simplify and streamline the process. We need to
make it easier to build the infrastructure of the 21st century.
The discussion draft bills this committee is considering
take important steps to address many of these challenges, and
Congress should move forward without delay. Broadband is an
immediate priority for the nation, and leadership starts at the
federal level. Twenty-eight percent of the nation's geography
is owned or managed by the federal government and 100 percent
of all the spectrum.
Third, Congress should legislate now. For example the Dig
Once bill is common-sense policy and would immediately help
carriers to gain access to backhaul wireless data, as Ms. Anna
Eshoo knows.
Congress should streamline and accelerate historic and
environmental review and direct federal agencies to set real
deadlines for action and decisions with consequences for
missing deadlines, like shot-clocks with deemed granted
provisions if an agency doesn't respond. The committee need not
wait for a broader infrastructure proposal.
Congress should also support swift action at the FCC, and I
mean now at the FCC. Deploying the latest wireless
infrastructure is totally different than constructing a large
tower. And I ask you for a moment, imagine a 250-foot tower.
Now let me show you today's tower. The pizza box that the
chairman talked about, this is the new tower, and they are
getting smaller, believe it or not. Too often the same rules
applied to deploying small cells or even changing out antennas
is as applied to tall towers. Streamlining the application
process will also ease increased demand on municipal resources.
Fourth, application fees and other costs associated with
reviews should be justified, consistent, and tied to actual
review costs and rights-of-way management. Again, the same fees
that apply to tall towers should not apply to small cells.
Applications to deploy broadband need to be viewed as
investments. Yes, that is correct, investments, to create jobs,
to create an expanded economy, and not as a revenue-generator
from the application itself.
Fifth, and maybe most importantly, as Mr. Loebsack said, we
need better data. If you can't measure an issue, you can't fix
it. The current FCC data for wireless coverage is not
standardized or reliable. For example, the difference of only
5-decibel milliwatts in propagation measurement can overstate
geographic coverage by over 100 percent. We need to clearly
identify and have better data.
Finally, spectrum is infrastructure. You can add capacity
and coverage by adding spectrum and building sites, but this
committee deserves credit for your launch of the Incentive
Auction, and it is critical to put that 600-megahertz spectrum
into use in the 39 months ahead of us and deploy it in rural
America. This committee should be congratulated in your meeting
the growing demands and empower our economic growth. And we
believe that eliminating the regulatory morass----
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Berry [continuing]. That delays our building of the
infrastructure is well worth the time.
Thank you, and I ask for your kind indulgence. I was over 5
minutes.
[The prepared statement of Steven K. Berry follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Berry.
Mr. Connors, you are recognized, 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF SUB CHIEF MICHAEL CONNERS
Mr. Connors. [Speaking Native language.]
Hello. My name is Michael Conners. I am a Sub Chief of the
Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe.
Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, and Members of
the Subcommittee, it is my honor to be here with you today to
discuss our tribe's successful efforts to build critical
broadband infrastructure in New York, highlight our legislative
priorities, and recommend the best practices for deploying
broadband services on tribal lands and throughout rural
America.
The Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe is a federally-recognized
tribal government located in our traditional territory of
Akwesasne in northern New York. Our tribe prides itself on
being a good partner with our local, state, and federal
leadership to promote the well-being of our community and to
advance our collective legislative goals.
Being one of the primary employers in our region, the Saint
Regis Mohawk Tribe, Akwesasne Mohawk Casino, Mohawk Networks,
and Akwesasne TV provide more than 1600 employment
opportunities and over $52 million in salaries annually to the
residents of northern New York. The success of our enterprises
allows our tribe to further provide economic development
opportunities and increased access to critical infrastructure.
In 2009, the tribe was awarded $10 million through the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, USDA's Broadband
Initiative Program, to form Mohawk Networks, a tribally-owned
telecom entity. By 2015, Mohawk Networks connected roughly 80
percent of all homes in our territory to high-speed internet
service.
While we have seen the positive impacts this has brought to
our community, our non-Native neighbors in the north country
have not. Mohawk Networks estimates more than 100,000 homes in
our neighboring counties have been overlooked. Twenty percent
of homes are unable to access speeds greater than 6 megabytes
per second, and 37 percent cannot afford the average monthly
rate charge of $59.99.
For this reason, we have decided to expand our broadband
service to our neighbors in the surrounding non-tribal
communities. The first phase of expansion into Lewis County
through the activation of five towers has been made possible by
a $6.4 million grant received in round two of the new New York
Broadband Program. Discussions are currently underway with
Clinton County legislators regarding the expansion of Mohawk
Networks' broadband infrastructure to Clinton County by the end
of 2018.
A primary component of what allows the tribe to be
competitive and keep our costs low is our utilization of 16
towers throughout multiple surrounding counties and the
reliability of our innovative technology. Working in
conjunction with local stakeholders allows us to provide
broadband services throughout the North Country and keep costs
low. Currently, the average cost per household for the
deployment of our wireless technology is $1700, far less than
the traditional method of laying miles of fiber.
While we are moving forward and making progress, several
hurdles have presented themselves. These include:
One, cumbersome grant requirements. While the tribe was
fortunate to receive a $10 million grant, this only covered the
initial implementation of the program and was received as
reimbursements rather than direct funding. While we were able
to cover these costs, this financial investment is difficult
for many rural tribal communities who may lack successful
economic development.
Two, grant funds are not enough, and opportunities seem to
be disappearing. Opportunities benefitting Indian country and
rural America tend to be hit the hardest by budget cuts and are
inconsistently funded. We were disappointed to see that the
tribal building incentive for the Connect America Fund was not
included in this year's application, despite active outreach
from members of this subcommittee.
Three, there is a lack of support and understanding about
the capabilities of tribal telecom entities. When we applied
for phase 1 of the new New York Broadband Program for the
expansion of our broadband infrastructure into surrounding
counties, we were beaten up by large telecom companies. And
they have yet to expand broadband to our underserved
communities. Fortunately, our phase 2 funding gives our
neighbors equal access to broadband.
With these hurdles in mind, the tribe recommends that the
House Energy and Commerce Committee consider the following:
One, provide set-asides for tribal and rural infrastructure
projects. This funding presents the opportunity to transform
infrastructure projects into sustainable solutions that address
a critical gap in our nation's infrastructure.
Two, support the passage of legislation that positively
impacts Indian country. We request serious consideration of
H.R. 1581, which increases access to telecommunication grants
and services for programs in Indian country and other high-cost
areas with a significant Native American population. This will
give more tribes the opportunity to develop and expand
broadband infrastructure in the way that we have.
Three, encourage partnerships to reduce costs and increase
access.
Four, build upon existing infrastructure. We were happy to
see the committee's consideration of broadband conduit
installation and highway construction projects. This will
greatly increase the potential for conductivity between rural
towns.
Thank you for taking the time to discuss broadband
infrastructure on tribal lands and in rural America. The Saint
Regis Mohawk Tribe looks forward to working with you to deploy
broadband where it is needed most.
[Speaking Native language.]
[The prepared statement of Sub Chief Michael Conners
follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Conners. He yields back.
Mr. Murray, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your
opening.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS A. MURRAY
Mr. Murray. Thank you, Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member
Doyle, Members of the Subcommittee.
I am Tam Murray. I am here today wearing two hats. I am a
small tower developer right here, right across the river in
Arlington, Virginia, and I am also the chairman of the Wireless
Infrastructure Association, WIA.
My firm, Community Wireless Structures, is geographically-
focused. We have developed towers in 10 Virginia counties,
northern Virginia, and central Virginia. We are one of an
estimated number of 600 small tower developers throughout this
country who work on a local basis. They get towers built in
Nashville, Pittsburgh, Kalamazoo, wherever it might be. There
are 200,000 telecommunication structures that are used for
broadband towers in this country, and I am proud to say that my
firm has built 50 of those.
So, I have been doing this for 20 years, and you have got
to go back to 1996. So, what was the opportunity that I saw to
leave my prior profession and come into this? It was one word:
collocation. Collocation is the siting of multiple carriers on
one telecommunication structure.
1996 was a very different world. My cell phone was a brick
bolted in the trunk of the car. The lowly flip-phone had not
even been dreamed of, and carriers looked at infrastructure as
a proprietary thing. Each was developing their own network. It
wasn't unusual to come to an intersection and see three towers,
each with one carrier on it.
So, the business opportunity that I pursued was
collocation. I approached Loudoun County. I said, this road,
this Dulles Greenway that is being built, it is 12 miles; it
could be 16-20 applications. How about my firm develops four
sites, one at each interchange down the length of the Greenway.
And it was a home run for all parties involved. The county
decisionmakers, the local government was happy. So, it wasn't
clutter at each interchange and there was service for the
citizens of Loudoun; there was service for the carriers. They
didn't have to duplicate the spending of cap ex on three
towers. There was one tower that worked.
So, what worked on the Greenway, we built more sites in
Loudoun. Collocation has been used throughout the state of
Virginia, throughout every state in the Union. It is a
wonderful model. It is the envy of the world. And that is
really how the small tower industry got started, and everyone
else, all my colleague companies, if you will, throughout the
country are building on the same model.
I have three asks. One is federal lands, two is some
expediency on tribal approvals, and the third is the small cell
definitions.
The first item, federal lands, really segues nicely with
the Greenway. So, the Greenway, one of the special sauces,
coming back to the McDonald's analogy, the special sauce on the
Greenway was that we negotiated with one landlord to get four
sites. Now, if you go to, Congressman Pallone mentioned the
hardest corners to reach in a state, if you take a big piece of
land that is owned by an agency, and a carrier or an
infrastructure developer can approach that agency and secure 30
sites or 20 sites, whatever it takes to cover that given piece
of geography, that is a huge benefit to the development of
infrastructure. Negotiating 30 different leases versus
negotiating with one party is huge.
So, we know that there is a draft federal lands bill. Tell
us, WIA, what we can do to help push that along. That is really
going to help the deployment of broadband.
On tribal review, my firm has developed 50 towers. Two of
those are inside the Beltway. Everyone would describe inside
the Beltway as disturbed land. It is a great place to be and
live and work, but this is not the great outdoors.
And yet, our applications for towers inside the Beltway had
to go through a tribal review. Now what we think, if those
reviews could be done at less expense, there are fees from each
tribe, and if it could be done expedited, somebody mentioned
the term ``deemed granted,'' that would be wonderful. That will
help broadband, too.
My third point, 20 seconds, is small cells. Small cells are
new technology. The challenge with new technologies is defining
them. There are parties in this country that will say that 120
feet is a small cell. It is not. That is hogwash. Our
association, WIA, has studied this. A utility pole is 34 feet.
Add 10 feet. Add a few antennas. You are at 50 feet. So, it is
a very reasonable definition of small cells to say 50 feet or
less. That should be expedited review. Above 50 feet, walks
like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a tower. It should be
treated as a tower with the standard local responsible review.
So, the federal lands, expediting the tribal, and the small
cell definition are the ways that would be very much helpful.
I welcome any questions after the panel is done.
[The prepared statement of Thomas A. Murray follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Blackburn. I thank you, sir. He yields back.
Ms. Hovis, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your
opening.
STATEMENT OF JOANNE S. HOVIS
Ms. Hovis. Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle,
Members of the Subcommittee, good morning and thank you very
much for inviting me to testify.
I am Joanne Hovis. I am President of CTC Technology and
Energy, and I am also CEO and co-founder of the Coalition for
Local Internet Choice.
I make the case today for including broadband, particularly
in rural areas, among the infrastructure categories in any
infrastructure investment program, and recommend particular
public/private partnership and related mechanisms that can be
included to increase the likelihood of the necessary capital
flowing to the areas with the greatest needs.
Broadband, like any other type of infrastructure, requires
significant upfront capital for deployment of networks, and
private capital will flow to areas where potential return is
highest. In a number of densely-populated, higher-income areas,
incumbent phone and cable companies have upgraded or are
upgrading their networks to enable new services. A handful of
these areas have also seen investments by new entrants seeking
to outflank the incumbents. These are very fortunate
communities, but metro area communities in general are more
fortunate than rural because of the flow of private capital.
In contrast, obviously, in less-densely-populated and
lower-income areas, the pace of progress has been much slower.
These areas offer lower returns on private investment and,
therefore, have seen their economies stagnate.
One of the ways in which we can improve these economics in
rural areas is by leveraging state and local government
capabilities. State and localities are increasingly motivated
to incent private sector investment in next-generation
broadband networks. States and localities have experience,
capabilities, and assets that enable them to build broadband
infrastructure that can be made available to the private sector
for competitive services and innovation, with a public entity,
building infrastructure and facilitating infrastructure, but
uninvolved in the private sector role of operations and service
delivery to the public.
Alternatively, the state or locality can partner with the
private sector for shared investment in private networks that
secure public sector goals, such as service in rural areas that
would maintain such critical practices as home-based business
and home-based schooling.
However, as we consider what might be coming in an
infrastructure bill, the concern about the economics is that
that infrastructure bill has to change and improve economics in
those rural areas and at the local level. Based on my
experience, I would say that even a combination of tax credits
and public/private partnerships together would be insufficient
to attract the necessary investment to rural areas.
All things being equal, investors will go where the market
is strongest, the returns are highest, the revenues are likely
to be most robust. And in the case of public/private
partnerships, capital will flow to where potential revenues are
greatest.
For this reason, I suggest that the stratgies considered
for any infrastructure program include some of the following
recommendations to make tax credits and public/private
partnerships in rural areas more viable, attract them more to
rural areas, as it were, more attractive to investors.
First, create a financing support mechanism to reduce
public/private partnership borrowing costs. Creating such
mechanisms would make public/private partnerships more viable
at modest cost to the Treasury. For example, federal
contribution toward a reduction of interest costs would improve
viability.
Second, enable the use of tax-free municipal bonds to fund
public infrastructure in public/private partnership situations
or for least to private ISPs; thus, reducing municipal
borrowing costs, enabling public/private partnerships and
increasing project viability at modest cost.
Third, enable transferability of tax benefits such that
nonprofits and public entities can sell tax credits or other
tax opportunities on the market; thus, making tax mechanisms
more viable for areas that are of less interest for private
capital.
Fourth, carve out funding and other support for areas where
the local economy has been impaired by technology change and
globalization, and where broadband could have a
disproportionate impact relative to cost on improving economic
opportunity. And this, I think, aligns with my broader point
that tax credits alone, all other things being equal, will not
flow to the rural communities where private investment has not
gone already.
Finally, include Dig Once and construction efficiency
strategies in other public/private partnership projects in
order to capitalize on opportunities presented by construction.
So, for example, envision a scenario of the reconstruction of a
municipal water system through a Dig Once environment. Conduit
for communications, fiber that could be utilized by private
sector entities would be placed at the same time. At
incremental cost, we would be building two networks, with the
second network at a very low cost relative to what it would
cost to build without that Dig Once insight. My written
testimony includes some examples of such case studies.
And thank you very much for your consideration.
[The prepared statement of Joanne S. Hovis follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Carlson, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your
opening.
STATEMENT OF LEROY T. CARLSON, JR.
Mr. Carlson. Thank you, Chairman Blackburn and Ranking
Member Doyle and Members of this Subcommittee.
Now is the time to take bold action to improve mobile
broadband networks in rural America. We at U.S. Cellular are
excited that the FCC has now adopted a Mobility Fund Phase II
order for further rural development of high-speed wireless
broadband networks. We are also excited that Congress is
considering additional infrastructure policies targeted for
rural communities.
