[Senate Hearing 116-351]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 116-351
WINNING THE RACE TO 5G AND THE NEXT
ERA OF TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION
IN THE UNITED STATES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 6, 2019
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
42-443 PDF WASHINGTON : 2023
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi, Chairman
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota MARIA CANTWELL, Washington,
ROY BLUNT, Missouri Ranking
TED CRUZ, Texas AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JERRY MORAN, Kansas BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
CORY GARDNER, Colorado TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee GARY PETERS, Michigan
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
MIKE LEE, Utah TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin JON TESTER, Montana
TODD YOUNG, Indiana KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona
RICK SCOTT, Florida JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
John Keast, Staff Director
Crystal Tully, Deputy Staff Director
Steven Wall, General Counsel
Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
Chris Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
Renae Black, Senior Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 6, 2019................................. 1
Statement of Senator Wicker...................................... 1
National Cancer Institute information........................ 67
Statement of Senator Cantwell.................................... 3
Statement of Senator Fischer..................................... 41
Statement of Senator Schatz...................................... 43
Statement of Senator Blackburn................................... 45
Statement of Senator Udall....................................... 47
Statement of Senator Moran....................................... 49
Statement of Senator Markey...................................... 51
Letter dated October 11, 2018 to President Donald J. Trump
from Edward J. Markey, United States Senator; Sherrod
Brown, United States Senator and Catherine Cortez Masto,
United States Senator...................................... 53
Statement of Senator Sullivan.................................... 56
Statement of Senator Sinema...................................... 57
Statement of Senator Lee......................................... 59
Statement of Senator Thune....................................... 61
Statement of Senator Blumenthal.................................. 63
Statement of Senator Tester...................................... 64
Witnesses
Brad Gillen, Executive Vice President, CTIA...................... 5
Prepared statement of Meredith Attwell Baker................. 6
Steven K. Berry, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Competitive Carriers Association............................... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Shailen P. Bhatt, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Intelligent Transportation Society of America.................. 15
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Michael Wessel, Commissioner, U.S.-China Economic and Security
Review Commission.............................................. 25
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Kim Zentz, Chief Executive Officer, Urbanova..................... 33
Prepared statement........................................... 34
Appendix
Letter dated February 20,2019 to Hon. Roger Wicker and Hon. Maria
Cantwell from Morgan Reed, President, ACT | The App Association 79
Response to written questions submitted to Brad Gillen by:
Hon. Roger Wicker............................................ 81
Hon. Jerry Moran............................................. 82
Hon. Dan Sullivan............................................ 82
Hon. Shelley Moore Capito.................................... 83
Hon. Amy Klobuchar........................................... 85
Hon. Jon Tester.............................................. 86
Response to written questions submitted to Steve Berry by:
Hon. Roger Wicker............................................ 87
Hon. Jerry Moran............................................. 88
Hon. Dan Sullivan............................................ 88
Hon. Shelley Moore Capito.................................... 89
Hon. Amy Klobuchar........................................... 91
Hon. Jon Tester.............................................. 91
Response to written questions submitted to Shailen P. Bhatt by:
Hon. John Thune.............................................. 91
Hon. Jerry Moran............................................. 92
Hon. Shelley Moore Capito.................................... 92
Response to written questions submitted to Michael Wessel by:
Hon. Jerry Moran............................................. 94
Hon. Edward Markey........................................... 94
Hon. Jon Tester.............................................. 95
Response to written questions submitted to Kim Zentz by:
Hon. Shelley Moore Capito.................................... 96
WINNING THE RACE TO 5G AND THE NEXT
ERA OF TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION
IN THE UNITED STATES
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2019
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m. in
room SD-G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Roger Wicker,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Wicker [presiding], Thune, Moran, Lee,
Fischer, Gardner, Sullivan, Young, Blackburn, Scott, Cantwell,
Tester, Udall, Blumenthal, Schatz, Baldwin, Markey, Peters,
Sinema, and Rosen.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI
The Chairman. We have three minutes of Executive Session
work to do, but we don't have a quorum just yet, so the Ranking
Member and I have decided to proceed with opening statements.
And unless someone else walks in, in the next--let's just
start off, then we'll vote on the business we have to tend to.
We are delighted to welcome everyone to the first Senate
Commerce Committee hearing of the 116th Congress. I'm glad to
convene this hearing with my colleague Ranking Member Cantwell.
I look forward to working with her and all members of this
Committee to advance a legislative agenda that creates jobs,
promotes innovation, protects consumers, and strengthens our
Nation's technological leadership throughout the world.
We start today with a discussion on 5G, the fifth
generation of wireless communications technology. 5G is one of
the most important technological developments facing the United
States in the 21st century. The anticipated impact it will have
on the future of our Nation's economy, and its global
competitiveness is significant.
Current estimates project that 5G will create more than 3
million new jobs, generate $275 billion in investment, and add
$500 billion to the U.S. economy. In addition, 5G promises to
usher in a new era of connectivity that has the potential to
propel our Nation into the fourth industrial revolution we are
told. By bridging the connection between the physical and
digital worlds, 5G will ultimately transform how we use
technology and spur the development of applications and
services beyond anything we can fully conceptualize today.
So what does this mean for Americans? In relation to
existing wireless, 5G will provide significantly faster
connections. This means that health care providers, such as the
University of Mississippi Medical Center, can extend the reach
of life-saving telemedicine and support more cutting edge
medical services. As a result, people around the country will
enjoy increased access to a better quality of care at reduced
costs.
For the agricultural industry, 5G will enable the use of
more precision agriculture technologies. This will allow our
Nation's farmers and growers to be more competitive, maximize
resources, and boost crop yields for a growing global
population.
For the transportation sector, 5G will enable greater
mobility, access, and, most importantly, safety on our Nation's
roads.
The consumer benefits of 5G are limitless. In fact, the
excitement surrounding this new technology stems from its
potential to generate economic and social benefits across every
industry and every sector. The ability to support other
groundbreaking technologies, such as artificial intelligence
and virtual reality, makes 5G even more valuable and
revolutionary.
In order to fully realize all of these benefits, the United
States must win the global race to 5G. China and others have
seen the benefits America gained from leading the world in 4G,
so they are challenging the U.S. for dominance in 5G. By some
important measures, they have significant advantages. Failing
to win the race to 5G would not only materially delay benefits
for the American people, it would forever reduce the economic
and societal gains that come from leading the world in
technology. Achieving U.S. leadership in 5G will require
dedicated and coordinated efforts by all levels of government
and industry.
We have an excellent and knowledgeable panel of witnesses
today, and they are: Mr. Brad Gillen, of Washington, D.C.,
Executive Vice President of CTIA; Mr. Steve Berry, of
Washington, D.C., President and CEO of the Competitive Carriers
Association; Mr. Shailen Bhatt, of Washington, D.C., President
and CEO of Intelligent Transportation Society of America; Mr.
Michael Wessel, of Washington, D.C., Commissioner, U.S.-China
Economic & Security Review Commission; and Ms. Kim Zentz, of
Spokane, Washington, CEO of Urbanova.
There is a quorum, and I'm about to finish my statement, so
we'll see what the Ranking Member would like to do at that
point.
During today's hearing, I hope our witnesses will address
many of the critical issues that this Committee will need to
consider. What are the opportunities and impediments to the
prompt allocation of spectrum, mid-band in particular, that are
critical to 5G deployment? Which of our infrastructure laws and
regulations need to be modified to achieve fast deployment of
5G? How do we ensure that while we do all of this, we guarantee
that our networks are secure? What best practices and resources
do our Nation's law enforcement and security agencies need to
protect that security?
So I look forward to a thoughtful discussion on how to move
the United States ahead in 5G to ensure that all Americans,
including those in rural areas, can experience its benefits now
and for generations to come.
Madam Ranking Member, would you like to make your opening
statement now?
Senator Cantwell. Mr. Chairman, I will delay my statement
and move that Agenda Item Number 1, the Budget Resolution for
the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
be reported favorably.
[Recess to proceed to the Executive Session.]
The Chairman. The distinguished Ranking Member of the
Committee is now recognized for whatever opening statement she
would like to make for whatever time she would like to consume.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for holding this important hearing today on 5G. I welcome all
the witnesses who are here today, especially our witness from
Spokane, who is going to talk about smart city innovation.
But we are here to talk generally about how the United
States maintains its competitive advantage in 5G and how we use
this new technology to help us in growing our digital economy.
Already in the State of Washington, a lot of 5G investments are
being made to continue the growth of what our country knows is
a trillion dollar opportunity and a continuation of the
innovation economy. So I'm all in for 5G.
We know that, along with various applications that you
already mentioned, Mr. Chairman, on artificial intelligence and
quantum computing, that we will really reshape our economy for
the future, that the innovation that 5G will help us unleash
will help us in many, many important aspects of our national
agenda, national defense, and important partnerships for the
future.
But the push for 5G, we need to make sure we're not blind
to some of the very important policy issues. Put simply, 5G
networks must be secure, and that starts with having a
cybersecurity strategy that focuses on shoring up our defense
against hackers and state-sponsored actors of cyberterrorism.
Protecting national security means making sure that
America's economy is strong and that we remain a global leader.
Cybersecurity is one thing I wish I would have heard more from
the President on last night. We know that with artificial
intelligence and quantum computing, that applications made
possible 5G, can transform innovation, change our modern
warfare, creating military advantages through integrated
military operations, but we need to make sure that this network
is safe. So the more that we rely on these networks to drive
productivity and efficiencies and sustainability, whether it is
our businesses or our military applications, we need to make
sure that the promise of a 5G network does reach that level of
security.
So a few things I think we need to think about. First, we
must be certain that there is a secure supply chain backing up
our 5G system. We cannot tolerate a leaky valve or a back door
into these networks. Second, the administration should provide
us with a real quantifiable 5G threat assessment so that we can
work fully to make sure that our network is secure. And, three,
we need to have a serious conversation about what level, if
any, of foreign components we are going to allow into the 5G
network.
I know that there are state-sponsored actors who have
hacked our networks, and I want all of us to work more closely
together to call out on an international basis those wrong
actors and work together to try to prevent them in a broader
coalition. We need to make sure that we are all hands-on-deck.
I want the FCC to use its existing authority to make sure these
networks are safe and secure and to know that Congress is
watching.
So I know if we roll up our sleeves, get serious about the
cyber issues, and continue to make the right investments, that
the innovation economy and the race to win in 5G, the United
States will do very, very well.
More importantly, we need to continue to talk about the
great applications that 5G will empower. That is why I'm so
happy today that we have a witness from the smart cities and
innovation area to talk about exactly what this can do for our
local governments. Local governments are always cash strapped,
so to know that they can make smart technology infrastructure
upgrades that can help save money in the future is something I
think is very important.
I especially want to welcome Kim Zentz, the CEO of
Urbanova, who is on the panel today and to talk about how that
cutting-edge collaboration between Washington State University,
the city of Spokane, and a group of innovators are already
exploring ways to leverage technology and data analytics to
move our cities toward a more sustainable future. This is
something that I know many of my colleagues on this Committee
have already sponsored legislation related to this.
Mr. Chairman, I know that we'll have a chance at a future
hearing to talk about again how we access rural broadband and
do a better job, but as we're talking about 5G, I think that we
need to put as much enthusiasm into the discussion of what will
5G investments do for us in the area of rural and underserved
areas like Tribal communities into broadband.
And, last, Mr. Chairman, I should just mention, since you
mentioned the value of the mid-band and how important that was,
that as we talk about how we move forward on capitalization of
this effort, that valuable mid-band spectrum licensed to
satellite providers years ago is a very valuable commodity, and
I think we need to make sure that the U.S. taxpayer is involved
in getting the best out of that as possible.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from
our witnesses and look forward to what our colleagues have to
say about this issue during the Q&A.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
Now I'll call our witnesses forward at this point to take
their places at the table. I think it's clear from the Ranking
Member's opening statement that there is much bipartisan
consensus around this issue, and I particularly appreciate her
bringing the witness from Spokane to talk about the problems
facing local governments.
We have our witnesses at the table now. We'll just begin on
my left and proceed to the right and recognize every witness,
each witness, for 5 minutes, for no more than 5 minutes, for an
opening statement.
Mr. Gillen, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF BRAD GILLEN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, CTIA
Mr. Gillen. Thank you, Chairman Wicker. Thank you, Member
Cantwell, and members of this Committee.
I am not Meredith Baker. With Meredith's apologies and on
behalf of the wireless industry, I thank this Committee for
their continued leadership and focus on 5G. Since your hearing
in July, our industry and our Nation have made giant strides in
ensuring U.S. leadership in state-of-the-art and secure 5G.
Most notably, we have seen the initial launch of 5G. Consumers
in 10 states, including Mississippi, Mr. Chairman, the
consumers in 10 states are the first to experience 5G, which
will ultimately be 100 times faster and 5 times more responsive
than your service today.
Accenture has projected 3 million new jobs and $500 billion
to the economy thanks to 5G. Those numbers somewhat undersell
5G's promise. Pick a challenge in your state you want to solve,
from health care to transportation to my complete lack of a
voice, 5G has the potential to help solve it and to foster new
smarter communities throughout your states. 4G made our lives
easier. 5G offers the promise to make our lives safer and
better.
We have never been more excited about what's next as we
start to see companies invest in their own 5G vision. Ford has
announced that all new Ford cars starting by 2022 will have 5G
built in. Disney and the New York Times have launched their own
new 5G ventures. Rush Hospital in Illinois is poised to be the
first 5G-connected hospital. But it isn't just big names. Like
4G before it, many 5G innovations will come from startups. Ten
years ago, no one imagined Uber or countless other companies
that are dependent upon and relied upon the 4G platform.
Our job is to build the wireless networks that support the
envisions of 5G entrepreneurs both big and small, and we will.
The wireless industry invested in this Nation over $25 billion
just last year, and our networks will be safer thanks to 5G
standards with security baked in.
While more and more Americans will experience 5G this year
and next, we are just scratching the surface. How far we go,
and how quickly we get there are closely tied and dependent
upon our Nation's spectrum policy. Spectrum is the invisible
building block for everything that we do.
