[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FUELING THE 21ST CENTURY WIRELESS ECONOMY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 5, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-25
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
25-943 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
7_____
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)
(ii)
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................ 4
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, opening statement...................................... 6
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 7
Witnesses
Scott Bergmann, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, CTIA......... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 12
David A. Wright, Director, Regulatory Affairs and Network
Standards, Ruckus Wireless..................................... 28
Prepared statement........................................... 30
Jennifer A. Manner, Senior Vice President, Regulatory Affairs,
EchoStar Corporation and Hughes Network Systems................ 47
Prepared statement........................................... 49
Jared Carlson, Vice President, Government Affairs and Public
Policy, Ericsson, Inc.......................................... 55
Prepared statement........................................... 57
Submitted Material
S. 19, the MOBILE NOW Act, a Bill to provide opportunities for
broadband investment, and for other purposes, \1\ submitted by
Ms. Blackburn
Letter of April 5, 2017, from Steven K. Berry, President and CEO,
Competitive Carriers Association, to Mrs. Blackburn and Mr.
Doyle, submitted by Mr. Kinzinger.............................. 99
----------
\1\ The information has been retained in committee files and also
is available at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF16/
20170405/105841/BILLS-115S19pih-
Toprovideopportunitiesforbroadbandinvestmentandforotherpurposes.
pdf.
FUELING THE 21ST CENTURY WIRELESS ECONOMY
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 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 2123 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Marsha Blackburn
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Blackburn, Lance, Shimkus,
Latta, Guthrie, Olson, Kinzinger, Bilirakis, Johnson, Long,
Flores, Brooks, Collins, Cramer, Walters, Costello, Walden (ex
officio), Doyle, Welch, Clarke, Loebsack, Ruiz, Eshoo, Engel,
Butterfield, Matsui, McNerney, and Pallone (ex officio).
Staff present: Grace Appelbe, Legislative Clerk, Energy and
Environment; Ray Baum, Staff Director; Karen Christian, General
Counsel; Zach Dareshori, Staff Assistant; Charles 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; Lauren McCarty, Counsel, Communications and
Technology; Alex Miller, Video Production Aide and Press
Assistant; David Redl, Chief Counsel, Communications and
Technology; Dan Schneider, Press Secretary; 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; Dan Miller, Minority Staff
Assistant; and Matt Schumacher, Minority Deputy Press Secretary
and Digital Director.
Mrs. Blackburn. The subcommittee will now come to order.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
I recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening statement,
and I do welcome all of you to this hearing, which is titled,
very appropriately, ``Fueling the 21st Century Wireless
Economy.'' Thank you to our witnesses for, first of all,
submitting that testimony in a timely manner; and, secondly,
for taking your time to be here with us today. We do appreciate
having your expertise.
It is often said that spectrum is the lifeblood of wireless
connectivity, and wireless demand continues to surge at an
incredible rate. As a result, it is imperative that the
subcommittee continue working to unleash spectrum for
commercial purposes.
The subcommittee held multiple hearings on this issue
during the 114th Congress and noted that while a subscriber's
data will grow by 400 percent by 2019, the subcommittee must
demand that the FCC and NTIA work quickly to identify bands
which can be reallocated and cleared for commercial use as we
push to develop 5G networks, which are expected to be
commercialized by 2020.
A two-sided solution is necessary to address the spectrum
crunch. First, we should push for continued deployment of
spectrum. Second, the development of technologies which enhance
spectral efficiency is vital. The NTIA will play an important
role in this endeavor as it sets new clearing targets and
evaluates how efficiently Government agencies use their
spectrum.
Federal entities should not be permitted to squat on this
valuable resource without providing sufficient information
detailing how they plan to use it. The societal and financial
value of spectrum is simply too great for it not to be
maximized.
The FCC's National Broadband Plan of 2010 identified 547
megahertz of spectrum suitable for mobile broadband to be
unleashed over a 10-year period, and we recently completed two
successful spectrum auctions. The AWS 093 auction generated $44
billion in revenue and cleared 65 megahertz of spectrum, while
the broadcast incentive auction raised $19.8 billion and
cleared 70 megahertz of spectrum for exclusive licensed use.
These auctions were successful. However, it is important that
as a general rule we not impose restrictions on who can bid on
spectrum.
Congressman Latta and I wrote to the FCC in June 2015 about
that issue and expressed concern that--and I am quoting--
``restricting free and open access to spectrum creates barriers
to capital investment, innovation, deployment, and puts the
Government in the position of picking winners and losers.''
The free market is the most effective vehicle for continued
spectrum development. Well-intentioned auction rules can
artificially depreciate the value of spectrum. We should
advance bipartisan legislation, such as the Guthrie-Matsui
Federal Spectrum Incentive Act, which provide incentives for
the reallocation of Government-held spectrum for commercial
purposes.
Also, Congressman Kinzinger's H.R. 1814 encourages spectrum
licenses to make unused and underused spectrum available for
use by rural and smaller carriers in order to expand wireless
coverage and is certainly worthy of further examination.
The subcommittee will also discuss the Senate's MOBILE NOW
legislation,\1\ which addresses deployment challenges related
to spectrum and infrastructure. The 5G revolution is upon us,
and America must not fall behind. Deploying and promoting
efficient use of spectrum is the two-sided solution we must
adopt as wireless communications networks expand, and the
Internet of Things is growing into the internet of everything.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The information has been retained in committee files and also
is available at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF16/20170405/
105841/BILLS-115S19pih-
Toprovideopportunitiesforbroadbandinvestmentandforotherpurposes.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Blackburn follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Marsha Blackburn
Welcome to the subcommittee's hearing titled ``Fueling The
21st Century Wireless Economy.'' Thank you to the witnesses for
appearing to offer your expertise.
It is often said that spectrum is the lifeblood of wireless
connectivity, and wireless demand continues to surge at an
incredible rate. As a result, it is imperative that the
subcommittee continue working to unleash spectrum for
commercial purposes. The subcommittee held multiple hearings on
this issue during the 114th Congress and noted that ``wireless
subscribers data use will grow 400 percent by 2019.'' The
subcommittee must demand that that the FCC and NTIA work
quickly to identify bands which can be reallocated and cleared
for commercial use as we push to develop 5G networks.
A two-sided solution is necessary to address the spectrum
crunch. First, we should push for continued deployment of
spectrum. Second, the development of technologies which enhance
spectral efficiency is vital. The NTIA will play an important
role in this endeavor as it sets new clearing targets and
evaluates how efficiently Government agencies use their
spectrum. Federal entities should not be permitted to squat on
this valuable resource without providing sufficient information
detailing how they use it. The societal and financial value of
spectrum is simply too great for it to not be maximized.
The FCC's National Broadband Plan of 2010 identified 547
MHz of spectrum suitable for mobile broadband to be unleashed
over a 10-year period and we recently completed two successful
spectrum auctions. The AWS 093 auction generated $44 billion in
revenue and cleared 65 MHz of spectrum, while the Broadcast
Incentive auction raised $19.8 billion and cleared 70 MHz of
spectrum for exclusive licensed use. These auctions were
successful; however, it is important that as a general rule we
not impose restrictions on who can bid on spectrum. Congressman
Latta and myself wrote to the FCC in June 2015 about this issue
and expressed concern that ``restricting free and open access
to spectrum creates barriers to capital investment, innovation,
deployment and puts the Government in the position of picking
winners and losers.'' The free market is the most effective
vehicle for continued spectrum deployment. Well intentioned
auction rules can artificially depreciate the value of
spectrum.
We should advance bipartisan legislation, such as the
Guthrie/Matsui Federal Spectrum Incentive Act, which provides
incentives for the reallocation of Government-held spectrum for
commercial purposes. Also, Congressman Kinzinger's H.R. 1814
encourages spectrum licensees to make unused or underused
spectrum available for use by rural and smaller carriers in
order to expand wireless coverage and is certainly worthy of
further examination as we look to increase rural broadband
deployment. The subcommittee will also discuss the Senate's
MOBILE NOW legislation, which addresses deployment challenges
related to both spectrum and infrastructure.
The 5G revolution is upon us, and America must not fall
behind. Deploying and promoting efficient use of spectrum is
the two sided solution we must adopt as wireless communications
networks expand and the Internet of Things seemingly grows into
the Internet of Everything. Republicans and Democrats are eager
to tackle the spectrum crunch. We look forward to hearing from
our witnesses today.
Thank you.
Mrs. Blackburn. We look forward to hearing our witnesses
today, and I will yield the balance of my time to any Member
who is seeking it. Mr. Lance, you are recognized for the
remainder.
Mr. Lance. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and welcome to
our distinguished panelists. This subcommittee's longstanding
tradition of bipartisan work on communications and technology
issues is essential to facilitate the growth of 5G, which will
revolutionize our Nation's healthcare, education, agriculture,
energy, and transportation sectors.
This topic is of particular interest to me. The district I
represent is a hub of 5G innovation. The policies we are
discussing today significantly affect businesses back home,
such as Verizon, Qualcom, AT&T, and Bell Labs, which are
working diligently to innovate in this important field.
For instance, Verizon has vowed to be the first to market
on 5G and has already launched technology field trials.
Qualcom, which pioneered 3G and 4G, is also busy testing 5G at
its state-of-the-art laboratories in Bridgewater, New Jersey,
which has a long history of innovation. These are just a few
examples of the businesses in the district I serve and around
the country who are on the forefront of innovating in 5G
technology.
These companies have already invested billions of dollars
in 4G LTE, and as they continue to invest significantly in 4G
and 5G, it is important that we in Congress help facilitate
innovation by fueling the spectrum pipeline and removing
regulatory barriers to deployment.
Laying a foundation for the 21st century wireless economy
is essential, and I thank our panelists for being with us
today.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Doyle, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
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, and thanks to the witnesses for coming before us
today.
Before I discuss this hearing and the important issues
surrounding spectrum policy, I want to talk about something
that has been on the minds of many Americans as well as my own
mind recently, and that is privacy. Last week Congress rolled
back critical regulatory protections that prohibited ISPs from
selling individuals' browsing histories without their consent.
Congress didn't act with much deliberation. We didn't hold
hearings or mark up any bills. We ran through legislation under
the Congressional Review Act--a blunt, draconian instrument--to
smash these rules, the only real legal protections that
prevented internet service providers from using and abusing our
data.
Recent public polling has shown that 74 percent of all
Americans oppose this legislation. Last weekend when I was back
in my district I went to a number of public events, and I
couldn't find a single person who supported this bill or
eroding our privacy rights. Not one.
I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, when
they go home over the next two weeks, ask their constituents if
they want their internet service provider selling their
browsing histories. I believe my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle, and the telecomm industry, have made a grave
mistake here.
I see we have a representative from one of the associations
that led the charge for this bill. I am extremely disappointed
that an organization representing the wireless industry, which
this committee has worked hard to support and foster, would act
in such a selfish and irresponsible way. I expect more for you
and your members, and the American people expect more from you
and your members.
It is not lost on me or members of this subcommittee that
your association support for the CRA means that no Federal
agency can stop your members from selling people's information.
Believe me when I say that my constituents, your customers, are
not happy about this.
That being said, I do look forward to the testimony of our
witnesses, particularly Ruckus Wireless. I understand that you
have some equipment deployed in Pittsburgh City Hall. I
appreciate the ingenuity that your company is bringing to these
types of problems. As this committee works to free up more
spectrum, we need to appreciate that not every band that can be
made available will fall into the traditional labels and
understanding of licensed and unlicensed.
We need entrepreneurs and innovators willing to take risks
and experiment with new bands and new types of network. Your
comments and your company's work in the Citizens Broadband
Radio Service band is a great example of this attitude. We
shouldn't forget that many of the unlicensed bands in use today
by Wi-Fi and other services were once considered junk bands,
and now these bands are responsible for moving 60 percent of
all wireless data.
I believe it is incumbent upon Congress to support
unlicensed spectrum and continue to create space for
innovation. With that, I will yield the remainder of my time to
Ms. Matsui.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Doyle, for yielding me time, and
I would like to thank the witnesses for being with us today.
Today's hearing topic is critical to our Nation's digital
future. Spectrum is invisible infrastructure that fuels our
21st century economy, and it is a finite resource. And as
demand continues to explode, we need to encourage efficiency to
put this resource to its best and highest use.
That is why I joined my colleague, Congressman Guthrie,
yesterday to reintroduce the Federal Spectrum Incentive Act. It
would provide incentives to Government agencies to free up some
of their existing spectrum bands for commercial use.
I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on
a bipartisan basis on an all-of-the-above strategy that
provides new opportunities for licensed and unlicensed
spectrum, sharing and clearing spectrum bands. We will need
every tool at our disposal, so the United States leads the
world as we look to 5G networks. We have always been a nation
of innovators, and our spectrum policies should be no
exception.
Thank you, Mrs. Chairman. Is there anyone else you would
like to yield to, Mr. Doyle?
Mr. Doyle. Would anyone else like time? If not, Madam
Chair, I will yield back.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
The chairman of the full committee, Mr. Walden, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. Madam Chair, I appreciate the hearing today on
these very important issues relating to the wireless economy. I
want to thank our witnesses for being here.
And I also--I hadn't planned to really talk on this, but I
think it is time to set the record straight about the whole
issue of privacy because, in my book, it has been horribly
spun, about ISP selling your privacy.
Let's talk about that for a minute. We wouldn't be in this
position if the Obama administration hadn't forced the FCC to
treat the internet as an old-style common carrier. That removed
any protections people had from the FTC, Federal Trade
Commission, and then the FCC, under Chairman Wheeler, said,
``Well, there is nothing to worry about here because we still
have various sections of Federal law that protect people. So
don't worry, don't worry, don't worry.'' And then they decided,
well, maybe we should write rules, which, by the way, were
never implemented. That is a fact.
Second fact. The administration--this and others--has gone
around Europe when we were talking about the safe harbor
provisions arguing there is no need for regulatory authority in
this space, and so we have got it all covered.
Third fact. The people who you search through on your
search history are companies like, oh, shall I say Google has
an 85 percent market share of search, Facebook, Amazon. How do
you think they make their money? By monetizing what you do
online. They were never covered by this rule to begin with.
Period. Period. That is where the searches are.
My friend from Pennsylvania, I am glad you are on the
subcommittee, but, boy, we have got to have some education here
because that is where the searches are. That is not covered by
the rule that you embrace that you are upset that we repealed,
right? There is no difference there. Are you telling me that
the edge providers were covered by that rule? Yes or no.
Mr. Doyle. The edge providers are regulated by the FTC.
Mr. Walden. They are not covered by the rule that was
repealed.
Mr. Doyle. When Verizon sued and you can no longer classify
ISPs out of Title 1 and they were classified in Title 2, there
was no jurisdiction over the ISPs.
Mr. Walden. Well, reclaiming my time, the ISPs have made it
very clear they have policies that aren't covered. You have the
option to opt out. I am just telling you that this is not what
it has been made out to be. The former FTC Commissioner, the
current FTC Commissioner, the Chairman of the FCC, have all
made this clear.
It is really disappointing. I mean, there are all kinds of
folks that have weighed in on this saying that is just not the
case, that we are exposing people to this. By the way, these
rules were never in effect. They were never in effect.
I would yield to my friend from Illinois for further
comment.
Mr. Shimkus. I just will read part of a column by the
Chairman of the FCC: ``But in 2015, the FCC decided to treat
the Internet like a public utility, taking away the FTC's
ability to police the privacy practices of broadband providers.