It is clear to me that there is bipartisan realization that
the funding being made available under the Mobility Fund II
program is insufficient to achieve the goal of providing
ubiquitous, high-quality mobile broadband to all Americans. For
over a year, we have been discussing with Congress the fact
that the FCC does not have standardized data showing the extent
and quality of mobile broadband in rural America.
The FCC Form 477 for mobile broadband data that was used to
size Mobility Fund II, and which is planned to be used to
determine the list of areas eligible for funding, is
substantially flawed. It is flawed because instructions to
carriers for filing Form 477 data do not produce maps of
consistent data signal strength resolution. These filings also
do not depict variations in signal strength, which dramatically
affects the quality of service customers can expect.
I have included in my filed testimony a propagation map of
signal strength coverage from several of U.S. Cellular sites in
the state of Tennessee which is representative of our rural
coverage throughout the country. This map shows where service
quality is comparable to urban areas, as well as areas where
signal strength coverage is weaker.
The FCC's Form 477 instructions do not produce maps like
this. Instead, the data we file shows the entire area as served
by broadband without distinguishing between strong coverage
that allows for streaming of video and lesser coverage that
does not. This FCC collection data flaw must be addressed
before distributing Mobility Fund Phase II resources.
We recommend that the FCC modify its rules for Form 477, so
that every carrier is required to submit propagation maps at a
standard negative 85 dbm level, which equates to typical
wireless performance metrics that urban consumers experience
today. Maps produced at this urban standard will increase the
areas available for rural investment. If we were asked to
produce these coverage maps for our service areas, we could so
in a relatively short period of time and at a low cost.
The FCC, thus far, has decided not to follow our
recommendation to address flaws in the existing Form 477 data
collection process. Instead, they have opted for a process by
which carriers and others could challenge the coverage maps. We
are concerned that this challenge process will place
significant and tremendous burdens on wireless challengers,
burdens that would not be required if the Form 477 rules were
simply fixed.
There is another issue that Congress should be very
concerned about. The FCC intends to make no funds available for
any rural area that has service today at 5 megabits per second,
even though, going forward, the construction requirement for
Mobility Fund II is 10 megabits per second. This will leave
large 5 megabits per second rural areas lacking the high-
quality 10-megabits-per-second service, and with no investment
available to them for up to a decade, causing them to fall
farther behind the nation's urban areas.
Action is needed. Once Congress and the FCC agree on a
consistent methodology for gathering coverage and network
performance data, all areas that are not currently receiving
10-megabits-per-second service should be eligible for funding.
Your leadership in making sure the FCC collects this data,
so you know the scope of the challenge, will help target
policies to be most effective. Better data will ensure scarce
resources are used in areas where the greatest impact will be
achieved.
I appreciate this committee's continued leadership on these
issues, and we look forward to helping you achieve your
objectives.
Thank you for the opportunity to be with you today.
[The prepared statement of LeRoy T. Carlson, Jr. follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, sir, and that concludes the
testimony from our panel. We are going to move to questions. I
will begin by recognizing myself for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Berry, I want to come to you first. We talked a lot
about data. We agree with you and, Mr. Carlson, with you that
the data is not being utilized as it should be. Looking at the
Tennessee map, that area with nothing, that is in my district.
And so, unlike Mr. Loebsack, I am out there. I can tell you
where the signal drops.
And I would like for you just to comment on data for a
second. And then, let's go talk about the USF because we have
had a lot of hearings and looked at USF and the problems that
are there, including fraud. We know that that exists. And I
want you to comment on a couple of things.
Should we be looking to do better through the USF? Should
we be looking to do something different other than the USF?
Should the USF be expanded to include a grant-making operation
or should the federal government be looking to take on this
burden? So, if you will comment on the utilization and the
application for USF and, then, a couple of comments about data?
Mr. Berry. Thank you, Chairman.
Well, the USF, it is a well-recognized, well-used mechanism
that has encouraged broadband buildout throughout the United
States for a long time. It is a process that we are familiar
with. Does it need to be improved? I think it does. I think
that mobile broadband, i.e., the Mobility II, could be
substantially enhanced in terms of dollars committed to
mobility.
You look at it, and I think in Mr. Carlson's testimony,
very clearly, 87 percent of the United States, of the citizens
in the United States, do not have 10-1 megabyte speed. If you
look at 47 to 49 percent of the households in the United States
are wireless-only households, but, yet, the mobile broadband
fund, the Mobility II Fund, is substantially less than what is
currently provided on the wire-line side.
I am not saying that you don't need wire-line and wireless,
but I think we can do a better job of providing more funds to
Mobility II, because the facts are that in many instances,
especially those economically-challenged, they are using their
mobile phones as their access to the internet. And the FCC has
a process, and if we can get the data correct, if they can
actually get the numbers and the knowledge of where there is
coverage and where there is not--I remember when I met with you
and showed you the FCC data of Tennessee, and you took one look
at it and said, ``That's not right.'' Well, if it is that
obvious to everyone that travels their district, it is that
obvious to your constituents. I think we can do a much better
job, as Mr. Carlson said. And the Mobility II Fund could be not
only expanded, but it could handle additional revenue that
would be targeted in a very targeted fashion for unserved and
underserved areas.
Mrs. Blackburn. OK. Let me stay with you and, Mr. Carlson,
I am going to bring you in on this. Both of you talked in your
testimony about barriers for deployment and moving past some of
these barriers, and how deployment will help with investment
and education and economic development, all of those components
we want to see that I call quality of life.
And what I would like for you to comment on is kind of
next-generation services and next-generation deployment. What
are you all investing in? What are you looking toward? If you
could get rid of some of these barriers to deployment, what
additionally would you be able to do? Where are you going next?
Mr. Berry. Do you want me to----
Mrs. Blackburn. Yes, go ahead.
Mr. Berry. My members tell me that, No. 1, the job isn't
done; that we are going to build 5G services on top of 4G LTE
and VoLTE. So, the first priority is coverage. If you don't
have a signal and if you don't have access to a wireless signal
to do voice or text or data, then it is hard to get to the next
generation.
So, I think if we don't get to 4G LTE and VoLTE, get to an
IP network, then your ability to get to a 5G IoT, Internet of
Things, connectivity is extremely impaired. And I would note
that in rural America industrial IoT probably has the greatest
promise for economic growth and sustainability for those rural
areas to bring new jobs in. And I think that is where we have
to finish the job that we have started and, then, I think we
will be ready for the 5G world.
Mrs. Blackburn. Mr. Carlson?
Mr. Carlson. Yes, I would just like to emphasize the
education aspect of 4G and very high-quality 4G signals. A
student who wants to go onto the internet and, let's say they
are interested in history. Maybe they want to look at history
of World War II and they want to look at movies about what
happened in World War II. They won't be able to download those
movies in a satisfactory state if they don't get that signal.
And they need to get that signal at home. They need to be
able to get that signal in the backseat of the car when their
parent is driving them to school or driving them somewhere
else. They need to get the signal. They shouldn't be forced to
go to a local library, which may be 20-30 minutes away, to get
a signal, which is only open a certain number of hours a day.
Students need full access to a high-speed signal. I
mentioned the 10 megabits per second. That is today's urban
standard. The urban standard I believe is growing about 15
percent per year. So, that doubles in five years. So, five
years from now, it is going to be 20 megabits per second. We
need to get a strong signal out to all of rural America today,
so that rural America's children can be educated to compete in
the modern world.
Mrs. Blackburn. My time has expired. Mr. Doyle, you are
recognized for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
Well, let me just stay on that for a second, Mr. Carlson.
Tell me, what challenges do you face in getting access to
affordable backhaul for cell sites?
Mr. Carlson. Well, affordable backhaul for cell sites is a
big challenge. We many times have to put in backhaul ourselves
to cell towers that we put up because they are in remote areas.
And we have to lay in sometimes even roads. I mean, there was
one case where we even had to have a team of horses. We
couldn't get roads in. We had to have a team of horses pulling
a fiberoptic cable.
So, it is a cost element, but it is also an access element.
I think the proposed draft that would say Dig Once I think is
an excellent solution to allowing fiberoptic cable to run under
highways that are being built, so that that kind of backhaul
could be better produced.
We need all the help we can get in terms of backhaul.
Siting for cell sites is a big issue. We connect a lot of our
cell sites with microwave. So, getting siting and approvals
more rapidly to get those cells built would be great.
Mr. Doyle. Yes. I think access to affordable backhauls,
that is a real barrier to deployment, and we need to work on
that.
Mr. Berry, tell me this. In your written testimony you say
in some cases tax credits may not go far enough to foster
infrastructure investment. Can you explain why tax credits
alone won't be able to get the job done?
Mr. Berry. Thank you, Congress.
And I think Ms. Hovis also addressed that issue. You know,
if you have tax credits, you have to assume that at some point
in time you can actually make a profit at what you are doing.
So, the tax credit actually helps.
I think one of the innovative ideas that has been suggested
is maybe those grants or those USF funds could be non-taxable,
so that you could actually increase the amount of value of the
contribution by 40 percent, 35-40 percent, because that is
essentially what Uncle Sam takes out of the grant to USF, to a
USF Mobility II entity.
In rural areas you are barely meeting an economic model.
And so, you are putting enormous pressure on the private sector
to fully fund or fully support a network. And accelerated
depreciation, immediate acceleration of depreciation might be
helpful. But the fact of the matter is, the economic model in
many of these areas, it is so critical because there is not a
great----
Mr. Doyle. Yes, there is not a strong case to make.
Mr. Berry. There is not a strong case for the model, for
the economic model, to begin with.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
Ms. Hovis, in your testimony you talked about some of the
benefits of public/private partnerships in enabling
municipalities to address a number of the challenges they face
in getting their communities connected. And you have worked
with a number of these communities. But I am aware in a number
of states they have passed laws really to prevent
municipalities from engaging in these types of partnerships.
What do municipalities lose out on when they are denied
this option, and what can Congress do to help that situation?
Ms. Hovis. Thank you, Ranking Member Doyle.
What exists in a number of these states are various kinds
of barriers that are opposed to allowing collaboration at the
local level between public and private entities. I think many
of these laws are frequently cast as supposedly protecting
private sector opportunity, when, in fact, what they frequently
do is tie the hands of local communities to work with the
private sector to achieve better broadband outcomes.
In my experience, there are hundreds of communities
throughout the country, thousands of communities who are
looking for ways to enable to private sector opportunity around
broadband and to attract private capital and to work with the
private sector to improve the broadband environment. And when
we tie their hands with regard to, for example, building and
leasing public assets, such as fiber or conduit, and son, we
are removing from the equation one incredibly important player.
And that seems to me very unfortunate. And frankly, it is not
in the national interest. It would seem to me, also, that it
subverts all of the goals that we all share here, which is
better broadband, particularly for rural communities and
communities that have been left out.
Mr. Doyle. Yes, I couldn't agree with that more. Thank you.
I see my time is almost up, so I will yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Shimkus, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
This has been a great hearing, and I appreciate your time.
And I have written a lot of notes.
What struck me, though, is, as you were talking about the
high speed and stuff, usually, historically, members would say,
``Oh, I need this information,'' ``I need that information,''
and we would turn back to our staff. But now, we are all
gathering, I was looking up National Forests, Mr. Murray, just
to find out, I have the Shawnee National Forest, so I was
trying to find out, well, what is the National Forest around. I
know I have got the land between the lakes, not a National
Forest, but it is a government federal land in Kentucky. It got
the Hoosier National Forest in Indiana.
Of course, these National Forest areas, especially when you
go out West, they are the size of states. So, I think you just
make a compelling argument that they ought to have one
application to get sited in National Forests. Maybe through 30
different locations, do it one time, because that is an area
that is tough for my constituents to get signals in the Shawnee
National Forest. It is just has been a difficult process.
So, I wrote down that note. I think that is a good thing to
propose. And I don't know if we would have to work with the
Resources Committee on that, but that is why we have this
testimony. So, I appreciate that comment.
The other thing, it is really kind of Ms. Hovis, but it is
also Mr. Connors, because I was intrigued. There is concern
when government grants or low-interest loans go in to compete
against established providers. Even though maybe they are not
serving at the speed that we want, that it is unfair for tax
dollars to go to compete against a private sector who is trying
to meet that need.
So, we are talking on both sides. We want to incentivize
people to deploy, but, then, we incentive a competitor through
tax credits or something to compete against the incumbent,
which makes it difficult.
Mr. Connors, in your testimony you talk about going to
North County, talking about them not having the same access. A
hundred thousand have been overlooked and they are speeds no
greater than 6 megabits. And then, in your testimony you are
talking about $24 million in grants received through round two
of a state, is it a state buildout?
Mr. Connors. State, yes.
Mr. Shimkus. Which I think is great because we want
everybody to have high speed. But is there someone trying to
provide service in that North County area?
Mr. Connors. Well, the North Country region is where we
are. We are providing the service on our Akwesasne territory.
What we are doing is we are branching out, but we are right now
in Lewis County, which is about an hour-and-a-half away. They
came to us looking for additional services based on how
successful we were in our territory.
Mr. Shimkus. But there is no one trying to provide service
there, right? I see people shaking their heads behind you. But
there is no one trying to provide service there now?
Mr. Connors. They have service, but it is not adequate. So,
they are getting our quality service there. And we won round
two of the state grant, and that is providing additional
service in Lewis County.
Mr. Shimkus. Which is great, and I am not saying what you
are doing but there is a concern that if you are a provider who
is trying to provide in that area, and then, you use state tax
credits or grants or stimulus dollars. We have seen this before
in the ARRA where people came in, put in a bid, got federal
dollars. They didn't have the numbers to support an operating
system, and that system went for lacking.
And so, I think there is a balance between trying to ensure
that, if we are going to incentivize using tax dollars, that
there is a real need and that we are not competing against an
incumbent who is trying to provide the service at the same
time. Does that make sense?
Mr. Connors. Yes. In our area the service providers are
only going down the main hub, the main street area. What we are
doing is we are branching off of that, going into the unserved
areas.
Mr. Shimkus. And that is the importance of having proper
maps, to identify served versus unserved. And as we will find,
we still don't have that.
Mr. Connors. That is right.
Mr. Shimkus. And I had much more I wanted to talk about,
but my time pretty much has expired.
Madam Chairman, I thank you and I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Loebsack, you are recognized.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Well, as I noted in my opening statement, broadband access
is critical for rural communities. I am going to show that map
one more time. OK? It claims that, basically, all of Iowa is
covered, but that is not true.
And I really appreciate the Chair's comments about this as
well. So many of us on this committee really struggle with this
issue, and it is a bipartisan issue. We live in these rural
areas and we get dropped calls. Our constituents get dropped,
all the things that are happening out there in rural America.
And it really does bring us together on a bipartisan basis.
That is why I appreciate this hearing today.
You know, it is a jobs issue, too. There is no question
about that, no matter how you look at it. It is a survival
issue in many ways, I think, for rural communities around this
country.
I have often said that, if we can't get proper coverage in
places like rural Iowa, but rural anywhere, we are not going to
have these communities survive into the future. It can provide
them economic growth. It can help provide the jobs that we
really need in these areas. But, without it, these places are
going to continue to struggle and a lot of them are simply
going to wither and die on the vine in some ways. I hate to be
overly dramatic, but I think it really is that dramatic. I
think that is the future that we are talking about here. I
mean, it comes down to, as I said, dollars and data.
Mr. Carlson, I appreciate, of course, your explanation and
comments regarding the challenges raised by using the current
Form 477 data to determine wireless coverage and USF
eligibility. And I mentioned my bill that I introduced, H.R.
1546, the Rural Wireless Act, to require FCC to improve data
collection for developing these coverage maps. Because, really,
it is the case; it is kind of, if it is garbage in, it is going
to be garbage out, basically.