There are three types of spectrum, three legs to our 5G
stool. Low-band spectrum, it goes miles, it's what your
wireless service relies on today and what you're most familiar
with. High-band spectrum, it packs a punch. It will be really
important for bandwidth-intensive applications, but only
travels a block or two. The FCC, to their credit, just
successfully concluded the first of three planned high-band
options. That leaves mid-band. We are very encouraged to hear
both the Chairman and the Ranking Member allude to mid-band and
its importance. Meredith likes to call it the ``Goldilocks of
spectrum'' that mixes both capacity and coverage just right.
Our key global rivals will have four times the amount of
mid-band spectrum as we will next year, four times. The good
news is that the FCC and the administration identified the
right target bands to help us catch up. We'll need to act now
to free up hundreds of megahertz of spectrum, and if we do,
research this week revealed it will generate over $250 billion
to our economy. The good news is we can do that thanks to this
Committee's AIRWAVES Act. Senator Gardner, Hassan, and other
bipartisan cosponsors, we thank you for your leadership, and we
urge the swift reintroduction of AIRWAVES to provide a
multiyear auction schedule.
As this Committee has rightfully made clear, for us to win
the 5G race, 5G also cannot be a New York- and L.A.-only
solution. One of the best parts of AIRWAVES is that 10 percent
of the proceeds of future spectrum auctions will go to build
networks in unserved areas. This rural dividend will help
shrink the digital divide, ensuring more communities benefit
more quickly from advanced wireless. The Committee can ensure
our Nation's 5G and spectrum leadership with passage of
AIRWAVES this year. I'd remiss if I did not also applaud the
Committee's other spectrum-related work, including SPECTRUM NOW
and the Government Spectrum Valuation Act. These provisions
would drive government users to be more efficient stewards of
their own spectrum.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Baker follows:]
Prepared Statement of Meredith Attwell Baker, President and CEO, CTIA
Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and members of the
Committee, on behalf of CTIA and the U.S. wireless industry, thank you
for the opportunity to testify today.
CTIA applauds this Committee's bipartisan focus on advancing U.S.
spectrum policy, and securing U.S. global leadership in the mobile
marketplace. From the perspective of the wireless industry, it is
fitting that your first hearing in the 116th Congress is discussing 5G
and what it means for our country, our economy, and American consumers.
The good news is thanks to significant policymaker and industry
collaboration in the past year the United States is well-positioned for
success. To deliver on the full promises of 5G, we need to redouble our
national efforts to promote 5G-friendly policies. The main building
block required is spectrum and we need more of it--specifically mid-
band spectrum--to maintain our global leadership role in wireless.
5G is Being Deployed Right Now
Thanks in large part to the leadership of this Committee and
ongoing efforts at the FCC, the first American 5G deployments are
happening today. American network and technology companies are
investing aggressively to ensure that equipment, handsets, and devices
are ready for American innovators and consumers to leverage the power
of the new 5G platform.
Since I last testified before this Committee in July, CTIA's
members have taken significant steps forward. All national carriers
have announced 5G deployment plans. The rollout of the next generation
of wireless is occurring right now in 10 states in places like Harrison
County, Mississippi, Atlanta, Raleigh, Indianapolis, and Sacramento. 5G
will be coming this year to Nashville, Oklahoma City, Phoenix, Kansas
City, Houston, and D.C., among dozens of other cities.
Additionally, 5G devices and equipment are being introduced
alongside the 5G network, including mobile device chipsets for mobile
devices and connected cars, advanced laptops, and VR and AR equipment.
Qualcomm announced that over 30 new 5G devices will be introduced in
2019, while Intel has plans to make a 5G wireless modem chip available
in the second half of this year. These advanced chip-sets are key to 5G
speeds and connectivity. Sprint, AT&T, and Verizon announced their
upcoming Samsung 5G phone, which will offer dual-connectivity for both
4G and 5G networks, and T-Mobile confirmed it rolled out 5G network
equipment in 30 cities, including New York, Los Angeles, Las Vegas and
Dallas.
U.S. wireless providers will invest some $275 billion in 5G-related
networks--creating three million new jobs and adding $500 billion to
our economy, according to Accenture. As you can imagine, the U.S. is
not the only country to recognize the transformational impact of 5G.
There is international consensus: the nations that lead on 5G will
capture millions of new jobs and billions in economic growth.
5G Will Usher in a More Secure Era of Technological Innovation
5G is the next generation of wireless, and these new networks will
offer speeds up to 100 times faster, enable 100 times the number of
devices, and be five times more responsive than today's 4G networks. 5G
will be more than just fast, it will also be the most secure generation
of wireless service.
Today's 4G LTE networks have the most advanced security features to
date, and 5G will further improve upon them. As 5G networks start to be
deployed, wireless providers are leveraging new and advanced measures--
after years of research, investment, and contributions to standards
bodies--to secure the networks. The Federal Communications Commission's
(FCC) September 2018 Communications Security, Reliability and
Interoperability Council (CSRIC) report highlights the security
advances and innovations offered by 5G. The wireless industry is
committed to working with Congress and the Department of Homeland
Security to ensure a secure platform for tomorrow's innovation.
The Positive Impact of 5G on Other Industries
Coupling 5G capabilities and security, I'm excited by the
possibilities offered by 5G to drive transformational improvements in
health care, agriculture, education, transportation, and nearly every
industry in America.
From making healthcare more accessible and making us more energy
efficient to expanding the ways we educate our children, 5G will
revolutionize how we live our lives. The promise to add connectivity to
smart communities will be powered by 5G.
As we start to see new 5G networks and devices launch, there is a
growing list of companies and industries investing in their 5G future.
Let me share with you some recent examples where we are already seeing
5G solutions be put into practice:
Rush University Medical Center in Chicago is creating the first 5G-
enabled hospital in the U.S., where 5G will support telemedicine, smart
scheduling, and enhanced patient care through artificial intelligence
and augmented reality training sessions for doctors. Dr. Shafiq Rab of
Rush Hospital has said, ``We strongly believe 5G is a game-changing
technology that when fully implemented will help us . . . provide the
highest quality patient and staff experience.'' Jeremy Marut, the
hospital's chief enterprise architect explained, ``5G will give us the
speed, the low latency as well as the ability to connect many more
devices.''
Samsung announced their 5G ``Innovation Zone'' in Austin, Texas, a
testbed to provide a real-world understanding of how 5G can impact
manufacturing and help create Smart Factories. Some of the new
technologies they are exploring include 4K video as a sensor to improve
plant security and detection response, industry IoT sensors to monitor
for environmental and equipment conditions, AR and VR for employee
training, and enhanced location services for plant safety.
Verizon launched the Verizon 5G EdTech Challenge, a nationwide
challenge calling for enterprise organizations, start-ups, research
groups, and universities to create education solutions that leverage 5G
connectivity to solve for challenges in under-resourced middle schools
throughout the U.S. Dr. Ken Perlin is developing ChalkTalk, a 5G
augmented reality learning tool that renders multimedia objects in 3D.
5G is fundamentally changing our entertainment experiences. For
instance, AT&T Stadium, home of the Dallas Cowboys, will offer fans
mobile 5G services with faster speeds and potential services like AR
and VR to enhance the fan experience, while Walt Disney Studios is
exploring the possibilities of 5G connectivity for media and
entertainment at Disney's StudioLab. ``We see 5G changing everything
about how media is produced and consumed,'' says Walt Disney Studios
chief technology officer Jamie Voris.
As we get closer to fully autonomous vehicles, 5G will be a key
ingredient. Ford announced its plans to connect every new vehicle sold
in the U.S. to 5G which will allow vehicles to send and receive
information about their surroundings. This real-time interactivity will
ease congestion and boost the safety of drivers on the road.
The City of Peachtree Corners, Georgia is also taking advantage of
5G by building a 1.5 mile intelligent vehicle test track within a 500-
acre technology park where new intelligent mobility technologies can be
tested. ``Creating an environment for developing smart mobility
technology will be a tremendous asset for our city . . . Our young city
is living up to its `innovative and remarkable' tagline as future
intelligent mobility technologies are developed here in Peachtree
Corners,'' says Mayor Mike Mason.
More broadly, 5G promises to unlock the promise of smart cities.
Accenture has projected benefits of $160 billion. Specifically,
Accenture's Managing Director Tejas Rao concluded that ``5G-powered
smart city solutions applied to the management of vehicle traffic and
electrical grids alone could produce an estimate of $160 billion in
benefits and savings for local communities and their residents. These
5G attributes will enable cities to reduce commute times, improve
public safety, and generate significant smart-grid efficiencies.''
The exciting news is that we are beginning to see cities adopt
these solutions. Recently, Las Vegas officials started an innovative
partnership to test a smart lighting solution aimed at improving public
safety and enhancing energy efficiency. By outfitting existing
streetlights with routers and connecting them to existing wireless
networks, the city can monitor energy usage and outages in real time.
This saves money and gets the lights repaired more quickly after an
outage, helping with public safety. The platform can also be used to
monitor air quality and temperature.
These are all just a sample of the initial investments in 5G from
the past few weeks and we are just scratching the surface as to how 5G
will make our lives better and safer.
5G Spectrum Policy Is Key to U.S. Leadership
Although I am pleased to report on these positive 5G developments
across the U.S., we cannot take our foot off the accelerator. To fully
realize the technological breakthroughs we are talking about, we need
more spectrum, and we need it as soon as possible.
CTIA commends this Committee, the FCC, and the Administration for
the ongoing work in identifying and repurposing spectrum for 5G. With
your support, the wireless industry has invested hundreds of billions
of dollars in private capital in acquiring and building out spectrum.
But the need for additional spectrum remains pressing. A
predictable pipeline of spectrum will do much to advance U.S. 5G
interests, and help us match the efforts foreign governments are taking
to allocate spectrum for 5G services. This Committee, the FCC, and the
Administration have identified all the right bands. Now we need to
finish the job fast.
The future of 5G is going to require a mix of spectrum, including
low-, mid-, and high-band spectrum. Low-band offers robust spectrum
waves that travel long distances, high-band spectrum has big capacity
but travels short distances, while mid-band is a nice complement of
both capacity and coverage. To offer 5G across all areas of our
country, we need a healthy mix of all three.
CTIA commends Chairman Pai and the FCC Commissioners for their
commitment to promoting American leadership in 5G and the significant
steps taken to address our Nation's lack of access to high-band
spectrum. The FCC recently completed its first successful auction of
high-band spectrum, the 28 GHz band, and Chairman Pai has announced the
auction of four additional high-bands of spectrum by the end of this
year. Additionally, Congress and the FCC are to be applauded for
pushing low-band spectrum into the marketplace through the broadcast
incentive auction, and last year, Congress directed the FCC to identify
30 MHz of low-band spectrum for wireless services by 2022.
Mid-band Spectrum is Key. Where the U.S. needs to make quick
progress in the near term is on mid-band spectrum. Policymakers and
industry worldwide have coalesced around the importance of mid-band
spectrum, which basically refers to fact that this spectrum is located
in the middle of the frequency bands currently in use for mobile
services, roughly 3 to 24 GHz.
Mid-band spectrum will be a workhorse band for 5G--it represents
the ``sweet spot'' of spectrum innovation. That's because it leverages
both capacity and coverage opportunities--meaning it can handle the
increased traffic that 5G will bring, and this spectrum travels
distances, which is helpful in more rural settings. Mid-band spectrum
has great potential to facilitate the deployment of 5G services because
it will accommodate the wide bandwidths necessary to facilitate the
faster connections and low latency that 5G technology promises.
For this reason, freeing up mid-band spectrum will create a
positive impact on the economy. Analysis Group recently estimated the
economic impact of U.S. policymakers freeing up mid-band spectrum. Its
key finding: 400 MHz of mid-band spectrum will drive $274 billion in
GDP and 1.33 million new jobs. This report underscores what we already
know: that Congressional directives to auction spectrum have
significant positive economic and societal benefits.
Because this mid-band spectrum is critical to 5G and economic
development, other nations are moving quickly to allocate its use to
wireless services. A study last year found the U.S. 6th among countries
in mid-band spectrum allocations. Japan, South Korea, Spain, and the
United Kingdom have all auctioned or assigned mid-band spectrum since
April 2018. Several other countries, including Australia, Germany, and
Japan, have confirmed that mid-band spectrum will be assigned by June
2019. Recently, China announced that its three existing state-owned
operators will receive a total of 460 MHz of mid-band spectrum for 5G.
The U.S. is making progress on mid-band, and Chairman Pai deserves
credit for working hard to catch up with foreign governments. The FCC
recently finalized rules for the 3.5 GHz band for mobile broadband,
which will result in 70 MHz of licensed spectrum to be auctioned soon.
We also welcome the FCC's proceeding to evaluate repurposing up to 500
MHz of mid-band spectrum between 3.7 and 4.2 GHz, known as the ``C-
Band.'' And last year, under the leadership of NTIA Administrator Redl,
the Commerce Department initiated a review of the 3.45 GHz band, which
is another critical piece of mid-band spectrum that could open new
possibilities for 5G services in the U.S.
There is real bipartisan support behind swift U.S. action on mid-
band spectrum. Commissioner O'Rielly noted it became apparent that
``the world was eyeing mid-band spectrum as a component for 5G
deployment. Thus, it became vital for the United States to have
available a serious mid-band play to complement our spectrum work in
the low and high bands.'' Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel also said it
well in her statement supporting the FCC's inquiry into opening more
mid-band spectrum: ``[W]e need to get started. Right here, right now.''
This forward momentum is critically important, but we need to
continue to press for additional action. The reality is wireless
carriers in many countries have access to mid-band spectrum, and U.S.
operators do not today. In December 2018, Analysys Mason released a
report focused on mid-band spectrum plans in key foreign countries for
5G. It found that by the end of 2020, an average of nearly 300 MHz of
mid-band spectrum will be available per country. The FCC's 3.5 GHz item
will open up 70 MHz of licensed mid-band spectrum, but to lead the
world in 5G, the U.S. focus needs to be on securing hundreds of
megahertz of mid-band spectrum. We have the right policy proposals, now
we need to focus on following through and getting assets in the hands
of our innovators swiftly with a clear schedule of auctions. The best
available option is the 3.7 GHz band of spectrum under current FCC
review.