This shifted responsibility from the agency with the most
expertise handling online privacy, the FTC, to an agency with
no real experience in the field, the FCC. As we feared, this
2015 decision has not turned out well for the American people.
``During the Obama administration, the FTC concluded that
`any privacy framework should be technology neutral' because
`ISPs are just one type of a large platform provider' and
`operating systems and browsers may be in a position to track
all, or virtually all, of the consumer's online activity to
create highly detailed profiles.'
``But the FCC didn't follow this guidance. Instead, it
adopted rules that would have created a fractured privacy
framework under which ISPs would have been subject to one
standard and content providers,'' which Mr. Walden was talking
about, ``would have been subject to another. The Obama FTC, in
a unanimous bipartisan comment, criticized this approach as
`not optimal.' In Washingtonspeak, that's a major rebuke.''
So, I mean, we can politicize this. The reality is, we made
a great decision last week. I will stand by that. And I yield
back to the chairman.
Mr. Walden. I will just close with this from TechFreedom.
Berin Szoka wrote, ``The FCC's rules were unwise and
unnecessary. The FCC will soon return broadband privacy
policing to the Federal Trade Commission, where it belongs,
like all online privacy. In the meantime, enacting this CRA
will simply mean the FCC will police broadband privacy case-by-
case--just as it had done under Democratic leadership after the
FCC's 2015 Open Internet Order deprived the FTC of its consumer
protection power over broadband by reclassifying broadband as a
common carrier service.''
And with that, I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Pallone, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Let me say, no
one believes this Republican mumbo jumbo about the FCC, about
clean air, about the Affordable Care Act.
You go home--we are going to have a break for the next two
weeks, and I would like to see what happens when you go to the
town meetings and you say that you are going to repeal the
Affordable Care Act and you are going to somehow put something
in place that is going to be helpful to the American people,
you are going to get rid of the Clean Air Act and environmental
protections, but don't worry, because somehow we are going to
protect the American people.
We are going to get rid of privacy under the FCC, and Space
last Friday, when they asked him about the FCC privacy rule,
said, ``Well, don't worry, because the President is going to
get rid of net neutrality next.''
The bottom line is: Everyone understands when you go home
that the Republicans are trying to do harm to every health,
safety, privacy, environmental protection that exists in the
Federal Government, and that that is what they are all about.
There is no legislative agenda. There is no tax reform. There
is no infrastructure bill.
All there is, is an effort unilaterally through executive
orders and CRAs to tear down everything that the American
people care about and everything that Democrats, and even
Republicans in the past, would try to do to help the American
people.
You know, we could talk here all day about FCC versus FTC.
You can talk about, you know, oh, ``We don't need the Paris
agreement, we don't need the Clean Power Plan because we are
going to do other things that protect the environment.'' Nobody
believes it. The fact of the matter is that this President ran
on a platform saying he was going to help the little guy and he
was going to, you know, work against the corporate interests
and Wall Street, and he does just the opposite; hurts the
little guy every day unilaterally with unconstitutional
executive orders that probably break the law. You have got to
sue him, and then he says, ``Well, sue me and we will see you
in court.''
And that is what we are seeing here. That is what we are
seeing here, and it is very, very sad. It is very sad.
I have some time left. I would like to yield some time to
the ranking member, Mr. Doyle, and then to Ms. Clarke.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
Let me say to the chairman, who is my friend--and I am glad
to be on this subcommittee here with you, Mr. Chairman--let's
take a little walk down memory lane. But let me say to you,
first, that perhaps if we had some hearings on this before we
jammed a CRA down everyone's throat, we might have been able to
get more of these issues out in the open.
But when the FCC tried to classify internet service
providers under Title 1, Verizon sued, and the courts ruled
that they couldn't be classified under Title 1. So that is how
they got reclassified under Title 2. And when that happened,
the FTC no longer had authority to regulate the ISPs.
So what the FCC did was put forth a rule. It took 7 months
for the rule to be adopted. It was adopted, by the way, in mid-
afternoon in October, not at midnight before the expiration of
the Obama presidency as has been said by many members of this
committee, and the rule said three basic things. We talk about
this heavy-handed rule of the Government. It said three things.
It says if you are going to monetize and use someone's
data, ask for permission. Ask if you--and then if America says,
``Yes, you can use my data,'' then you can use it. The second
thing it said is secure people's data. Take reasonable measures
to secure people's data. They didn't even define what
``reasonable'' was. That was left up for the ISPs to do. And,
third, if there was a breach in someone's data, that you notify
them.
Those were the three basic things that this rule said. Now,
somehow that become a very heavy-handed situation. This isn't
about this rule. This is about----
Mr. Walden. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Doyle [continuing]. Whether the FCC has any
jurisdiction over these ISPs. It is a fight over who has----
Mr. Walden. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Doyle [continuing]. Jurisdiction. But to somehow say
these rules were heavy-handed or they were going to stifle----
Mr. Walden. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Doyle [continuing]. Innovation--I will in a second when
I am done--is just not a true statement. And I will yield to my
friend.
Mr. Walden. I appreciate that. I know this is a
controversial subject. Let me just suggest, though, on one
point. In the Brand X case, which you reference as the Verizon
case, actually, the Supreme Court affirmed that Title 1 could
be used for broadband classification.
Mr. Doyle. That is not how the case came out. That is not
the case we are referring to.
Mr. Walden. I am sorry. You are right.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Walden. They are two different ones. The Brand X case,
though----
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Walden [continuing]. Was about----
Mr. Doyle. Yes. Well, that is not the one I was
referencing.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman's time has expired, and we
will move forward with our hearing. Sounds like somebody needs
a glass of water down there. Maybe too much mumbo jumbo for him
going on, so we will get him some water.
So this concludes the Member opening statements. I would
remind everyone that, pursuant to committee rules, all Members'
opening statements will be made a permanent part of the record.
And I welcome our witnesses to be here today and talk about
spectrum. That is going to be our focus, and we are so looking
forward to your input. Our witnesses, Mr. Bergmann, Mr. Scott
Bergmann, who is the vice president of Regulatory Affairs for
CTIA; Mr. Dave Wright, who is the director of Regulatory
Affairs and Network Standards for Ruckus Networks; Ms. Jennifer
Manner, who is the senior VP of Regulatory Affairs for EchoStar
Corporation and Hughes Network Systems. And I do have her book
up here. I looked through it. I was pleased to get the
opportunity to look at it. Mr. Jared Carlson, who is the vice
president of Government Affairs and Public Policy for Ericsson.
We appreciate that each of you are here today, and we will
begin with 5 minutes for your opening statement. Mr. Bergmann,
you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF SCOTT BERGMANN, VICE PRESIDENT, REGULATORY
AFFAIRS, CTIA; DAVID A. WRIGHT, DIRECTOR, REGULATORY AFFAIRS
AND NETWORK STANDARDS, RUCKUS WIRELESS; JENNIFER A. MANNER,
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, REGULATORY AFFAIRS, ECHOSTAR CORPORATION
AND HUGHES NETWORK SYSTEMS; AND JARED CARLSON, VICE PRESIDENT,
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS AND PUBLIC POLICY, ERICSSON, INC.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT BERGMANN
Mr. Bergmann. Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, and
members of the subcommittee, on behalf of CTIA, thank you for
the opportunity to speak about how forward-looking spectrum and
infrastructure policy can facilitate the 21st century wireless
economy.
The U.S. wireless industry is a powerful driver of economic
growth. Our members have invested over $300 billion over the
last 10 years deploying 4G and are responsible for providing
over 4 million jobs. Consumer and business use of mobile
broadband continues to soar, increasing 25 times since 2010 and
expected to increase another 5-fold by 2021. And we are about
to have a revolutionary breakthrough in the next generation of
wireless, 5G.
5G networks will be up to 100 times faster and five times
more responsive than today's networks. They will support 100
times more wireless devices from beacons to wearables. The U.S.
has the ability to lead in 5G, but the global competition is
fierce. China, Japan, South Korea, and the EU are all racing to
be first making spectrum available and streamlining siting
regulations.
Winning the 5G race means not only faster speeds, greater
value, and increased choice for U.S. consumers, but empowering
our businesses, our schools and hospitals, with the tools that
they need to lead the world. With the right policies in place,
the U.S. wireless industry will invest $275 billion over the
next 10 years, adding half a trillion dollars to our economy
and creating 3 million new jobs, with more than 1,300 in
Clarksville and more than 2,800 in Pittsburgh.
5G will enable a new generation of smart communities and
unlock the Internet of Things. From mHealth to smart grids and
self-driving cars, 5G will unleash innovation and growth for
industries across our economy, unlock trillions of dollars of
economic benefits, and help save thousands of lives.
Our 5G future depends on this subcommittee's continued
focus on securing a steady new supply of spectrum and
developing modernized approaches to infrastructure siting.
Licensed spectrum, in particular, is the key input in mobile
networks and generates significant growth in jobs. In the near
term, we must ensure timely access to the spectrum made
available through the successful incentive auction.
This was the second-largest auction in FCC history, and we
support a seamless repacking process to achieve the FCC's 39-
month schedule so that 5G is not delayed. Planning for the
spectrum pipeline now is more essential than ever. For the
first time in years, there are no additional spectrum auctions
scheduled. CTIA supports the Senate's MOBILE NOW legislation,
which recognizes the key role that spectrum and infrastructure
policy play in facilitating the next generation of wireless.
This subcommittee has the opportunity to build on MOBILE
NOW and establish a robust spectrum pipeline and modernized
framework for wireless siting. This will fuel investment, drive
economic growth, and enable the U.S. to win the global race for
5G leadership.
It takes on average 13 years to reallocate spectrum for
wireless use. This underscores the importance of starting
today. We encourage the subcommittee to review Federal uses of
spectrum, consider ways to encourage agencies to use spectrum
more efficiently, and provide a clear plan for additional
licensed spectrum across a wide range of frequencies.
Finally, Congress needs to update Federal, State, local,
and travel wireless siting policies, which were designed for
yesterday's wireless networks, not today's or tomorrow's. The
small cells that will be essential for 5G are far less
intrusive, the size of a pizza box or a lunch box, and will be
deployed by the hundreds of thousands.
Today's outdated siting policies deter investment and
threaten the benefits that new technologies can deliver. MOBILE
NOW includes some important Federal siting provisions that CTIA
supports, and we believe that more can be done to address State
and municipal siting reforms, including addressing burdensome
local permitting with reasonable shot clocks and deemed granted
remedies; ensuring access to municipal-owned rights-of-way and
poles, with charges that are reasonable and cost-based;
modernizing our historic preservation and environmental review
processes, particularly with respect to small cells; and
directing agencies to speed deployment on Federal lands and
buildings, with a continued focus on spectrum and
infrastructure will enable wireless providers to invest, create
jobs, and lead the world in 5G.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bergmann follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Wright, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DAVID A. WRIGHT
Mr. Wright. Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to
provide Ruckus Wireless' perspectives on the central role that
wireless technologies play in our 21st century economy.
The United States is a global leader in the development and
commercial utilization of wireless technologies. Wireless
innovation and investment has resulted in economic growth for a
broad range of U.S. industries, produced amazing new
opportunities for American workers and citizens, and made
immense contributions to our gross domestic product.
Ruckus is a leading supplier of wireless infrastructure
solutions, providing products and services to both enterprise
and service provider customers. Our products support wireless
growth in a wide variety of markets, with noted leadership in
connected cities, hospitality, education, healthcare, and high
density public venues.
You may have utilized our Wi-Fi networks at locations such
as Hardin Hospital in Savannah, Tennessee, Pittsburgh City
Hall, with the Link New York City kiosks in the Bronx, the San
Jose airport, Charter Communications' deployments in great
cities like Austin, Tampa Bay, and my home city of Durham,
North Carolina.
In addition to our success with Wi-Fi, Ruckus is also
developing LTE systems, which will utilize the 3.5 gigahertz
CBRS band. Ruckus supports a balanced spectrum policy, which
makes adequate licensed, unlicensed, and coordinated shared
spectrum available for investors and consumers. I will focus on
unlicensed and coordinated shared spectrum today.
Wi-Fi is the default wireless broadband network for
Americans in their homes, at the office, staying in a hotel,
and while flying on a commercial aircraft. To put this in
perspective, Cisco reported that 8400 petabytes of traffic was
transmitted over Wi-Fi per month in the U.S. during 2015. This
is 16.8 times the amount of traffic that was transmitted over
cellular.
The total annual U.S. economic activity associated with
unlicensed spectrum was valued at $222 billion in 2013 and is
estimated to have increased to over $547 billion today. To
support a balanced spectrum policy that will support continued
investment, Congress and regulators will need a broad range of
spectrum designation and management options in their policy
toolkits.
Ruckus offers the following recommendations with a focus on
unlicensed and new dynamic models. First, Ruckus recommends
that Congress and the FCC augment current unlicensed spectrum
resources because, number 1, the current unlicensed
designations were created with yesterday's Wi-Fi needs in mind.
We need new designations with larger, contiguous portions of
spectrum to meet the needs for today and tomorrow's Wi-Fi.
Number 2, LTE technologies are about to enter these already
congested, unlicensed bands.
Number 3, our unlicensed bands will increasingly connect
the vast majority of the billions of IoT devices that are
coming into the market. All of this adds up to a looming
challenge. A Quotient Associates report issued in February
forecasts a gap of between 220 and 620 megahertz of unlicensed
spectrum by 2020, growing into the future. And, unfortunately,
the reality is that there have been no new designations of
additional mid-band unlicensed spectrum since 2002.
Given the sharply increasing demands for unlicensed
spectrum, we strongly recommend expeditious action to identify
additional designations, especially in the mid band. We believe
the 5925 to 7250 megahertz range is one of the best candidate
bands. We also support the designation of additional spectrum
above 10 gigahertz for unlicensed use.
Second, Ruckus recommends that Congress and the FCC make
use of a powerful new spectrum management tool to produce more
value for the economy; namely, coordinated shared spectrum or
CSS. CSS is a general term used to describe dynamic spectrum
management frameworks that move beyond the static designation
paradigm to free more value.
CSS frameworks differ from unlicensed frameworks in that
there is a coordination requirement to access the spectrum.
They differ from licensed frameworks in that the spectrum
managed by CSS can be shared by a multitude of users with
similar or different use cases and can accommodate both
exclusive and permissive uses.
The leading example of CSS is the CBRS framework, as
currently applied to the 3.5 gigahertz band in the U.S.
Industry organizations such as the Wireless Innovation Forum
and the CBRS Alliance have formed to commercialize the band.
Both of these organizations have a diverse set of members
representing the cellular, cable, enterprise, and other sectors
of the economy.
Permissive use of LTE and CSS bands unlocks new deployment
options and business models. We believe this will be key to
meeting the challenges of both in-building and rural coverage
by allowing private and public entities to deploy and operate
their own LTE networks without having to acquire rights to
exclusive licensed spectrum.
Another expected use case is CBRS permissive access for
industrial IoT services. If the Commission reconsiders the CBRS
rules for 3.5 gigahertz, it is critical that any changes be
done in a manner that does not negate industry-significant
investments and efforts to date, nor delay the commercial
availability of the band.
Finally, Ruckus recommends that the subcommittee support
the MOBILE NOW bill. The bill includes the important commitment
to add 255 megahertz of new spectrum below 6 gigahertz. We
would welcome and make good use of any additional unlicensed
spectrum. We do ask that Congress and the FCC consider a
balanced approach to licensed and unlicensed spectrum in its
implementation.