Did you want to mention anything about my bill? Hopefully,
you have had a chance to look at that as well.
Mr. Carlson. Yes, Congressman, I have had a chance to read
your bill, and it is an excellent bill. I applaud you for
getting the process started, because this is something we need,
to get good data, so that rural America can get policies made
by Congress and by the FCC that is data-driven, that is
accurate, and that will give rural citizens not the chance, but
to give them the opportunity to have services that are
reasonable comparable to those that exist in rural areas.
We would be delighted to work with you to make sure that
the bill really gets the FCC to do what you want to get them to
do.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you so much, and I do appreciate your
testimony.
Obviously, Mr. Berry, the same question.
Mr. Berry. Absolutely, CCA strongly supports your
legislation and really look forward to seeing a standard that
is a usable standard that really provides guidance to the FCC
for the future.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you.
Mr. Berry. Thank you.
Mr. Loebsack. Thanks to both of you. And, look, as Co-Chair
of the Rural Broadband Caucus, you mentioned, I think, Mr.
Berry, that a number of us sent a letter to the President
advocating for the inclusion of rural broadband in any
infrastructure package. I think we are all agreed that that
ought to be the case.
But the policies we are talking about today are a good
first step. There was bipartisan consensus surrounding many of
these issues last Congress, but they only get us so far. For
example, tribal lands, we all want more coverage in tribal
lands, but in Iowa that is only .3 percent of our land. So,
that is important, but we have got to go further than that.
I want to make sure that whatever we do makes a difference
in places like Iowa. And there is no doubt, of course, that we
do need real direct investments for fixed and mobile broadband,
as well as, if we are really going to get the kind of broadband
we need in rural areas. And I think this whole funding question
is something we are going to be struggling with. We are going
to have more time to discuss that. But, clearly, it is going to
have to be some kind of a balance, some kind of a mix of
different mechanisms going forward. And I am looking forward to
having that discussion in this committee and, then, beyond as
well.
But any of you want to have any further comments about
funding and how we go forward on this? I know we have heard
from you, Ms. Hovis. Any others?
Mr. Carlson. I could make a comment. As I said, I don't
think the funding that is there today in Mobility Fund II is
sufficient to bring rural America up to urban quality
standards. And I think when we get the accurate maps, all of us
will see how short that funding is. But that is OK. It is OK to
see the problem as it really is because, then, we can decide
where we should start on the problem and how we should think
about the size of broadband infrastructure spending, as we look
forward to working on a bipartisan basis to get that
infrastructure spending put in place.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Mr. Carlson.
Thanks to all of you. If you would like to respond in
writing, that would be wonderful. I have reached the end of my
5 minutes. I certainly don't want to ask the Chair to go over.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you all.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you. He yields back.
Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair.
You know, before I start my questions, I would just like to
point out to our committee and to our panelists the importance,
as we migrate from 4G to 5G, it is going to be very important
that we change siting rules at the federal and local levels for
wireless carriers because that modernization is needed, so that
it is not going to take years to site something the size of a
pizza box on a tower or on a fixture, and that the rent to the
carriers is reasonable, so that we can begin to see some real
progress in expanding broadband coverage throughout or internet
coverage throughout rural areas.
With that, Mr. Murray, you highlight what appears to be a
success story with regard to the Navy shortening the timeframe
for siting of commercial towers on Navy and Marine
installations. Are we to understand that this success has not
bee replicated across DoD and the other branches of Service?
Mr. Murray. I am going to defer to the written record. The
Wireless Infrastructure Association, they will dig deeper into
that. I do know, just from my discussions with them, that
certain agencies are receptive; others aren't. Much of the
discussion of federal lands, you know, we think of, although
Iowa doesn't have many federal, well, it doesn't have many
Indian lands, but there are lots of federal lands even in just
Fairfax, Virginia. I guess some agencies are more receptive
than others.
Mr. Johnson. Do military personnel use their personal
phones to contact public safety services when on base? Do you
know?
Mr. Murray. I don't know the answer to that.
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Berry, you are shaking your head.
Mr. Berry. Yes, and I think it does go a lot to the manager
of the facility or the federal land itself, and it is even for
DoD. I have been called by commanders of a couple of Air Force
bases asking which carriers in the area can they work with to
ensure that their base residents can have access to wireless.
And I think we have introduced them to several ideas: that not
only can you get access to quality broadband wireless, but they
could actually utilize that even in some of their deployment
scenarios on base. And I don't think that many, especially in
DoD, were under the impression that they could do that and not
interfere with the tactical communications systems that they
have and utilize in deployment.
And so, education is part of the issue. At least the couple
of Air Force generals I spoke to were very interested in
sharing that they had an improved methodology.
Mr. Johnson. I can tell you I spent 26-and-a-half years in
the Air Force, and I was an IT officer. I know what my response
would be. It would be let's get her done. You know, make it as
quick as we can.
Mr. Murray, also, we have a whole system of infrastructure
siting rules at the federal as well as the local level that
probably made sense for 200-foot macro-wireless towers. But
does it make sense to use rules designed for macro-towers when
wireless carriers will be rolling out small cells, as many as
300,000, around the country? Don't we need to update rules for
updated technologies?
Mr. Murray. Yes, we absolutely do. The networks today, they
are a combination of solutions. If you drive to Baltimore, the
phone works in the Baltimore Tunnel and that is a distributed
antenna system. If you have a good signal at the Metro stop, it
is through DAS.
A good deal of the discussion this morning is coverage in
rural areas. The macro-site, the tall tower, 199-foot monopole
or a lattice tower, that still has a long, healthy future in
this country. But the solution is going to be a combination of
solutions, a Swiss Army knife, if you will.
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Mr. Murray. As far as the rules go, no, we have a
challenge. The small cell, and there is an entity that is
claiming that a small cell is 120 feet. I mean, there has to be
respect for the standards that have been in place for 30 years.
In our thought, you take a utility pole. You add 10 feet.
You add some antennas. That is roughly 50 feet. And that is a
good definition of a small cell. That and stature less than
that we believe should be expedited in some fashion.
But local control, responsible local approval is a good
idea. A pet peeve of mine is I would love to see Congress fund
the FCC more on the proceeding that they are doing on health. I
can't tell you how many very difficult hearings I have been
through, hearings to get a single tower approved on a given
night. And there is a tremendous fear among a lot of citizens
who live near a tower application about the dangers of this,
and there really aren't.
There is all sorts of data. But the FCC was studying that,
starting in 2013. We would like, I, as a tower developer, and
those who develop new towers would like to see more information
updated by the FCC on the safety of living within the vicinity
of wireless infrastructure.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Well, thank you, Mr. Murray.
I am sorry for going over, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Ms. Matsui, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
I want to follow along on some of these siting concerns. We
have heard that it often takes a long time for a broadband
infrastructure company to gain the relevant approvals necessary
to site the infrastructure on federal land. In addition, we
have heard that lease terms are short for siting such
infrastructure, resulting in the situation where broadband
developers that site on government property are frequently
renegotiating.
And the discussion draft under consideration today seeks to
increase some of the lease terms that some agencies offer. Do
you think, asking Mr. Berry, this provision strikes the right
balance?
Mr. Berry. I think definitely we need to address it. And I
can tell you individual horror stories about a carrier that got
approval for Mobility Fund II monies to build towers on a Park
Service property, and the timeframe that the FCC set to
actually build the tower expired before the Park Service would
actually give them a license, a permit. Even though in one
instance the federal entity asked the FCC to grant an
extension, the extension wasn't granted. So, we have those
problems that constantly occur, and it would be very helpful to
have a little more flexibility on both the federal entities'
sides.
Ms. Matsui. OK. So, we need to ensure that we enable more
timely broadband deployment then?
Mr. Berry. And another thing we are learning is that the
master plans that many of these agencies deal with, like BLM,
the Department of Interior, the Department of Defense, Forest
Service, are 20-year master plans. And so, how do you get in
and chance a 20-year master plan when the agency says, ``No, we
are not going to really address that for another 5 years.''?
Ms. Matsui. Oh, OK.
Mr. Berry. And I think they did that in an Executive Order.
Ensuring that those types of services, i.e., wireless and
telecommunications services, is an acceptable, approved
activity on federal property will go a long way to helping some
of these land managers that do want to find solutions.
Ms. Matsui. OK. One of the discussion drafts that were
offered today would create an inventory of federal property
that could be used to help deploy broadband infrastructure. In
addition, this draft would also permit local and municipal
governments to add their existing facilities to the inventory,
so they might be better utilized by broadband developers.
This question is to Mr. Berry and Mr. Murray. Would your
members be interested in having their infrastructure added to
such an inventory?
Mr. Berry. I think many of our members would like to have
the knowledge that their network is there. Obviously, you get
into concerns about the type of facility or the type of access,
and there are different rules for different types of broadband
services and mobility services. So, that would always be a
concern.
Ms. Matsui. Sure.
Mr. Murray?
Mr. Murray. Yes. There are many small tower developers who
are already in partnerships with non-private entities. In
Fairfax County, for example, a competitor of ours has made an
arrangement with the public schools. So, they have developed
tower sites at public schools and replaced light poles, and
that has worked beautifully.
I will throw out that we at the Wireless Infrastructure
Association are tremendously in favor of longer lease terms on
these federal lands. I am local, and I welcome anyone in the
room, if you want to see a tower site and visit an actual
telecommunications tower, I will set the tour up.
But, when you see a tower, you realize, holy mackerel, this
thing needs to be here for a long time. It is a huge amount of
steel. There are utilities coming in. There is fiber coming in.
This is not something, ``Oh, well, we'll just move it somewhere
else in 4 years.'' I mean, there has to be long duration.
Sorry for the time run.
Ms. Matsui. No. Is there currently coordination between
federal and state and local governments? And would this
discussion draft help foster this sort of cooperation? Anyone
here?
Mr. Berry. There is some coordination, but not nearly
enough. I think the legislation that you are considering would
facilitate that greatly.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Mr. Murray?
Mr. Murray. The industry, the carriers have all sorts of
holes in their network. This is, again, from the macro-side
perspective.
Ms. Matsui. Right.
Mr. Murray. And they hire consultants to go out and try to
find places where they can plug these holes. So, the
consultants are aware of this county is receptive; this other
county is not. But the general perception, at least among my
colleagues nationwide, is that the federal lands, I mean, good
luck; I will see you in four years. I mean, there are so many
hurdles, if you will. But I am not aware of good coordination
between local, state, and federal.
Ms. Matsui. OK, fine. I have run out of time. So, I yield
back. Thank you.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you.
Mr. Olson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Olson. I thank the Chair.
And welcome to our five witnesses.
My first question will be for your, Mr. Carlson, and you,
Mr. Berry. And this morning I want to empower you all. And so,
we are going to trade places.
Like many Americans, you are about to move to Texas.
[Laughter.]
You are coming there most at income tax zero and the cheap
price for a gallon of gasoline, just around $2. You may move to
Plano, Texas, Congressman Sam Johnson's district. Sam is
retiring. You want to run for Congress, join that massive fray
that will happen November of 2018.
Plano is kind of urban, so a little different concerns
there. But my question is, you are having a townhall. I am a
constituent. Broadband is the issue. I will ask, ``What can
Congress do, what would you do to improve broadband access?
What is the FCC's role? And can you eliminate rules and other
issues, as a Congressman?''
So, Mr. Carlson, you first.
Mr. Carlson. Oh, yes, thank you for asking the question.
Well, the first thing, you can see from my speech, that I
would say needs to be done is the FCC needs to be encouraged or
a bill needs to be passed requiring them to collect the proper
data about what the coverage really is in Plano and the
surrounding area, because I am sure Plano depends on its
surrounding rural communities. It is a two-way street, right?
Rural America supports the urban areas, and vice versa. So,
that is the first thing.
And then, I would want to find out whether or not the FCC
had allocated enough funds to accomplish the job in terms of
bringing urban quality service out to Plano and the area that
surrounds it. And if the FCC had not contemplated enough funds
to do that throughout America, including the great state of
Texas, I would want to find out how we could get that funding,
whether in the broadband or the infrastructure bill that is
being talked about, bipartisan, which is a great thing, or
otherwise.
Because the job needs to get done. Broadband service is
critical infrastructure for life in America today, in Plano,
and in all communities like Plano throughout this great nation.
Mr. Olson. ``Congressman,'' Mr. Berry, your suggestions?
FCC, Congress, and other things we connect?
Mr. Berry. Well, I am going to assume that Congressman
Olson has already established that we need a new set of data at
the FCC, and you fix that by the time I get there.
But what I hope is that the other issue is that we will
adequately fund the broadband deployment and broadband coverage
in rural America. I mean, it is an issue of jobs and economic
stability in rural America. If you want someone in the back 40
in Texas to be able to compete with somebody in Tokyo or Korea
or in China, you have got to have access to connectivity and
you have got to have an ability to experience and engage in the
economy, the global economy that is going on. That is what is
going to keep your constituents in their district and not have
to move to LA.
Mr. Olson. Well, welcome, my friends, to Texas. Howdy, you
all.
[Laughter.]
The last question, Mr. Carlson, I work for Texas 22. It is
a suburban Houston district, mostly suburbs, but probably one-
quarter agriculture. But they have good access to broadband.
Ninety-two percent are served; 2.5 percent are underserved, and
5.6 percent are unserved.
But I am intrigued by the cost savings for cities and towns
that come from 5G services by adapting a ``smart community''.
For instance, a Deloitte study found that the adaption of smart
grid for 5G could create $1.8 trillion in revenues for our
economy. How do we educate our cities, both urban and rural,
how to access this, because this is lots of jobs, lots of
money? Any suggestions, Mr. Carlson?
Mr. Carlson. Well, 5G is coming. I just had a chance to go
to the Mobile World Congress. So, I would suggest that, if your
city is big enough to fund a trip to next year's Mobile World
Congress in Barcelona, you take the appropriate leader or
leaders of the city over to that Congress and you see what the
reality is that is being talked about, because it is going to
be coming in the year 2020 for commercial deployment for
mobility. It is going to be real.
It is already going to be in Korea in 2018 at the Olympics
and in Japan in the Olympics in 2019. It will be here. It is
mostly going to be an urban phenomena at the beginning, but it
is going to be very important in increasing people's speeds, so
that downloading a movie or getting access to a big data file
will be almost instantaneous.
It is a wonderful development, and it needs to be spread
throughout the country, but people need to be educated as to
what its potentiality is. One way to do it is to call in the
vendors, people like Ericsson, Nokia, Samsung. Call them in and
they will be glad to make a presentation, I think, to the city
leaders about what 5G could mean for their city. They all want
to get into the smart city business. So, invite them in and
have them pitch you on it.
Mr. Olson. Thank you, sir.
I am out of time. I yield back. Thank you so much.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. McNerney, you are next in the queue.
Mr. McNerney. I was going to yield my place to Mr. Ruiz,
Dr. Ruiz.
Mrs. Blackburn. Dr. Ruiz, you are recognized to take his
time.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. McNerney.
I want to take a moment, step back, and highlight the human
story behind the deployment of broadband infrastructure.
Stories like that of the whole Indian tribe located in
northwestern Washington State where the reservation and
surrounding communities completely lack access to broadband
internet; like the story of the Torres Martinez tribe in my
district and eastern parts of the Coachella Valley in rural
areas where they also lack access to broadband internet.
For them, this means that students are forced to take a bus
over an hour away to complete their mandatory testing. Local
residents cannot take advantage of educational opportunities,
such as online college courses and career development classes,
and the tribal governments cannot access webinars and online
technical assistance, resources which are vital to successfully
applying for federal grants and programs.