Key Congressional Role in 5G Spectrum Policy
Congress has the ability to shape U.S. spectrum policy and take the
steps we need to deliver on the full promise of 5G. This Committee
should also be fully apprised on key efforts internationally and in the
Administration to advance U.S. spectrum interests.
AIRWAVES. Last year CTIA strongly supported the Advancing
Innovation and Reinvigorating Widespread Access to Viable
Electromagnetic Spectrum (``AIRWAVES'') Act, which establishes a much-
needed pipeline of future spectrum auctions critical to U.S. global
leadership in 5G. During the 115th Congress, the bill--authored by
Senators Gardner and Hassan--enjoyed broad bipartisan backing in both
the Senate and the House and attracted widespread praise from a diverse
array of organizations, including the Consumer Technology Association,
Connected Nation, the African American Mayors Association, and Public
Knowledge.
Critically, the AIRWAVES Act set a timeline for auctioning a series
of key low-, mid-, and high-band frequencies over the next five years.
By recognizing that we need different types of spectrum to unlock the
full complement of 5G services, the AIRWAVES Act identifies our core
challenge: the lack of access to sufficient mid-band spectrum. AIRWAVES
remedies the mid-band deficit by providing access to the same spectrum
bands that are being made available throughout Asia and Europe. By
matching up our mid-band spectrum with global bands, we unlock
economies of scale and reduce the costs--and time--to deploy.
Congressional deadlines, like those in AIRWAVES, have always been
an essential tool to enable U.S. spectrum leadership by ensuring timely
access to new spectrum. This five-year auction schedule will allow
wireless providers to plan and build their 5G networks to maximize
efficiency and robustness.
CTIA is hopeful that an updated version of the AIRWAVES Act will
find its way into law in the 116th Congress. Passing the AIRWAVES Act
is the most important step this Committee can take to ensure that our
Nation has the spectrum resources it needs to move full speed ahead
with our 5G deployments and ensure American leadership. We stand ready
to assist in any way we can towards that goal.
Other Key Legislation. Last Congress we strongly supported the
Supplementing the Pipeline for Efficient Control of The Resources for
Users Making New Opportunities for Wireless (``SPECTRUM NOW'') Act,
introduced by Sens. Wicker, Schatz, Udall, and Moran. This bipartisan
legislation helps government agencies more efficiently and effectively
manage spectrum resources. SPECTRUM NOW allows use of the approximately
$8 billion in existing Spectrum Relocation Fund monies to support
research into the feasibility of Federal spectrum users either
relocating or sharing spectrum with non-federal users. We are hopeful
this legislation will be reintroduced and move forward in this new
Congress.
National Spectrum Strategy. Last October, the Administration issued
a Presidential Memorandum and is currently developing a comprehensive
National Spectrum Strategy. CTIA strongly supports this effort and
appreciates the recognition that spectrum impacts our ``economic,
national security, science, safety, and other Federal mission goals now
and in the future'' and that the ``[n]ation requires a balanced,
forward-looking, flexible, and sustainable approach to spectrum
management.''
This Presidential Memorandum indicates the urgency--shared by the
U.S. wireless industry--that spectrum should be quickly identified and
made available to ensure our 5G leadership. Many nations are vying to
lead on 5G, and the U.S. cannot wait. These are all important steps,
and we urge the FCC and the Administration to commit to a clear auction
schedule as soon as practicable. Congressional support and
encouragement for a proactive, 5G-centric spectrum strategy would be
beneficial, and would be strongly bolstered by passage of an updated
AIRWAVES Act.
World Radio Conference. Maintaining U.S. leadership in wireless
will also require that its actions on the international stage support
5G leadership here at home. As the U.S. government prepares for the
upcoming 2019 World Radio Conference, the overarching goal should be to
ensure that our efforts are directed at promoting 5G deployment across
the U.S. Specifically, Congress should encourage the Administration to
ensure that its positions reinforce our 5G leadership and do not
undermine access to critical spectrum bands that have already been
identified for 5G use in the U.S.
Deploying the Wireless Infrastructure to Leverage 5G Spectrum
5G services will require much denser networks to utilize new
spectrum assets. To handle growing mobile data demands and unlock new
5G applications, wireless providers will need to install hundreds of
thousands of small cells--small antennae the size of backpacks--in the
next few years. Estimates have projected we will need over 800,000
small cells by 2026. To put that into perspective, our industry has
over 150,000 cell towers in operation today, built over 35 years. Those
installations are ongoing right now bolstered by reforms by 21 states
and the FCC to modernize siting rules to reflect the needs of
tomorrow's wireless networks as opposed to 200-foot cell towers. The
FCC and the states have provided updated guidance to cities' approval
processes for small cell applications. We thank Communications and
Technology Subcommittee Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Schatz for
their joint effort last Congress to develop the STREAMLINE Small Cell
Deployment Act which included many process reforms similar to those
adopted by the FCC in its recent decisions. We also appreciate efforts
by Chairman Wicker and Senator Cortez Masto for their leadership on the
SPEED ACT, and Senator Moran for his work on the RAPID Act.
Delivering Mobile Broadband to More Americans
I'm proud of our industry's commitment to building mobile service
across America, driven by over $226 billion investment in our networks
since 2010 alone. Just since December 2016, we were able to cover more
than 318,000 additional rural consumers with LTE services.
Nevertheless, there are communities across the country that still do
not have access to the benefits of wireless, and we need Congress's and
the FCC's help to ensure these unserved areas get connected.
One of the most promising proposals for reaching more Americans is
the ``rural dividend'' provision included in the AIRWAVES Act. That
provision sets aside 10 percent of the proceeds from new spectrum
auctions for deployment of wireless networks in rural America. If this
provision had been in place during the AWS-3 and broadcast incentive
auctions, the rural dividend would have made available an additional $6
billion to build out wireless in rural America and unserved
communities. CTIA urges this provision to be included in a new AIRWAVES
Act.
This Committee has also placed renewed focus on the role the FCC
and Administration can play in expanding access to broadband services.
The FCC's Mobility Fund will provide nearly $500 million in annual
support, which can also provide much-needed universal service funding
dedicated to wireless coverage across the country. Additionally,
ensuring that broadband mapping is accurate will help better inform
broadband infrastructure planning.
The wireless industry also wants to see the promise of 5G realized
in underserved communities, including communities of color. The
Brookings Institution recently released a report authored by Dr. Nicol
Tuner Lee that examined the connection between 5G, the Internet of
Things, and communities of color.
With 54.9 percent of households now being wireless-only homes, in
her paper Dr. Turner Lee notes that ``for communities of color. . .5G
represents increased economic opportunity through improved access to
social services, such as health care, education, transportation,
energy, and employment.'' Dr. Turner Lee advocates that a robust supply
of low-, mid-and high-band spectrum is required to broaden capacity and
coverage in all communities to ``promote both ubiquity and some level
of digital equity for marginalized populations and their communities.''
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. CTIA looks forward
to working with you to promote 5G deployment and urges swift
reintroduction and adoption of the AIRWAVES Act.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Berry, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN K. BERRY, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, COMPETITIVE CARRIERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Berry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Wicker,
Ranking Member Cantwell, and members of the Committee. Thank
you for the opportunity to testify about how to preserve and
expand broadband opportunities in rural America as the next
generation of wireless technology evolves.
CCA is the Nation's leading association of competitive
wireless carriers composed of nearly 100 carrier members
ranging from small rural providers serving fewer than 5,000
customers to regional and nationwide providers serving millions
of customers, and also the vendors and the suppliers.
We're on the verge of a new era, and it's hard not to get
excited about the potential of 5G wireless networks. Just as
applications that are literally household names today seemed
unimaginable in the days of 3G. 5G networks will spur
innovation and will come in a variety of flavors, including
mobile, fixed, fiber, and converged technologies and solutions.
5G precursors, such as narrow-band Internet of Things, will
provide new business opportunities while expanding
connectivity, and rural America stands to benefit the most from
enhanced connectivity.
But the very existence of 5G is not inevitable,
particularly in rural America. While the 5G buzz always grabs
the headlines, rural areas are at a crossroads. Decisions made
by policymakers today can either launch innovation, economic
growth, education, and public safety benefits across all of
America, or they will broaden the digital divide. I am pleased
that this Committee is already at work to ensure that all
Americans have access to the latest broadband technologies.
The race to 5G will not be won if rural America is left
behind. I prefer to look at the 5G race as a cross-country team
event. The first to cross the finish line may get more points,
but the race is not over until the entire team finishes, and
rural America is a key member of that team, and we must ensure
the connectivity gap is bridged. 5G network deployments will
build upon today's 5G and 4G coverage areas.
We cannot close the digital divide if we do not know where
and the size of the country's existing coverage gap. As a
nation, we need to know where broadband coverage exists and
where it does not. I thank this Committee for its steadfast
leadership to fix the coverage maps. CCA and our members are
committed to work with Congress, the FCC, and other
stakeholders to accurately identify coverage in rural America.
Armed with better data, there are three policy priorities
to expand connectivity. First, Congress must reinvigorate
Universal Service Fund policies to ensure that the 5G services
become widely available. The Mobility Fund is critically
important to preserve and expand 4G services, but if Congress
believes that all Americans living in rural, Tribal, low-income
communities deserve the same digital opportunities as their
peers, the fund must be sustainable. USF contribution policies
must be updated for a 5G world.
Spectrum. 5G wireless demands spectrum access. All carriers
must have this opportunity to access low-, medium-, and high-
band spectrum to serve their customers and support innovation
and applications. I commend the Committee for its dedicated
efforts to allocate spectrum for wireless use. Also, let us not
forget that we need to keep the 600 megahertz incentive auction
repack process on schedule and continue to provide mid-band
spectrum opportunities for carriers, including 3.5, the C-band,
the L-band, and ensure that millimeter-wave spectrum is also
accessible to all, including the small carriers serving rural
areas.
Third. Infrastructure deployment policy must support 5G
services. Streamlined physical infrastructure deployment is a
vital part to close the digital divide and to complete the
generational upgrade of 5G wireless, and for many rural
carriers, permitting and siting approval for macro cells on
Federal lands is a particular important issue.
Finally, the telecommunications industry is on the
precipice of a significant new investment to power 5G services.
It's critical that government and industry define a clear
pathway for enhanced security and a process to provide
resources to secure networks and sustain national security
priorities.
Yes, 5G holds great promise for everyone. However,
policymakers must ensure that rural areas are not left
sidelined from a connected future. Let's make sure that rural
America remains in the race as part of the 5G Team USA.
Thank you for the attention, and thank you for this
hearing, and I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Berry follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steven K. Berry, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Competitive Carriers Association
Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify about how to
preserve and expand broadband opportunities in rural America as the
industry evolves to the next generation of wireless technology.
I am testifying on behalf of Competitive Carriers Association
(``CCA''), the Nation's leading association for competitive wireless
providers. CCA is composed of nearly 100 carrier members ranging from
small, rural providers serving fewer than 5,000 customers to regional
and nationwide providers serving millions of customers, as well as
vendors and suppliers that provide products and services throughout the
mobile communications ecosystem.
The communications industry is on the verge of new era of
technology, and it is hard not to get excited about the potential
benefits and capabilities of 5G wireless networks and the services they
will power. Just as applications that are household names today seemed
unimaginable in the days of 3G, the potential of 5G networks will
welcome a new chapter for innovation and expand connectivity. 5G
networks will be deployed in a variety of ways. Fixed 5G services will
introduce new fixed competition without disturbing streets and land. 5G
precursors, such as Narrowband Internet-of-Things (``NB IoT''), will
provide new business opportunities while expanding low-power
connectivity for sensors, tracking, and other uses, that can later be
upgraded to more advanced services. Mobile 5G services will power the
latest telehealth, precision agriculture, distance learning, autonomous
vehicles, augmented and virtual reality, and public safety services.
The possibility of a connected world is groundbreaking and exciting.
But the unfortunate reality is that the very existence of 5G is not
inevitable, particularly in rural America. While the 5G buzz grabs the
headlines, rural and hard-to-serve areas are at a crossroads. Decisions
made by policymakers today can either launch new innovation, economic
growth, and education and public safety benefits across all of America,
or they will broaden the digital divide, leaving rural America behind.
I am pleased that, at the start of this Congress, the Committee is
already at work to ensure that all Americans have access to the latest
broadband technologies. The race to 5G will not be won if rural America
is left behind.
Reliable Coverage Maps are Necessary for Policies to Spur 5G Deployment
Tomorrow's 5G network deployments will build upon today's 4G
coverage. Unfortunately, too many areas throughout the country lack 4G
coverage, or indeed any network coverage at all. We cannot close the
digital divide if we do not know the size of our country's existing
coverage gap. More reliable data is necessary to determine where
broadband coverage exists, and I thank this Committee for its steadfast
leadership pushing to fix the coverage maps.
Based on your own experiences, members of this Committee know that
coverage has been overstated--in some cases, substantially overstated.
Coverage areas in the Federal Communication Commission (``FCC'')'s
recent mobile coverage map are unreliable. Based on this mapping data,
the FCC is set to distribute $4.53 billion in support to preserve and
expand mobile broadband over the next ten years. To ensure funding goes
to areas in need, CCA members have spent millions of dollars, untold
hours of staff time, and significant additional resources to challenge
overstated coverage in advance of the Commission's funding decisions.
Fortunately, shortly after the challenge window closed last Fall, the
FCC announced that, based on a preliminary review of more than 20
million speed tests, it too, noted increased concerns that current data
is fatally flawed. The FCC accordingly launched an investigation into
the proceeding, and CCA stands ready to work alongside the Commission
and this Committee to ensure that future information collections
provide an accurate and reliable foundation upon which to base critical
funding decisions.
Connectivity for millions of Americans living in rural areas
depends on using reliable, real-world coverage data to determine policy
positions. Congress must remain engaged as the investigation into
flawed data continues, and work beyond current FCC efforts to produce a
map that more closely reflects your constituents' experiences. CCA and
our members are committed to continuing to work with Congress, the FCC,
and other stakeholders to ensure that the parameters for identifying
actual coverage in rural America will properly drive advanced network
deployments instead of cementing the coverage status quo.