In the worst-case scenario, the bill would require the FCC
to designate only 100 megahertz for unlicensed. This would
vastly underresource Wi-Fi and not even meet half of the lowest
estimated gap identified in the Quotient Report. Ruckus also
supports MOBILE NOW's specifically unlicensed sections.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wright follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Ms. Manner, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JENNIFER A. MANNER
Ms. Manner. Thank you. Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member
Doyle, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting
me here today.
With the recent launch of our latest broadband satellite,
EchoStar XIX in December, we are at an exciting time as we
bring the latest in satellite broadband services to the
American people, including in rural and remote areas.
I am here on behalf of EchoStar and its subsidiary, Hughes,
the largest satellite broadband operator in the United States,
where I am senior vice president of Regulatory Affairs.
As Congress prepares to consider legislation to encourage
the deployment of broadband infrastructure, it is important to
remember the critical role of satellites as a provider of
services and a significant contributor to the U.S. economy.
EchoStar operates a satellite fleet of 26 satellites, many
of which are constructed by U.S. manufacturers, some are
launched by U.S. launch providers, and we employ almost 2,000
workers, including at our U.S. Fleet Operations Center and
manufacturing facility for ground infrastructure. We also
employ local installers, all adding important U.S. jobs.
In addition, our satellite network provides services across
the country, no matter how rural or remote. Satellites are
particularly adept at providing cost effective broadband
services to consumers where it is too expensive to deploy
terrestrial infrastructure.
Satellite capability continues to evolve to meet consumer
needs, including ensuring consumers in the most remote regions
of the United States have access to comparable broadband
services to urban residents. Since 2007, our broadband services
have met or exceeded FCC-defined broadband speeds.
With the launch of EchoStar XIX, we have broadband speeds
of 25/3 megabits and more at prices that are comparable to
terrestrial offerings. There is also increased demand for
capacity in spectrum. To address this, we have launched
additional satellites, utilized additional spectrum, and, of
course, developed innovative technology. In 2008, our first
broadband satellite had a capacity of 10 gigabits. EchoStar XIX
has a capacity of 220 gigabits.
However, the only real way to achieve meaningful increases
in capacity for satellite in all wireless services is to access
more spectrum. In doing so, Congress and the FCC must adopt the
principle of technology neutrality, ensuring different
platforms can compete to meet the full range of consumer
demands.
A little more than a decade ago, spectrum was largely
allocated to different uses on an exclusive basis. While
spectrum-sharing occurred, it was very limited. However, the
demand for spectrum continues to proliferate including for
satellite, requiring the adoption of new methods of spectrum
allocation. And as we move towards 5G, creative means of
spectrum allocation will be required to meet the demands of
complementary services.
Congress and the FCC must enable competition among
platforms by ensuring that no single platform is favored. If
spectrum is cleared, it should not be made available for one
technology but should be split in a manner that takes into
account the role of each platform as well as consumer demand.
The same principle must be followed for spectrum-sharing. Where
there is an incumbent, sharing criteria should be reasonable
and enable both services to grow.
Terrestrial deployment will be focused mostly in the urban
portions of country. Accordingly, there is unlikely to be a
significant demand for dense terrestrial wireless networks in
lower population areas, which makes those areas appropriate for
greater satellite deployment. This does not mean that portions
of the country will not receive wireless services. It simply
ensures that both platforms can grow and deploy to meet
consumer needs across the country.
Finally, until advanced sharing technology are proven,
sharing must be limited between widely deployed services. We
need to retain some exclusive spectrum.
The 21st century wireless economy is booming. With
continued U.S. leadership, the future is very bright. Congress
must ensure all technologies are provided the resources
necessary to meet the needs of consumers throughout the
country. By allocating spectrum to enable competition among
platforms, we can ensure that consumers, not the Government,
are able to pick the best technology for their needs.
Further, we will ensure that all Americans, including those
in rural and remote parts of the United States, benefit from
the 21st century wireless economy.
Thank you, and I welcome any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Manner follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you.
Mr. Carlson for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JARED CARLSON
Mr. Carlson. Thank you, Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member
Doyle, and good morning to all of the members of the committee.
My name is Jared Carlson, and I lead Ericsson's
legislative, regulatory, and industry efforts for our $6
billion North American business. On behalf of the thousands of
Ericsson employees based here in the United States, it is an
honor to be here.
At Ericsson, we all share the subcommittee's mission to
make it easier for every American to communicate. Our vision is
one of a network society where everyone and everything is
connected. Our solutions, which range from mobile broadband to
cloud services to network design and management, serve
customers across the globe in 180 countries.
Fully 40 percent of the world's mobile traffic continues to
be carried over Ericsson's networks, and at the heart of
everything we do is innovation. We invest billions of dollars
every year in research and development, which has led to over
42,000 patents and key discoveries. In one of our labs back in
the 1990s, the peer-to-peer wireless technology known as
Bluetooth was invented.
Today Ericsson continues to be an integral part of the
broadband ecosystem, which is made possible by access to
sufficient spectrum, something that remains in very short
supply and an even higher demand.
To truly understand the extent of that demand, Ericsson
performs in-depth data traffic measurements in mobile networks
from the world's largest installed base of live networks. These
measurements are then captured in the Ericsson mobility report,
which we issue several times a year. Our most recent report
yielded some very interesting trends I would like to share.
First, the total mobile data traffic is expected to rise at
an annual growth rate of 45 percent, resulting in an 8-fold
increase by 2022. Second, Smartphone traffic will grow around
10 times and will account for roughly 90 percent of mobile data
traffic by the end of 2022. Third, globally, mobile data
traffic grew 50 percent year over year in 2016. Fourth, mobile
video traffic, led by YouTube, remains the largest contributor
to traffic volumes and will grow 50 percent annually through
2022 when it will account for 75 percent of all mobile data
traffic.
And, finally, over 90 percent of the world's population
will be covered by mobile broadband networks by 2022. All of
these metrics, and the others I included in my prepared
testimony, reinforce the reality we all know too well that
demand and need for mobile broadband continues to grow at
exponential rates.
Our findings also continue to lead us to a central
question: where can more spectrum be found? From our vantage as
a global leader in building networks, we believe there are a
few key points to keep in mind as we seek to answer that
question.
One, technology cannot satiate demand for capacity alone.
Two, clearing spectrum for licensed use remains the best option
available today. Three, Federal spectrum holdings continue to
be an excellent potential source for spectrum. And, four,
barriers to broadband infrastructure deployment remain and must
be removed where possible.
The observations in the Ericsson Mobility Report also
underscore an important idea about the future of our industry.
There is no limit to the potential of emerging technologies
with 5G leading the way. In that space, we are currently
working with operators and industry partners to tap into the
$582 billion of global 5G opportunity that will come over the
next 5 years. Interest in launching pre-standard 5G networks
has increased so dramatically that many deployments have
already been announced in several markets, including the U.S.
Or consider the Internet of Things. We believe there will
be roughly 29 billion connected devices by 2022, 18 billion of
which will be related to IoT. These include connected cars,
machines, meters, wearables, and other consumer electronics. So
we are working with our customers to avoid network congestion
by managing, monitoring, and analyzing these devices in real
time.
How we do that in a way that ensures efficiency and
security will remain a key question as the wireless broadband
ecosystem continues to evolve. And that is where important
efforts taken by you and by this committee and by Congress come
into play. The Spectrum Act of 2012 paved the way for the
auction of critical spectrum in the broadcast, AWS 093, and H-
Block bands.
And now Congress has another opportunity to act again with
the MOBILE NOW Act. The MOBILE NOW Act is comprehensive
legislation that anticipates and promotes the rise of 5G
technology. It sets policy goals for spectrum access and eases
the burdens we see in the field every day when we deploy
network infrastructure, and it calls for the critical spectrum
needed, 500 megahertz by 2020, for commercial use by easing the
demands on our networks as consumers and IoT devices access
more and more data-rich services.
Quite simply, the MOBILE NOW Act represents another big
step Congress can take to greatly benefit our Nation's spectrum
pipeline and telecommunications infrastructure. For that
reason, I urge the committee to support its consideration and
its passage.
Looking ahead, the work that remains remains challenging
but incredibly exciting, too, and I am privileged to work in an
industry that is not only constantly adapting and evolving but
also transforming how people and things are connected,
transforming the ways we tackle our most complex issues,
transforming the efficiency of schools, cities, and businesses,
but, most of all, transforming lives for the better.
Thank you again, Chairman Blackburn, for the invitation to
be here today, and I look forward to answering any questions
the subcommittee has.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carlson follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Blackburn. I thank the gentleman for the testimony.
This concludes our testimony, and we will begin with our
questions and answers. And, Mr. Carlson, I am going to come
right to you, since you were the last one to speak.
Let's talk about unlimited data plans because as we look at
spectrum and the need for spectrum, we are always thinking in
terms of how this affects consumers and how it affects the
marketplace. And we have a lot of consumers that do enjoy these
unlimited data plans. They utilize a lot of that service.
Now, you are talking about an 8-fold increase by the time
we get to the end of 2022. So wireless providers, if we don't
go ahead and make more spectrum available, what will we see
happen to those unlimited data plans that people appreciate,
enjoy, and utilize?
Mr. Carlson. Thank you for the question. I think it was
implied in your question that we can't go on the way we are
going without more spectrum made available. I benefit myself
from an unlimited data plan, and I love it and would love to
see more such plans, and that just doesn't happen without the
creation or without the unleashing of more spectrum for
licensed use.
And in addition, you know, one can see that they will have
to be more expensive. There is just no way that you maintain
the current use and the current demand on networks at the
present rate unless you start charging people more for the
services that they enjoy today.
So, you know, one of the things that that the MOBILE Act
does that we appreciate is unleash critically more spectrum in
the mid-tier bands and in upper level bands that we think are
going to be crucial going forward.
Mrs. Blackburn. Or either kept those plans, which of course
affects our small businesses tremendously.
Ms. Manner, let me come to you. You mention in your
testimony the satellite industry has seen 2,400 percent growth
in download speeds over the past decade. So do you anticipate
that this growth will continue, or are there limits to the
speeds that can be achieved through the satellite technology?
Ms. Manner. Thank you so much, Madam Chair, for the
question. And I just want to be specific, that was actually
with regard to our system and not the satellite industry as a
whole, so----
Mrs. Blackburn. OK.
Ms. Manner [continuing]. But I think the answer is you will
continue to see growth, both through additional technology
developments--we have labs right outside DC in Maryland where
we work very hard to develop new technologies, including with
our satellite manufacturers here in the United States.
But, more importantly, we do need spectrum at some point.
There is a limit to what technology alone can do, so we are
going to need access to additional bands, especially in the
upper millimeter wave bands. Thank you.
Mrs. Blackburn. OK. Talk to me a little bit about how the
speeds that you achieve through satellite compare to other
technologies.
Ms. Manner. So, thank you, Madam Chairman. Our company in
particular primarily focuses on unserved and underserved
markets, and in those markets where there is limited choice we
are, you know, on par with DSL and other services that are
available. Unfortunately, satellite, because of the way it is
built, it is a single satellite in the sky.
In our case, we have a network of three. We don't have
sufficient capacity to offer the sorts of speeds that you might
see from fiber, but we are certainly comparable in the markets
where we compete. Thank you.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you. Mr. Doyle, I will yield back my
time and recognize you for 5 minutes.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Bergmann, welcome. We are glad to have you here today.
Let me ask you, the MOBILE NOW Act addresses the need for more
spectrum, which is one of the two critical inputs into wireless
communications. The other critical input is back call, the
connection between a wireless carrier's tower, base station, or
small cell and the underlying company in each market.
The FCC has found that up to a third of the cost of
operation of a tower or base station is the cost to back call.
Later this month the FCC is poised to vote on a BDS reform
order that would prematurely deregulate business status service
prices, potentially driving up the price of back call for a
number of CTIA members.
I want to ask a question. Do you believe that higher back
call prices for your members would delay 5G deployments?
Mr. Bergmann. So thank you, Ranking Member Doyle. So,
obviously, infrastructure is one of the key elements in
wireless networks, and it is very much a focus for us as we
think about the next generation. And so back call is a key part
of that, having enough fiber to make sure that we can deliver
the capacity that we need in addition to spectrum.
We have been very focused on siting as one of the key
issues in terms of making sure that we have sufficient back
call out there, and so this committee's consideration of the
infrastructure modernization provisions in MOBILE NOW is really
important. The dig once concept is a very important concept,
but there is more, frankly, that this committee can do in terms
of trying to address burdensome, local permitting, and siting
obligations that add cost, add delays, and make it more
difficult to offer those next generation services.
Mr. Doyle. But do you support higher back call prices on
your members?
Mr. Bergmann. We are always trying to find ways to drive
down costs. As you may know, CTIA has members with different
views on how those services should be regulated, but we are
very focused on trying to make sure that participants can
deploy infrastructure, including back call out in the
marketplace, and trying to find ways to remove barriers to
that, wherever possible.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you. Let me ask you and Mr. Wright, there
has been a lot of interest in low power, wide area networks,
using both licensed and unlicensed spectrum. Major carriers and
small companies are working to deploy these networks and
technologies, and I have read that some of these networks would
use as little as 1 to 2 megahertz.
What impact do you see these new types of networks having
on the Internet of Things and smart cities, particularly
considering their low bandwidth and their small spectrum
footprints? And what are some of the ideal bands for these
types of networks? Mr. Wright?
Mr. Wright. Ranking Member Doyle, as Mr. Carlson mentioned
during this oral testimony, the Ericsson Mobility Report in
2016 has estimated that I believe 18.1 billion IoT devices will
be connected in 2022. They further go on to say that, of those
18.1 billion devices, 88 percent of them will be connected over
unlicensed spectrum.
So we certainly believe that unlicensed is going to play a
critical role in meeting the demand for the surge in IoT
devices that has been growing from essentially a 2016 level of
5.6 billion to the 18.1 billion number over the next 6 years.
In terms of what spectrum is most suitable for that,
frankly, I think there is opportunities, certainly in the low
and the mid band and potentially in the high bands as well. We
obviously have the spectrum that was recently made available
below 1 gigahertz through the incentive auction. I think that
is suitable.
We have technologies today that are being used in the mid-
band unlicensed, so certainly Wi-Fi, and the Ericsson number
certainly would include Wi-Fi but also technology such as IGB
and Bluetooth and LoRa and things like this.
So there is a range of unlicensed technologies in the mid
band. That is where the vast majority of the deployments and
utilization is happening today, and that is where we need
additional allocations.
Mr. Doyle. Mr. Bergmann, how do you see these low power,
wide area networks? What kind of impact do you think they can
have?
Your microphone is off. Go for it. Thank you.
Mr. Bergmann. So the sorts of networks that you all were
discussing rely on unlicensed spectrum, and we think that is an
important component of an overall spectrum plan. Clearly,
licensed spectrum is an essential part, but we would encourage
this committee to look at a balance of both licensed and
unlicensed spectrum.
Mr. Doyle. Thanks, Mr. Bergmann. I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. Mr. Lance, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Lance. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Bergmann, while siting on Federal lands is certainly
important, equally important is the need to address siting
issues in areas that are urban and suburban. Should we be
considering reasonable shot clocks and deemed granted remedies
to ensure that deployment can happen expeditiously, so
consumers and businesses can get access to these new wireless
services?