Unemployed individuals cannot access the internet for job
opportunities. Hospitals cannot build their ITs and the Indian
Health Services cannot provide care because they don't have the
internet support. And residents do not have access to the
internet to learn about public health measures to better their
health care.
This is just one story, but part of a bigger picture where
broadband deployment on tribal lands continues to lag behind
that of the rest of the nation. And that is why today's hearing
is so important, because supporting broadband infrastructure on
tribal land is a part of supporting our federal trust
responsibility.
But we have a responsibility to do more than take testimony
on this issue. We must act and pass legislation to help make
access to broadband a reality for all. And that is why I
introduced the Tribal Digital Access Act, to help close the
divide throughout Indian country, and why I am very pleased
that we invited the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe today to speak on
behalf of their tribe that has successfully deployed broadband
in rural New York.
So, this question is for Sub-chief Michael Connors. It is
good to see you today, and thank you for taking the time to
testify.
The Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe has worked hard to provide
broadband internet service to its members and now the
surrounding community. What is the biggest challenge the tribe
has faced in getting to this point and developing further?
Mr. Connors. Thank you for having us today, Dr. Ruiz.
Our biggest challenge has been the sustainability of the
broadband operations on territory. We received the grant in
2009, and over the next several years it was deployed and the
fiber was laid out on territory. In the past several years, we
have learned that just being on territory is not a successful
business model for us. We have had to expand off territory.
We are able to provide a small amount of funding for some
of the expansion, but we couldn't do it all. That is why we got
to apply for the New York State grants. We didn't get round
one, but we received round two. So, that off-territory
expansion is coming in the future, and that will get us towards
a sustainable business model.
Mr. Ruiz. So, it sounds like a win/win situation where not
only you can provide broadband for tribal members, but the
surrounding non-tribal lands as well, where the incentives
currently are not there to provide the broadband
infrastructure. So, if we invest in tribal communities, the
tribes will have broadband infrastructure and the neighboring
communities will also have broadband infrastructure, is that
correct?
Mr. Connors. Correct. In our testimony, we talked about
Lewis County and Clinton County. The counties are coming to us.
Based on our success, they are coming to us looking for the
expansion, and that is how we received the grants in Lewis
County, because they were lobbying their own representatives in
their area to further their expansion.
Mr. Ruiz. Can you give me an example of how this has helped
tribal members or the tribe in your area?
Mr. Connors. Well, just some small examples are educational
opportunities, economic development opportunities, and
employment. In today's world, education has all gone digital
and online, and our students are being able to have their
educational opportunities at home, something as small as emails
going back and forth with the teachers at the schools.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you.
There is a classroom in my district that has to print a
YouTube video from home. Teachers do this and they show a
YouTube video on sheets of paper and try to narrate what it is
about. So, this is unacceptable in schools throughout our
nation.
Mr. Berry, can you shed light on some of your successful
practices? I understand you have tribal members as part of your
organization. Can you talk about how working with tribes has
been a success for you?
Mr. Berry. Yes, and thank you for the question,
Congressman.
Yes. Yes, we do. We have several tribal carriers that are
members of the CCA. We also have several carriers that
specialize in providing not only rural, but services to tribal
lands. And I think they have been very successful working with
the tribes.
Again, this is an investment opportunity, and many of the
tribes understand that they have to get to that coverage area.
I know that we talk a little about 5G all the time, but when
you don't have a signal and you don't have coverage, your first
priority is to ensure that you have the capability.
And I think in the rural areas in the tribal lands they
have successfully brought in services in economical ways. What
you will learn is most of the rural and small carriers face the
same challenges, whether it is on a tribal land or not. The
1996 act clearly identified reasonable, similar services should
be the goal, and then, Congress has already stated that.
I think tribal lands have for far too long have not had the
resources directed, not only through the Mobility Fund, but
through the other funds at the FCC. I think that is one area
that we need to address.
Mr. Ruiz. I think we can work in a bipartisan fashion to
pass the Tribal Digital Access Act and get the resources that
they need.
Thank you.
Mrs. Blackburn. Yields back.
Mr. Lance, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lance. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Mr. Berry and Mr. Carlson, 5G is estimated by Accenture to
bring over $67 million in GDP growth and 409 jobs to the
district I serve over the next 7 years. However, I understand
that, in order to realize these benefits fully, there will need
to be considerable investment in physical infrastructure to
deploy 5G small cells. In your expert opinion, how are the
barriers to 5G deployment unique and how are they similar to
the barriers we still face for 4G LTE deployment?
Mr. Berry. Well, first of all, thank you for the question.
First of all, again, you have to have coverage. The second
issue is, in a 5G world, you are going to have to have
substantial requirement for backhaul. And getting back to
either fiber or getting through a microwave link, or even using
an LTE aggregated spectrum platform that you can use backhaul
off your own network, it is going to be very, very difficult.
And so, I hope that the infrastructure investment
opportunities that have been talked about not only here on the
Hill, but downtown, actually bring some more dollars to the
table to build not only the backhaul, but build out the
networks at the 4G LTE. Because that is going to be the
building block for the 5G world.
And I know that we talked about 5G for the cities, the
smart cities. That is happening now in many areas. And if we
can't sufficiently build out the coverage in 4G LTE, we are
going to have a very difficult time in rural areas. And some of
your district in the far-western end does have some rural
areas. So, I know that you are interested in that, too.
Mr. Lance. Well, thank you very much.
Mr. Carlson?
Mr. Carlson. Yes, I will just add to that. Well, first, let
me reemphasize the fact that you need a base layer of 4G in
existence before you can get the 5G built on top of it, because
5G is really a supplementary service that integrates well
because the standard for 5G is being designed to integrate with
4G. So, we need the 4G service ubiquitous at a high-quality
level and, then, layer 5G on top of it.
But I would emphasize spectrum availability for 5G as a
critical need. There has been some spectrum made available by
the FCC, and we are certainly grateful for that, but there is
more spectrum that needs to be made available, and made
available on a basis where carriers can have confidence that
they will have access to that spectrum over a longer period of
time.
As was noted by the other panelists, when you make an
investment in building out a network, you need to have
assurance that your investment will have a long life to it
because the equipment has long lives, 10 years, 20 years in
some cases where you are putting in fiber. So, we need
licensing that is consistent with the timeframe of the
investments we are making.
Mr. Lance. Thank you very much.
Mr. Murray, in 2009, the FCC used its authority to impose a
shot-clock by municipal reviews of sitting applications, and
that shot-clock was upheld by the United States Supreme Court
in a 2013 decision. Given that the shot-clock is now the law of
the land, are you still experiencing delays in dealing with
municipal authorities and, if so, what sort of problems are you
encountering and how should we remedy them?
Mr. Murray. Thank you, Congressman.
Shot-clock has worked OK, not great. We have developed in
northern Virginia and central Virginia, northern Virginia has,
I don't mean to be pejorative, but there are a lot of NIMBY
households, and central Virginia there is a ton of history. So,
I chose to develop towers in some tough areas.
The shot-clock in northern Virginia, there are two or three
occasions where my zoning attorney has said to us, ``We're held
up. They're not going to make the timeline. Do we want to grant
them an extension?'' And we can either be denied tonight or we
can agree to an extension. So, it is sort of a gun-to-the-head
thing.
I think it, in general, has put localities, made them more
aware that they can't drag their feet forever, but there are
still cases where we sort of have to agree to a deal that we
don't like in terms of extensions.
Mr. Lance. Thank you very much.
And, Madam Chair, I yield back 16 seconds.
Mrs. Blackburn. I will tell you what; you might win the
prize.
Mr. Welch, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Welch. Thank you very much. First of all, Madam Chair,
I want to thank you for having this hearing, and our Ranking
Member, Mr. Doyle.
This question of rural broadband and infrastructure in
rural areas is like incredibly important. And Mr. Latta and I,
working together on the Rural Caucus, know that.
And I wanted to say a couple of things. Number 1, this is
important not just for rural America. Rural America is on the
ropes. Commodity prices are down, whether it is in coal country
or it is dairy country, farm country, and rural America is
vital for the strength of all of America. And we believe that
or we don't.
But what is strong about rural America is when it has a
solid local economy, the folks who have value of family, of
community, of services, of building up the local fire
department, of serving on the local bank, they have an economy
that can work for them and they have that community cohesion
that I believe this country needs.
And that is true whether you are in Vermont or you are in
Ohio or Texas. Rural America matters. We cannot have rural
America without full commitment to the tools it needs to be
successful.
We have got some folks from Vermont here. We have got a
company that absolutely is dependent on the infrastructure of
the broadband.
And the question for us, we agree on that in this
committee, and you have been providing leadership on this. But
I also think we have got to get serious on this where we get a
commitment to real funding and real policies that are going to
give these folks who are here and are committed to rural
America an opportunity to be successful on behalf of the people
we represent. So, we have got to get moving on this.
And it is not going to happen on its own. If we need
regulatory changes, we need investment, money, with public
policy, my view, we have got to do it. We are not getting it
done. We don't even have an infrastructure plan before us to
consider in Congress. And I think our committee should be
taking the lead on conveying a sense of urgency that we have
got to get moving.
Now I just want to ask, I will start with you, Mr. Carlson,
how would you define broadband that would be in the spirit of
the 1996 act relatively comparable, reasonably comparable to
what we have in urban areas?
Mr. Carlson. Well, I can speak to mobile broadband. A
recent study came out. It was dated the middle of last year.
So, it is already a little bit obsolete, right, but not
significantly obsolete. And that showed that across all of
America that the broadband speeds, the mobile broadband speeds
now are at 12.5 megabits per second. And as I indicated, I
think those are growing about 15 percent a year. So, by the
time the Mobility Fund II auction is concluded, you should
anticipate that that standard across America, which includes
rural areas. So urban areas are higher, is probably going to be
15 megabits per second.
Mr. Welch. OK.
Mr. Carlson. Megabits per second. So, any area that is
significantly lower than that is going to be substandard.
Mr. Welch. OK. Ms. Hovis?
Thank you.
We have got to agreement on what the goal is.
Ms. Hovis?
Ms. Hovis. When I think about this infrastructure, wired or
wireless, a lot of it in my experience just comes back to
fiberoptics. None of this mobility, none of this wireless, and
certainly not 5G, is possible without fiberoptics.
So, I guess my answer to you, Congressman, is that whether
it is a metropolitan area or a rural area, we need as much
fiber infrastructure as possible, because faster wireless
speeds won't be possible unless we have the fiber. And the
greatly escalating speeds on the wire-line side in metro areas,
we are moving toward gigabit speeds in certain markets.
Mr. Welch. OK. I am going to have to stop you there. In
just a few quick words, I only have 40 seconds left, starting
with you, Mr. Murray, and going down, Mr. Connors and Berry.
Success, your definition for rural America?
Mr. Murray. I completely agree with the need for fiber. One
thought I had--and it is in its infancy--is I am hearing from
everybody we don't know, there aren't good standards, there
isn't good knowledge of what the coverage ought to be. Maybe
what Congress should do--you are saying, how can Congress help?
Maybe what Congress should do is insist that localities have
better maps. Do the mapping that they, for whatever reason,
need to report back up to where their infrastructure is. And
that may be a way to get better maps. Without good maps, you
cannot tell where the problems are.
The issue I have is maps of tower sites. I get into a
county and say, ``Well, where are the other towers?'' I say,
``You're the county''.
Mr. Welch. Thank you. My time is up.
Mr. Murray. Sorry.
Mr. Welch. But I thank you.
And I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. Mr. Latta, you are recognized.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks again
for having this hearing today. It is very, very informational.
I also want to thank all of our panelists today for being
with us today.
As the gentleman from Vermont just mentioned, he and I
serve on the Rural Caucus here in this committee. My area goes
from urban to very, very rural. And so, when you are looking at
rural America, as again has been mentioned, you have got safety
issues, the small business issues. You have got agricultural
issues.
But we have also worked on the Internet of Things together.
And so, we have been seeing things across the board as to how
we can get this country moving and get this out there.
But one of the other things about serving on this
committee, you hear great things that are going to be
happening. You are not looking at the end of the car. I
remember I took driver's ed a long time ago, and I can remember
my teacher saying, ``Don't look at the end of the car because
you've passed it. You've passed it.''
And so, I know that a couple of years we were told that, by
the end of this year, that worldwide we would have 1.6 mobile
devices per capita across the globe, or about 6 or 7 in the
United States. Recently, I saw a statistic that said we will
have between 25 to 50 billion interconnected devices by the
year 2025, and that number is probably wrong.
But, Mr. Berry, when I looked at your testimony, because,
again, you brought up some statistics here, and again you cited
a Cisco report that said that the mobile data use grew 63
percent in 2016 and 18-fold over the last 5 years. But, then,
they also say that, when you go out looking over that horizon
again in the next 5 years, we are going to see another seven-
fold increase.
Question: from what you presented us right here, when you
look at what you are facing out there, how do we get that 7-
fold increase out there when we are moving, trying to get
everybody connected out there, but also have the situation
where you have something that looks like this?
I am going to ask everybody real quickly, if I could, what
would be your dream? I know, Mr. Carlson, you talk about data
that the government needs to really have. But what would be
your one desire or goal for us or the regulators that could
help this problem right here?
Mr. Berry. Wow. I will note that, after you look at that,
you wonder how in the heck we actually have a wireless network
even built with those types of impediments. But the study, the
Cisco study, a 7-fold increase on top of what would be an 18-
fold increase. You are going to have to have more spectrum and
you are going to have to have greater builds.
With those types of impediments, you are going to come up
to a roadblock, especially when the small cell site that we are
talking about right here is treated like a tower.
Mr. Latta. What were we doing before we started it?
Mr. Berry. I think deem granted, deem approved, if not
responsive from federal and state and local levels. Education
is a big issue. If I were a local municipality and I wanted to
make sure that my citizens were adequately served for a
broadband product, I would actually put together a model plan
to say, ``Hey, come to my town because here is the deployment
plan that we put together and here is what you can guarantee
that we are going to get approved post-haste in 30, 60 days.''
Investment is sort of like water; it is going to go to the
point of least resistance.
That is the type of investment that Mr. Carlson and other
wireless carriers are going to have to make. Those are the
types of predictable assurances that you are going to need at
the federal, state, and local level. The federal level, I think
you do have a lot to say about improving and streamlining that
process post-haste.
Mr. Latta. Just real quickly because I have one minute
left, Mr. Connors.
Mr. Connors. From a tribal land, we need to have the
federal government respect the trust responsibility to consult
with tribes. And decisionmaking, we need to sit at the
decisionmaking table and be seen as partners in the
decisionmaking process, not just a requirement to check off a
box, but to be partners and to move forward in a positive
manner as partners.
Mr. Latta. Mr. Murray?
Mr. Murray. Yes.
Mr. Latta. Just real quickly.
Mr. Murray. Just continue to encourage collocation on the
macro-structures. Let's define small cells. It is great that we
have the visual aid here. That is not a tower. And I think
opening federal lands will help in a lot of areas.
Mr. Latta. Ms. Hovis?
Ms. Hovis. Congressman, a lot of the processes on that
diagram with regard to local governments don't really exist in
rural communities. There is not a lot of that kind of process
or fees or jumps, hoops you have to jump through, in rural
communities. In rural communities the challenge is the
economics just don't attract private capital and we have to
change that.
Mr. Latta. Madam Chairman, I see my time has expired.
But, Mr. Carlson, I know I have written down on yours.
Mrs. Blackburn. Go ahead, Mr. Carlson.