Universal Service Policies Must Support a 5G Future
Congress created the Universal Service Fund (``USF'') to ensure
that all consumers, including those in rural areas, would have access
to reasonably comparable telecommunications and information services as
those provided in urban areas. I strongly urge Congress to reinvigorate
this policy as 5G services become widely available. As discussed above,
the FCC has allocated $4.53 billion to support the deployment of 4G LTE
network service over the next 10 years through Mobility Fund Phase II
(``MF II''). As we've seen, a ``generation'' often finds its peak in
its tenth year. While MF II is critically important to preserve and
expand 4G services, absent additional support, rural America risks
falling further behind in the digital divide as carriers serving rural
areas constantly work to catch up to comparable urban services.
The USF program devised in the 1996 Telecom Act, groundbreaking as
it was, was predicated on a 2G telecom industry--not 4G and certainly
not 5G. Policymakers must recognize that the contribution base for all
USF programs is insufficient and unsustainable. If Congress continues
to believe that Americans living in rural, Tribal, and low-income
communities deserve the same digital opportunities as their peers, USF
contribution policies must be updated to account for a 5G world.
5G Wireless Demands Spectrum Access
Spectrum is the lifeblood of the wireless industry, and is a finite
resource only available from the government. All carriers must have
access to spectrum at low-, mid-, and high-bands to serve their
customers and provide the capacity necessary to support innovative
applications. All spectrum is a public resource, owned by American
citizens. Spectrum licenses can be obtained only through auction from
the FCC or from private market transactions approved by the FCC and
other government actions. I commend the Committee for its ongoing work
to reallocate spectrum for wireless use, and ask for continued focus on
this critical issue, especially if the United States is to catch up to
spectrum allocations available for wireless use in other countries that
strive to assume global leadership for 5G networks. Ensuring that every
carrier must have an opportunity to bid, buy, and access critical
spectrum resources is key to competition and expanded broadband
service, especially in rural America.
Low-Band Spectrum
Low band spectrum, or spectrum below 1 GHz, has propagation
characteristics that carry signals across long distances and through
impediments such as walls or trees. This spectrum is particularly
important for coverage in rural areas with lower population densities
and vast areas to connect. It provides the base layer of coverage for
today's networks, and 5G services deployed on low-band spectrum will
have similar coverage advantages with upgrades to both latency and
speeds.
The Committee deserves credit for enacting the first-ever incentive
auction in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012.
Provisions in the Act established a process by which television
broadcasters could voluntarily elect from a range of options to
relinquish, move, or share their spectrum assignment in exchange for a
portion of the auction proceeds, using a market-based mechanism to
reallocate the spectrum needed to keep up with insatiable demands for
wireless access. Revolutionary in its inception, the incentive auction
was a resounding success, netting billions of dollars for broadcasters
and the Treasury for deficit reduction.
While the auction was a success, work is continuing to deploy this
spectrum to serve consumers. We are 21 months into the ``repack''
process, in which remaining broadcasters are moved in the band to clear
the way for the carriers that bid over $19 billion to gain access to
the frequencies to serve consumers. Nearly a year ago, Congress
allocated an additional $1 billion on top of the original allocation of
$1.75 billion to cover relocation costs for broadcasters and to keep
the repack time-frame on schedule, and to fund consumer education as
the process moves forward. Congress should closely monitor the repack
process and ensure that spectrum is expeditiously cleared for winning
bidders to put to use as soon as possible and no later than the July
2020 deadline.
Mid-Band Spectrum
Mid-band spectrum balances distance travelled with speed
capabilities, making it particularly well suited for providing the
latest generation wireless services in rural America. CCA members
appreciate the compromise adopted by the FCC last year in the 3.5 GHz
band and eagerly await its auction. Looking ahead, the C-Band spectrum,
particularly the 3.7-4.2 GHz portion of the C-Band, shares favorable
characteristics of mid-band spectrum, while presenting the opportunity
for the larger blocks of spectrum that enhance network capabilities.
Additionally, incumbent satellite users have identified capacity that
can be reallocated for wireless use. It is critically important that
policymakers adopt policies that both reallocate as much of this
spectrum as possible to support 5G networks and ensure that competitive
carriers and those serving rural America have a meaningful opportunity
to gain access to this spectrum. Although it is encouraging to see some
momentum in the C-Band proceeding, another mid-band proceeding seems to
have stalled within the Department of Commerce. Policymakers should
complete work on the L-Band to provide competitive carriers with
another source of prime mid-band frequencies to help deploy advanced,
next-generation networks.
High-Band Spectrum
High-band spectrum makes up for lower distance propagation by
enabling ultra-fast speeds. I am pleased that the FCC is moving forward
with several millimeter wave spectrum auctions, including the recently
concluded auction for the remainder of the 28 GHz band, and the 24 GHz
band auction set to begin on March 14, 2019. These bands present
opportunities for significantly larger swaths of spectrum, a force
multiplier for the wireless services that will ride on them. The FCC
must ensure that all carriers can access these important spectrum bands
for 5G services, particularly after the largest two carriers were
permitted a significant head start in these bands through private
market transactions. As additional high-band spectrum allocations are
considered for wireless use, policymakers should preserve the
opportunity for licensed use and provide certainty on service rules,
such as power levels, needed to spur research and development to use
this spectrum to serve consumers.
Infrastructure Deployment Policies Must Support 5G Services
The right policies to deploy, maintain, and upgrade physical
infrastructure are a vital part of both closing the digital divide and
completing the generational upgrade to 5G wireless technologies.
Unnecessary costs and delays for deploying new infrastructure are
exponentially more problematic for deployments in rural America. While
CCA commends steps taken so far, work remains to ensure that carriers
have certainty as they navigate the approval process. For rural
carriers, additional certainty regarding permitting on Federal lands is
particularly important.
New macro-towers are necessary to expand existing coverage and
provide 5G services. 5G also will require significant network
densification by deploying scores of small cells. Small cells are not
only for big cities, as I have seen firsthand how carriers serving
rural areas are using small cells to better serve their customers. For
5G deployments in particular, it is important to note that
infrastructure deployment is not limited to cell towers and small
cells. 5G networks will exist on a high-fiber diet, with estimates as
high as 8 miles of fiber per square mile to provide 5G service in urban
areas. Forward-thinking infrastructure deployment policies will ensure
that backhaul does not become a choke point in the latest wireless
networks. It is increasingly clear that 5G will be a mix of several
converged technologies and different methods of communication.
5G Networks Must be Secure
CCA and its members fully support efforts to protect and harden
networks from cybersecurity and other national security threats. As
carriers continue to deploy next-generation wireless services,
policymakers should continue to provide guidance to all carriers
regarding risks and potential threats. It also is imperative to ensure
that all carriers have access to equipment that is secure, particularly
for smaller and rural carriers that lack economies of scale.
With the telecommunications industry on the precipice of
significant new investments in equipment and software to power 5G
services, it is critically important that Federal authorities charged
with national security decisions provide clear, unambiguous directions
regarding the national security needs for all communications networks.
With this direction, government and industry can define a clear pathway
for enhanced security and a process to provide adequate resources to
secure networks and sustain national security priorities.
5G services promise an immediate and expansive impact on the lives
of Americans living in rural areas; however, absent smart and swift
action from policymakers to close the digital divide, those in rural
areas will be sidelined from a connected future. With today's latest
networks, telehealth services are providing monitoring and treatment
options that are increasing healthcare offerings, lowering costs, and
saving lives. Precision agriculture technologies are increasing yields
and using fewer resources, while transforming farmers into agricultural
engineers. Distance learning over broadband is allowing any student to
travel the world in their studies, expanding their educational
opportunities far beyond the traditional classroom. The potential of 5G
networks can supercharge these technologies and unlock unprecedented
economic, educational, health, and safety opportunities in rural
America, if policies are in place to make sure networks are being
deployed by carriers serving rural, regional, and nationwide customer
bases.
Congress should prioritize preserving and expanding wireless
broadband services in rural America, through reliable coverage data,
sufficient USF, expanded spectrum access for all carriers, streamlined
infrastructure deployment policies, and secure 5G networks. Thank you
for your attention to these issues and for holding today's important
hearing. I welcome any questions you may have.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Berry.
Mr. Bhatt, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF SHAILEN P. BHATT,
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SOCIETY OF AMERICA
Mr. Bhatt. Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell,
members of the Committee, good morning. My name is Shailen
Bhatt, and I'm honored to be here representing the Intelligent
Transportation Society of America. ITS America's members are
public agencies, private sector companies, and research
institutions united in our vision of a better future
transformed by intelligent mobility, one that is safer,
greener, and smarter. This hearing comes at a critical time
because 5G connectivity has the potential to deliver a
transportation system that is safer, offers more choices, and
provides more accessibility.
You know, in the mid-90s, I used to sell computers, and we
had 2-gigabyte hard drives, and I would tell everybody that
this will hold all the information you ever need. I was wrong.
Today, autonomous vehicles give off 4,000 gigabytes of data
every 90 minutes. The world is awash in a sea of big data. 5G
has the speed and the bandwidth to take all the data from all
of those cars and all the transportation users, process it,
change it into actionable information, and communicate it back
at a speed that will enable us to reduce crashes, improve the
choices we make, and operate our systems more effectively.
That's why we believe 5G connectivity will be transformational
for transportation.
Let me start with safety, which has been our number one
priority. First and foremost, it is critically important that
we preserve the spectrum that has been dedicated for
transportation safety critical communications in the 5.9
gigahertz band for Vehicle-to-Everything technologies, or V2X.
This allows us to communicate with all users of the system. And
to be clear, I'm referring to all V2X technologies, DSRC as
well C-V2X.
In 2018, there were 2 million crashes on U.S. roadways that
resulted in either an injury or a death. About 30 percent of
those are due to impaired driving, and according to NHTSA, V2X
communications can address about 80 percent of nonimpaired
crashes. So that means more than 1.2 million crashes could have
been eliminated or mitigated last year alone. So those numbers
are one thing, but this is about real lives.
There's a family of five from Michigan that was killed in
Kentucky by a wrong-way driver, a crash that killed five young
children on their way home from Disneyland in Florida--Disney
World, excuse me--and last year a twin brother and sister in
Indiana killed by a pickup truck that ran through a stop bar on
a school bus. These are all crashes that are completely
preventable today with V2X technology, and it only gets easier
with 5G and other next-generation wireless technologies. These
technologies will also allow these vehicles to act as real-time
sensors, which means we will know instantly about the state of
our system. It will allow us to protect the most vulnerable
users of the system: pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists.
This is the number one area in which we are seeing an increase
in fatalities across the system. With high-speed communication
among devices and vehicles, we can create a much safer
environment in which everyone can see all users. For all of
these reasons, 5G and other next-generation wireless
technologies will be transformational and critical for the U.S.
It's also going to change the way we experience
transportation. As we move from the 20th century model of
moving cars to the 21st century model of seamlessly moving
people, data, and freight, the same data that helps us operate
our system more safely will also help us operate it more
efficiently. This new connectivity and the level of data we can
exchange at a high rate of speed is an underpinning of our
Mobility on Demand efforts. It means we can give people real-
time information that will allow them to make more intelligent
transportation choices.
Now, while many people think of Mobility on Demand as
strictly an urban phenomenon, a telecom network, much like a
road network, allows you to connect communities. As you build
out the system providing more telecommunication capabilities,
this will only enhance and strengthen remote communities. This
merging of road and telecom infrastructure to provide broadband
and technology solutions to rural communities is something I've
worked on in Delaware and Colorado and Kentucky, and something
I believe is important moving forward.
There's a whole new horizon of how to use data AI and
analytics to operate our system. I'd like to share just one
quick example. In the Denver area when you drive, you will get
information on mobility choices, but as you drive into the
mountains, you will get real live information on the weather.
On I-70, this is critical because the weather can change
drastically from one mountain pass to the other. We can get
people real information about, Is there snow? Have people
deployed an airbag?
5G connectivity is incredibly exciting. While there are
many examples around the country of public and private sector
organizations working on this, we must recognize we are in a
global race, and I'm glad that the Committee has seen that. I
spoke last year at the Beijing Auto Forum, and the folks in
China were very clear on their intent to dominate the
automotive and information technology sectors in the coming
years. ITS America is looking at ways to keep pace with the
evolving nature of competitive threats, cybersecurity risks,
and the threats to U.S. infrastructure.
I'm very appreciative of this hearing so that the United
States can maintain our leadership role and provide safer and
more inclusive communities.
Thank you very much, and I'm happy to answer your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bhatt follows:]
Prepared Statement of Shailen P. Bhatt, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Intelligent Transportation Society of America
Testimony
Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide the Intelligent
Transportation Society of America's (ITS America) perspective on
``Winning the Race to 5G and the Next Era of Technology Innovation in
the United States.''
My name is Shailen P. Bhatt, and I am the President and CEO of ITS
America. Before joining ITS America last January, I served as Executive
Director for the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). In that
role, I oversaw the launch of the RoadX program, which is focused on
deploying innovative technology solutions--including connected
vehicles--and teaming with the private sector to shape the future of
transportation. While at CDOT, I also served as the national Chair of
the Vehicle-to-Infrastructure Deployment Coalition and the Chair of the
National Operations Center of Excellence. Before CDOT, I served as
Cabinet Secretary with the Delaware Department of Transportation and
Deputy Executive Director of the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. I
also had the pleasure of serving as Associate Administrator at the
Federal Highway Administration under U.S. Department of Transportation
Secretary Ray H. LaHood.