Mr. Bergmann. Thank you, Congressman. Absolutely. As I was
discussing with Ranking Member Doyle, infrastructure is a
critical component in 5G networks. And as we look to this new
technology, we are looking at a different kind of
infrastructure. We are looking at small cells, at the hundreds
of thousands. Where typically we looked at 200-foot macro
towers, now the technology is the size of a pizza box or lunch
box.
We will need to have much denser infrastructure, and those
kind of shot clocks and deemed granted remedies are really
critical in terms of our network planning for 5G services and
will help today with 4G networks. As we continue to increase
capacity and build out to meet that consumer demand, the
ability to have those kinds of shot clocks and deemed granted
remedies will speed our ability to invest today and to create
jobs today.
Mr. Lance. Thank you. Would anyone else on the panel like
to comment? Mr. Carlson.
Mr. Carlson. If I may. I couldn't agree more that shot
clocks certainly have a great role to play. You know, another
issue that we face at Ericsson is laws that look at towers the
same as they have been looked at for the last 20 years. And as
we deploy more and more 5G type of services that are going to
be very small, the size of pizza boxes----
Mr. Lance. Or a bread basket, as was said on ``What's My
Line?'' The audience is looking vaguely into the distance, not
remembering that.
Mr. Carlson. The policies that treat them the same as if
they were a 200-foot tower just don't make any sense, and so
one of the things that we would urge are policies that
recognize that we are going to have towers that are on
lightpoles or flagpoles even, and treating those the same as
towers that are large. You know, that doesn't make much sense,
and especially as we are going to be looking at deploying
hundreds of thousands of 5G-based stations.
Mr. Lance. Thank you.
Ms. Manner?
Ms. Manner. Thank you so much, Congressman. We face a
different sort of regulatory hurdle that I would like to talk
about for a second.
Mr. Lance. Certainly.
Ms. Manner. For Jupiter XIX--I am sorry, for EchoStar XIX,
our latest satellite, we utilize just around 20 gateway earth
stations. That is our ground infrastructure. And we don't face
the same siting issues as the wireless industry terrestrially,
and very happy about that, and we are happy to see the
legislation to help further broadband deployment.
But what we do, and what we are seeing--are facing now is
the FCC, in the upper millimeter wave bands where we operate
our satellites today, have put in very conservative
restrictions on our siting.
So, for instance, in the KA band, which is where our
satellite operates today, we can only deploy in areas with a
less of--.1 percent population density or less, which means in
population coverage areas where there is 99.9 percent of the
people we can't deploy. Unfortunately, that does harm our
access to back call something we depend on--roads--and, most
important, employees because of course we staff our local
facilities as well.
Mr. Lance. And that, of course, would include New Jersey,
the most densely populated State in the Nation.
Ms. Manner. Exactly.
Mr. Lance. Now, is that an FCC rule and regulation that
could be amended by the newly comprised Commission?
Ms. Manner. Yes, we have--actually, we and a number of
other people have petitions for reconsideration pending, so we
are hoping that will be revised. Thank you.
Mr. Lance. Thank you.
Mr. Bergmann, now that the auctions from the 2012
legislation have run their course, is it your view that we need
a new spectrum pipeline initiative to meet America's future
spectrum needs?
Mr. Bergmann. Thank you, Congressman. It is absolutely
critical that we are planning now for a 5G spectrum pipeline.
The work that this committee did in the early 2000s set the
stage for our global leadership in 4G, and now this committee
has the opportunity to make sure that we have enough spectrum
resources to do that.
A really critical piece to that are the high-band spectrums
that my friend from EchoStar was talking about. In that order
that was adopted last year, the FCC established a framework to
make those high bands 5G first bands. We believe that is really
critical. We want to make sure that the Commission continues to
press forward and that the wireless industry is able to build
out those bands.
Those are really the launching pad for 5G services. We
believe the FCC struck a very reasonable framework, and we want
to make sure that those bands are available and able to be
deployed, so that we can lead the world in 5G.
Mr. Lance. Thank you. My time has expired. Madam Chair,
thank you very much.
Mrs. Blackburn. And I appreciate the gentleman mentioned
the TV show ``What's My Line?'' as I----
Mr. Lance. How would you know, Madam Chair? You are much
too young to recall that.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Blackburn. I was once on that TV show, and that is all
I am going to tell you.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Pallone, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lance. I want more time.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Blackburn. Ain't happening, buddy.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Today I put
forward a discussion draft, a bill called the Connected
Government Act, which acknowledges the need to bring Government
services to people where they are. And, increasingly,
struggling families are on mobile devices. People who make less
than 30,000 a year are 13 times more likely to access the
internet only on a mobile device than those who make more than
70,000 a year.
So we need to make sure that the Government services they
need are easy to access on those devices, and this bill would
do that by requiring consumer-facing Government websites to be
mobile-friendly. So I wanted to ask Mr. Bergmann, I am sure you
haven't had any time to even look or analyze this bill that
just came out or this discussion draft. But do you think that
CTIA could support a bill with those goals in mind?
Mr. Bergmann. So thank you, Ranking Member Pallone.
Absolutely. Americans live mobile first lives. From your
description of the legislation, it is encouraging Government to
recognize that. We know that over 45 percent of all households
are wireless-only, and we love it when our Government partners
recognize that Americans are mobile first.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
I want to go to Mr. Wright. In your testimony, you note
that annual U.S. economic activity associated with unlicensed
uses is estimated to be well over $500 billion today. I am
concerned that when Congress starts to discuss spectrum policy,
at some point the conversation inevitably turns to how much
money we can raise for the treasury.
But as you point out, the value of spectrum goes beyond how
much money the Government can raise. So do you think it is
important to make sure we address good spectrum policy before
worrying about how much the spectrum is going to make for the
Government?
Mr. Wright. Thank you, Congressman Pallone. That is I think
a very pertinent question and a fundamental question for the
subcommittee and Government at large to address. I do question
the manner in which we value spectrum today, solely on the
basis of the revenue that can be generated at auction.
I have noted that in some of the provisions within the
Budget Act of 2015, I believe, the provisions regarding the
relocation fund, we are incenting Federal agencies to make
spectrum available for commercial use either by clearing it
fully or by making a shared Federal/non-Federal type use
available.
However, the technical panel that is going to review
payments to those Federal agencies, it can only value the
activity of those agencies based on, is there an incremental
increase in the amount of revenue that is raised at an auction?
So there is no incentive for an agency to make spectrum
available, even on a shared basis with unlicensed use or
permissive use with a coordinated shared spectrum framework. I
do think we need to revisit how we are evaluating spectrum.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you.
And then my last question, I am concerned, not for anybody
in particular, I am concerned that just identifying new
spectrum isn't enough. It takes far too long for entities to
gain access to spectrum, and even longer for the public to
benefit. So the question, really, is: where are the bottlenecks
in the current processes? What should Congress do to resolve
these issues?
I guess I could ask you, Mr. Bergmann, to start out.
Mr. Bergmann. So thank you, Ranking Member Pallone. So this
committee held a hearing about a month and a half or so ago on
NTIA reauthorization, and I thought that was a really
productive discussion about things that can happen to make
Government spectrum, which Federal Government users currently
have primary access to over 60 percent of that spectra below
3.7 gigahertz. Those are key low-band and mid-band spectrum.
And I had a really good conversation about things that NTIA
can do to have greater transparency, create greater incentives
for Federal Government agencies to make spectrum available. We
should certainly encourage this committee to look at incentives
for Federal agencies. I know that your colleagues Congressmen
Matsui and Guthrie have proposed some legislation.
Creating those kinds of incentives to help make it win-win
for Government users is really important. I know that just
yesterday the Center for Strategic Intelligence, just released
a paper with--you may remember General Wheeler, who was in
charge of the communications systems for DoD, and he talked
about how the last two spectrum auctions really improved DoD's
capability.
So we believe that the spectrum reallocation process can be
win-win, can create benefits for our global leadership, but can
also create benefits for Government users, and that makes it
more likely to happen.
Mr. Pallone. I have 18--do you want to say something, Mr.
Wright? Go ahead.
Mr. Wright. If I could, Congressman. I just wanted to agree
with Mr. Bergmann. I believe that if we can encourage NTIA and
the Commission to work together to just identify which bands
will be made available for new designations of licensed,
unlicensed, or coordinated shared use, and really let industry
know sooner--we had a recent experience with the 5350 to 5470
band that we were hoping and that industry was expecting would
be made available for unlicensed--that had been in play for a
number of years, and then we just learned at the end of last
year that that wasn't going to happen. So I think more
expeditious processing would be very helpful.
Mr. Pallone. All right. My time is up. Thank you.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Shimkus for 5 minutes.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
It is great to have you all here, and welcome. And I want
to turn to Mr. Bergmann. I think you have done a good job
articulating that there is a different world now between the
big cell towers of the past and, really, the small cell
applications.
Can you give us some--what I want to focus on is I think
some of the testimony, some of the comments that siting
policies that are overly burdensome, discriminatory, and going
beyond cost-based fees, can you give us--I mean, what does that
really mean? I think I know, but----
Mr. Bergmann. Sure. Thank you, Congressman Shimkus. I
really think about it in sort of 3 buckets--access, delays, and
costs, the ABCs of infrastructure setting, and I think there
are challenges on all those fronts.
We have encountered a number of localities throughout the
country that have adopted moratoria on building out. So----
Mr. Shimkus. So even these small cells, they would say
absolutely not, even though it is a lot different than the
large tower.
Mr. Bergmann. That is exactly right.
Mr. Shimkus. And you are talking, like, a community, like a
city, a village?
Mr. Bergmann. Communities across the country, 17 in
Florida, in Tennessee, in Massachusetts, in New Jersey.
Mr. Shimkus. I mean, you go back to the old days of trying
to hide the cell tower by making it a flagpole or a fake tree
or something like that. So this is a different world.
Mr. Bergmann. It is a very different world. You know, when
something is the size of a pizza box or shoe box--and credit to
a lot of my colleagues on the panel--there are companies that
are coming up with smaller and smaller cells all the time, and
so we are looking to site, again, not on towers but on the
sides of buildings. So it is important that we have access to
those lightpoles and municipal-owned poles. And as well costs,
as you mentioned, are key. We found----
Mr. Shimkus. Let me ask again, so you used a word--I think
there was a word used, ``discriminatory.'' So give me an
example of where they are discriminating.
Mr. Bergmann. In a municipality in Minnesota, one company
got access to poles for $600 a year, $650 a year. The next
company that came along 2 years later, the price was 7,500.
That is a pretty big difference, and we don't think that
reflects the actual costs.
We really believe that access to those rights-of-way should
reflect the cost to manage it, and it shouldn't be a revenue
stream. We shouldn't create a new fund diversion process.
Mr. Shimkus. And so that is, the last part of my first
question was this talk about beyond cost-based fees, right?
Mr. Bergmann. Sure. So----
Mr. Shimkus. Delays. Our members have routinely found that
this process can take up to 2 years. When you add those delays,
you add costs, you create uncertainty. It is harder to deploy
your networks and plan your networks. Again, with the 5G
services we are talking about, we are talking about those high
capacity, low latency services. And we want self-driving cars?
We want to make sure we have that dense infrastructure, so that
we have that reliability, safety, and security.
Mr. Shimkus. Thanks.
Let me go to Mr. Carlson. Kind of along the same line, in
your testimony you state that the proposed legislation reduces
many of the costs of infrastructure deployment. What is not
being addressed that you think should be addressed?
Mr. Carlson. Let me give that some thought. You know, I
think that the idea of shot clocks isn't in this, and that
could really help.
Mr. Shimkus. Pull that mike a little bit closer.
Mr. Carlson. I am sorry.
Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Lance can't hear very well.
Mr. Carlson. That the idea of increased use of shot
clocks--and Chairman Pai has raised this, too, and so I will
channel him briefly, and that is the idea of using a tool
called ``deemed granted.''
So that if enough time goes by and you haven't gotten an
answer one way or another, then an application to build a tower
would be--a certain amount of time you could say--you could
take it to the bank and say, ``We are done.'' It has been
however many months we are going to allow, and your inaction
has meant that we will now put up the tower.
Mr. Shimkus. OK. Madam Chair, I am done. I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. Mr. Shimkus yields back. And, let's see,
Mr. Loebsack for 5 minutes.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Madam Chair. I do want to thank
the committee for holding this hearing today and the witnesses
for testifying on this very important issue. It is a
fascinating issue. It is hard to understand sometimes I think
for most people, but it is so absolutely critical. There is no
doubt that the advances in wireless technology have changed our
life pretty dramatically, and our economy as well.
I think especially the past 10 years or so, and looking at
all of the innovation happening in the industry, with all of
the technology, I personally think it is--and I know a lot of
people on this--maybe everybody on this committee believes the
same thing--we can't leave anybody behind, especially in rural
areas.
I am, obviously, a huge advocate for rural America. I have
24 countries in southeast Iowa, and we have some towns of some
size, but it is a largely rural place. And it is just very
difficult for a lot of folks in those areas. You know the
stories. I mean, you have heard about the homework gap. A lot
of these kids who in school get assignments, and they have to
be able to go home and get on the internet, so they can
complete the assignments, their homework, but it is almost
impossible in many instances for those kinds to do that. They
have to find a hotspot somewhere, and there aren't McDonald's
in small town Iowa. It is very, very difficult to do that.
Rural economic development is absolutely critical. We talk
about telehealth. It is great for hospitals to have that
capacity to reach out to folks in rural areas, but if someone
in a rural area doesn't have sufficient bandwidth, then they
can't take advantage of the other--they can't access rural
telehealth. So it is a great concept, but we need the
infrastructure, we need the capacity, we need the access to
spectrum, for them to be able to do that. So that is why this
is so critical.
And we are mainly talking, I understand, about the MOBILE
NOW Act. But, Madam Chair, I was very happy she mentioned the
Rural Spectrum Accessibility Act. That is H.R. 1814 that
Congressman Kinzinger introduced. I am the lead Democrat, and I
want to thank him for working with me. We don't have a lot of
bipartisanship at the moment in Washington, DC, as you all
know. But those of us in rural areas work together all the time
on these issues, and it is really, really critical that we do
it.
And, basically, this bill is very simple. It is not very
long. But it would help to expand wireless coverage in those
rural areas by establishing a program that would encourage
spectrum licensees to lease unused spectrum to small rural
carriers. That is all it would do, but that is something that
hasn't happened in the past.
And so, basically, what it would do is, you know, allow
some of those rural carriers to access spectrum that is unused.
It may seem kind of far-fetched that there is unused spectrum,
but there is in some places. There is no doubt about it.
I guess I want to ask, Mr. Bergmann, in your view, would
this legislation help close the coverage gaps in rural parts of
the country? And I am sure you may not have been able to look
at the legislation yet--we just reintroduced it--but go ahead
if you would.
Mr. Bergmann. Thank you, Congressman Loebsack. We certainly
commend you and your colleague, Mr. Kinzinger, for this
legislation. I have had a chance to take a look at it, and I
certainly think it offers the kind of creativity that you need
to make sure that we have enough service in rural areas.
It is critically important. As you mentioned, folks in
rural areas stand to benefit as much as anyone, whether it is
remote surgery or whether it is education and bringing the
benefits to rural kids. So we certainly applaud your creativity
in terms of trying to create incentives and opportunities for
flexibility in building out to rural areas.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you.
Yes, go ahead, Mr. Wright.