Mr. Latta. Again, Mr. Carlson?
Mr. Carlson. I would agree that the deem granted would be a
great advance.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair. I
appreciate it and yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. Yield back.
Ms. Clarke, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank our ranking
member. I thank all of our panelists for their testimony here
this morning.
I would like to add another dynamic to the conversation
coming from Brooklyn, New York. This question is directed to
Ms. Hovis. We have heard a lot about the challenges with
respect to rural America. I can certainly appreciate those
challenges.
One of my observations is that there is some disparity as
well with deployment in urban environments. And I don't want us
to be under this impression based on generalized conversations
about the fact that there are challenges for urban
environments, particularly for a city like New York where we
are severely behind in the deployment of fiberoptics.
In the context of broadband, can you discuss how public/
private partnerships can be used to bring affordable high-speed
broadband to communities that are currently unserved and
underserved? And I think it applies across the board. Because
certainly in cities like New York where you have disparities
based on socioeconomics, it is very similar to what people are
experiencing in, say, tribal lands and perhaps also the urban
environments. Would you share your thoughts with us?
Ms. Hovis. Thank you, Ms. Clarke.
Yes, I totally agree. I see those kinds of challenges in
urban areas all the time, in part, because there are certain
urban neighborhoods that simply aren't as well-served; for
example, small business neighborhoods that may have the benefit
of some old phone company infrastructure that might be
providing some broadband, might be sufficient to service small
business need, but there may not be cable infrastructure in
that area because cable traditionally just went to residential
areas. So, there is no competition. Pricing is high and service
is not very good, exactly what you would expect in an
environment where there is not competition.
And residential neighborhoods will have the same kinds of
challenges because private capital is upgrading networks in
better neighborhoods. Where a public/private partnership can
help there would be, if a city, for example, can build and
lease its own infrastructure to the private sector and, thus,
allowing private sector opportunity and competition in those
neighborhoods, using some public assets potentially, and if
there are mechanisms for enabling and supporting and rewarding
cities for that, rather than punishing them, then we can see
ways that public and private would both benefit and we could
fill some very substantial broadband gaps.
Ms. Clarke. Would say that tax incentives in and of
themselves can fix this problem?
Ms. Hovis. Well, I don't think so because, all other things
being equal, the tax incentives will just make more lucrative
the deployment patterns that already exist, which is that
private capital--and this is not a pejorative statement--will
flow to the places where revenues are greatest and build costs
are lowest. And that doesn't mean rural areas and that usually
doesn't mean very low-income areas, either.
Ms. Clarke. Very well.
Mr. Murray, you talked about 5G, Internet of Things, and
the next generation of wireless networks. How can we ensure
that some communities are not bypassed? What is needed to
deliver 5G to urban and underserved markets as well?
Mr. Murray. Well, small cells, I think I have a sense of
Brooklyn, just thinking of your district. I have two children
that live in Brooklyn.
Ms. Clarke. Everybody's children live in Brooklyn.
Mr. Murray. Yes, right.
But my guess, from what I know about deploying a signal, is
that small cells will play a huge role in a place like Brooklyn
for decades to come. You have huge capacity problems, and small
cells, essentially, bringing the antennas from 199 feet down to
40 feet. Put them on the corner of the building.
So, I think to the extent every cell site needs fiber
today, which is daunting to think about the mule dragging the
fiber up in a rural area that Ted was referring to. But in a
place like Brooklyn, I think you are going to end up with
really good service because the carriers are densifying these
networks. More fiber needs to be laid, obviously, but it is a
good place for small cells.
Ms. Clarke. Are you confident, for instance, that wireless
providers will be able to deploy small cell technology at a
volume sufficient so as to provide universal coverage?
Mr. Murray. I would expect so. What is the definition of
universal coverage?
Ms. Clarke. To make sure that across the spectrum of
communities that everyone is accessing.
Mr. Murray. Yes. Again, Brooklyn's greatest playing card in
this whole game is density. You can put these inexpensive small
cells literally on street corners. And to the extent you can
connect fiber with them, you are going to have unbelievable
service.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you.
Mr. Long, 5 minutes.
Mr. Long. Thank you. Appreciate it.
Mr. Carlson, to get ubiquitous coverage of 5G, it is going
to take more than 300,000 small cells deployed across the
country. And I saw an interesting story recently that suggested
that the fees charged to small cells are increasing
exponentially. In fact, in a Minnesota city, in the span of
just three years, they increased the fees for siting small
cells from $600 to $7500. I appreciate that some cities and
states find themselves in economic straits, but how do you make
sure that siting application costs and management fees don't
become a deterrent to deployment?
Mr. Carlson. Well, I think it is an excellent question. I
haven't really thought about that question in depth. I think
there needs to be answer to it, but I would respectfully ask
that maybe we could get back to you with our thoughts on that,
because it is a big challenge.
Mr. Long. It is.
Mr. Carlson. On the one hand, you have the right of the
city to charge what it wants. On the other hand, you have the
need of the carrier to deploy. Should you overcome the right of
the city to charge what it wants? I would really like to think
about the answer to that.
Mr. Long. If you will and get back to me, I would really
appreciate it because it is from $6000 to $7500. I understand
your point, but that is a little bit of an increase.
Mr. Carlson. Right.
Mr. Long. And let's see, for Mr. Berry, in Japan, South
Korea, China, and the EU, they are all working to regain a
position of leadership in the wireless space. What has the
benefit been of U.S. leadership in 4G and what would be lost if
we don't set the pace in the deployment of 5G services?
Mr. Berry. Thank you, Congressman Long.
I think we have benefited greatly by the new jobs and new
services and new technology that we have been encouraging and
been able to deploy on the 4G LTE systems. I think if we are
not the leader in the 5G system, the $22 million that Qualcomm
said would be attached to 5G with $3.5 trillion may not be
coming to the United States. It may be going to those other
areas. And I would like to think that somebody in rural
Missouri is just as innovative and has just as great a
capability of being productive in a rural area in Missouri as
they are in downtown Tokyo.
And I would go back to your first question to Mr. Carlson.
That is a huge problem, increasing the fees. This small cell
site right here costs $6,000. If you are going to have to pay
$7500 to put it in and also pay annual renewal fees on top of
that, then that municipality is losing the opportunity to do
just what you would like to do globally, which is be the leader
in the 5G world.
I think education is a huge issue there, and I think
hearings like today go a long way to make that point. But they
need to understand, if they look at it as a revenue stream,
then they are not going to get the capabilities. And you have
the legislation before you that tries to tie the value of the
cost to the actual cost of the license and the license
application review and the management of the right-of-ways.
Mr. Long. OK. Let me get one more in quickly here for you
and/or Mr. Carlson, whoever would like to tackle it. But in my
front office here in the Rayburn Building I have a sign that
says, ``Bring back common sense.'' And it is the most popular
sign in my office.
We can all agree that there is a digital divide between
urban and rural America. It is imperative that we promote the
deployment of broadband networks in rural, unserved areas like
in my home state of Missouri. However, to fix the problem, we
need to correctly identify the problem. I think a common-sense
first step we can take is correctly identifying where broadband
is needed before spending the money.
For you, Mr. Carlson or Mr. Berry, both of you talk about
the importance of data and Form 477 in your testimony. In fact,
Mr. Carlson, you make a great point when you say making smart,
targeted investments begins with accurate measurement.
My question is, what has the FCC done to improve its data
collection and what more can they do?
Mr. Carlson. Well, my view is that we haven't done nearly
enough or I should say the FCC hasn't done nearly enough. I am
sure that they were well-intentioned when they originally
designed that 477, but that was years ago and needs have become
more apparent, more obvious now. And now, they need to improve
that data collection process.
We have volunteered for our company to provide that data on
the urban quality level standard within weeks of the time that
they would ask us for that. We believe that large carriers,
most carriers, can provide similar data within a period of
months. All they have to do is ask or, if a carrier won't
provide the data, to require it. It is not a big job. Most of
the data sits on computers, and the data can be gotten easily.
Mr. Long. OK. I am way over time, but do you have anything
real quickly on that?
Mr. Berry. I will do ditto on that. We strongly agree, and
I really do hope that the FCC will address this immediately
because the Mobility Fund II, which they just approved, over
the next 10 years is going to spend $4.53 billion, not enough,
but certainly not enough if you don't have the data to know
where to spend it.
Mr. Long. OK, thank you.
Madam Chairwoman, I have no time, but if I did, I would
yield it back to you.
Mrs. Blackburn. I appreciate that.
Ms. Eshoo, the time is yours.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and congratulations
on your chairmanship of the subcommittee.
I think that this hearing today is maybe not equal to
importance as the nomination hearing for the Supreme Court, but
I think it comes in as a close second because the subject
matter is an essential for our country. It is an essential for
our country.
Broadband access is a basic necessity for full
participation in modern life. It cuts across, as other members
have said, as the witnesses have stated, that connectivity is
an essential tool for education, for health care, for civic
discourse, for opportunity in our country.
Every time I heard the questions asked and the answer
given, and the excellent testimony that was given, my heart
sank even more because we have a patchwork in our country
relative to not only access, but speed. Many years ago, the
action was all about access. We have areas in our country that
have no access. This is the second decade of the 21st century.
These are technologies that Americans invented. So, I think we
have a huge challenge, and I think that we need to in this
committee advance this the way the Telecom Act was advanced at
another time. That was in 1996. That is now a long time ago.
So, when we have 39 percent of households in rural communities
have no access--no access, we are not even talking about
speed--they have no access to a fixed broadband provider, I
should add.
So, I appreciate the good words that you said about my
legislation, Dig Once. Congressman Long talked about common
sense. My grandmother used to say, ``The most uncommon of the
senses is common sense.''
Now, on January 24th, the House voted by a voice vote to
pass H.R. 600, the Digital Gap Act, which would make it a
policy of the United States to promote build once broadband
policies to foreign governments. I think we should start at
home. So, all of the evidence points to that.
Of all of the recommendations that you have made, I just
want to go one sentence from each one of you. Because what I am
looking for out of this subcommittee is a package that is going
to move us to where we need to land.
So, starting with Steve Berry, one sentence, one item, what
do you think you are top item is to get us to where we need to
be?
Mr. Berry. Well, that is difficult, but I have got to start
off with data. If you can't measure it, you can't fix it.
Ms. Eshoo. OK, data. OK.
Mr. Connors?
Mr. Connors. Including tribes and respecting tribal
sovereignty.
Ms. Eshoo. All right.
Mr. Murray. Continue to encourage collocation.
Ms. Eshoo. OK. Ms. Novis?
Ms. Hovis. Enabling public/private partnerships.
Mr. Carlson. Collect the accurate data.
Ms. Eshoo. OK. So, we have two out of five on data. Well, I
appreciate that.
I think, Madam Chairwoman, that with all of the knowledge
that has been presented to us, the collective knowledge that we
have on both sides of the aisle here, I really think that we
need a package for the 21st century. We say the United States
of America, except there are whole areas of our country that
are left out. That is just not acceptable. Rural America, and
in terms of tribes, it is shameful. It really is shameful that
parents have to drive children I don't know to where to see if
they can pick up a signal, so that they can get their homework
done. That is something that should be from other centuries,
not this century.
So, I will work with you to put a package together because
I think this issue deserves it. And we are not going to
progress economically or otherwise in our nation unless we can
achieve the full benefit of the technologies that are there.
Knowing whole parts of our country, whether they are
underserved, whether they don't have competition, where there
is absolutely no access or that they are lacking speed, we
need, I think, to put a package together.
Otherwise, I think all of these parts, we are going to have
hearings on all the different parts. But we know in medicine
that you need to treat the whole body. And I think the body of
this issue deserves our attention and that a package containing
the top recommendations here is the way we need to go.
So, I thank you. It is worth staying here to hear what you
all have to say, and we appreciate it. Thank you.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady yields back.
And that is why we are having the hearing and that is why
we are working so hard to push broadband forward, as is the FCC
and the President. All right.
Ms. Eshoo. I ask, Madam Chairwoman, that this letter from
Public Knowledge, with unanimous consent----
Mrs. Blackburn. Without objection, yes.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you very much.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mrs. Blackburn. Mr. Flores, you are recognized, 5 minutes.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Berry, in your testimony you mentioned the challenges
that arise as networks move toward 5G and also toward smaller
cells. And Mr. Long brought up one of those a minute ago that I
thought was particularly noticeable related to the costs that
some local governments imposed. Can you elaborate on somehow
the other current barriers that exist and deployment will
become more problematic as small-scale architecture becomes
more prevalent?
Mr. Berry. Barriers in the sense of permitting or licensing
or?
Mr. Flores. You see them now, based on the architecture
that exists today of the various cell technologies. But, as
small cell and 5G become more prevalent, looking at the current
barriers, how do you think they are going to become more
problematic as you go to smaller and smaller cells?
Mr. Berry. Well, I think a lot of it goes right to the
heart of those people that are responsible for managing the
property and the land. They need to understand that this is an
opportunity to not only expand a network, but get new
capabilities and new services.
One of our CEOs of one our companies said, ``As we get to
the 5G world, it is a river of pennies.'' The problem is that I
don't want to only have one or two of those streams of pennies;
you need it all in order to be profitable.
So, I hope that small cities, towns, counties, they will
recognize that there is a small margin of profitability when
you build out a network, even if you are using small cells. And
you are going to have to use a lot of these, and you are going
to have to bring it back to fiber as fast as you can.
So, I think that recognizing that the benefit is actually
in the services, in the economic activity that will occur
because of this capability, is a lot more important than having
a standard location that is inaccessible.
And I would note that collocation, while we like
collocation, there should not be collocation to the detriment
of multiple locations.
Mr. Flores. Right.
Mr. Berry. And that is what is going to allow you to have
competition in most of these areas.
Mr. Flores. Right. I think as soon as some of these cities
begin to look at this as basic infrastructure for the community
like a road, that they will be better off, instead of as a
source for fees and permits, and so forth.
Mr. Murray, in your testimony you discuss the need to
diversify wireless infrastructure with rooftop sites, small
cells, distributed antenna systems, et cetera; also, with WiFi
hotspots and traditional macro-cellular towers to promote
spectral efficiency and to provide carriers with the capacity
they need to meet increasing data demands on their networks.
And so, my question is this: I think you sort of answered
it in your testimony, but just to be clear, is there a danger
in relying too much on one type of infrastructure technology?
Mr. Murray. No, I don't think there is. Mr. Carlson runs a
network. I develop one type of infrastructure. And he has to
take a look at 2018 and figure out what is the best return on
his capital. And that might be 30 percent of his budget goes to
small cells and 60 percent to towers and the last 10 percent to
DAS in a given area.
So, all of these technologies are complementary. Small
cells are new enough that we are still struggling to define
what a small cell is. I mean, that is a small box. But if that
small box is integrated on a 120-foot pole that was built
without approval, local approval, then you have issues.
Mr. Flores. Right.
Mr. Murray. But, no, it is going to be a heterogenous
network going forward. The towers, the macro-sites, if you
will, will dominate in rural areas because they just cover so
much more. And there typically aren't capacity problems in a
place where there is a town of 5,000 and one main road.
Mr. Flores. OK. Thank you.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of time.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. McNerney, for 5 minutes.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Madam Chair.
First, I want to direct my question to Mr. Carlson. In your
testimony you discussed the benefits of investing in mobile
broadband, but there is approximately 5.3 million veterans
living in rural areas, accounting for about a quarter of all
the United States veterans. Can you provide some examples about
how investing in mobile broadband in rural areas would benefit
these veterans?