It is an honor to testify on behalf of ITS America and our members
who have been researching, developing, testing or deploying intelligent
transportation technologies. Founded as an official advisory board on
road technology to the U.S. Department of Transportation, ITS America
represents state and city departments of transportation, metropolitan
planning organizations, automotive manufacturers, technology companies,
engineering firms, automotive suppliers, insurance companies, and
research and academic universities. Our Board Chair is Malcolm
Dougherty, Senior Vice President and Practice Lead, Transportation,
Michael Baker International, and former Director of the California
Department of Transportation, and our Vice-Chair is Jennifer Cohan,
Secretary, Delaware Department of Transportation.\1\ Our members come
to one table--ITS America--to shape the next generation of
transportation and infrastructure driven by intelligent transportation
technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The ITS America Board is represented by the following
companies: AAA, AECOM, Arizona Department of Transportation, California
Department of Transportation, California PATH UC Berkeley, Conduent,
Central Ohio Transit Authority, Crown Castle, Cubic, Delaware
Department of Transportation, District of Columbia Department of
Transportation, Econolite, Ford Motor Company, General Motors,
Gridsmart, HELP, Inc., HNTB, Iteris, Kapsch TraffiCom North America,
MCity, Michael Baker International, San Francisco Bay Area Metropolitan
Transportation Commission, National Renewable Energy Lab, New York City
Department of Transportation, Panasonic North America, Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation, Qualcomm, Southwest Research Institute,
State Farm Insurance, Toyota, Texas Transportation Institute, Utah
Department of Transportation, Washington State Department of
Transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITS America is united around a shared vision of a better future
transformed by intelligent mobility that is safer, greener, and
smarter. Our mission is to advance the research and deployment of
intelligent transportation technologies to save lives, improve
mobility, promote sustainability, and increase efficiency and
productivity.
For nearly 30 years, ITS America has been educating policy and
decision makers at every level of government and in the private sector
on policy that supports intelligent transportation technologies. Our
focus is policy that accelerates seamless mobility technology,
connected and automated vehicle technology, and smart infrastructure;
policy that breathes new life into our transportation infrastructure by
expanding investments in technologies that support smart communities;
and policy that encourages new models and modes of transportation
including micro-transit, rideshare, carshare, bikeshare, and unmanned
systems. That said, our first and foremost priority has been, and
continues to be, safety.
I want to take a moment and commend the Committee for its
leadership, which made deployment of intelligent transportation
technologies an eligible activity in the Fixing America's Surface
Transportation Act (FAST Act). With FAST Act funding, commitments from
state and local governments, innovative partnerships with the private
sector and research institutions, we see firsthand how the deployment
of technology is saving lives; reducing crashes; extending the life of
transportation infrastructure; improving capacity; reducing the rate
and growth in congestion; moving more people in fewer vehicles;
improving travel times and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
A Better Future Transformed by Intelligent Mobility: Introduction
In the mid-90s, I used to sell computers with a 2 GB hard drive. I
told people that a hard drive could handle all the data they would ever
need. I was wrong. It is estimated that an autonomous vehicle will
generate four terabytes (TB) of data in about an hour and a half of
driving.\2\ The world is awash in a sea of big data. Fifth-generation
wireless technologies (5G) have the speed and bandwidth to take all the
data from cars and all transportation users, process it, transform into
actionable information, and communicate it back at levels of speed that
will enable us to reduce crashes, improve the choices we make, and
operate our systems more effectively. That is why we believe 5G
connectivity will be transformational.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Winter, K (2017). For Selfdriving Cars There's Big Meaning
Behind One Big Number: 4 Terabytes. Intel Newsroom.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just as transportation was critical to the development of our
economy in the 20th century, 5G will transform the way we experience
transportation today. 5G and other next generation technologies will
enable transformative transportation benefits in a wide range of areas.
With data speeds of 100Mbit/s or more, ultra-low latency of a few
milliseconds or less, extremely high reliability, and massive capacity,
5G, and other next generation technologies can spur the development of
mobility innovations that will revolutionize the way people, goods,
services, and information move in the 21st century. It could allow
greater freedom of movement for those who have limited mobility access,
such as people with disabilities and older adults, and can positively
affect both the safety and operations of our transportation system.
Moreover, most importantly, 5G and other next generation technologies
can finally help us begin to reduce the epidemic of fatalities on our
roadways.
A Better Future Transformed by Intelligent Transportation Technologies:
Safety
Safety is the top priority of the Nation's transportation system,
and 5G and other next generation technologies can help us transform the
current tragic state of affairs. According to the U.S. Department of
Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA), 37,133 people lost their lives in motor vehicle crashes in
2017, which roughly breaks down to just over100 fatalities per day.
Every year there are more than six million crashes, two million of
which result in either an injury or, in the worst case, a fatality.
Assuming around 30 percent of those are impaired crashes, that leaves
1.4 million crashes, of which Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) and Vehicle-to-
Infrastructure (V2I) communications can address--more than a million
fatality or injury crashes eliminated or mitigated every year. V2V and
V2I communications are allowing us to finally address the scourge of
lives lost and ruined on our Nation's roads.V2V deployments available
today include systems that provide emergency braking. Another benefit
of connected vehicles is their ability to be the ``eyes and ears'' of
other vehicles. Non-Line-of-Sight awareness means that drivers and
vehicles will be able to see around corners and receive information
about hazards in the roadway, even if they cannot see the hazard.
In addition to V2V communications, there are other examples of
connectivity that benefit the transportation system. Vehicle to
Infrastructure (V2I) communications helps move traffic more efficiently
with demand responsive traffic signaling and allow emergency response
vehicles to preempt signals. The concept of V2I is to provide the
vehicle and the driver information about infrastructure operations--
weather and pavement condition, how signals are directing traffic, and
even the location of potential hazards at intersections and other
critical road safety hotspots. V2I applications include red light
violation warnings, reduced speed zone warnings, curve speed warnings,
and spot weather impact warnings. V2I soon may also support other
applications that will disseminate the condition of the infrastructure,
such as bridge integrity, and may even collect data from cars that
describe pavement condition. According to NHTSA, V2I technology helps
drivers safely negotiate intersections and could help prevent 41 to 55
percent of intersection crashes. Another connected vehicle safety
application that helps drivers with left turns at intersections could
help prevent 36 to 62 percent of left-turn crashes, according to NHTSA.
In addition to the lives saved, just these two applications alone could
prevent up to 592,000 crashes and 270,000 injuries each year.
Public sector agencies can also reap the benefits of V2I
deployments. Increasingly, vehicles will rely on digital formatting of
roadway information to process roadway rules. ITS America member
Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada recently became
the first in the world to put roadway information into a digital
format. As connected and automated vehicles drive over the actual
roadway, they can pick up differences between the ``digital'' road and
the actual road. This could eliminate the need for agencies to manually
examine roadways for striping or automatically report potholes instead
of waiting for enough drivers to incur tire damage before fixing them.
These vehicles will also give an up-to-the-minute snapshot of the
system--how it is performing, are there any incidents, live weather
conditions, etc.
Millions of dollars have already been invested in this effort,
including incorporating connected vehicle technologies into
infrastructure by states and cities. Eighty-four communities in the
United States are deploying or planning to deploy connected vehicle
technology. Of that number, 54 sites are operational, and 30 are in
development. Nearly every state has at least one connected vehicle
deployment. V2I deployments include expansions of the Safety Pilot
Model Deployment in Ann Arbor (MI), large pilot deployments in New York
City, Tampa (FL), and Wyoming, and the Smart City Challenge in Columbus
(OH).
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
5G and other next generation technologies will enable us to deploy
safety solutions to protect vulnerable users of the system, which will
be transformational. Vehicle to Pedestrians (V2P) is an extremely
important component of communications. In Colorado, where the largest
increase was in vulnerable users of the system, fatalities increased
from 484 in 2014 to nearly 700 in 2017. By allowing vehicles to
communicate with these users through sensors or vehicle to device
communication, we can significantly reduce the number of pedestrians
killed on our roadways.
Finally, Vehicle to Network (V2N) will be critical to operating the
system more efficiently. Weather data or traffic conditions can be
broadcast to the network allowing for better planning and dynamic
routing.
These technologies can also enhance automated driving systems,
which hold the promise to provide numerous economic, environmental, and
societal benefits, such as decreased congestion and fuel consumption,
and increased access for older adults and people with disabilities.
Older Americans and people with disabilities are demographics that are
impossible to ignore. According to the U.S. census, residents age 65
and over grew from 35.0 million in 2000 to 49.2 million in 2016,
accounting for 12.4 percent and 15.2 percent of the total population,
respectively; and nearly one in five people have a disability. They
also represent a significant demand for transportation services, and
with explosive growth in travel, should fully automated vehicles
succeed in expanding mobility access. V2V, V2I, V2P, and V2N--
collectively referred to as Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X)--have
incredible potential to dramatically improve the safety, accessibility,
and operational performance of our road infrastructure and vehicle
safety.
5G and other next generation technologies will help unlock the full
potential of self-driving technology by serving as an additional source
of data about infrastructure, traffic, construction, and emergency
vehicles that will solve for some of the more challenging road
interactions. 5G enables location data platforms (``maps'') to support
the wide availability of fully autonomous vehicles by providing large
capacity and ultralow latency data transmissions. Today, auto OEM's are
already using existing LTE networks to share sensor data on roadway
conditions across auto brands through the use of neutral location
platforms--human driver in Car A learns, for example, of icy road
conditions ahead through sensor data collected by windshield wipers,
temperature gauges and stability controls in Car B. In a future 5G
environment, these types of data transmissions--and many, many others--
will be massively crowdsourced and available in milliseconds, which--in
an environment where cars are driven by machines--will lead to safer
vehicles and a more efficient transportation systems.
A Better Future Transformed by Intelligent Transportation Technologies:
Saving the Spectrum for Transportation Critical Safety Communications
ITS America strongly supports preserving the entire 5.9 GHz band
for V2X. We also support Congressional oversight of the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) to ensure all phases of testing for the
5.9 GHz band are completed before the FCC rules on whether the spectrum
can be shared between V2X operations and unlicensed devices like Wi-Fi.
Continued Congressional oversight is beneficial to ensure that the FCC
and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration
continue to recognize the safety benefits of the 5.9 GHz band.
Any unlicensed use in the band should be done without harmful
interference to the incumbent technology or other intelligent
transportation systems technologies. With all the advancements and
technology deployments, we are finally on the cusp of turning the
corner to reduce deaths, but we need the spectrum to do that. These
safety innovations require dedicated spectrum to ensure they work every
time without signal interference.
The new world of connected vehicles is creating a massive amount of
data that must be exchanged at low latencies. As more and more vehicles
on the roadway begin broadcasting data with other vehicles, bicyclists,
pedestrians, and smart infrastructure, 5G and other next generation
technologies will be critical to ensure that the network can handle the
data loads.
A Better Future Transformed by Intelligent Transportation Technologies:
Mobility on Demand
5G connectivity will be critical as we move from the 20th century
model of moving cars to the 21st century model of moving people, data
and freight. The same data that helps us operate the system in a safer
manner also helps us operate it more effectively.
New forms of mobility are being deployed even as others are being
developed. A century ago with the invention of the car, Departments of
Roads were created to deal with this new form of transportation. Those
agencies became Departments of Transportation, having grown to include
other modes of transportation. Now those same agencies need to evolve
again to provide seamless mobility. Long-existing silos among cities,
states, counties, and transit agencies are disappearing. The next
generation of mobility is a collaboration of the public and private
sectors. More choices exist now, but for travelers to fully realize the
benefits of this new world of mobility, it must be easier to choose
which option best meets their needs.
The way we travel in cities, suburbs, and rural areas are changing
rapidly due to wireless communications and other technology
innovations. New mobility concepts and solutions, from bike-and car-
sharing systems to demand-responsive bus services, are providing
travelers with flexible and convenient transportation options. From
private, shared, and public transportation options, or a combination
thereof, people want a transportation ecosystem where they can
research, book, and pay for all parts of their daily journeys--no
matter the form of transportation--on a seamless mobile platform
accessible on request.
Developing the policy conditions for Mobility on Demand (MOD) to
flourish will better enable consumers to identify and use the
transportation options that best meet their mobility needs at any time.
In addition, MOD promotes societal benefits such as a less congested,
less costly, and more sustainable transportation system. Leveraging the
insights gained from MOD data, new business models can be developed to
enhance mobility and address unmet transportation needs. The rapid
development of 5G connectivity can offer new opportunities for MOD.
Increased data throughput will bring many new possibilities for MOD,
including better coverage, availability, and reliability. This will
allow MOD to better reach underserved areas such as first mile/last
mile and transit deserts.
Augmented Reality (AR) is another example of where the delivery of
underlying real-time data could be enhanced by 5G connectivity to make
MOD more useful. AR can be used to create interactive maps to help
people navigate transit systems. By using the camera in a traveler's
mobile device and superimposing digital information on what the camera
is capturing, AR can make it easier for the user to make more informed
decisions based on up-to-date information. Holding a mobile device on
top of a subway map, for example, would allow you to see real-time
movement of trains and buses near your location.
In cities, MOD offers convenient, affordable, and (in the case of
bikeshare and rideshare) sustainable alternatives to driving within
congested environments. For suburban areas, MOD offers first mile/last
mile accessibility, alleviating/reducing the need for locals to park at
a station or drive into the city.
MOD is seen too often as an urban/metro transportation solution,
but it also presents opportunities for rural areas as well. It provides
benefits to those living in rural or more remote communities by
connecting them to a bus, train, or transit/commuter station. Fleet
operated ride-hailing services, for instance, could help older adults
age in place and improve general accessibility to long-distance
transportation, car-pooling, groceries, and medical centers. Examples
of rural MOD could include bikeshare (docked or dockless) and scooter
share deployments on college campuses, in both rural and urban
settings. New and improved transit and paratransit services also can
help rural America.
Tompkins County, NY, is an excellent example of a rural community
pushing carshare (Ithaca Carshare), rideshare (ZimRide), and
transportation network companies (TNC) (Lyft/Uber) services, and it
received funding through Shared Use Mobility Center MOD On-Ramp
Program. MOD examples could also include Waze Carpool/Scoop (app-based
carpools), microtransit such as VIA, micromobility services like Lime,
maybe even delivery services like DoorDash/UberEats/PostMates.
ITS America created the Mobility on Demand Alliance in 2018 to help
determine what the future of mobility should look like, striving for a
world that is safer, greener and smarter. The Mobility on Demand
Alliance brings public, private, and academic sector stakeholders
together to promote the benefits of MOD and address obstacles hindering
its development. Focused on fostering an environment for a scalable,
repeatable MOD model that allows for metropolitan and regional
differences, the ITS America Mobility on Demand Alliance will: 1)
address common challenges including defining terminology, data access,
payment systems, accessibility and equity issues, privacy/
cybersecurity, and legislative/regulatory outlook; 2) facilitate
metropolitan and regional MOD efforts; and 3) educate policymakers and
the public about the benefits of Mobility on Demand.