Mr. Wright. Thank you, Congressman Loebsack. I wanted just
to address that as well. I do understand that the cellular
industry has made spectrum available to rural carriers, and
that is certainly helping in this case. Ruckus has done a lot
with connecting the unconnected, and I am very sympathetic to
the examples you mentioned of kids having to, you know, sit in
fast food restaurant parking lots to get their homework done.
That is ridiculous.
I would mention the coordinated shared spectrum framework,
such as CBRS, one of the things that we find very compelling is
the ability to deploy LTE services in that spectrum at the
permissive tier, so at the general authorized tier of access
without having to go through a license auction to acquire the
spectrum.
So we believe that would enable municipalities and rural
carriers and potentially new entrants into the market to
provide coverage to rural communities at a much lower price
point.
Mr. Loebsack. You actually addressed my second question,
which I don't have time for, but, Ms. Manner, go ahead. Thank
you.
Ms. Manner. Thank you, Congressman. As a nationwide
satellite broadband operator, and with the launch of EchoStar
XIX and going into service this March, I think you will see
much-improved service with speeds upwards of 25/3 and even more
for enterprise customers. So with the satellite industry moving
in that direction, I think it is really good news for rural
America, and we look forward to being a good partner with you
and your constituents.
Mr. Lance. Thank you.
My time has expired. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Thanks to all of you.
Mrs. Blackburn. Mr. Latta for 5 minutes.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and I am looking
forward to finding out about What's My Line? now. I can't find
it on the internet, but I will find out.
But thank you again for this hearing today, and I want to
thank our witnesses because this is an area that--where our
country is going. As my friend from Iowa was just discussing, a
lot of us that are on the rural caucus here in Congress are
very concerned about areas of cost for our districts that don't
have that service to help our businesses and our kids get
ahead. We want to make sure it is out there.
And, Mr. Carlson, I think I am going to start my questions
with you, because you have got some things in your testimony
that are very interesting, because one of the great things
about serving on the Energy and Commerce Committee, but also
serving on this subcommittee on telecomm, through the years,
you know, we hear a lot of things come through here, but we are
also looking at life maybe 5 to 10 years over the horizon,
which we only have regulations out through--we are looking in
the rearview mirror.
And several years ago when--I can still remember the
hearing that we were told that probably worldwide by the end of
this year we would have 1.6 devices per individual. And when I
was co-chairing the Internet of Things working group this past
Congress, and your testimony kind of brings this forward, is
that you are looking at that we are going to have between about
29 billion connected devices by 2022. And I would say the
number that we were given could even be, by 2025, even have up
to 50 billion by that time.
So, you know, things are moving very quickly. And I guess
as we go forward with this, as we are looking for all of these
devices being connected, especially through the Internet of
Things, from our aircraft, trains, water systems--you know, one
of the greatest threats we have out there is on cybersecurity
and the risks associated with that. And are we going to be
prepared with these Internet of Things devices to be reliable
enough to protect against attack from cyber attacks into the
future when we get to that point?
Mr. Carlson. So let me address this as Ericsson can. When
we talk about 5G and IoT, they really go hand in hand. You
know, from our point of view, the amount of data that you are
going to see from IoT devices demands 5G technologies. And I
will tell you this, that the standards groups that are working
in 5G right now, and that Ericsson is an integral part of, are
building in security at the beginning. It is not going to be an
afterthought. This is something that, you know, will be a part
of the standards from the moment that they are put out there.
You point out plains, trains, and water systems
specifically, and I agree, those are crucial areas. You know,
it is important to recognize that some areas that might connect
by an unlicensed device maybe don't need that level of
security. So it really requires, you know, sort of a holistic
look at what you need for what application you are looking at.
And like I said, from Ericsson's point of view, 5G will
have those levels of security that are needed to protect
infrastructure, like you have pointed out, built in from the
beginning.
Mr. Latta. Thank you.
Ms. Manner, if I could go back, there is something you had
said, because you were talking about with the FCC and on the
regulations affecting you, and especially on the satellite
site, and you thought that maybe that they are, I think you
used the word ``conservative.'' Could you explain that?
Ms. Manner. Certainly. Thank you for the question. When the
FCC adopted its regulations, it took an approach where they
treated the country as a whole, and they said, ``We are going
to limit satellite deployment in all areas to this very small
.1 percent population density coverage where you could put your
ground facilities.''
We actually do believe that is appropriate in urban areas,
where we do think that 5G is going to be very widely deployed.
But when you get to rural areas, I can give you an example. We
have a gateway earth station in existence today that we would
not have been able to deploy, and there is no people,
absolutely no one within the coverage of our system.
So we are being denied access to areas to bring service,
especially to rural and remote regions, but also satellite is a
critical part of the 5G ecosystem. We are today; we will be
tomorrow. For instance, we support pipeline customers. We
support the banking system, finance, and without the ability to
site our gateway infrastructures, our ground systems, we are
not able to bring those services.
So while we understand some of the restrictions the FCC
adopted--and we do think those are even a little bit more
conservative when we get to the more middle and lower
population densities area of the country, we do think the FCC
went a little too far and was aggressive in its ruling.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you.
And, Madam Chair, my time is expired, and I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Ms. Eshoo, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
First, I just want to make a couple of comments about the
legislation that is being considered MOBILE NOW, and then I
have some other questions. I think on the positive side that
the bill is, I think, good on unlicensed spectrum. And I think
this committee knows very well, and others do, too, that I have
worked hard on unlicensed for a long time because I think it
really is the innovation platform. We can always do more, but I
think the bill treats unlicensed well.
I think the bill is mediocre or maybe a few tabs down from
mediocre on a dig once policy. It is not going to accomplish
anything. It just isn't going to accomplish anything. It
mentions the words, but there isn't any action plan to actually
dig once and be able to expand connection for broadband,
especially in rural parts of our country. So those are my two
observations about the bill.
Mr. Bergmann, I want to go to you and the issue du jour
that has just recently taken place, and that is the
Congressional Review Act that wiped out privacy protections,
and CTIA was part of the coalition that was for that. Since
then, I have been busy reading what the companies have posted.
I read the AT&T's blog post defending the use of the CRA to
repeal the FCC's broadband privacy rules, not exactly a shock
to me, but it is still interesting to read.
The post says that ``No one is saying there shouldn't be
any rules.'' It goes on to say that supporters of the CRA
believe the FCC's rules should be replaced by the FTC's
longstanding approach to privacy.
Just to be clear, does the FTC approach involve setting
rules for ISPs? I mean, what do you think about that? And would
ISPs be required to precisely follow the FTC's privacy
framework?
Mr. Bergmann. So thank you for that question,
Congresswoman.
Ms. Eshoo. Oh, you are most welcome.
Mr. Bergmann. So our companies are absolutely committed to
earning the trust of their customers, and that is something
that they practice every day. You are correct; we do believe
that the FTC's approach, which is based on the principles of
data sensitivity and consumer choice and transparency----
Ms. Eshoo. Let me just say this, Mr. Bergmann. The FTC
lacks rulemaking authority. They set guidelines. So there isn't
anything that is going to guarantee consumers of anything or
what may constitute violations of the law. So I think it is
important to set that down.
CTIA has previously testified that the patchwork of State
laws covering data security and data breach notification is
confusing for businesses and provides uneven protection for
consumers. So, in your view, how is leaving consumer privacy to
the same patchwork of State laws any different?
Mr. Bergmann. We do believe that having a consistent,
uniform approach to all players in the internet ecosystem is--
--
Ms. Eshoo. How is that going to be accomplished under a
patchwork of 50 states? How is that consistent?
Mr. Bergmann. So, again, we support the FTC's framework,
and the FCC does have enforcement authority and does, over the
vast swath of the internet ecosystem, enforce that privacy
framework, and we do continue to believe that consumers should
have the----
Ms. Eshoo. You know what I think has happened here? And I
think the companies may not see this right now, but there is a
hue and a cry from constituents on this issue. I think
companies have damaged their brand with this. That is just my
opinion, but it is the opinion of my constituents. I have been
around for a while. I know how to measure things, and I think
that they have really taken a hammer and banged away at their
own brand. They have hurt themselves in this because--for all
the obvious reasons. I just want to set that down.
Now, the FCC's rules also would have required ISPs to
disclose when data breaches occur. That is another protection
that now won't take effect. It has been blown up. How do
consumers trust that ISPs are going to keep their data secure?
How are they going to know this?
Mr. Bergmann. So our member companies all have policies and
follow the FTC's guidance on data breach notification. To your
point, Congresswoman, our companies depend on the trust of
their customers. And in a competitive market like----
Ms. Eshoo. Well, they depend on the trust of their
customers. They have--as I said, in my view, they have more
than chipped away at that. And I think that, you know, there is
something else to this, and that is that this bill was signed
behind closed doors. It was not a source of pride. And I think
that this is going to haunt the companies and it is going to
hurt consumers. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Guthrie, 5 minutes.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you very much, and I was going to talk
on a bipartisan bill, too, like my friend Mr. Loebsack did. It
seems like I am in a hearing about every other day. Almost--not
all hearings, we had a few here, but most somebody always
starts out with, ``Despite all the partisanship in town, this
is a bipartisan bill.''
So saying that, there is a lot of bipartisan stuff going
on. Some of the big stuff that makes the news and you talk
about, we just have differences of opinions on, and we express
those. But just some of these things that are not ideological,
it is just trying to fix things, we are working together.
And an example is Congresswoman Matsui and I have worked
together on spectrum, a spectrum caucus, trying to free
spectrum. I have said before that this is an issue I didn't
campaign on, go around saying, ``Send me to Washington, and I
will deliver you spectrum,'' but people expect it and want it
and want the products to work and more, more.
And so as we look at who--the biggest holder of spectrum is
the Federal Government, and so we are--our bill has the intent
of--and it is a work in progress. It is supposed to have been
filed last night. Quite honestly, I had it in my hand. This is
how laws get made sometimes. I had it in my hand, and I sat it
down because something happened.
I said to somebody in my office, ``Remind me to take that
to the floor when votes are called, and I am going to get a new
designated reminder,'' because I knew I was going to forget,
but it made its way over last night I think and got filed; if
not, first thing this morning. But the important thing is that
we are trying to--how do you incentive the Federal agencies to
free up the spectrum?
On their behalf, one is that if you have something, you
want to get rid of it, you don't want to lose it, and the
second thing, is it expensive and time-consuming and difficult
to clear and repack?
So I know like, Mr. Bergmann, and anybody on the panel, if
you want to start first, you all have looked at the bill. The
concept of Federal incentives and, like I said, this is a work
in progress. This is similar--even though it wasn't filed until
late last night, it is similar to--it is the same as last year,
and it is a work in progress to fix. So if you could comment on
it, I would really appreciate it.
Mr. Bergmann. So, Congressman Guthrie, we thank you for
your leadership as co-chair of the spectrum working group, and
certainly your partnership with Congresswoman Matsui on that
legislation--I have seen prior Congresses' version--we
certainly look forward to that. We think your focus on Federal
incentives is critically important.
As you mentioned, the Federal Government, which has very
important missions, nonetheless, has, you know, primary access
to over 60 percent of that key spectrum in those key low and
mid bands. And so trying to create incentives for that spectrum
to be made available for commercial use is critically
important.
The partnerships that we were able to develop through the
AWS 093 spectrum, which freed up Government spectrum and
created the largest spectrum auction by revenue in FCC history,
enabled us to lead in 4G, but also gave important funding to
those Federal agencies through the Spectrum Relocation Fund and
has enabled them to upgrade their systems.
So we truly do believe that there are win-win
opportunities, and we believe that the legislation that you are
working on only underscores and makes those benefits stronger.
Mr. Guthrie. And I will open it to the panel, but I want to
focus on something and everybody can comment on, too. Like I
said, it is the same bill. Whether it was publicly available
tonight or this morning, it is the same bill. So it does take a
long time to get this through the system and to clear and
repack.
So, in the meantime, and, for one, about the incentives
anybody else on the panel wants to talk about, but also should
the FCC be taking steps to modernize its rules and bands that
could be repurposed for broadband and embrace secondary market
transactions that could potentially make additional spectrum
available for wireless broadband in the meantime?
Mr. Bergmann. Sure. There are absolutely things that the
Commission can do and we certainly applaud the FCC. At its open
meeting last week, it provided more flexibility for companies
to use spectrum for LTE services, took steps to eliminate some
of the redundant licensing requirements and harmonize those
across different spectrum bands. So we think the FCC can be
busy trying to create more opportunities for flexible use.
We also think it is incredibly important that they move
forward on that high-band spectrum that we have talked about
earlier. Again, that really, we believe, is a launching pad for
5G services.
And as we talked a little bit about satellite's access to
those bands, I just want to reaffirm for the committee that the
satellite industry, we welcome their competition in 5G. They
also have the opportunity to lease spectrum or to show up at
auction and bid for spectrum the same way that the wireless
industry does.
Mr. Guthrie. So you think the FCC has its own authority
enough now to release high band into the marketplace, or does
legislation need to be passed to do that?
Mr. Bergmann. We applaud them for the work that they are
doing. We think that when Congress can provide clarity in
timelines and guidance, that is always helpful. This committee
has a long history of setting deadlines and making----
Mr. Guthrie. Ms. Manner wants to say something. I only have
seconds, if you want to--as long as the chairwoman allows it.
Ms. Manner. I really wanted to respond not directly to Mr.
Bergmann, but to you, Congressman, and your statement about how
to move things along faster. And we recognize--my company
certainly recognized there is a need for spectrum sharing. But
I think that overall the process would work faster and better
if there was also a recognition of the need for technology
neutrality. And it doesn't mean splitting spectrum in half and,
as I said, giving half or a third to a wireless, a third to
unlicensed, and a third to satellite. That won't work.
But I think without those protections you are going to
continue to end up with these long, protracted regulatory
proceedings, and that certainly does hinder access to the
market and, more importantly hinders certainty in the
marketplace, which is critical for all of our companies to
deploy.
Mr. Guthrie. Thanks. I thank the Chair for her indulgence,
and I yield back my time.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Engel for 5 minutes.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Chairwoman Blackburn. Before I start
here, I wanted to reiterate on something that Mr. Doyle said
earlier. My Democratic colleagues and I were all unanimous in
our opposition to the privacy CRA, and I thought that this CRA
was snuck up on us, and Mr. Doyle made an excellent point that
there was plenty of time for this subcommittee to hold public
hearings on this issue, argue about statutory authority, and
educate ourselves and the public. And for whatever reason, we
didn't do any of that.
Instead, this was rammed through, rammed the CRA through,
and our constituents now, as far as I am concerned, are all
stuck under this regime where they have no control over their
browser history, their financial information, any of it. I
think it is just percolating out into our country now about
what really happened. People are outraged. I have heard from my
constituents they can't believe that this would happen, and
they feel violated. Their privacy has been violated.
So the next time an issue like this comes up, I hope we can
actually follow regular order instead of doing a rush job with
the CRA. I have a lot of respect for our committee and our
subcommittee, and we have good people here on both sides of the
aisle. And we could have had an open discussion, open hearing
on it, but we had none of that. For some reason, the leadership
decided to ram it through, and I just think it is an outrage.
I have been here for nearly 30 years. And, frankly, I think
it is one of the biggest outrages I have seen in that time,
that people should lose their privacy when they are not even
aware of it and it should just happen quickly and the President
quickly signs it in a closed signing. It is just not the way we
should be doing business here.