Mr. Carlson. Yes. Thank you for the question. I haven't
thought about that, but, certainly, access to great medical
care is something that veterans dearly need. We have had
stories about veterans not getting the kind of access that they
should have, and whether that is remote access in rural areas
or it is access to the local clinic that may be some distance
from where they actually live in the rural areas, would be a
great thing.
Of course, education for veterans, so that they can gain
great employment opportunities in our society is another thing.
So, continuing education and getting that access to continuing
education at home, so they don't have to drive some significant
distance to go to school. Those kinds of things would be very
important.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
All of the written testimonies show significant benefits to
broadband, but I am concerned about the growing cyber threats
that we face. I would like a yes-or-no answer, and then, I will
drill back, if anyone wants to, from each of you on, would it
be beneficial to invest early in our cyber protection in the
broadband planning and development?
Mr. Carlson. Oh, well, I can just comment on cyber. We are
investing millions of dollars per year, and that has grown
dramatically. It has probably grown 20-30 percent a year over
the last several years, because we are worried about cyber
attacks to our network.
Mr. McNerney. So, the question is, how beneficial is it to
make those investments early in the process as opposed to
waiting----
Mr. Carlson. It is very important for every company that is
involved as a carrier to make investments today in
cybersecurity and to get cooperation, even more cooperation
than what we get today from the government informing us about
threats that they see that we could, then, anticipate.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Carlson.
Ms. Hovis?
Ms. Hovis. Yes, I agree, critical to do it soon.
Mr. McNerney. OK.
Mr. Murray. I agree.
Mr. Connors. Definitely, it is better to invest early and
get ahead of the problems before there is a problem.
Mr. Berry. I totally agree, and we would encourage best
practices and better education on how we build and deploy
networks, especially for the networks, but also for the
consumers that utilize the network.
Mr. McNerney. So, Mr. Carlson, it has been 2-and-a-half
years since the National Broadband Map was updated. And I know
you have spoken strongly on this, Mr. Carlson. But, Ms. Hovis,
is having accurate data important for identifying geographical
areas that are underserved or unserved?
Ms. Hovis. Yes, it is absolutely critical, and I spend a
good amount of time on fixed broadband as well as on mobile,
but I will agree with everything that Mr. Carlson said.
And I would say the granularity of data is critically
important as well. Because when we are seeing data only at a
very high level, such that there is the implication that there
is service throughout a community, when perhaps a small part of
that community is served, but we don't have the granularity to
know who is and is not, can't really make useful decisions
about where to invest or where the needs are.
Mr. McNerney. Would it also be helpful for public/private
partnerships to have that granularity?
Ms. Hovis. It absolutely would because it would allow both
parties to know where they should invest, where they might want
to target their efforts, how the market is served or not
served, so that they can understand market dynamics. But it
also helps the public sector to understand where the needs are.
So, for example, in many urban areas I work in, whole areas
of small business concentration have almost no broadband or the
small business services that are available are just a few
megabits, which doesn't fit the federal definition of
broadband. We would want to know to target that, and you can't
find that out from the National Map at this point.
Mr. McNerney. Are there specific types of public/private
partnerships that would be beneficial in rural areas?
Ms. Hovis. Yes, we have seen some really interesting
innovation around these kinds of partnerships. So, for example,
the Commonwealth of Kentucky, in a very visionary, bipartisan
effort, has entered into a public/private partnership with the
consortium of private entities that are bringing private
capital and full private execution, construction, operations,
customer service, and so on, to a statewide initiative that
will also open up new opportunity for other companies.
Mr. McNerney. Too many questions, too little time, Madam
Chairwoman.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Ms. Walters, 5 minutes.
Mrs. Walters. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would like to
thank Chairman Blackburn for holding this important hearing and
the witnesses for appearing before the subcommittee today.
The impact of broadband in our everyday lives is
significant, particularly in my home state of California, where
wireless technology is growing at an explosive rate. In fact,
over 41 million California residents access the majority of
their high-speed broadband connections wirelessly. These
numbers will continue to grow, which is why the deployment of
5G technology is so important to my state, and particularly in
my district.
In fact, the recent Accenture study mentioned in Mr.
Murray's testimony estimates that the wireless industry will
invest $275 billion in communities across the country over the
next decade to build out our next-gen 5G wireless
infrastructure, which will support 3 million new jobs and
contribute $500 billion to the economy. Over $200 million of
that investment will incur in my district, creating over 2300
new jobs.
Unfortunately, the current process to site wireless
infrastructure is cumbersome and can impede 5G rollout, to the
detriment of investment and job creation To that end, I would
like to ask the members of the panel about the obstacles
related to the current sitings process.
Mr. Murray, as I just mentioned, the Accenture study you
raised in your testimony highlights the significant broadband
investment scheduled to take place over the next several years.
The most obvious way to continue to encourage this type of
investment in job creation would be to make significant changes
to the sitings process for 5G infrastructure. And I know some
of my colleagues have touched on this, but can you share any
specific examples where the siting process has disrupted or
discouraged 5G rollout?
Mr. Murray. Well, 5G rollout is still sometime in the
future. And I think we should also recognize that ``5G
infrastructure'' is essentially layering new gear on top of the
existing structure. So, in the case of a tower, a carrier is
going to come back to that tower if they have 4G antennas and
other gear on the top of the tower. They are just adding gear
to that.
So, it is not as if we need to build--we will need more
small cells. We will need more towers. But it is not a unique
type of infrastructure. It is just more of the same.
I am not sure I answered the question, though.
Mrs. Walters. OK. No, that is fine.
Mr. Berry, according to the chart submitted with your
testimony, mobile infrastructure sitings require the
involvement of at least four federal agencies and state and
local requirements, which in California can oftentimes be more
burdensome than environmental reviews. Is the process outlined
by the chart a reasonable expectation of what carriers can face
when seeking to deploy technology?
Mr. Berry. Yes, the chart, I assume you are talking about
this chart here. I must say that it is actually not as
inclusive a chart of what it actually would have been, had we
had more paper. So, yes, it really boils down to whether the
local community or land manager wants to cooperate with the
carrier or the provider. From this chart, you can find 1,000
different boxes to put a ``no,'' ``X'' in, and make a carrier
resubmit, reapply, do a new study.
Unless you have this ongoing requirement that this is in
our national interest, and it should be a priority to have
services like this in our communities throughout the United
States, I don't think you are going to change the attitude.
That is why I say, yes, it is structure and it is organization,
but it is also local citizens and the communities need to
decide, do we want the platform to be built so that we can have
a 5G? And I think it really boils down to where there is a will
there is a way.
Mrs. Walters. What relief will the proposals that you
outline in your testimony do to streamline the deployment
process?
Mr. Berry. Well, I think having an entity that is
responsible, and a federal, state, and local entity that you
can contact that has an application, responsibility for the
application, that will respond to you. Many of the land
managers, at least many of our carriers say, ``Listen, we would
just appreciate a phone call back telling me the status of my
application.''
It should be a priority to receive and get the services
into the economy. That is part of the missing piece of the
puzzle, is how do we encourage those that actually have the
authority at all levels to actually act on it. And I think that
is why at the federal level the leadership starts there. And I
think that that attitude can have an indelible impact on
everyone else down the chain.
Mrs. Walters. OK, thank you. And I am out of time. Thank
you.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Engel, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Chairman Blackburn.
As many of you know, New York City, which is my district,
and the northern suburbs, are doing reasonably well when it
comes to broadband access. New York has made the decision as a
state that broadband access needs to be priority, and we have
made the kind of targeted investments we need to build out
access for New Yorkers, not just in New York City, but beyond.
And you know that New York does have a number of rural areas.
The biggest reason for the difference between my district
and my colleague's district isn't a difference in need, but a
difference in density. So, what we need, I think, is, then,
something to make the buildout more economically attractive to
areas that aren't as dense as my district. And my district is
relatively easy because so many people live so closely
together. We have highrises and dense suburbs. So, it takes
less cable to connect to people because they are already so
close together. The less dense the people are, the more towers
and the more cable you need, obviously.
So, I know we have talked some already this morning about
the need for public support to make broadband buildout
economically viable. And I appreciate that this subcommittee is
all on the same page when it comes to the need to do that
buildout.
But the White House, and they have spoken about
infrastructure investment before, has talked about using tax
credits to try to improve the economics. My feeling is that
direct investment would not only be more straightforward than
tax credits, but do a better job, also, of bending the cost
curve, which means it would be that much easier to hire the
folks to build and maintain the towers and the cables while
also bringing the internet and all the economic activity that
comes with it to more of the country.
Mr. Berry, let me ask you, based on your work, do you have
a sense of how much a tax credit program would do to improve
the economics?
Mr. Berry. I hesitate to give you a number because, quite
frankly, I don't know, especially all situations are different.
And my initial impression would be straight tax credits, unless
it is an accelerated tax credit or an immediate tax credit or a
reduction in your out-of-pocket expenses, will have very
little, will create very little incentive to build out in rural
America.
Quite frankly, I think it will be the same in urban/
suburban America. What you need is lower-cost deployment
opportunities for devices like this, like the small cells, and
it is the service itself that is going to bring the economic
opportunities to the constituent.
I just think that there has to be some real money attached
to the support, the subsidy. In many of these rural areas, the
economic model to build out and provide these services is very
strained.
Mr. Engel. Let me ask you, in your written testimony you
talk about direct predictable support. Can you explain what you
mean by that and why do you feel it is so important?
Mr. Berry. Direct?
Mr. Engel. Direct predictable support.
Mr. Berry. For example, under USF Mobility II, we have
languished almost for 5 years, not knowing that we are going to
have a Mobility II, not knowing how much money it is going to
be. And when we had Mobility I, most of our carriers had spent
the money out of Mobility I, built the towers, had to wait for
over a year to get paid.
So, their planning process of how do we expect to spend our
money and eventually maybe get a return on our money is sort of
unknown. And so, I think direct predictable support from a
Mobility II that gives our carriers an opportunity to say, yes,
I am going to go out there and build this and I know it can
sustain the cap ex, the cost to build it, and I know it can
sustain the op ex, i.e., the cost to continue to support that
cell site or that service, is predictable.
I think we need more. I think that, with this committee's
help, with good data and information there, you are going to
find out where you can spend that extra $10 and maybe have a
substantial impact.
Mr. Engel. Anybody else, with 33 seconds left, have any
idea about this? Any difference of opinion or agreement?
Mr. Murray. A quick thought is that, if there is less
regulation, then the carriers can spend those monies on
building out more sites. I mean, in the rural areas it is just
a question of building more sites.
Mr. Engel. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Ms. Brooks, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
I am a former Deputy Mayor of Indianapolis. And so, I fully
appreciate the importance of building out infrastructure in a
community. Because if we invest, it attracts businesses and
grows jobs, and so forth.
And our legislature in Indiana is also embracing innovation
and, in fact, is considering legislation that empowers the
deployment of small cell devices to bring 5G buildout to
Indianapolis. Because the city of Indianapolis is currently a
test site for 5G, the buildout is attracting that 21st century
infrastructure.
And so, while I am learning more and I am a huge fan of 5G,
what I am curious about, Mr. Murray, with respect to many state
legislatures, I understand, including Indiana, are considering
the type of legislation that would prevent municipalities from
adopting burdensome and unneeded and local regulations that
would impede the deployment of small cell technology necessary
for 5G. Do you believe that that type of state legislation is
needed to ensure the rapid deployment of 5G technology, and do
you believe there is a continuing federal rule to ensure there
are proper guideposts around local regulation for the placement
of this type of technology?
Mr. Murray. Yes, I think we are struggling as an industry
right now in defining it. It is a matter of scale. Again, the
Wireless Infrastructure Association believes, if we talk about
height, it is 50 feet, and it is a limited number of antennas.
That magnitude or less is a small cell. Anything larger is a
tower that should go through the normal, responsible local
review.
WIA has model legislation that is a much longer version of
what I just described. I think that legislation will be
guidepost to states as each state wrestles with this question
of how do we define this new technology.
Mrs. Brooks. Mr. Berry, last week another Energy and
Commerce Subcommittee held a hearing on smart communities and
the way technology can enable more efficient transportation
systems, better policing, and so forth. Can you address what
your members of your group are doing to partner with localities
to enable cities like Indianapolis to leverage 5G technologies?
Mr. Berry. Thank you.
Well, first of all, you have to get to the gigabit network
if you are going to find yourselves in a 5G, even if it is
testbed. So, it is the backhaul and the fiber that is the first
requirement. And then, it is the deployment, not only the small
cells, but the coverage.
So, many of our carriers, U.S. Cellular included, are
already doing testbeds for 5G. What do we have to do? Some of
our smaller carriers have said, ``Listen, Steve, my most
difficult challenge is figuring out the business model for a
small town or city when I have a No. 1 priority to get a 4G LTE
VoLTE buildout. And then, how do I figure out how do you invest
and build that 5G system that has a return on investment?''
And so, they are reaching out to the communities. Many of
the smaller carriers--like in Mr. Shimkus' district, I think
the largest town is 33,000. Well, they are going into those
towns and they are saying, ``What can we do together and how
can we do it in an efficient, effective way, because we don't
have a lot of money?''
So, that is educational process. That partnership process
is absolutely critical. And I salute you and those in
Indianapolis that have reached out and taken that very serious
step of addressing deployment scenarios that may not be
particularly popular in some venues.
Mrs. Brooks. In fact, I wanted to ask, then, maybe Mr.
Murray, or back to you, Mr. Berry, when you have communities,
what are the educational tools you are using? This is very,
very complicated information to try to relay to whether it is
city councils, state legislatures, and others. How are you
educating people on these things?
Mr. Berry. It is a problem because you are right, this is
extremely technical. There is more computing capability in your
smartphone than put up the first Apollo 1 mission. So, it is
very technical, but I think it is just a matter of working with
the localities and sitting down in a forum that not only
explains the growth and the economic opportunities, but also
can explain what it will take in order to build that out. It is
changing minds, and that is sometimes one of the more difficult
things to do. But I think as they see the rest of the world
moving very quickly in this regard, and they see economic
growth and jobs attached to it, I think that is a pretty
powerful message to be sending.
Mrs. Brooks. I agree. Yield back. Thank you.
Mrs. Blackburn. Mr. Bilirakis, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it so
very much. I thank the panel for their testimony today.
Mr. Berry and Mr. Murray, in order to realize the full
potential of emerging technologies, it is important for
governments at all levels to make their permitting and
regulatory process more efficient. Under the discussion draft,
state and local governments may opt into the information
database. What are the incentives for local governments to opt-
in? And we will start with Mr. Berry, please.
Mr. Berry. Well, as we were just talking, I think the
incentives are economic growth and job opportunities. But don't
forget mHealth, mobile health, and education, two huge drivers
in most local communities, and the convenience that that brings
to the table. And those communities, they are going to be
bypassed if they don't have a program or at least a methodology
of addressing a buildout, and how do you accommodate an
architectural buildout within a larger area. I think that is
something that the state and local governments have to address.
In my early years before I went to law school, I did city
management, city planning and city management, and went to
something easier. I went to law school. So, that is a tough
job. It is a tough job.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good.
Mr. Murray, please.
Mr. Murray. Yes, I will have WIA get something for the
record on that.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. Thank you.
Next, this is for the panel. In a prior hearing on these
discussion topics, a witness testified he had experienced an
unexpected fee of $30,000 on a project site on DoD management
land. Is that representative of the unexpected cost you face
related to fees? And are you given any notice by any agency
that you may be subjected to a significant fee for a project?
Or are you just handed a bill? Who would like to begin? We will
start from here.