Regardless of where you live, MOD services and seamless integration
of mobility platforms have the potential to better enable users to
understand their transportation options and make personalized,
efficient, and cost-efficient travel decisions.
Mobility on Demand Use Cases
Regional Bikeshare Programs: Increasing Mobility Within a
Community: The City of Reno, City of Sparks, Reno-Sparks Indian Colony,
University of Nevada-Reno, and Washoe County have worked together with
the Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County and Lime
(formerly LimeBike) to launch Nevada's first dockless bikeshare
program. This one-year pilot will eventually include nearly 1000
LimeBike bicycles and is the first bikeshare to launch on a Native
American reservation. Bikes can be borrowed anywhere within the Reno-
Sparks service area via the LimeBike app. Rides cost $1 per half hour
for standard users, and cents50 per half hour for students, seniors,
and low-income individuals. This collaborative effort aims to provide
the Truckee Meadows region with a healthy and sustainable alternative
for mobility.
Rideshare to Bus Stops: Filling Transit Gaps: Capital Metro (TX)
has partnered with Austin-based rideshare service provider, RideAustin,
to offer on-demand transportation to select bus stops following cuts to
bus service in the Exposition area of west Austin. Through this six-
month pilot program, individuals who live or work in an area that has
lost bus service can request rides via the RideAustin app to/from one
of two local Capital Metro bus stops. These rides are free of charge,
so those who participate in the program do not have to pay any more
than their usual bus fare to complete their commute. Capital Metro
hopes that this partnership will help to efficiently fill transit gaps
by serving as an innovative, effective solution to first/last mile
needs.
Connecting Residents to Jobs and Healthcare: Delaware Transit
Corporation (DART) has a contract with ITN-Southern Delaware to
subsidize trips for older adults (55+) and those with visual
impairments in Sussex County, Delaware, which is predominately rural.
Their service is available 24/7 and provides eligible customers with
access to local trips and to the DTC's (DART) transit network. This
network includes three transit hubs in Sussex County (Rehoboth, Lewes,
and Georgetown) that connect people to the largest towns and cities,
including Dover and Wilmington. Wilmington provides connections to
Amtrak and Greyhound. DTC will subsidize $5 a trip up to $12,000/year.
DART also offers three Flex Routes in Sussex County. These routes
run a fixed route but also allow customers to call up to two hours in
advance to schedule a deviation up to one mile from the fixed route.
The deviation costs an additional $1 (base fare is $2) and helps close
the first and last mile challenges or the rural area that lacks a
pedestrian network. The fixed route alignments include key state
facilities, shopping, medical offices, residential areas, and major
employers.
Utilizing Ridesourcing for Special Needs: Connecting Users with
Critical Services: Chesterfield County has partnered with Uber and
Goodwill of Central and Coastal Virginia to launch a pilot program
providing free, treatment-related transportation to individuals trying
to overcome opioid addiction. Through this program, those undergoing
treatment through the county's Mental Health Support Services
Department who do not own a personal vehicle can take an Uber, free of
charge, to any pre-approved location. Participants can reserve rides
from 6 am-6 pm, Monday through Saturday, by calling Goodwill. Goodwill
contacts Uber and oversees trips taken. Rides can also be reserved in
advance. The pilot was funded through a state grant and aims to make it
easier and more affordable for recovering participants to seek
treatment.
Improving/Supplementing Paratransit Service: The Regional
Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC) in Las Vegas has
partnered with Lyft to launch a six-month paratransit pilot program.
Through this program, Southern Nevada Transit Coalition (SNTC)
paratransit riders can opt-in to receive Lyft rides instead of their
standard SNTC paratransit service. Unlike the existing service,
participants can book Lyft rides not only in advance but also on-
demand. The first $3 of each ride is covered by the customer, and RTC
subsidizes the next $15. Rides can be booked via the Lyft app or by
calling RTC Customer Care. Wheelchair accessible vehicles are also
available. This pilot aims to provide an efficient, flexible, cost-
effective travel option for RTC paratransit customers.
Mobile App/Multimodal Integration: Making Trip Planning and Travel
More Seamless: The Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) has
selected the Transit app as the official trip planning application of
Pinellas County, FL. The Transit app offers an easy-to-use, multi-modal
platform, through which users can access real-time information
regarding PSTA's transportation options and arrival/departure times.
The application also integrates information on MOD services, so that
transit riders can, for example, check local bikeshare availability or
request an Uber ride as needed, from within a single app. As part of
this partnership, PSTA will officially advertise the Transit app, and
the Transit app will share anonymous data regarding users' trip
behavior, which can help to inform PSTA planning and operations better.
A Better Future Transformed by Intelligent Transportation Technologies:
5G, the Cloud, and Transportation
In addition to the ability for 5G and other next generation
technologies to enable and improve on V2V and V2I communications, the
low-latency of 5G allows for computing on the edge and in the cloud.
This provides a list of advantages to municipalities, states, and
private companies that include cost savings, improved security,
seamless data sharing, reduced congestion, reduced energy usage, and
reduction of fatal crashes. Cloud computing continues to be the most
secure means for enterprises to secure and safeguard data. Centralized
monitoring, anomaly detection, and dedicated cyber intelligence
resources continue to provide a more robust security platform than most
organizations can provide for themselves. In addition to security,
access to the cloud provides the ability for more robust applications
and more complex analytics. Data can be mined and shared across
platforms and regions, allowing rapid analytics that merges
infrastructure, vehicle, and other sources in real-time.
The introduction of 5G cellular could speed live video and other
sensor feeds from automated vehicles over cellular networks by orders
of magnitude. As a result, remote automated vehicle operations centers
could receive more accurate and detailed sensor feeds and real-time
maps resulting in more immediate updates. Like V2X, 5G deployment will
not necessarily determine when we might see large scale commercial
automated passenger taxi/bus or parcel/freight delivery launches, but
they could improve service and reliability levels. Such ``tele-
operation'' could also reduce costs or autonomous systems. Similarly,
5G might evolve to support improved control and navigation of aerial
drones.
The cloud also allows for transportation organizations and
companies to seamlessly share data and develop more robust traffic
modeling, traffic planning, and emergency response modeling. This can
optimize traffic patterns, both within cities and among regions,
resulting in less congestion, reduced travel time, and most
importantly, fewer fatal crashes. In addition to the public benefits,
private industry can use this data to personalize mapping based on
behavior and need. For example, a commuter can find the quickest and
safest route to work while picking up a cup of coffee and collecting
dry cleaning. Although this may seem trivial, these types of
applications lead to quicker user adoption.
A Better Future Transformed by Intelligent Mobility: Conclusion
I would be remiss if I did not strongly urge Congress and the
Administration to identify long-term and sustainable funding for the
Highway Trust Fund before the FAST Act expires in 2020 to ensure the
law is reauthorized on time. Maintaining our infrastructure is vital.
Funding for research examining the transition to a connected and
automated vehicle environment and a ``connected infrastructure'' is
also important. This kind of research requires funding.
To keep pace with these advances in technology that are
transforming transportation, ITS America supports a FAST Act
reauthorization that prioritizes Federal policy and programs that make
intelligent transportation deployment the rule rather than the
exception and provides Federal funding, financing, and grants that
encourage the rapid deployment of intelligent transportation
technologies on a large scale.
To increase investments in intelligent transportation technologies,
we urge Congress to leverage existing FAST Act programs and create new
emerging technology grants in an infrastructure package. Intelligent
transportation technologies, including vehicle-to-infrastructure
communications, are eligible uses of most FAST Act highway program
funds. Specifically, we support increased funding for the Intelligent
Transportation Systems Program, Advanced Transportation and Congestion
Management Technologies Deployment Program, Technology and Innovation
Deployment Program, and for the Surface Transportation Block Grant
program, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program--flexible
programs that often fund intelligent transportation deployment
activities.
An infrastructure bill provides a unique opportunity to create
formula and grant funding programs for emerging technologies that
support congestion relief in metropolitan and urban cores as well as
heavily traveled regions and freight corridors. Eligible projects would
include capital and operational investments that improve system safety
and performance such as priced-managed lanes; transportation demand
management programs; strategic transit investments; advanced parking,
freight delivery, and incident management systems; and programs to
support the deployment of connected and autonomous vehicles, including
V2V and V2I infrastructure communications technologies.
Transportation is now the largest source of carbon emissions in the
United States, and carbon emissions from cars and light trucks account
for almost one-sixth of the Nation's total emissions. ITS America
supports policies in the transportation infrastructure sector that will
help reduce transportation emissions. Given that automakers are
committing to alternative fuel vehicles that will reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, ITS America supports standalone legislation and language in
the reauthorization of the FAST Act and an infrastructure package that
would provide increased Federal funding, financing, and grants to
rapidly build out alternative fuel vehicle infrastructure and new
technologies such as inductive charging to speed the deployment of
electric vehicles.
Last year, I spoke at the Beijing Auto Forum. An official from the
Chinese Ministry of Industry and Information Technology made clear that
China's goal was to dominate the information technology sectors and
automotive manufacturing in the next five years. In the 20th century,
people came here to marvel at our infrastructure and technology. If we
want that to continue in the 21st century, we must be leaders in the 5G
and artificial intelligence space. We must maintain our leadership in
this space.
In conclusion, the future of mobility is happening today with ITS
America members. From Mobility on Demand to connected and automated
vehicles and infrastructure to delivery drones to the Internet-of-
Things to When-I-Want-It/Where-I-Want-It-Logistics, our members are
researching, developing, testing, and deploying technology that will
create a better future.
Changes are happening today that will fundamentally affect how
people interact with transportation in the months and years ahead. ITS
America is helping states, cities, the private sector, and researchers
as we work toward our vision of a better future transformed by
intelligent mobility--one that is safer, greener, and smarter.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I am
happy to answer any questions you may have.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Bhatt.
And I appreciate all members sticking with the time, and
thank you for pointing out, all three of you so far, that we
need to be the leader in 5G globally.
Mr. Wessel, welcome.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL WESSEL, COMMISSIONER, U.S.-CHINA ECONOMIC
AND SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION
Mr. Wessel. Thank you, Chairman Wicker. Thank you, Ranking
Member Cantwell, members of the Committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear here today.
My name is Michael Wessel, and I am a Commissioner on the
U.S.-China Economic & Security Review Commission, but as the
normal Washington disclaimer, I am speaking for myself,
although my comments are informed by my service on the
Commission and our work on this issue.
China's innovation efforts are broad and deep. China wants
to be a global innovation leader and is doing all that it can
legally and illegally to achieve its goals. 5G will be the
backbone of tomorrow's economy and infrastructure. Technologies
as diverse as IoT, autonomous vehicles, cellular
communications, and battlefield communications will be built on
5G foundations.
The National Intelligence Council released a report on the
expected impact of 5G, and this is global figures, finding it
will enable $12.3 trillion in global economic output and
support 22 million jobs by 2035.
China wants to dominate 5G. They are poised to invest at
least $400 billion at this point into its development. China is
actively promoting its own, rather than global, technological
interests through involvement in international standards-
setting organizations, such as the International
Telecommunications Union, where they chair more committees than
any other country.
China's government has said its principal domestic
suppliers, Huawei and ZTE, will each be allocated one-third of
the market, leaving foreign competitors to scramble for the
remaining third. China is integrating its 5G plans with its
Belt and Road Initiative strategy to create a digital Silk
Road. We have no comparable plans here in the U.S.
During questions I'd be happy to discuss Huawei and China's
leading firms, but the leaders of our six major law enforcement
and intelligence agencies have testified as to their concerns,
which are now being embraced by many other countries. As the
director of the National Counterintelligence and Security
Center said, it's important to remember that Chinese company
relationships with the Chinese government, aren't like private
sector company relationships with governments in the West.
China's 2018 national intelligence law requires Chinese
companies to support, provide assistance, and cooperate in
China's national intelligence work wherever they operate.
I worry about China's approach and its implications for us
for a number of reasons.
First, I approach this, as I know everyone here does, as
someone who has always taken pride in America's technological
leadership and do not want to cede it to any other country,
especially when that leadership results from state-directed
policies and support.
Second, I care about the production and jobs that will be
created during the development, deployment, and servicing of 5G
networks. The competition is not being waged on a level playing
field.
Third, and most fundamental, I worry about our Nation's
security: economic, critical infrastructure, and traditional
security interests. Chinese theft of our intellectual property,
some facilitated and allegedly directed by the state, has cost
us hundreds of billions of dollars while advancing China's
economic development and strength.
Financial networks, smart cities, power plants, dams,
chemical production facilities, air traffic, and so many other
sectors are supported by the Internet and will be increasingly
dependent on 5G with the dispersion of IoT devices. If Chinese
companies provide the equipment, control over the source code,
the updates, and servicing, it creates extreme vulnerabilities.
Equally important, our warfighters and our defense sector
are increasingly dependent on the electronic spectrum for
command and control, logistics, and other needs. China's
military doctrine relies on ``asymmetric warfare,'' where they
have identified the electronic and space domains as critical to
their countering any U.S. capabilities in a potential conflict.
Access to or control over significant parts of the
telecommunications systems and the connectivity it can create,
substantial and potentially unacceptable vulnerabilities.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to be here, and I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wessel follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael Wessel, Commissioner, U.S.-China Economic
and Security Review Commission
Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, Members of the Committee.
I want to thank you for the invitation to appear before you today to
discuss the development and deployment of fifth generation--5G--
cellular mobile communications. This is a critical issue for U.S.
economic and national security interests.
My name is Michael Wessel and I am appearing before you today as a
Commissioner on the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission
(Commission), where I have served since its creation in 2001. But, as a
disclaimer, I am speaking for myself, although my comments are informed
by my service on the Commission and our work on this issue.