I want to thank the witnesses. I am glad that there is
bipartisan consensus here around the question of the need for
more spectrum allocation. But in the written testimony I saw
some disagreement about the question of what we should do with
this spectrum once it becomes available for commercial use.
As everyone knows, Senator Thune's MOBILE NOW bill would
make it official policy to set aside enough unlicensed spectrum
to make sure that American consumers have the wireless services
that they need. I think this is the right place to start this
conversation. So that this is clear, I understand and
appreciate how tight licensed spectrum is becoming. Carriers
need to be able to clear the space they need, so that our
phones, tablets, watches, televisions, and who knows what other
devices in the future can maintain a secure, robust connection.
Companies absolutely need licensed spectrum to do business,
and consumers rely on the services that licensed carriers
provide, so they can manage their connected lives. But I am
still struck by how important the unlicensed parts of the
spectrum are for innovation and competitive. Wi-Fi runs in an
unlicensed spectrum; Bluetooth mice and keyboards run on
unlicensed spectrum. The companies are going to innovate, but
the next big open source cutting edge, garage lab technology,
is going to have to use the unlicensed parts of the spectrum.
Let me ask Mr. Wright a question. And, by the way, being a
New York Mets fan, I love the name David Wright. I want you to
know that.
You wrote a bit about this in your written testimony. You
quoted FCC Chairman O'Rielly saying that the best part about
unlicensed spectrum is, and the quote is, ``You don't know what
you are going to get out of it.'' I was wondering if you could
expand a bit on what that means and why we need unlicensed
spaces for people to innovate.
Mr. Wright. Thank you, Congressman. So in terms of the
quote by Commissioner O'Rielly, I believe it just speaks to the
flexibility that unlicensed spectrum opens up for innovators in
the best minds of our country to come up with all sorts of new
services. It goes back to 1985, again, when the 2.4 gigahertz
band was initially opened up.
We now have Wi-Fi carrying the vast majority of wireless
data traffic in the world. I won't bring up the Cisco stats,
you know, for all wireless traffic. But even if we talk about
just dual-mode mobile devices, so devices that have a cellular
and a Wi-Fi radio in them, 60 percent of the traffic from those
devices is going over Wi-Fi. It is expected to increase to 63
percent against those Cisco numbers.
So to my mind, as we look forward and we talk about virtual
reality, augmented reality-type applications, unlicensed
spectrum is going to play a key role in delivering those
things. I was at Mobile World Congress. Certainly, the mobile
industry is doing a lot in that space as well, and there will
be, you know, licensed services to do that.
But in the home, in the classroom, we think unlicensed is
the right technology there at the rate--pardon me, spectrum
framework there for lower cost technologies that can be
deployed and that consumers can benefit from. So I think that
is really the value of unlicensed spectrum.
Mr. Engel. So the unlicensed space that is currently
available is filling up, right?
Mr. Wright. Yes, sir. Unlicensed, we have, you know,
pressing needs for Wi-Fi, the Quotient Report that I cite in
the testimony. We have LTE services that are coming into the
mid band now, and we also have IoT taking off like a rocket
ship as the Ericsson report attests to.
Mr. Engel. And, Madam Chair, if I might, I would like to
ask Mr. Bergmann a quick question. It sounds from your
testimony that you understand the value also of this unlimited
space. You talked in your testimony about the need, and I quote
you, ``for a mix of licensed and unlicensed spectrum,'' that
they are each valuable in their own way. Could you elaborate
for a few seconds on it?
Mr. Bergmann. Sure. Thank you, Congressman Engel, for the
question. And you are right, we do support a balance of
licensed and unlicensed spectrum. I think my colleague from
Ruckus has spoken about the benefits of unlicensed. Licensed
plays a critical role as well, too, particularly as we look
towards healthcare applications that are going to be available
over 5G.
Having the ability to have the security and the performance
assurances that licensed spectrum gives you is critically
important. That is why we have really encouraged this
subcommittee to build on MOBILE NOW, to make more licensed
spectrum available. Again, when we are talking about
investment, we are looking at the opportunity to have $275
billion of investment and to create over 3 million new jobs in
our communities, if we can make the right spectrum available
for 5G.
Mr. Engel. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair, for your indulgence.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Olson for 5 minutes.
Mr. Olson. I thank the Chair, and welcome to our four
witnesses. I work for the people of Texas 22, which is
southwest of downtown Houston. I would say it is about to
overtake Chicago as the third largest city in America. My home
has access to 4G, and about one-third is farming and ranching
operations.
We talked in here about self-driving cars. I have seen a
self-driving tractor in Fort Benton County. This man's
tractor--first of all, the cab was luxurious--air conditioning,
Sirius radio, nice big cup of cold iced tea. That tractor with
a GPS would--he predicted the field, put that in there. Every
seed was planted perfectly, same distance, same depth. He just
watched it happen.
Now, Texas has 254 counties. My district has 3. Those
counties, most of them don't have that access. And so my
questions are, Mr. Bergmann, a recent study by Deloitte
observed that in order for us to realize the full potential of
4G networks and 5G networks, governments at all levels have to
make ``permitting and regulatory process more efficient.''
My question is: as we work in Congress with the FCC to
develop a rational regulatory process for the development of
small cell technologies, what should be our key objectives?
Mr. Bergmann. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. I
absolutely agree with you. Certainly think citizens in rural
areas and businesses in rural areas are among the folks who can
benefit the most from the next generation of wireless.
Focusing on infrastructure setting is critical. The delays
that we see, particularly siting on Federal lands, which you
often have in the western part of the U.S., is absolutely
critical. We routinely experience delays of 2 to 4 years,
sometimes even longer, to site on Federal lands. Even things
like site renewals can take well over a year. And, again, that
delay adds uncertainty, it adds costs, so reducing those
delays, reducing those costs to site on Federal lands, is
absolutely critical.
Again, making the right spectrum available, we are about to
have 600 megahertz spectrum available through the incentive
auction. That is spectrum that travels long distances, so we
want to make sure that that spectrum is able to be put to use
as quickly as possible, so we are working very hard to make
sure that we have a seamless and timely repacking process and
get access to that spectrum are just a couple of the things
that you can do to--I am sure that that investment in that 5G
is not only in urban areas, but is also in those rural areas as
well, too.
Mr. Olson. In your comments here, sir, you have mentioned
the delays in the siting process. Do you think a shot clock or
some deemed granted remedy, would that be helpful for Federal
and local siting to improve these delays and make sure we get
these things going like that?
Mr. Bergmann. Shot clocks and deemed granted remedies are
extremely effective tools, and we would certainly commend the
committee to consider them for both Federal siting and for
municipal access as well, too.
Mr. Olson. Mr. Wright, comments about getting 4 and 5G to
rural America. How do we make this thing happen? What should we
do? What should be our key objective here, working with the
FCC?
Mr. Wright. Thank you, Congressman. In terms of making LTE
4G services available to rural America, one of the things that
we think is most important is the coordinated shared spectrum
framework, so like CBRS and the 3.5 gigahertz band. We think
that because of the flexible framework with CBRS where you have
obviously the incumbent Federal entities as well as commercial
entities, you have the opportunity at the second tier for
exclusive use of spectrum, and then you have the opportunity at
the general authorized or third tier for essentially permissive
use.
So we think that can be very critical for rural coverage,
to provide 4G LTE services, where municipalities, rural service
providers, or even new entrants to the market could access that
spectrum, perhaps initially permissively when the spectrum is
available, and at auction if necessary. We think that----
Mr. Olson. Ms. Manner, any comments, ma'am, please,
quickly?
Ms. Manner. Thank you. So I would say one of the most
important things, just building on my conversation with the
Madam Chairman, was getting access to more spectrum for
satellite services to be able to provide higher speeds and
greater capacity to rural America. So thank you.
Mr. Olson. OK. And, finally, Mr. Carlson, your comment,
sir, please.
Mr. Carlson. Yes. And I will go back to something that Mr.
Bergmann mentioned, and that is we have great spectrum that
just was unleashed from the FCC and 600 megahertz. So anything
that can be done to speed that to market, as you know, it--the
statute calls for 39 months. Anything that we can do to get
that 600 megahertz spectrum out there, given its great
propagation characteristics, should help bring broadband to
your rural areas.
Mr. Olson. Thank you. My time has expired. I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. Mr. McNerney for 5 minutes.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the chairwoman, and I thank
the witnesses. I apologize for missing your testimony, but I am
very excited about this issue. And I have got a staff member
that is even more excited than me, so we have got some good
questions prepared.
Mr. Wright, the CBRS sounds like a very interesting
technology, and I think I am just going to try and explain what
I understand of it, is that you have the technology that allows
switching in and out of different users in the same band at the
same time. Is that more or less what is happening?
Mr. Wright. Yes, Congressman. And that is exactly one of
the things that we think is really novel about these
coordinated shared spectrum approaches. They get us away from--
and, pardon me, I just want to say we do support a balanced
designation of licensed to unlicensed and coordinated shared
spectrum, but we think coordinated shared spectrum needs to be
an increasing tool that, you know, regulators go to.
And it provides that flexible use between exclusive and
permissive uses, as I mentioned to the Congressman from Texas,
so, yes, there is the flexibility there. And the opportunity
for people to actually go back and forth is also very key. You
can start out perhaps at a permissive level, and if there then
becomes some contention for the spectrum in an area, you can
then go to an auction and purchase licensed spectrum. So we
think that flexibility is very critical.
Mr. McNerney. And you promote expanding that beyond the 3.5
gigahertz into other parts of the spectrum, is that right, that
technology?
Mr. Wright. Yes, Congressman. Obviously, every band that is
looked at for possible designation, licensed, unlicensed, or
coordinated shared, each band is going to have its own unique
characteristics, and we think coordinated shared should be
looked at. Especially when you have potentially Federal
protection issues, I think CBRS has shown the ability to
protect Federal entities, and then this very flexible
partitioning between exclusive and permissive.
Mr. McNerney. Well, in your written testimony, you mention
that the framework would help with rural communities have
access to broadband. Could you expand on that a little bit?
Mr. Wright. Yes, Congressman. In our opinion, the
opportunity for rural carriers, municipalities, or new service
providers to access the CBRS spectrum, again, either at the
permissive tier and/or at the priority access or licensed tier,
would open opportunities to deploy LTE services, you know, at a
new level, at a local level.
Mr. McNerney. So it might help us expand broadband to the
rural communities. It is one of the more economic ways to do
that.
Mr. Wright. Absolutely. Because you do not have to acquire
the rights to exclusive license spectrum. It is much more
economical to deploy.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I am going to talk a little bit about
security here. Yesterday, on an op-ed in The Washington Post,
FCC Chairman Pai and Acting FCC Chairwoman Holzhausen stated
that no one had to worry about their privacy because if an
internet service provider were to sell their customer's
personal information, it would violate ISP privacy promises.
I am concerned that these promises are all we have left to
protect customer privacy. In other words, we don't have the
rule of law. We just have promises. Now that the CRA has
passed, is there any Federal law or regulation that could stop
an ISP from changing its privacy policies tomorrow? Mr.
Bergmann?
Mr. Bergmann. So, Congressman, thank you for the question.
I do want to assure you that nothing has changed with our
privacy policies. They are the same today as they were
yesterday, and the FCC still retains authority under Section
222 to set privacy rules. We are obviously working very closely
with both the FCC and the FTC and certainly welcome the input
of this committee on a path to make sure that the FTC, which is
the expert agency, is able to have a consistent and clear
framework across the entire internet ecosystem. But I do want
to make sure that you all understand that nothing has changed
with respect to our policies and that the FCC continues to have
its authority under Section 222.
Mr. McNerney. But you could change your policies,
theoretically.
Mr. Bergmann. So, again, our companies all have policies
that comply with Section 222, the FCC's authority, different
State laws, and those all govern consumer choice and
transparency and data security, to your point as well.
Mr. McNerney. OK. Mr. Wright, again, about the Internet of
Things, how much unlicensed spectrum is currently available?
Mr. Wright. Today for Internet of Things we are making
heavy use of the 2.4 and the 5 gigahertz mid bands for IoT
devices, so that is technology such as Wi-Fi, ZigBee,
Bluetooth, LoRa, Ingenue, a number of other ones. The demand
for unlicensed usage of IoT devices is expected to increase
significantly from approximately 5.6 billion connected devices
today to 18.1 billion connected devices by 2022. This is from
our friends at Ericsson, their mobility report.
So the demands for unlicensed spectrum to connect IoT is
increasing rapidly, and that is one of the things that is
creating a lot of pressure in the mid band for more unlicensed.
Mr. McNerney. And, with the chairwoman's indulgence, CBRS
will help in that area?
Mr. Wright. Yes, Congressman, it will. One of the primary
applications that we see for CBRS is also with industrial IoT,
specifically where people like to use LTE technology for IoT
applications but do it at a lower price point than with
traditional license spectrum, and we think CBRS accomplishes
that.
Mr. McNerney. OK. Thank you. I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. Mr. Kinzinger for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you all
for being here with us today. I also want to thank Congressman
Loebsack for introducing with me the Rural Spectrum
Accessibility Act. Once again, we introduced this because we
believe it is imperative to expand wireless coverage in our
rural communities, so that they are able to stay competitive in
this increasingly interconnected economy.
The more we continue to talk and take action on this issue,
I think the better off for all of our communities in the
future. Madam Chair, I also have a letter of support from the
Competitive Carriers Association, CCA, that I would like to
insert into the record.
Mrs. Blackburn. Without objection.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you.
Mr. Bergmann, first off, your organization sent out a
statement of support, and I want to thank you for that. But let
me ask you, what other actions should Congress take that the
FCC can't in order to promote the deployment of 5G services and
infrastructure?
Mr. Bergmann. So thank you, Congressman, and thank you for
the legislation as well, too. So the two most important things
that this committee can do is to focus on spectrum and
infrastructure siting. And, again, particularly with respect to
rural areas, infrastructure siting on Federal lands and
property, Federal lands encompasses 28 percent of Federal
lands, literally tens of thousands of buildings, so
particularly in rural areas being able to site more quickly,
again, will reduce costs, will make it easier for providers to
get out there, along with incentives such as the legislation
that you and Mr. Loebsack have introduced.
Certainly, your oversight of things like the development of
the mobility fund is extremely important. That provides
support, and we applaud the FCC for moving forward with a
mobility fund to help make a better use case for--business case
for delivering services in those areas.
And then, finally, again, your oversight over the
transition of that 600 megahertz spectrum is really important.
We want a smooth transition that works for all consumers, but
we really want to make sure that our companies who have just
invested almost $20 billion are able to build that spectrum out
because we think that is really going to be key to serving
rural areas and delivering 5G.
Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you. I am going to ask you this
question as well and add Ms. Manner to this. With the closing
of the incentive auction and revenues right about $20 billion,
how do you believe we should judge its outcome? We will start
with you, yes.
Mr. Bergmann. So we certainly think it was a successful
auction in terms of spectrum. In terms of revenue, it is the
second largest auction, again, whether you measure how much
spectrum is made available or how much revenue was produced. It
is also just a helpful use case for the tool of an incentive.
Does it work to give folks a financial incentive to switch
uses? We certainly believe that, you know, it has allowed
spectrum to now be used to provide mobile broadband services
that will be, again, critical for our 5G leadership. It will
help our companies invest $275 billion over the next 7 years,
so we are certainly supportive. There will be lessons learned,
I am sure, with the incentive auction, but we think it is a
valuable tool.