Mr. Berry. Well, I would just say that it is not unheard of
to have troubles like that when you are trying to build out a
network. It normally doesn't happen exactly that way. You have
some indication that you are not going to get the license or
you are in the appellate process.
But, again, I will refer to the chart here. As you go down
and hit all the boxes and try to check off all the
requirements, it can be a huge expense. With small carriers
that are serving small rural communities, and they only have a
limited footprint, they don't have the resources.
This chart was put together with a lot of time, effort, and
energy from attorneys. Most of my small carriers don't even
have an attorney on staff. They may have a person they call an
engineer. So, it is very, very difficult and could be cost-
prohibited.
Mr. Murray. We have worked sites through that--I don't even
know what is on that paper, but I know our process is very,
very complicated to getting DS.
I will say, Steve mentioned, you need to give the parties
in each box some incentive. I think that the localities are
getting it. They realize that there are tradeoffs. If you want
these incredible services, well, maybe we will have to see a
telecommunications structure on the horizon. Are we willing to
pay that price? It is not a big price. But there are tradeoffs
to it. I think that the municipalities are moving along.
I agree with my colleague Joanne in that many of these
issues are now sort of flow of capital. It is hard for us to
build in rural areas right now because the carrier cap ex is so
focused on indensifying the network in the urban areas. We, as
a business, need a lead tenant and we need a second tenant. And
the second tenants are just not there as readily as they were
in the past because of this need to densify in the urban areas.
Mr. Bilirakis. Has anyone else received a large, unexpected
fee on the panel, similar to the $30,000 fee?
OK, well, then, let me go on with the next question. I know
I don't have much time. I have 15 seconds.
A followup: have you or your member companies ever created
a feasible broadband proposal, only to abandon the project due
to repeated and unexpected fees? And does the discussion draft
address this issue? Who would like to respond on that from the
panel? Yes?
Mr. Carlson. I can just comment that I don't know the
answer, but I know we have abandoned cell sites----
Mr. Bilirakis. Yes.
Mr. Carlson [continuing]. When the difficulty of getting
them sited and agreed to by the local community was too much. I
don't know whether it was specifically fee-related, but we have
had to abandon cell sites which we think was harming. And that
abandonment we believe harmed those communities.
Mr. Murray. We have absolutely had the same experience. In
western Loudoun County, we had a whole network of sites that
would have brought broadband to that whole community. In 2008,
a whole network of sites was denied just on sort of
unreasonable community opposition. We believe it was
unreasonable and they still lack service.
Mr. Connors. We were close to abandoning the project a few
times based on putting the money out ahead of time, not based
on the fees, but based on the cost of the project and waiting
for reimbursements. Reimbursements from the grant had to wait
sometimes 6-12 months, a couple of years. It was the upfront
costs that were making it cost-prohibitive for a while.
Mr. Berry. And we have had members, several members have
told me that they had to not only abandon sites because of
expectations that they are not going to get a USF. You remember
they cut the USF, the Universal Service Fund Mobility II funds
in the last administration significantly. And some carriers
actually went out of business because they are so small and
their boards said, ``We can't sustain another 20-, 30-, 60-
percent cut in reimbursements.'' And they sold their
operations. And so, for small carriers, that is always a
concern. Are you going to build or overbuild your capacity?
Mr. Bilirakis. All right. I am sorry, Madam Chair. Thank
you very much. I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Collins, last in the queue.
Mr. Collins. Oh, my, thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to thank the witnesses here today.
Just a little background. I have eight rural counties in
upstate New York. We are talking Buffalo, Lake Erie, Lake
Ontario. Four of my counties do not have acceptable broadband
coverage. In fact, my ``get out of jail free,'' if somebody is
on the phone, I just say, ``I'm up in Wyoming County now. I
just lost my cell signal.'' So, one of my counties I don't even
have cell coverage.
Recently, Verizon turned down $170 million on broadband
buildout in New York State. Fortunately, Ajit Pai, the new
Chair of FCC, saw the rationale of keeping that money in New
York, and one of the first things they did was designate that
$170 million to stay in New York, but we will have to figure
out exactly where that goes.
So, Mr. Berry, part of my question for you. One of my
neighbors in the shopping plaza at my district offices in Blue
Wireless is a CCA member, very small, a very small provider.
So, my thought goes around this: first of all, Congress
does a lot of things. And rule 1 is do no harm. But, number 2,
the FCC, now under Ajit Pai, will be doing a lot of regulations
that I think will really benefit this topic today without
legislative work by Congress.
I guess the question I have got, in particular, is, in New
York State, western New York, upstate, a desperate need for
monies and buildout of broadband. What role do you think
Congress plays versus FCC regulations? Because, again, let's
not get ahead of ourselves here, and especially addressing
someone like your fellow member, Blue Wireless, a smaller
provider. I think in some cases they will step in where Verizon
won't. But to make sure we are not doing something in either
way, FCC or Congress, to somehow cut these small guys, like
your clients and my neighbor, cut them out of the process.
Mr. Berry. Blue Wireless is a great member. They also
participate in our Device Hub, where we essentially put a
consortium together to ensure that the small carriers can get
the state-of-the-art devices at the lower costs through
aggregation of acquisitions of handsets. So, they are one of
the smaller carriers that are out there, really unique, making
a unique imprint in their territory.
Yes, I think what the FCC did here on the USF Mobility II
was a real improvement. We are not out of the woods yet,
though, on the data issue. We are going to have a challenge
process, and the data is still not available.
So, those carriers like Blue Wireless, MTCPs, and some of
the other smaller carriers, are going to have to challenge the
data that, Number 1, we know is incorrect. And they are going
to have to spend a lot of money to make sure that the data that
they submit is actually correct and for the FCC to make a
decision on whether or not they are going to get access to USF
funds.
And so, Blue Wireless is courageous in the fact that they
are out there competing with the larger carriers in a very
small area and on a shoestring. So, I think some of the
regulations that Pai is doing away with may help them just as
much on reporting requirements and some of the other issues.
But, on USF, that predictability of those funds is
critical. And the next phase, once we finish the legacy, you
know, the drawdown of the legacy, it is the new-build funds
that they are going to have to challenge and they are going to
have to be ready to fight for. Hopefully, we will help them
fight for them.
Mr. Collins. Well, I thank you for that because we all
share the same concern going forward. We don't have enough time
to get into some of the delays. But I noted in your testimony
the concern of 2020 is still three years away, and we sometimes
get frustrated with moving at a snail's pace. But, you know, we
can cover that another day.
So, Madam Chair, I am going to yield back 48 seconds, so
you can't blame me for going over. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Blackburn. I will accept that time back, and seeing no
further members to ask questions, I want to thank all of our
witnesses that are with us today.
Mr. Berry, the ranking member and I were talking about the
small cell site. What we would like to know is range of
coverage for that cell site. It would be helpful to us going
forward. And you can submit that to us for the record, if you
would like.
Mr. Berry. OK. And I have got the specs for the cell site.
One of my members, Nokia, provided it. So, I thank them.
Mrs. Blackburn. OK. And if you will submit that for the
record?
And to all of you, thank you. You are dismissed.
We are going to quickly reset to the second panel, spend
about 2 minutes doing that, and then, move forward with the
second panel.
Votes are expected sometime between 1:10 and 1:25.
[Recess.]
Mrs. Blackburn. In the interest of time, we are moving
forward with our second panel. I do want to welcome all of you
back.
The same format as with the first panel. You will each be
given 5 minutes for your opening statement. And Ms. Clarke and
I have agreed that we will do 3 minutes for questioning per
member on each side and, hopefully, move forward with this
panel. We are thrilled that you are here.
Mr. Darr, Mr. Bryan Darr, who is the CEO of Mosaik
Solutions, and I think a Tennessean.
Mr. Darr. Yes, I am.
Mrs. Blackburn. And we welcome you.
And, Mr. James Stegeman, who is the president at CostQuest
Associates, we welcome you.
Mr. Stegeman, we will begin with you with 5 minutes. You
are recognized.
STATEMENTS OF JAMES W. STEGEMAN, PRESIDENT, COSTQUEST
ASSOCIATES, INC. AND BRYAN DARR, CEO, MOSAIK SOLUTIONS
STATEMENT OF JAMES W. STEGEMAN
Mr. Stegeman. Good afternoon, Chairman Blackburn and Vice
Chairman Lance, Ranking Member Doyle, and Members of the
Subcommittee.
My name is James Stegeman. I am President of CostQuest
Associates. It is an honor to be here to discuss the status of
broadband in the U.S.
Let me first start with a brief introduction of my firm,
CostQuest Associates. My company specializes in understanding
costs, assets, and the geography of broadband deployment. We
work with the largest ILEC, cable, and wireless carriers in
evaluation of their networks. We work with a number of cities
and states in understanding fiber deployment issues, and we
have created both the economic model behind the National
Broadband Plan as well as the FCC's current Connect America
cost model that is used to disperse over $3 billion annually.
Now let me jump to the heart of my testimony today. Let me
first focus on terrestrial coverage using the latest FCC 477
data. If we look at the nationwide map on the screen, 76.3
percent of homes have access to service with download speeds at
or above 100 megabits per second, what I refer to as
``served''. 13.6 percent have access to speeds between 25 and
100 megabits per second, or what I refer to as ``underserved''.
And 10 percent of homes remain unserved with speeds under 25
megabits per second. It is an interesting picture that shows,
while the majority of the population is served, the majority of
the land mass is unserved.
In the next chart I have summarized the coverage in your
congressional districts. The blue represents the portion of
your district that is served. Orange represents what is
underserved, and gray represents what is unserved.
If we move to the mobility side, we used access to LTE as a
basis to prepare the map you see now on the screen. This map
shows, based upon the FCC's current 477 data, that 10 percent
of roads do not have access to LTE. Conversely, 99.5 percent of
household appear to have LTE access.
In my filed testimony, I have provided maps of both
terrestrial and mobile coverage for your districts, in part to
let you view the data, but to see if it lines up with your on-
the-ground experience.
With current coverage reviewed, I moved to the question of
how do we encourage the expansion to all homes and roads. I
will focus on what I believe to be the key hurdle, economic
viability. And that is, commercial broadband networks may be
too expensive to make a fair return for commercial entities.
In the chart on the screen, I provide the estimate by state
of building out new fiber networks in the non-served portions
of the country using our cost model output. Nationally, the
total is over $90 billion. In the next chart, I have broken out
the capital requirements for each of your congressional
districts.
Now let's move to the cost of wireless buildout for
portions of the nation's roads unserved by mobile LTE. My firm
recently developed an estimate for the investment to build out
wireless. The results show that bringing 4G LTE to the
remainder of unserved roads would cost an estimated $12.5
billion in initial investment.
And not to sit on our Gs, we also looked at cost of 5G. In
the table on the screen, I provide a summary of the estimated
upfront investment needed to deploy a meshed 5G network to the
entire U.S. under a number of scenarios.
Under the most aggressive deployment assumptions, with high
demand and support for autonomous vehicles on all primary
roads, $250 bill in capital would be required, of which $56
billion is for the underlying fiber network.
I have focused my discussion on the coverage data provided
by the FCC. While it is the best public source of coverage
information, improvements could be made.
On the terrestrial side, we have the issues that arise from
the one-served/all-served nature of the data. With respect to
mobility, my firm independently assessed the ground realities
of availability and speeds in areas of South Carolina as
compared to the 477 data. The map on the screen shows the
results of the drive test in southeast South Carolina. The
light blue shows the 477 coverage; the black dots show the
locations where service was not available, and the red dots
show locations where speed was under 4 megabits per second. As
evident, this drive test does not comport with the reported
coverage. In part, the conflict is driven by the lack of
uniform standards for carriers to submit 477 data.
As a final topic, a number of cities and states are looking
to programs to expand broadband. New York, for example,
established a broadband investment program to utilize $500
million to bring service to nonserved areas across the state.
The size of the fund, along with the goal of achieving 100
megabits per second statewide by the end of 2018, make this
program one of the largest and most ambitious of its kind in
the country. By the end of 2018, they will move their served
percentage from 70 percent to well over 98 percent.
In conclusion, my testimony focused on coverage, data, and
estimates potential cost. While efforts to collect data, model,
and understand these complex areas may be time-, labor-, and
data-intensive, as with all my client work, we need to strive
to collect and develop the best information to make informed
decisions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of James W. Stegeman follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Blackburn. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Darr, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF BRYAN DARR
Mr. Darr. Thank you.
Good morning. My name is Bryan Darr, and I am the President
and CEO of Mosaik Solutions, previously known as American
Roamer.
I want to thank Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle,
and the fellow members of the Subcommittee on Communications
and Technology, for the opportunity to speak with you today.
Expanding and accelerating broadband deployment requires
reliable information. Without trusted data about coverage gaps,
we will not stimulate private sector investment, advance toward
the goal of universal service, expand broadband into more rural
areas, or maintain the competitive broadband market we see
today.
Since I founded Mosaik in 1988, our sole mission has been
to produce reliable data about wireless network coverage and
performance. Almost 30 years later, we are still a small
business. We have less than 50 employees and we are still based
on Memphis, Tennessee. But we offer some of the most accurate
insight into network coverage and performance available in the
market.
More simply put, we tell our clients where they can
reasonably expect to have access to a variety of mobile
networks and how reliable wireless networks are at any given
point in the United States and much of the rest of the world.
Mosaik has supported part of the FCC's recurring
informational needs for many years. The FCC uses our
CoverageRight datasets in its annual competition reports and
other policy and regulatory decisions.
Mosaik and its competitors stake our reputations on
supporting the products and services we provide to our clients.
Despite healthy competition and increasingly sophisticated data
analysis among private sector network analysis companies, the
FCC has sought to displace this industry by mandating use of
its own data analytic tools.
In 2013, the FCC elected to expand its Form 477 to mandate
that carriers provide information directly to the Commission.
In some cases, the FCC uses its in-house data to the exclusion
of all other sources.
The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau recently stated that
its Form 477 coverage data is ``the best available data we have
today.'' It is not. The Form 477 mobile broadband coverage data
is flawed.
First, there are no defined specifications for what radio-
frequency conditions or methodologies are required. Second, the
FCC's data is out-of-date almost as soon as it is filed. Form
477 data is too infrequently updated and has too large of a
time gap between reporting date and release date.
For example, mobile network coverage data as of December
2015 was released in September 2016, a lifetime in this fast-
moving industry. During this 9-month period alone, a national
operator radically expanded the population served with its LTE
network while another more established operator added thousands
of square miles of rural LTE coverage. That is precisely why
Mosaik's LTE network coverage datasets are updated monthly.
Relying exclusively on antiquated or inferior government-
mandated data threatens to frustrate mobile broadband
deployment and harm American consumers. And the FCC's decision
to exclude other types of data threatens to crowd out private
investment from U.S. companies, including Mosaik, that compete
to provide similar, and we believe far superior, products about
network coverage and performance.
These private companies, responsible for much of the
innovation, have provided gains in predicting and understanding
network availability. Our measurement capabilities must keep
pace with changing developments. Operators are testing
innovative strategies to improve coverage in urban areas. As
the number of households with landline telephone service
continues to decline, improving indoor network availability and
performance will prove a priority for municipalities and public
safety organizations.
New technologies offer promising solutions to these issues.
We commend the FCC for recognizing the importance of data-
driven decisionmaking. When measuring the availability of
broadband to consumers, the FCC should take into account all
sources, especially as providers embrace newer technologies to
improves network quality.