The Commission was created by Congress in 2001 in conjunction with
the debate about the grant of Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR)
to China, paving the way for its accession to the World Trade
Organization. The Commission was tasked with monitoring, investigating
and submitting to Congress an annual report on the national security
implications of the bilateral trade and economic relationship between
the United States and the People's Republic of China, and to provide
recommendations, where appropriate, to Congress for legislative and
administrative action.
The grant of PNTR ended the annual debate about whether to extend
most favored nation status to China. But as it passed PNTR, Congress
created the Commission because it did not want to forego the annual
review of our relationship with China. Since the creation of the
Commission, our mandate has been extended and altered as the U.S.-China
relationship evolved.
The Commission is a somewhat unique body: We report to and support
Congress. Each of the four Congressional leaders appoint 3 members to
the Commission for 2-year terms. In 8 of the last 11 years, we have
issued unanimous reports. In the 3 years where it was not unanimous,
there was only one dissenting vote. In many ways, the evolving
challenges and opportunities posed by the relationship with China have
united us in our analysis.
Last year the Commission held a hearing on Next Generation
Connectivity looking at both 5th generation (5G) connectivity and the
Internet of Things (IoT) and included a chapter in our annual report on
these issues. The prepared testimony and transcript of our hearing, as
well as our Annual Report, are available online at the Commission's
website www.uscc.gov.
The Commission has been tracking and analyzing China's high-tech
development--and its impacts on the United States--for many years and
found remarkable continuity and coordination in Chinese government
policy. Indeed, in the Commission's 2004 report, the key findings with
regard to high technology were:
The Chinese government has a coordinated, sustainable vision
for science and technology development. Many Chinese high-
technology developments have been spurred by policies the
Chinese government has instituted to accelerate the growth of
industries in this sector, which the government believes can
help lift the whole economy.
The Chinese government uses foreign investment, tax
policies, subsidies, technology standards, and industry
regulation to accelerate the Nation's technological growth. It
uses government procurement and proprietary technology
standards to advance its technology growth policies. These
policies make it difficult, if not impossible, to achieve a
level playing field in this area of U.S.-China trade.
Global production networks dominate China's high-tech export
environment. Foreign investment into China has provided
capital, management, and technology to Chinese production in
various technology sectors. Taiwan firms are key investors and
intermediaries in China's high-tech production networks.
U.S. trade and investment with China has played, and
continues to play, a key role in China's technological
advancement. U.S. advanced technology and technological
expertise is transferred to China, through both legal and
illegal means, via U.S. invested firms and research centers in
China, Chinese investments in the United States, bilateral
science and technology (S&T) cooperative programs, and the tens
of thousands of Chinese students and researchers at U.S.
universities and research institutes who return to China after
completing these programs.
Large-scale piracy--at levels of over ninety percent--
continues to characterize intellectual property rights (IPR)
protection in China and is a major concern for U.S. exporters
of high-tech goods and services. While the government has
instituted laws to strengthen IPR protection, the enforcement
of those laws has suffered from a lack of government
coordination and from local protectionism and corruption.
In our report the following year, the Commission noted 3G--a
precursor to the technology which is the subject of today's hearing--
was identified by China's government as a key interest:
China has its own globally approved 3G standard, TD-SCDMA
for use in mobile telecommunications. It was developed by the
Chinese Academy of Technology and Siemens and is supported by
the Chinese companies Huawei and Lenovo. China is developing 4G
mobile technology.
China's government pursues an aggressive development path to become
a high technology leader but its approach emphasizes Chinese
technologies, and the companies that develop them, as the core of any
future standards. China's approach is the result of long-term planning,
policy implementation and funding. In other words, government
direction--supported by policy, politics, and generous subsidies--is
driving China's tech development.
We should not assume that China will adopt ``Western ideals'' or
business practices and take China's government at their word when they
promise ``reform'' or a version of that. We need to determine what our
interests are and assess them against what China has actually done over
the years and what it says it wants to do.
I will leave it to my industry colleagues to discuss the technical
issues relating to 5G and some of the implications. But, China has a
well-defined and advanced approach to becoming a world-class player in
this technology. China is poised to have a significant share of the
global market in this and many other technologies.
China is now a leading technology power. In 2017, the U.S. ran a
trade deficit in Advanced Technology Products (ATP) of $135.4
billion,\1\ and our deficit for 2018 is expected to beat that when the
full year trade statistics are released. For the narrower category of
information and communications products, for October 2018 year-to-date
figures (the latest available), the U.S. exported $3.365 billion and
imported $130.303 billion. China has produced the faster supercomputer
on earth. It is advancing quantum computing with rapid gains in
cryptography and communications. It is excelling in artificial
intelligence (AI) and a variety of other sectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Robert Scott and Zane Mokhiber, The China Toll Deepens,
Economic Policy Institute, October 23, 2018, p. 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our failure to sell more in China is a direct result of their
protectionist and predatory practices, including a goal, as identified
in numerous policy documents, to develop indigenous capabilities to the
exclusion of foreign players. As the Commission's 2018 Report indicated
(summarized):
Chinese IP requirements: Since 2007, China's Multi-Level
Protection Scheme, which covers around 140,000 information
systems,\2\ requires Chinese IP in core IT technology and
components and annual testing, certification, and
authentication for the top three of the five tiers of IT
users,\3\ effectively excluding foreign competitors unless
there is no domestic equivalent.\4\ Article 34 of the draft
guidelines would expand this scheme to cloud computing
platforms, big data systems, industrial control systems and
mobile networks, AI, and IoT devices.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The ranking is based on technology innovation, brand influence,
ecosystem openness, and input from industry experts and end users. IoT
One, ``2018 Top 500 Industrial IoT Companies.'' https://www.iotone.com/
iotone500. For more information on China's efforts to develop its
semiconductor industry, see U.S.-China Economic and Security Review
Commission, Chapter 1, Section 3, ``China's 13th Five-Year Plan,'' in
2016 Annual Report to Congress, November 2016, 155-161.
\3\ The Multi-Level Protection Scheme separates information systems
into five levels based on impact. Damage to a Level 1 (the lowest)
information system could result in harm to legal rights of citizens,
legal persons, or other organizations without harming national
security, social order, or public interest. Damage to a Level 5 (the
highest) information system results in very serious harm to national
security. Level 3 and above encompasses finance, banking, tax, customs,
commerce, communications, health, education, and social services. Nick
Marro, ``The 5 Levels of Information Security in China,'' China
Business Review, December 6, 2016; Adam Segal, ``China, Encryption
Policy, and International Influence,'' Hoover Institution, No. 1610,
November 28, 2016.
\4\ China's Ministry of Public Security, Ministry of Public
Security Draft for Comment for Multi-Level Protection Scheme on
Internet Security, June 27, 2018. Translation. http://www.mps.gov.cn/
n2254536/n4904355/c6159136/content.html; Lance Noble, ``Marshalls over
Markets: China Tightens Cybersecurity,'' Gavekal Dragonomics, June 4,
2018, 9-10.
\5\ China's Ministry of Public Security, ``Ministry of Public
Security Draft for Comment for Multi-Level Protection Scheme on
Internet Security, June 27, 2018. Translation. http://www.mps.gov.cn/
n2254536/n4904355/c6159136/contnt.html; Lance Noble, ``Marshalls over
Markets: China Tightens Cybersecurity,'' Gavekal Dragonomics, June 4,
2018, 11.
High restrictions on foreign ownership and investment: Under
China's 2016 Telecommunications Regulations, foreign firms can
own up to 50 percent of Chinese telecommunications and cloud
computing providers.\6\ China's 2016 Telecom Services Catalogue
requires foreign telecommunications and cloud computing firms
wishing to sell in the Chinese market to form joint ventures
with Chinese firms.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ BSA, ``RE: China's Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to
Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation (Docket No.
USTR-2017-0016),'' September 28, 2017; Scott Thiel,
``Telecommunications Laws of the World: China,'' DLA Piper, May 25,
2017.
\7\ BSA, ``Special 301 Submission,'' February 8, 2018; Gidon
Gautel, ``Establishing a Data Center in China,'' China Briefing, July
26, 2017; Norton Rose Fulbright, ``China's New Telecom Catalogue Comes
into Force on March 1, 2016,'' February 2016; Renee Barry and Matthew
Reisman, ``Policy Challenges of Cross-Border Cloud Computing (May
2012),'' Journal of International Commerce and Economics 4:2 (November
2012).
China-specific technical standards: The Mercator Institute
for China Studies (MERICS) found ``China sometimes formulates
national standards in strategic industries that deliberately
differ from international standards in order to impede market
access for foreign technology and to favor Chinese technology
on the domestic market.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Jost Wubbeke et al., ``Made in China 2025: The Making of a
High-Tech Superpower and Consequences for Industrial Countries,''
Mercator Institute for China Studies, December 2016, 56.
Restrictions on data storage and transfer: Under China's
Cybersecurity Law, U.S. firms face significant restrictions on
data storage and cross-border transfers--essential services for
IoT devices. U.S. firms such as IBM, Apple, and Microsoft are
required to form joint ventures with Chinese partners in order
to operate.\9\ In addition, foreign firms must rely on domestic
partners and government-approved encryption technology,
potentially placing foreign IP and data at risk.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Samm Sacks and Manyi Kathy Li, ``How Chinese Cybersecurity
Standards Impact Doing Business in China,'' Center for Strategic and
International Studies, August 2018; Lance Noble, ``Marshalls over
Markets: China Tightens Cybersecurity,'' Gavekal Dragonomics, June 4,
2018; Nick Marro, ``Decoding China's Approach to Data Security,''
Diplomat, December 10, 2016; Daniel Castro and Alan McQuinn, ``Cross-
Border Data Flows Enable Growth in All Industries,'' Information
Technology and Innovation Foundation, February 2015.
\10\ Samm Sacks and Manyi Kathy Li, ``How Chinese Cybersecurity
Standards Impact Doing Business in China,'' Center for Strategic and
International Studies, August 2018; Lance Noble, ``Marshalls over
Markets: China Tightens Cybersecurity,'' Gavekal Dragonomics, June 4,
2018, 9.
Huawei and ZTE, deemed ``national champions'' by the Chinese
government, are global players in the communications field--from
handsets to routers to switching to full network deployment and
operations. And, as is well known, much of the production of telecom
and IT products for leading firms is produced in China, or has
components produced there.
Of course, not everything is a zero-sum game. Should we be
concerned about where the products and services supporting and utilized
in our 5G networks are produced and which companies produce them?
Should we have similar concerns about what other countries around the
globe do in this regard?
Does that matter to us? I believe it does, in many ways.
The lead front-page article in the New York Times Sunday edition
two weeks ago was entitled ``U.S. Scrambles to Outrun China in New Arms
Race: Seeking to Restrict Beijing's Control Over `Central Nervous
System for Internet' ''.\11\ The stakes are, indeed, enormous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The New York Times, U.S. Scrambles to Outrun China in New Arms
Race: Seeking to Restrict Beijing's Control Over `Central Nervous
System for Internet', January 27, 2019, p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5G will be the backbone of tomorrow's economy and infrastructure,
including critical infrastructure; our telecommunications, e-commerce,
and manufacturing sectors, along with many military and intelligence
assets, will all depend on it. Technologies as diverse as the IoT,
autonomous vehicles, cellular communications, and battlefield
communications, will be built on 5G foundations.
The National Intelligence Council (NIC) released a report on the
expected impact of 5G, finding it ``will change the technological,
social, and economic processes for a wide variety of industries by
2020.'' \12\ By 2035, the NIC report predicted, $12.3 trillion in
global economic output will be enabled by 5G tech, and its value chain
will create $3.5 trillion in output and support 22 million jobs by
2035.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Next Generation Wireless Technologies to Change Industries,
National Intelligence Council Report, September 12, 2017. NICR 2017-55.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
China's government clearly sees the future economic and security
potential of 5G and is poised to invest at least $400 billion into its
development. But that's only the tip of the iceberg. The communications
and IT sectors are identified for preference and promotion as part of
the Made in China 2025 industrial policy program, which means every
province, local, and municipal government is marshalling its resources
in response to the central government's directives.
China is also actively promoting its technological interests
through its involvement in international standards-setting
organizations, which will write the rules for interoperability and
operations. It's part of their official government and Chinese
Communist Party plans. China's government has already announced that
its principal domestic suppliers--Huawei and ZTE--with each being
allocated one-third of the market, leaving foreign competitors to
scramble for the remaining third.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Eric Auchard and Sijia Jiang, China's Huawei Set to Lead
Global Charge to 5G Networks, Reuters, February 23, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
China has aggressively participated in standards-setting bodies
such as the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) where they
play a significant role, as well as chair several committees.\14\ For
several years, they have sent large delegations to these meetings
hoping to drive standards that will advantage their own indigenous
firms. This is contrary to the approach taken by many countries and
industry delegations at the ITU and other international standard bodies
who are seeking, first, to develop the standard that will create the
most robust technologies and then seek to identify the best suppliers
to meet those standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, 2018
Report to Congress, 115th Congress, Second Session, November 2018, p.
454.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
China is integrating its 5G plans with its Belt and Road Initiative
(BRI) strategy. The 2015 Belt and Road Initiative White Paper,\15\
which was jointly issued by China's National Development and Reform
Commission, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Ministry of Commerce,
calls for cross-border optical cables and communications trunk line
networks, planning transcontinental submarine optical cable projects,
and improving spatial and satellite information passageways to expand
information exchanges and cooperation. The Chinese government is also
actively seeking to loop its BRI partners into its ``super-fast
broadband network infrastructure'' built in line with the Internet Plus
plan.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Vision and Actions on Jointly Building Silk Road Economic Belt
and 21st-Century Maritime, Silk Road, March, 28, 2015, http://
en.ndrc.gov.cn/newsrelease/201503/t20150330_669
367.html.
\16\ China needs to develop e-commerce, industrial networks,
Internet banking: Ren, July 27, 2015, China Daily, http://
english.gov.cn/news/top_news/2015/07/17/content_2814751488577
72.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no comparable approach from our Federal government. While
a document leaked from the National Security Council identified the
idea for the development and deployment of a Federal 5G Internet, that
approach appears to have been quickly abandoned based on industry
opposition. Our country's current approach is market-led and market
driven.