Mr. Kinzinger. Thanks.
Ms. Manner?
Ms. Manner. Thank you so much. We were not a party to the
incentive auction, so I don't have much of a view except to say
that, of course, we are supportive of anything that gets
spectrum out into the marketplace.
Mr. Kinzinger. OK.
Ms. Manner. Thank you.
Mr. Kinzinger. And then, again, for both if you have
comments, given Commissioner O'Rielly's comments on the
potential of another incentive auction, what are your thoughts
on holding another one? And are there specific bands that we
should be looking at in that process?
Mr. Bergmann. So I certainly think it is a very useful tool
and agree with Commissioner O'Rielly there. And this committee
has the opportunity with MOBILE NOW to show leadership as you
have in the past and to create a pipeline of auctions that can
fuel that 5G lead.
So certainly as we think about 5G, we think about the need
for low-band spectrum, mid-band spectrum, and high-band
spectrum. We would encourage this subcommittee to look at all
three of those options. We think you ought to be looking at
100-plus megahertz of licensed spectrum in those low bands,
hundreds of megahertz of licensed spectrum in the mid bands,
and then we measure differently, we measure by gigahertz in
those high bands, tens of gigahertz of spectrum for licensed
use in those high bands.
We would be delighted to work with the committee on that
legislation.
Mr. Kinzinger. OK. Do you have any opinion on it, Ms.
Manner?
Ms. Manner. I would actually raise a slightly different
point, if I can, Congressman, which is the need for technology
neutrality and the need to ensure competition among platforms.
So whether you are looking at MOBILE NOW or spectrum being made
available that is available today for the FCC to make sure that
there is sufficient resources for all the platforms to compete
to meet all of the needs.
We certainly serve a very different need than mobile
cellular industry, but to deny spectrum for that use would harm
consumers, millions of consumers, across the country. So thank
you.
Mr. Kinzinger. Yes, thank you.
Right on time, Madam Chair. I will yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. Military precision. I expect no less.
Mr. Johnson, 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to our
panelists for being here with us today. I spent nearly 30 years
in the information technology arena before I came to Congress,
and, obviously cybersecurity, encryption, those are very, very
important issues to me.
Mr. Carlson, the Commission on Enhancing National
Cybersecurity identified risks associated with wireless
communications as a priority in improving the Nation's cyber
resilience. What is your company doing to ensure our wireless
connections are secure?
Mr. Carlson. So thanks for that question, Congressman
Johnson. You know, I think the short answer is: everything we
can. And the longer answer is one that I mentioned earlier,
which is that when we roll out new networks--and these new
networks are going to be more than just connecting phones.
We are really talking about the Internet of Things--and by
``things,'' that can mean connected cars, factories,
healthcare--that when you look at the needs from those
industries, cybersecurity is so crucial that we are really, as
a company and as an industry, driving the standards bodies who
make the standards that define what 5G will look like; consider
cybersecurity up front to bake it in, so that we are not
tacking it on afterwards, that this is something that is
thought of at the very beginning when we design these networks.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, I agree with you. Security is something
that has to be thought about upfront, in the design of a
system, not an afterthought. And for generations we kind of
looked at it as an afterthought, and we are paying some of the
prices now for that oversight.
Ms. Manner, it seems that the move to 5G is a more
fundamental shift than even the evolutions from 2G to 3G to 4G,
in terms of network architecture and spectral usage. As
wireless evolves to 5G, though, how must policymakers here on
the Hill, but also at the FCC, shift our thinking on spectrum
policy?
Ms. Manner. Thank you, Congressman. It is actually
something I have been thinking a lot about, and I wish I could
tell you I have the right answer, but I can share some thoughts
if that is OK. I think, first of all, you are looking at a
number of technologies, wireless technologies, whether it is
satellite, whether it is unlicensed, whether it is solar
plains--you know, choose your favorite--that are all going to
play complementary roles.
And it is whether--you know, and being chosen, I think the
most important thing here is giving consumers choice. And if
you disallow the development of any one technology or favor one
technology to the detriment of the other, it will impact what
consumers can do and how the market functions.
So not that everyone should get equal--I am certainly not
advocating that, but there is a role, and that is why I think
you have to move away. And I couldn't come up with a new name,
so I used technology neutrality, but it is really ensuring
there is competition among platforms and taking a different
approach. And so I do think that is going to take a
revisitation to some of the regulations and, going forward, a
new mind-set.
So thank you.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Sticking with you, Ms. Manner, page 3 of
your testimony references the resiliency of satellites. You
know that because satellites are located 22,300 miles above the
Earth's equator, they are immune to natural and manmade
disasters taking place on the ground. The importance of such
resiliency is especially obvious to emergency response
communications, such as FirstNet.
How much should resiliency factor into the overall
broadband equation? And, more specifically, does resiliency
alone make satellites superior to fiber, wireline, or fixed
wireless systems?
Ms. Manner. So thank you. It is a very good question.
Resiliency--and I used to be deputy chief of public safety and
homeland security at the FCC, so I have a certain passion for
these sorts of things. I wouldn't say it makes it superior, but
it certainly makes it a critical part of the network and the
ecosystem.
So, for instance, one of the things my company is doing
right now in Arkansas, for instance, is working to deploy
redundant--basically, a back call line for satellite from the
PSAP to the data center. Today a lot of times a PSAP will have
two fiber links, but they will be using the same cable. So you
don't really have resiliency.
So I think what you will see--and this ties into your last
question when it comes to 5G--you may not necessarily have
satellite as the only link, but it is going to be a critical
part of the network for things like IoT, whether it is security
or otherwise.
I think the recent announcement--and congratulations to the
subcommittee and the committee on the announcement about
FirstNet--is that one of the big parts of the FirstNet network
was the announcement of a satellite component, and I think that
shows how important resiliency and having this added measure of
security is to the country.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Well, great.
Madam Chairman, I yield back. Or, Mr. Chairman. Sorry.
Mr. Lance [presiding]. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Johnson. Changed seats.
Mr. Lance. Thank you. It has gone downhill.
Mr. Long, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Long. I think I resemble that remark. You say you are
going downhill, and then you introduce me?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Lance. It was a different paragraph, different chapter,
different verse.
Mr. Long. I apologize because I left--I got here right at
the start of the gavel. You have got to be here at the drop of
the gavel to get in order to ask your questions. And I got in
here, and it seemed like this was all on privacy CRA, so I am
like, you know, maybe I am in the wrong room. So I ran around
the Capitol, but I think I am in the right spot.
Mr. Bergmann, you discuss in your testimony the need for a
spectrum pipeline, but, unfortunately, we seem to find
ourselves with no future auctions planned. And being an
auctioneer for over 30 years, I have a little interest in that.
How imperative is it that we schedule new auctions?
Mr. Bergmann. So thank you, Congressman. I certainly think
it is one of the top priorities in terms of facilitating our 5G
leadership. Having a 5G spectrum pipeline really should be a
top priority. We encourage this committee to look again at a
pipeline plan that has low-band spectrum, mid-band spectrum,
and high-band spectrum for 5G services.
We believe that all three of those are going to be
important, and we would certainly encourage you all to build on
the successes in MOBILE NOW by making sure that we have enough
spectrum--again, a balance of licensed and unlicensed--but
enough licensed spectrum in each of those frequencies, in each
of those different categories.
Mr. Long. If we do schedule auctions in 2017, how long will
it take to authorize and conduct an auction and put that
spectrum to use to serve your customer?
Mr. Bergmann. We are always paying it forward in the
spectrum world. We have reaped the benefits of decisions that
this committee made in the 2000s with our 4G leadership. On
average, it takes 13 years from when bands are first identified
to when they are put to use, so it really is critically
important that we start now in order to unlock that $275
billion investment, those 3 million jobs that this industry,
that the wireless industry can create, if this committee can
move forward with additional spectrum.
Mr. Long. OK. Just as you mentioned there, I understand
that we have been a leader in 4G LTE mobile broadband with--I
had $200 billion in investment since 2010, 4.6 million jobs,
and a vibrant wireless device and application ecosystem of
nearly $120 billion, with 3 or 4 companies from the U.S. In the
race towards the 5G networks, how can we ensure that we see the
same kind of benefits to the U.S. economy?
Mr. Bergmann. So you are right, Congressman. It is $200
billion from the wireless industry of investment just since
2010. That is building out those 4G LTE networks. We talked a
little bit about spectrum, and creating that spectrum pipeline
for 5G is critically important.
The second piece is modernizing our infrastructure siting
policies. MOBILE NOW does a nice job addressing siting on
Federal lands, so we would encourage the committee to look at
what you all can do in terms of shot clocks and deemed grants,
so that those burdensome local permitting processes can move
faster and we can invest and create those jobs. That is
something that doesn't have to wait. That is something that can
happen now.
Our industry is deploying small cells now. We expect to
deploy hundreds of thousands of small cells over the next 3
years, and this committee's action can help unlock that and
speed that investment and speed those jobs.
Mr. Long. OK. Thank you. And Mr. Bergmann and Mr. Carlson,
in the MOBILE NOW Act, when it comes to Federal spectrum, the
bill makes it clear that there must be a preference for
licensed and auction spectrum, and you also state as much in
your testimony. With the growing importance of unlicensed and
sharing spectrum, why is that preference still important? I
will go to Mr. Carlson.
Mr. Carlson. Thank you, Congressman Long. You know, the
miracle, for lack of a better word, that we have seen with the
explosion of 4G services in the U.S. was driven by licensed
spectrum. That said, Ericsson fully appreciates and I think
probably most of our products have built-in Wi-Fi and
unlicensed flavors of LTE, the standard that we use today.
And I want to point out that this is crucial for the U.S.'s
technological leadership worldwide. When we look around the
world as Ericsson, and we look to, you know, what is going on
in the rest of the world. The bands that specifically are teed
up in MOBILE NOW are exactly the bands that the rest of the
world is looking to do 5G, and they are going to be doing it
with primarily licensed spectrum. So when you look at 3.1 to
4.2----
Mr. Long. It will be in low bands, mid bands, and the high
bands.
Mr. Carlson. Yes. You know, the mid band that we are
talking about in MOBILE NOW is really 3.1 to 4.2. This is just
a terrific band worldwide and, you know, in our opinion, if the
U.S. wants to maintain and grow its leadership in mobile
broadband, this is the band to focus on.
Mr. Long. OK. Thank you.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Lance. Thank you very much, and the Chair recognizes
Mr. Flores.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank
the panel for this enlightening discussion. One of the things
that was just briefly touched on early in the testimony today
was the need to set standards for 5G. As I understand it, the
5G standards are not fully developed at this point.
I also understand that the Chinese are trying to pack the
standard-setting committees with their representatives, so that
they can be the lead in setting the 5G standards.
I would like to know two things from you--well, actually,
three things from each of you. Number 1 is, how should we set
those standards? Number 2 is, what is the--what are the
implications of the U.S. not having a lead role in setting the
standards? And, number 3, what should or could the Federal
Government do, if anything, to be involved?
So, Mr. Bergmann, let's start with you.
Mr. Bergmann. So thank you, Congressman. So, interestingly
enough, U.S. companies play leadership roles in 5G standard-
setting. I am not familiar with the issue that you mentioned,
but I know that U.S. companies have pressed hard to accelerate
the timeline for 5G standards. We want to be first.
And to sort of underscore your point, other countries
around the globe recognize what we had with our 4G lead. They
saw the benefits of that. We have the two leading operating
systems in the world based here in the U.S. We have over 70
percent of the apps developed in the U.S., and that is in part
because we were the 4G LTE leaders. The wireless networks here
gave us that capacity.
So there really is a global race--China, Japan, South
Korea. They are making spectrum available. They are
streamlining their siting processes right now. And so, you
know, here at home we need to make sure that we are doing the
same things, that we are making that mix of low-, mid-, and
high-band spectrum available with an emphasis recognizing the
value that licensed exclusive use spectrum plays in allowing
that investment, again, certainly needing a balance of licensed
and unlicensed, but recognizing that exclusive use is key for
that investment that will get us that 5G lead.
Mr. Flores. OK. What is the role, if any, that the Federal
Government should play, or should it stay the heck out of the
way? Other than spectrum, OK?
Mr. Bergmann. The other key piece is infrastructure siting.
Mr. Flores. OK.
Mr. Bergmann. Making sure that we can invest and build out
that spectrum is absolutely critical. We have invested, as I
mentioned just a moment ago, $200 billion over the last 7
years, and we are poised to invest 275 billion over the next 7.
We need to be able to move quickly, and so shot clocks and
deemed granted remedies are essential for that.
Mr. Flores. OK. Mr. Wright? And if you can keep your answer
short, that would be helpful.
Mr. Wright. Very good. Congressman, I just wanted to agree
with what Ms. Manner said earlier, that in our opinion 5G will
be a broad umbrella of technologies that will be needed to meet
the needs of the American public. That will include satellite
services, mobile services, unlicensed services such as Wi-Fi.
I think some of the areas where are showing leadership--
certainly, Mr. Bergman can speak to the great things the
cellular industry is doing, the advanced things, 3GPP, as an
organization, other areas certainly on the unlicensed side. And
specifically with the CBRS framework and coordinated shared
spectrum, that is a spectrum management tool that the U.S. has
really innovated about, and I think we should take that
forward.
Mr. Flores. OK. Ms. Manner, can you do it in about 45
seconds?
Ms. Manner. Yes, thank you, Congressman. I wanted to bring
up the fact that, actually, the satellite industry is actively
participating in 3GPP and setting 5G standards as well for
satellite. So we are very excited----
Mr. Flores. Do you have a robust seat at the table, in your
opinion?
Ms. Manner. I am sorry?
Mr. Flores. Do you have a robust seat at the table, in your
opinion?
Ms. Manner. You know, it is--we are getting there. How is
that?
Mr. Flores. OK.
Ms. Manner. It is really--I have to say, traditionally, the
satellite industry has not been as active as perhaps they
should be at the standard-setting bodies, and I think you are
seeing, especially now with the promise of 5G, that we are
participating more actively, so I am very excited about that.
But the other place which people don't often think about is
at the ITU, but not the radio communications sector but the
telecommunications sector. And the U.S.--and you asked where
the Federal Government--and I think is doing a very good job
led by the State Department--at leading the way towards
creating 5G as part of the ITU framework on the--besides for
just on the spectrum side, but on the telecommunications side
and on the development side. And I think the Federal Government
should continue that role.
Mr. Flores. Mr. Carlson, 26 seconds.
Mr. Carlson. You raise a good point, and that is that
companies do use the standards by these groups as ways for a
competitive advantage, and that is no surprise. Ericsson, if it
makes you feel any better, is very active in 3GPP, and we chair
a number of the committees there.
So we do take a lead in trying to make sure that the
standards that come out of 3GPP are consistent with the 5G
goals. And since we are so active in the U.S., you know, we are
very cognizant of the need to keep, you know, the U.S. in the
forefront and meeting innovation in 5G.
You also asked specifically what the Federal Government
could do in relation to standard----
Mr. Flores. I am running short on time.
Mr. Carlson. So very quickly, you know, one thing that we
could do from the Federal Government's point of view is have
more involvement in the coexistence studies that are used to
look at different bands in these standards groups.
Mr. Flores. OK. Thank you very much.
I yield back a negative 30 seconds of time.
Mr. Lance. Thank you for yielding back the negative time.
Mrs. Walters.