That holistic approach is consistent with longstanding
executive branch policy which directs agencies to rely on the
private sector when feasible. Here, policymakers can greatly
augment the quality and depth of their data and at a cost
equivalent to a handful of cell sites. When government agencies
embrace the capabilities of private companies, instead of
competing with them, taxpayers can spend less money and benefit
from sound policymaking, based on more accurate and timely data
about network coverage and performance.
Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Bryan Darr follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Blackburn. I thank the gentleman for the testimony.
And I will begin the question-and-answer and will give
myself 3 minutes to begin those questions.
Mr. Stegeman, let's talk about the 2009 Recovery Act. RUS
approved 297 broadband infrastructure projects funded by
stimulus dollars, totaling $3.5 billion. Yet they had no data
tracking where the funding went and did not have accurate maps
of areas to target in advance of awarding those grants. As a
result, instead of benefitting the expected 7 million Americans
as was promised, the program has served approximately 213,000
households and 15,000 businesses.
So, as we talk about broadband expansion, how do we avoid
this kind of misdirection of funds from happening in the future
and moving forward?
Mr. Stegeman. It is a great question because, as you look
at those funds that were deployed, I think, in part, they were
pushed out quickly without an examination of all the available
data. There was a lack of data at that time to understand
really what was needed in those areas, and there was a lack of
information on the followup from that deployment, so that you
really didn't know what was deployed, so that competing
carriers, other interested parties, may know what is available
and what is not available.
So, I think a big driver to make things successful is to
make, one, information available to all parties. So, where is
broadband infrastructure available? If public funds are used to
help deploy those, that information and location of that should
be made available.
We should also have information about where demand is and
where unserved portions of the country are. In part, that is
why I provided those maps, so you get a sense of what is
available at the FCC, so that we can understand how to improve
the data to make better and more informed decisions.
Mrs. Blackburn. Mr. Darr, do you have a thought on that?
Mr. Darr. Well, for starters, the vintage dates on what was
being collected on a state-by-state level were not the same.
Ultimately, as the data was collected up and assembled at a
national level, what we ended up with was inconsistency in time
that the data was captured.
There was also a lack of direction in terms of what
standards should have been used. As we heard the earlier panel
talk today, talk earlier today, about defining standards so
that what is being reported is apples to apples----is rather
critical.
Mrs. Blackburn. Let me come to you with one other question,
and I am almost out of time on this. You talked a little bit
about overlaying the traditional coverage with wireless. How
can that be beneficial to infrastructure development and what
are the type problems to expect when you start that overlay of
a wireless with the traditional?
Mr. Darr. So, we think a layered approach is critically
important to understanding really what is going on. All
networks, as they are being engineered, start with a predictive
model, an RF model, that says we think this is the area that is
going to be served by putting up this cell site at this height,
at this spectrum.
But, as you encounter real-world situations, interference
from buildings, trees, whatever it may be, you have issues with
some of that. And the traditional method of going out and
testing those networks has been drive testing, and that is
still an extraordinarily important part of how the operators
judge the performance of their networks.
But we now have millions upon millions of devices in the
field that are capable of collecting more information and
trending over time. But you only get this type of information
and we will call this crowdsourcing, although it can be a
larger explanation--you will only get this where there is a
crowd. And so, you get very good information, lots of
information from Brooklyn, but you don't get very good
information from rural Iowa, as Mr. Loebsack was suggesting
earlier.
So, you do need this layering effect in order to be able to
capture that. Where you have specific issues that need more
directed testing--and drive testing provides an excellent way
of doing that--but you have to see it holistically.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, and my time has expired.
Mr. McNerney, for 3 minutes.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the Chair.
Mr. Darr, in your written testimony, you mention that the
Form 477 mobile broadband is flawed. Is there one change that
would improve it? For example, improving the frequency that the
reporting is required?
Mr. Darr. I think there are two, actually. And the
frequency would be one, but how to capture that data, how to
process that data, normalize it, and put it into a system that
it can be utilized and analyzed is part of what takes that
time. And that expertise does exist in the private sector
today.
Mr. McNerney. Would you say that the Form 477 fixed
broadband data is also flawed?
Mr. Darr. We concentrate primarily on the wireless data. I
would be happy to have some of our other experts answer that as
a followup.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Mr. Stegeman, you mentioned that there are categories
unserved, underserved, and served. Why do you believe that that
distinction is important?
Mr. Stegeman. There are a number of reasons. Part of that
category came from our work with the state of New York in which
they were looking at deploying and making sure all consumers
had access to 100-megabit service.
If you look at the FCC's current definition of broadband
service, it is 25 megabits or less. If you look at the National
Broadband Plan, the No. 1 goal of the National Broadband Plan
was to make sure all citizens had access to 100-megabit
service. So, there are kind of the two points on the extreme.
That in-between is what we kind of think of as an underserved
potential that may be less expensive to exploit and get up to
the 100-megabit service.
Mr. McNerney. OK. Very good.
You also mentioned that Form 477 has an assumption that you
call ``one-served/all-served'' assumption, and that it has a
flaw in it that could overestimate the number of homes served
by high-speed internet access. Could you explain how the one-
served/all-served assumption works and how we might address the
problem?
Mr. Stegeman. Yes. First, the FCC collects information at
the census block level. There are about 11 million census
blocks in the U.S. They are non-standard shapes. They can be as
small as a city block, but they can be, also, as big as
multiple miles.
When a carrier reports their 477 data, they can identify a
census block as served. So, you assume the whole thing is
served if just a single customer in that census block is
served. So, when you get out into rural areas with these bigger
census blocks, it may be the edge of a census block is served,
one customer, but the rest of the area is under- or unserved.
So, it makes an issue from the aspect of, one, you can't
recognize that these customers don't have access to service
and, two, you can't institute programs to address them because
you have no knowledge. So, to address that concern, what you
could either do is require providers to supply additional
information as to potentially what percentage is served or,
also, potentially providing street segments that are served. So
that you can understand kind of the dimensionality of that
service within that census block.
Mr. McNerney. Very good. Well, respecting my time
limitations, I will yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Shimkus, for 3 minutes.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. I will be very short. But you had
no time left, Mr. McNerney; you ran out.
Having said that, mapping as a key. I like the map if you
were here for the opening statements. We have to have a
national standard. Obviously, you highlight three different
speeds, I think, and then, we use the map to focus on unserved
and underserved areas. That is what my goal would be, is to
direct resources, whether it is hard-line data, fiberoptics, or
cellular. It depends and every area is going to be different.
I looked at this closely, and I wish I would have grabbed
you beforehand because this data is 2016. When you have got
these colors, what year is that?
Mr. Stegeman. That is the latest available data from the
FCC. It is June of 2016.
Mr. Shimkus. OK. I would just highlight that the way--and I
am not trying to put you on the spot--but it is just the
district that you have for my district is from the 2002
district lines. So, I would update the congressional district
lines to current to help us figure. Because about one-third of,
well, actually, about two-thirds of this isn't in my district.
So, we have got to have confidence in our maps, whichever ones
we are using.
Mr. Stegeman. No, I understand. My staff informed me before
I got here today that we used an older version.
Mr. Shimkus. Right. That is OK.
Mr. Stegeman. But we can file a new version.
Mr. Shimkus. OK. That would be helpful. And I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Ms. Clarke, 3 minutes.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Madam Chair.
This question is for Mr. Stegeman. As you may know, I
represent the 9th Congressional District of New York, and
broadband deployment is key to creating jobs and attracting
businesses to my district in the state of New York.
Ms. Stegeman, one of the programs you cited in your written
testimony as being particularly instructive is New York's $500
million program being carried out by the Empire State
Development Corporation. Can you explain what, in your view,
makes that program so innovative and successful? And are there
lessons that we can learn from the New York program that could
be applied at the federal level?
Mr. Stegeman. Yes, I would be happy to. It has been an
honor for me to work on the program. It is an innovative
approach in which federal or state funds have been identified
to help build out unserved areas.
The way it is approached is it is a reverse auction. So,
actually, it is a competitive bidding on unserved areas across
the state, and multiple providers can come in and bid on those
areas, and the lowest bid wins. So, it is an efficient use of
state funds and it is a way for incumbent carriers to bid on
expanding out services in their footprint at a lower cost than
maybe a competitor. So, it protects the incumbent if they want
to bid and potentially have a cost advantage of billing out.
And it is statewide in that it is addressing the issues.
So, it is one of the few states that I have seen that has
made a vast expansion of broadband deployment. As I said, by
2018, there will be well above 98 percent of customers or homes
in New York that will have access to 100 megabits or more. So,
it is a pretty expansive program.
Ms. Clarke. And that cuts across the rural, suburban----
Mr. Stegeman. Across the full state, yes.
Mrs. Blackburn. All right. Mr. Johnson, 3 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I am going to continue to beat a little dead horse today, I
fear, a little bit.
Mrs. Blackburn. OK.
Mr. Johnson. In Appalachia, let me just give you some
statistics to kind of set the stage for my question. Broadband
coverage, 25 megabits per second or more, in my district, 60.5
percent. That is 34 percent below the U.S. median district and
over 5 percentage points less than geographically-similar
districts. Looking at high-tech sector workers, half of the
U.S. median district, almost half of economically-similar
districts--and there is no wonder because we don't have access
out there and it is really hard.
So, one of the problems we have got is data collection. Mr.
Darr, we have got limited funding to do this kind of work. Data
accuracy is so critical. Today there are parts of my district,
for example, that barely register on GPS. God knows, I have
tried to travel it and get to places.
Can you talk about the unique challenges of data collection
in rural America and why Form 477 data is inadequate to collect
this information?
Mr. Darr. Well, certainly. Thank you for the question.
Form 477 data is collected from the operator's predicted RF
patterns. And this has been the accepted way of doing things
all along. But in the early days all we were worried about was
voice. Can you make a phone call or not? And now, what we are
worried about as much as voice, if not more, is data. What is
an acceptable signal out on the edges of the network to, say,
push through a text message or notify someone that they have an
e-mail? It is very different from being able to download a
video. It is very different, indeed. It takes a great deal more
throughput to do that.
And so, when the operators define an area as being covered,
and you go out there and find that it is not covered to your
satisfaction, it doesn't mean that they are not telling you the
truth, but it does mean that you can't necessarily do what you
want to do with the service.
Being able to better define what areas have a certain level
of service I think is extraordinarily important in determining
ultimately that. And we think being able to capture that
information from devices in the field is the only affordable
way to be able to reach all of the country.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Madam Chairman, I will yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. Mr. Flores, 3 minutes.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate this
discussion.
Mr. Stegeman and Mr. Darr, how long do you think it would
take to compile a comprehensive map, an accurate map, of
broadband coverage, given that the data has already been
collected and given the capabilities of companies such as
yours?
Let me go a different direction first before you do that.
It seems to me like you have talked about one of the challenges
of creating accurate maps and you point out the lack of
standards related to what constitutes coverage. What is the
right standard to use? Because I think that is how we get to
our map question really.
Mr. Stegeman. That was primarily addressed at the mobility
coverage. So, when mobility providers provide their coverage,
as Mr. Darr talked about, they provide potentially what their
either (a) marketing maps look like or (b) they are just
projective of what that coverage is. There are no standards on
decibel loss, on the quality of the signal. There is no stated
standard on what the minimum megabits are in that coverage. It
is, basically, please provide us a map of your 4G coverage.
Mr. Flores. OK.
Mr. Stegeman. And that is what you do.
Mr. Flores. OK. But, in order to get to the right standard,
what should we do to develop that standard?
Mr. Darr. Defining--and I would leave the ultimate number
up to RF engineers, but neg 85 was mentioned earlier, I will
say that.
Mr. Flores. OK.
Mr. Darr. It is a good way of putting everybody on more of
a level playing field. But seeing where that extended coverage
is is also important as well. It should not be dismissed.
Mr. Flores. OK.
Mr. Darr. But it should be recognized that, in order to
have a specific minimum anticipated quality of service, that a
standard should be put in place.
Mr. Flores. So, assuming that we get this standard in
place, how long do you think it would take to create the map
based on your capabilities, the data we have to describe those
areas, to describe the quality of our broadband coverage
nationwide?
Mr. Darr. The majority of operators have this data
internally. They use it for their own planning purposes, for
their own technical support requirements. So, a lot of this
data is already there. It may need to be reconfigured a bit to
specifically meet the needs of the requirements at hand, but it
could be done, I think, in a relatively short period of time.
Again, that is the predicted coverage.
When you are talking about taking measurements out in the
field, planning and executing drive testing, the four areas of
specific interest are going to take some time. And I would
leave that question up to Mr. Stegeman.
As far as collecting information from devices, you could,
by encouraging the public to share information about what is
happening on their device and getting a better idea of what the
actual consumer and device experience is, can give you a large
trending information set.
Mr. Flores. We have gone past my time. Mr. Stegeman, if you
get a chance, can you supplementally answer that question to
the committee?
Mr. Stegeman. Yes.
Mr. Flores. I mean after this. I have run past my time.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Blackburn. I thank the gentleman.
As you all can see, this is an issue that our members care
about tremendously. And I would ask that you remain open to
answer questions by writing in--Mr. Stegeman, you just had the
one from Mr. Flores--as we complete our record on this today.
This does conclude our Q&A portion. And before we conclude,
I do ask unanimous consent to enter the following letters into
the record: a letter from the Satellite Industry Association, a
letter from Rocket Fiber, from American Cable Association, a
letter from the CTIA, and a letter from Century Link. Without
objection, that letter will be entered into the record.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mrs. Blackburn. And pursuant to committee rules, I remind
members that they have 10 business days to submit additional
questions for the record. And I ask that witnesses submit their
responses within 10 business days of receipt of those
questions. Seeing no further business before the committee
today, without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:23 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Greg Walden
High speed Internet access has made communications and
commerce easier than ever before and the importance of
broadband in America's economy cannot be understated. In order
to guarantee that all Americans--including folks living in
rural areas like my district in eastern Oregon--have access to
the tools they need to succeed in the 21st century economy, our
policies must reflect our commitment to deploying the physical
infrastructure of broadband.
Last Congress, this subcommittee took a thoughtful approach
to identify barriers to broadband infrastructure deployment and
examined proposals that would eliminate them. I know Chairman
Blackburn's leadership on this issue will lead to a
comprehensive approach that will help bring broadband to the
unserved parts of our country.
As Chairman Blackburn has said, broadband is the
infrastructure of the 21st century. I stand ready to work with
my colleagues to ensure that broadband is included in any
infrastructure package that moves through Congress. But as we
look to expanding our national investment in broadband we
cannot do so without reliable data. Unfortunately, too often
our data is insufficient and investments are not targeted where
they can do the most good. Until we know where broadband is and
where it is not, we will continue to make the same mistakes
that have slowed rural buildout for years. This subcommittee
spent a lot of time in the 112th and 113th Congresses living
with the consequences of bad data as we investigated the
Broadband Stimulus programs. And the Universal Service Program
has long suffered from a lack of good data. This has lead to
inefficient investment and more than a decade of work by the
agency and USAC to stamp out bad actors and to recover from bad
investments. We must not repeat the mistakes of the past or
double down on inefficiencies.
I commend Chairman Blackburn for expanding on our work from
last Congress with a focus on improving mapping data. We must
ensure that every dollar--whether from private investment or
directed through our federal programs--is invested where it is
needed most. I'm also glad to see Ms. Eshoo's ``Dig Once'' bill
has made a return this Congress. I think that this is smart
policy and will help spur broadband deployment across the
country.
Without access to a high-speed Internet connection our
businesses and constituents are inherently at a disadvantage in
the 21st century. We must work to connect these underserved
areas of the country and our work to achieve that objective
continues today.
----------
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]