Mrs. Walters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
thank the committee for holding this hearing and our witnesses
for being here today. I particularly appreciate your expertise,
since I am new to the committee and I am still learning
spectrum policy.
As other members on the committee have mentioned, spectrum
plays an increasing role in our lives, particularly as
consumers use more and more data. Being new to the spectrum
issue, I am interested in hearing your thoughts on a variety of
topics.
Mr. Bergmann, this question is for you. The FCC recently
issued a public notice on potential FCC actions to help
expedite the deployment of next generation wireless
infrastructure. Does the FCC have the authority it needs to
take the steps you believe are necessary to support next-gen
networks? And what, if any, steps does Congress need to take to
address this?
Mr. Bergmann. Thank you, Congresswoman Walters.
Infrastructure is an absolutely critical piece of the 5G
equation. And you are right, the FCC has recently proposed some
steps. At their April open meeting, they will consider some
additional reforms as well, too.
We certainly applaud Chairman Pai and his colleagues at the
FCC for the steps that they are taking. We think it is
absolutely appropriate that the FCC update its framework. We
would certainly encourage this committee to update your
framework for infrastructure siting as well, too.
We think that there are things that both the FCC can do and
that Congress can do. This subcommittee has, over the last 20
years, provided guidance on the appropriate policy for wireless
infrastructure siting, trying to make sure that there are not
delays, trying to make sure that there aren't barriers to
entry.
Over a series of laws that were passed over the last 20
years, this committee has spoken to help recognize the
importance of having a wireless infrastructure out there. We
talked a little bit about the evolution of wireless away from
macro cells towards small cells that are the size of a pizza
box or a lunch box.
We really believe it is critically important that we have
updated policies that reflect the need for much denser
infrastructure, and the fact that that infrastructure will have
less of an impact on the environment around it. So we think
that there is a lot that this committee can do to speed that
small cell deployment, and that will really help us invest and
build out that spectrum that you are referring to.
Mrs. Walters. Great. Thank you. And then I have another
question for you. I know many providers have faced significant
challenges when attempting to deploy small cell technology.
This is especially true in my home State of California where
some cities have created barriers that hinder efforts to roll
out new technologies.
You mentioned in your statement that CTIA supports
streamlined policies for small cell deployment on Federal
properties and its support for shot clocks and deemed granted
remedies. Can you provide an example of some of the
bureaucratic roadblocks one of your member companies has faced
when trying to deploy new technologies like 5G?
Mr. Bergmann. So thank you. Certainly, I would say they
fall into three buckets, denying access, so that we are not
able to deploy those small cells through moratoria, which we
have seen in countless localities across the country, or
inability to get access to municipal-owned poles. Being able to
put these small cells on tops of utility poles or lightpoles
will be critically important towards the self-driving vehicles
and the kinds of new services that we see out of 5G.
So access cost, we have seen fees that have no relation to
the cost to actually manage the right-of-way. So we want to
make sure that those right-of-way fees are cost-based. And the
last is delays, and that is where shot clocks and deemed
granted remedies can be really important.
Mrs. Walters. OK. Perfect. One more question for you. In
your testimony, you commented that there are benefits to
congressionally mandated spectrum auctions for all parties
involved. The wireless industry gets access to new bands to
offer better services to consumers, while the Government
receives some proceeds to send to the treasury. In fact,
wireless carriers have spent over $100 billion on past spectrum
auctions, $36 billion of which was directed toward debt
reduction.
Can that pace continue, or have we seen the height of
spending for spectrum?
Mr. Bergmann. So thank you, Congresswoman. You are
absolutely right. Spectrum auctions have been I think a
tremendous win-win for the U.S. economy and for the treasury.
That spectrum that has been made available, that $100 billion
that was spent, helped us get the 4G lead. That is what our
companies built out, that $200 billion over the last 7 years.
So it is critically important.
At the same time, it has also allowed Congress to address
priorities through that $100 billion. If you look just at the
last 2 years, the last 2 auctions, over $60 billion, funds that
were used to pay for the buildout of FirstNet, a public safety
network, and also over $36 billion to reduce the deficit.
Mrs. Walters. OK. Thank you. And I am just about out of
time.
Thank you. I yield back my time.
Mr. Lance. Thank you very much.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Bilirakis.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it so
much, and I thank the panel for their testimony today.
I want to take some time to highlight how spectrum and
wireless technology is leading to innovation in my district in
Florida. I represent the Tampa Bay area in Florida.
The Hillsborough Area Regional Transit, also known as HART,
will soon be operating phase 1 of its autonomous public bus
system, thanks to the wireless technology we are discussing
today. HART will operate two vehicles along a one-mile
exclusive use route operating a 10 to 15 miles per hour.
I have high hopes that Hillsborough--again, a county in my
district; Tampa is the biggest city in Hillsborough County.
Again, I have high hopes that Hillsborough's first-of-its-kind
system, based on spectrum technology, spurs further autonomy
for the Tampa Bay area and also throughout Florida and the
country.
Mr. Bergmann, beyond the rapidly advancing technology of
autonomous vehicles, can you describe what other innovations to
the transportation sector are expected to arise from 5G
capabilities? Very exciting stuff.
Mr. Bergmann. Thank you, Congressman. It is exciting to see
these next-generation wireless networks built into the
transportation system. As you mentioned, public transport is an
area where there is a lot of interest in terms of trying to
make the public bus systems more efficient. The ability to
manage these systems with wireless networks are predicted to
reduce travel times by up to 40 percent, to reduce emissions by
over 40 percent, so these are the kinds of things that can save
cities money, but they can also make quality of life better,
right?
If we could all reduce our commute times, we would be a
little bit happier. If the quality of the environment is a
little bit better, we would be a little happier as well, too.
There are also opportunities for things like smart parking,
right? And we see some of that deployed today with 4G networks
where we are having the ability to, again, reduce cities' costs
by not having them go out and collect the money for meters as
often or to route drivers to parking spots more quickly. These
are small things that spread across the economy can make a big
difference.
We are seeing that with 4G. I think we are going to see
that exponentially greater with 5G. Part of the 5G standards
are not just faster, more capacity, but the ability to connect
many, many more devices, up to 100 times the number of devices.
And the kinds of sensors that we are seeing today in fleet
management, we are going to have much more capability with 5G.
So there is a lot of opportunity.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. About 24 percent of my
constituents are seniors; again, a number well above the
national average. They are increasingly involved in the
healthcare market and would greatly benefit from the telehealth
technologies.
Mr. Bergmann, in your testimony, you briefly note that 5G
networks will be more responsible than current abilities, more
responsive than current abilities. Can you discuss how latency
is improved in 5G and how it may advance the telehealth sector?
Mr. Bergmann. That kind of quality service and that
responsiveness is critical for things like remote surgery,
right? So to the extent that we are trying to put experts from
urban areas and connect them with patients in rural areas, it
is a really critical tool. For the elderly, the ability to have
remote patient monitoring, right, to have cardiac sensors or
sensors for diabetes will keep people in their homes longer.
And then maybe to tie your two questions together, any of
us with an elderly relative, like the thought I think of self-
driving cars, to give seniors the ability to have their freedom
while keeping all of us safe on the roads as well.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. Thank you very much.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate it.
Mr. Lance. Thank you very much.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Costello.
Mr. Costello. Thank you.
Mr. Bergmann, increasing machine-to-machine communications,
the rapidly growing IoT, it strikes me that battery life will
be increasingly important in order to maintain the connectivity
of these systems. Can you, or anyone else on the panel, explain
further how 5G technology addresses or impacts battery life in
IoT?
Mr. Bergmann. I may defer to my colleagues on some of the
technical aspects. But certainly as we contemplate mobile first
lives, this is an important area of innovation for us. We want
to make sure that we have wireless wherever we want it and
whenever we want it. So I know it is certainly a priority for
the manufacturing industry.
Mr. Wright. Congressman, I will mention that in the context
of 5G as an umbrella of technologies, including unlicensed
technologies, if we look at Wi-Fi specifically--the next
generation of Wi-Fi is called the 80211AX specification--it has
new capabilities specifically around power-saving on the
client. And that will be very helpful in the IoT space where we
have, you know, battery-powered devices and low power
consumption.
So, in the Wi-Fi space, we are certainly addressing it, and
I am sure my colleagues in the cellular industry can address it
as well.
Mr. Carlson. Yes. If I may, you know, one of the
considerations that we look at when we look at standards is a
recognition that we will have devices out there--and people are
building toward these standards today--that will have to last
for 10 years. So we really do see--and to your point about the
umbrella of 5G, that there will be devices that, in addition to
requiring high speeds and very low latencies, some of them are
going to have to last a long time, be out in the field, and so
we are looking, as an industry, at extremely long battery lives
and, like I said, in 10 years.
Mr. Costello. Mr. Carlson, on the MIMO antenna technology,
can you explain further how the 5G new radio works to alleviate
network congestion? And how does it address key needs of 5G?
Mr. Carlson. Well, I can try. When it comes to 5G, there
are a number of technologies. MIMO is one that allows you to
use the existing spectrum more efficiently. Other examples are
beam-forming, and that is what it sounds like. So as you walk
around, our towers follow you in a virtual sense and aim the
signal right to you as you move around. So those are some
examples of how 5G technologies really speed data to you as an
end user.
Mr. Costello. On the siting issue, it strikes me that the
next generation of siting issues is probably more like a
pipeline approval process than it is your typical cellular
tower approval process, because you need siting approval in all
the locations for any one location to actually work when we are
talking about the micro cells, if I got that term correctly.
What thought has been given to the issue of preemption for
the land use approval process or zoning process, or how is the
industry going about trying to approach the fact that land use
controls essentially vary municipality to municipality in most
states?
Mr. Carlson. It is a difficult question. I mean, it is one
that we face every day, and hope that through activities such
as this and MOBILE NOW and other things that we can do here to,
you know, help unify the process and bring some regularity to
it.
Mr. Bergmann has talked at length about some of the
problems that we see in our industry. I would also like to
point out that the FCC, for its part, is going to launch a
Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee, and we fully expect
these issues to arise there. And hopefully some of the ideas
there can percolate up to this committee.
Mr. Costello. OK.
Mr. Bergmann. Congressman, I would say look how these
absolutely play an important part in the siting process. And so
we do a lot of work working with states and localities to
educate them on the benefits of being the first to 5G. We
really want to see smart communities, and so, you know, my
colleagues in the industry have testified in over a dozen
states since January alone. We are working hard to create
incentives and interest in being the first.
At the same time, this committee has played a role
historically over the last 20 years in setting out guardrails
on the intersection of that local process and making sure that
we are prioritizing and able to be first in wireless.
And as recently as 2012, this committee spoke as part of
the 2012 Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act and
recognized that wireless technology was changing, and actually
said for collocations when we are adding a new antenna on,
localities shall approve those and set shot clocks out there
for those.
It has now been 5 years and the technology continues to
evolve as we move towards small cells. We certainly think it
would be appropriate for this committee to revisit that balance
and, again, to provide that guidance to the localities so that
we can make sure that they are able to take into account all of
the appropriate considerations while making sure that we are
able to invest and build out that next generation of wireless
infrastructure.
Mr. Costello. Good. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Lance. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes Mrs. Brooks.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Building off my colleague from Pennsylvania's question, Mr.
Bergmann, are there State and local laws on the books right now
to facilitate this infrastructure deployment that you consider
particularly forward-looking and that we might build a national
model? Are there any that come to mind? And, if so, where are
they, and what are the best features of these laws?
Mr. Carlson. Sure. Thanks, Congresswoman, and I know your
background as a former mayor; you have a particular interest in
this issue.
Mrs. Brooks. I might add, I was deputy mayor.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Brooks. Wasn't quite mayor, and I am very, very
pleased that the city of Indianapolis has been chosen to build
out 5G, but----
Mr. Bergmann. And we do--so we see some competition amongst
the cities to try to be first, and recently Ohio and Arizona
have passed laws. The kinds of things that I think are sort of
key elements are shot clocks, deemed granted meaningful
remedies, so that we don't get caught in protracted litigation,
making sure that we have access to municipal poles, utility
poles, and lightpoles, so that, again, we can make decisions,
get access, and build that infrastructure quickly.
Mrs. Brooks. And the states that are moving forward, is
this something that has happened at the State and the local
level? Or is it primarily State legislation that has enabled
it?
Mr. Bergmann. I think you see folks both at the State level
and the local level recognizing that their communities want
good wireless service, and they want fast wireless service. And
so, you know, we have certainly seen leaders, both at the State
and the local level, trying to take steps to facilitate that
investment.
Mrs. Brooks. So while we certainly have heard a lot about
the potential and the importance of 5G, how it will alleviate
traffic congestion and, as you have brought up, enable more and
more smart communities, can you talk a little bit--that sounds
very urban, and many of us I have--while I represent
Indianapolis, I also have very rural communities and counties
that I represent. Can you talk about the benefits that 5G will
offer in rural communities, and can we expect 5G to get to
rural communities?
Mr. Bergmann. Sure. So thank you. So, you know, there is a
ton of innovation and experimentation and thoughts around what
5G might mean, but let me just offer a couple of ideas. The one
is as a replacement for fiber. 5G is providing the kinds of
speeds and capacity that are fiber-like, and so it may provide
a more cost-effective way of reaching consumers in rural areas.
Another way is through technologies like remote surgery,
so, again, allowing an expert in urban area to serve a patient
in a rural area brings those resources to the rural area. They
also may then cut down on the cost to transport that patient or
the time needed, right? When it is time-sensitive, you don't
want to have to transport a patient from a rural area to an
urban area, if you can bring someone in through remote surgery.
And another example that I think is particularly notable is
the idea of virtual reality in education. So the ability to
take students in a rural area, have them put on VR-wear and
immediately be transported into the Roman Coliseum is a
powerful way to teach those students and make sure that
students in all areas of the country have opportunities.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you. Those are terrific.
And, Mr. Carlson, and if you would both like to comment.
Mr. Carlson. Sure. And just briefly, I will add that,
specifically to your question about how do we guarantee that
your constituents in rural Indiana reap the benefits of 5G and
new services, you know, the need for, as we have talked about,
spectrum in the low band specifically for you, that is crucial.
And so, you know, the more low-band spectrum that is made
available--and the FCC just had an auction at 600 megahertz--
the characteristics of that spectrum are just perfect for
serving--for rural areas because of how far it can travel.
Mrs. Brooks. OK. Thank you.
Go ahead.
Ms. Manner. Thank you, Congressman. So satellite is going
to play an important part of the 5G infrastructure, and
especially in rural and remote areas where the cost is
prohibitive for terrestrial buildout. And so we can talk about
our services, but I wanted to focus for a second on next
generation non-geostationary orbit satellites that are going
up.
There is a number of applications pending at the FCC, and
we are an investor in one company called OneWeb, and that is a
low latency, high broadband speed service that is going to be
available globally and be able to deliver, even in the most
remote places as we do, very low latency services that are high
speed without the need for the cost of the terrestrial
infrastructure buildout.
So I do think that is one thing that is really important
because that is part of the reason terrestrial hasn't built out
to the rural areas today.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you for that explanation. Thank you all
for your testimony.
I yield back.
Mr. Lance. Thank you, Mrs. Brooks.
The Chair thanks all members of the committee, including
Ranking Member Doyle, for participation today.
Seeing there are no further members wishing to ask
questions for the panel, I thank all of our witnesses for being
here today.
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 upon receipt of the questions.
Seeing no further business before the subcommittee today,
without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:33 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]