The Administration and Congress have adopted a number of security-
related limitations to advance our interests. Just this past summer,
Congress, as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2019 adopted strict limitations on the procurement or renewal of
contracts that include Huawei and ZTE equipment in government
networks.\17\ In the past, a variety of other measures have been put in
place to limit the exposure of critical information and networks to
Chinese cyberespionage. For example, the FY 2013 Appropriations bill
prohibited Commerce, Justice, NASA and the National Science Foundation
from acquiring information technology systems that were produced,
manufactured or assembled by entities owned, directed or subsidized by
the Chinese government.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Public Law 115-232, Sec. 889--Prohibition on Certain
Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment.
\18\ 2013 Consolidated and Further Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-6)
(Sec. 516).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huawei, as one of China's leading firms in this area, has received
substantial attention. Today's hearing, of course, is about 5G, but it
would be impossible to discuss that technology, and concerns vis-a-vis
China, without commenting on Huawei. But Huawei must not be the only
focus of the discussion of China's impact on 5G here in the U.S. and
around the globe as there are many other vulnerabilities that must be
addressed. Documented problems, such as China Telecom's redirection of
Internet traffic through China, have been identified.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ China's Maxim--Leave No Access Point Unexploited: The Hidden
Story of China Telecom's BGP Hijacking, by Chris Demchak and Yval
Shavitt, Military Cyber Affairs, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huawei Technologies is the most well-known Chinese
telecommunications equipment company with operations and activities in
the U.S. and has been cited as an advanced persistent threat to U.S.
interests. In 2012, the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence identified strong concerns about Huawei and ZTE. The
report concluded that ``the risks associated with Huawei and ZTE's
provision of equipment to U.S. critical infrastructure could undermine
core U.S. national-security interests.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Investigative Report on the U.S. National Security Issues
Posed by Chinese Telecommunications Companies Huawei and ZTE, HPSCI,
October 8, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In early 2015, the FBI circulated a Counterintelligence Strategic
Partnership Intelligence Note focused on national security risks
associated with Huawei. That memo has been made public and included the
following risk overview:
With the expanded use of Huawei Technologies Inc. equipment and
services in U.S. telecommunications service provider networks,
the Chinese Government's potential access to U.S. business
communications is dramatically increasing. Chinese Government-
supported telecommunications equipment on U.S. networks may be
exploited through Chinese cyber activity, with China's
intelligence services operating as an advanced persistent
threat to U.S. networks. Huawei has been identified publicly
for selling or attempting to sell U.S. intellectual property to
export restricted countries (Iran/Cuba), making it a clear
threat through its targeting of U.S. economic and proprietary
information. China makes no secret that its cyber warfare
strategy is predicated on controlling global communications
network infrastructure.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Counterintelligence Strategic Partnership Intelligence Note
(SPIN), Huawei, Federal Bureau of Investigation, February, 2015.
(SPIN--15-002)
According to press accounts U.S. Tier 1 telecom providers were
counseled by officials of the U.S. government that utilization of
Huawei equipment could create significant cybersecurity concerns and
might jeopardize contracts with the U.S. government. Subsequently, each
company reportedly decided not to procure equipment from the company
for utilization on their networks.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Lublin, Joann and Raice, Shayndi, Security Fears Kill Chinese
Bid in U.S., The Wall Street Journal, November 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2018, the heads of the CIA, FBI, NSA, DIA, NGA and the Director
of National Intelligence publicly testified as to their concerns about
utilizing products or services from Huawei. FBI Director Wray stated,
We're deeply concerned about the risks of allowing any company
or entity that is beholden to foreign governments that don't
share our values to gain positions of power inside our
telecommunications networks . . . it provides the capacity to
exert pressure or control over our telecommunications
infrastructure. It provides the capacity to maliciously modify
or steal information. And it provides the capacity to conduct
undetected espionage.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence,
February 13, 2018.
China's Huawei has been aggressive in trying to counter claims that
it is a security risk. It claims that it is a private, employee-owned
company and that we shouldn't worry. But, in recent months, a number of
other countries--those who are part of the Five-Eyes relationship and
others--have joined in questioning the security of Chinese-company
produced equipment and whether it should be utilized in existing or
future networks.
As William R. Evanina, the director of the National
Counterintelligence and Security Center was quoted in the New York
Times,
It's important to remember that Chinese company relationships
with the Chinese government aren't like private sector company
relationships with governments in the West. . .China's 2018
National Intelligence Law requires Chinese companies to
support, provide assistance and cooperate in China's national
intelligence work, wherever they operate.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ The New York Times, U.S. Scrambles to Outrun China in a New
Arms Race, Sunday, January 27, 2019.
No Chinese commercial entity can refuse to cooperate with China's
security services. In 2017, China's government implemented a draconian
Cybersecurity Law--despite the outcry from foreign governments and
industry that it would raise serious concerns about the impact on the
business activities of Chinese companies. The accompanying set of
laws--National Intelligence Law of 2017, Counter-Terrorism Law of 2016,
National Security Law of 2015 all raise concerns about Chinese entities
freedom to act without government interference, coercion and direction.
Other countries have come to similar conclusions, based on their
own assessments. For example, last July the United Kingdom's Huawei
Oversight Board raised its concerns in a report to that country's
national security advisor--despite 4 years of work with Huawei:
``Due to areas of concern exposed through the proper
functioning of the mitigation strategy and associated oversight
mechanisms, the Oversight Board can provide only limited
assurance that all risks to UK national security from Huawei's
involvement in the UK's critical networks have been
sufficiently mitigated. We are advising the National Security
Adviser on this basis.'' \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Huawei Cyber Security Evaluation Centre (HCSEC) Oversight
Board Annual Report 2018, A report o the National Security Advisor of
the United Kingdom, July 2018.
I worry about China's approach, and its implications for us, for
several reasons.
First, I approach this as someone who has always taken pride in
America's technological leadership and do not want to cede it to any
other country, especially when that leadership results from state-
directed policies and support.
Second, I care about the production and jobs that will be created
during the development, deployment and servicing of 5G networks. As the
National Intelligence Council report indicated, $12.3 trillion in
economic value will be created along with 22 million jobs. I want the
bulk of that value and the jobs to advantage our economy and our people
or at least know that the competition is being waged on a level-playing
field.
Third, and most fundamental, I worry about our Nation's security--
economic, critical infrastructure and ``traditional'' security
interests. On the economic side, we have read too many stories about
Chinese cyberespionage, some facilitated and allegedly directed by the
state, to steal our intellectual property. The fruits of that
cyberespionage is estimated to have cost us hundreds of billions of
dollars while advancing China's economic development and strength.
Financial networks, smart cities, power plants, dams, chemical
production facilities, air traffic and so many other sectors are
supported by the Internet and will be increasingly dependent on 5G with
the dispersion of IoT devices. If Chinese companies provide the
equipment, with control over the source code, the updates, and
servicing, it creates extreme vulnerabilities.
Equally important, our warfighters and our defense sector are
increasingly dependent on the electronic spectrum for command and
control, logistics and other needs. China's military doctrine relies on
``asymmetric warfare'' where they have identified the electronic and
space domains as critical to their countering any U.S. capabilities in
a potential conflict. Access to or control over significant parts of
our telecommunications systems and the connectivity that will be an
increasingly important component for our defense systems can create
substantial and, potentially, unacceptable vulnerabilities.
In its 2018 Annual Report, the Commission identified the following
key findings, regarding this critical area:
The Chinese government has strengthened its strategic
support for the IoT (physical devices embedded with sensors
that can collect data and connect to each other and the broader
internet) and fifth-generation wireless technology (5G)
networks. The government has laid out comprehensive industrial
plans to create globally competitive firms and reduce China's
dependence on foreign technology through: significant state
funding for domestic firms and 5G deployment, limited market
access for foreign competitors, China-specific technical
standards, increased participation in global standards bodies,
localization targets, and alleged cyber espionage and
intellectual property theft. This state-directed approach
limits market opportunities for foreign firms in China and
raises concerns about the ability of U.S. and other foreign
firms to compete fairly both in China's domestic market and
abroad.
5G networks are expected to quicken data speeds by 100
times, support up to 100 times more IoT devices, and provide
near-instant universal coverage and availability. U.S. and
Chinese companies are engaged in a fierce competition to secure
first mover advantage and benefit from the trillions in
economic benefits 5G and subsequent technologies are expected
to create.
IoT devices collect enormous amounts of user information;
when aggregated and combined with greater computing power and
massive amounts of publicly available information, these data
can reveal information the user did not intend to share. U.S.
data could be exposed through unsecure IoT devices, or when
Chinese IoT products and services transfer U.S. customer data
back to China, where the government retains expansive powers to
access personal and corporate data.
The Chinese government is leveraging its comparative
advantage in manufacturing and state-led industrial policies to
secure an edge in the IoT's wide-ranging commercial and
military applications. U.S. firms and the U.S. government rely
on global supply chains that in many cases are dominated by
China. While not all products designed, manufactured, or
assembled in China are inherently risky, the U.S. government
lacks essential tools to conduct rigorous supply chain risk
assessments. Federal procurement laws and regulations are often
contradictory and are inconsistently applied.
International 5G standards will be set by 2019, facilitating
large-scale commercial deployment expected by 2020. The Chinese
government is encouraging its companies to play a greater role
in international 5G standards organizations to ensure they set
global standards; such leadership may result in higher revenues
and exports from internationally accepted intellectual property
and technology and more global influence over future wireless
technology and standards development.
China's central role in manufacturing global information
technology, IoT devices, and network equipment may allow the
Chinese government--which exerts strong influence over its
firms--opportunities to force Chinese suppliers or
manufacturers to modify products to perform below expectations
or fail, facilitate state or corporate espionage, or otherwise
compromise the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of
IoT devices or 5G network equipment.
The lax security protections and universal connectivity of
IoT devices create numerous points of vulnerability that
hackers or malicious state actors can exploit to hold U.S.
critical infrastructure, businesses, and individuals at risk.
These types of risks will grow as IoT devices become more
complex, more numerous, and embedded within existing physical
structures. The size, speed, and impact of malicious cyber
attacks against and using IoT devices will intensify with the
deployment of 5G.
The Commission made two recommendations for Congress to consider:
Congress require the Office of Management and Budget's
Federal Chief Information Security Officer Council to
prepare an annual report to Congress to ensure supply chain
vulnerabilities from China are adequately addressed. This
report should collect and assess:
Each agency's plans for supply chain risk management and
assessments;
Existing departmental procurement and security
policies and guidance on cybersecurity, operations
security, physical security, information security, and data
security that may affect information and communications
technology, 5G networks, and IoT devices; and
Areas where new policies and guidance may be needed--
including for specific information and communications
technology, 5G networks, and IoT devices, applications, or
procedures--and where existing security policies and
guidance can be updated to address supply chain, cyber,
operations, physical, information, and data security
vulnerabilities.
Congress direct the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration and Federal Communications
Commission to identify (1) steps to ensure the rapid and secure
deployment of a 5G network, with a particular focus on the
threat posed by equipment and services designed or manufactured
in China; and (2) whether any new statutory authorities are
required to ensure the security of domestic 5G networks.
The impending rollout of 5G here in the U.S. and across the globe
requires that we address these vulnerabilities quickly and
aggressively. In my view it is better to err on the side of safety, as
5G will be the backbone of communications in the future. We cannot
afford to ignore the actions and activities that China has engaged in
with regard to predatory and protectionist policies, what their public
pronouncements have identified are their plans and what actions they
have engaged in in the cyber realm.
We also have to be realistic about the global nature of production
and what the limits are on our policies and actions. But, the price of
inaction is unacceptable. We must protect our interests where we can
and manage and mitigate the risks where we must.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Wessel.
Ms. Zentz, welcome.
STATEMENT OF KIM ZENTZ, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, URBANOVA
Ms. Zentz. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chairman Wicker
and Ranking Member Cantwell. I am deeply grateful for this
invitation to address the Committee and members of the
Committee. And I'm even more enthusiastic to add the
perspective of the mid-size city or the mid-market city to this
important conversation.
What is Urbanova? We say that we are--some call us a
radical collaboration. I'll get into who our partners are in a
minute. But we harness data to gain insights, empower people,
and solve urban challenges in new ways. So what we are doing is
leveraging the vibrant urban advantages of Spokane, Washington,
to find new ways to make communities better for people.
Spokane's University District is where we have our proving
ground. It's about 770 acres, which is about the same size as
Central Park in New York City. It is our living laboratory for
scalable and replicable solutions that can be applied in mid-
size cities anywhere, but our outcomes are focused on safer
neighborhoods, healthier citizens, smarter infrastructure, a
more sustainable environment, and ultimately a stronger economy
because we believe and we have a stake in the ability of mid-
size cities to lead on issues like this.
So I've mentioned our partners. It's really important to
have partners--it has been mentioned here today that it's a
team sport, and we couldn't agree more. You really need to take
the time to have everyone at the table, and Urbanova is
especially fortunate to have a vast multidisciplinary,
multisector set of partners. Those partners are led by Avista
Corporation, by Itron, the City of Spokane, Washington State
University, McKinstry, The University District, which is our
public development authority for that district, Gallup, and
Verizon Smart Communities.
The human capital and resource situation in mid-size cities
is different than it is for the larger metro areas. It is the
place of infinite demands and highly, highly restricted
resources. So I would assert to you that mid-size cities, or
maybe even all cities, but the mid-size cities are the ones I'm
familiar with, have always been smart. This isn't a new concept
that they're smart. They're able to capitalize on years of
decisionmaking in low resources and in high citizen engagement
and hands-on, ground-level intelligence that make their cities
run day in and day out.
With the introduction of new tools, like 5G enables, and
like other smart city applications that don't require 5G, mid-
size cities are able to work in a way that the larger metros
can't. They can be more nimble. They can be more ambitious. And
because of that, they have more power to try things before it's
time to scale them up across the city, and that's what our
providing ground brings to the table.
There are needs, though, and I would encourage the Congress
to continue to focus on ways to bring innovative financing, a
coordinated and cooperative policy environment, support for
workforce training and development programs, and development of
coherent standards and interoperability frameworks across
jurisdictions because it's not just the cities that need to be
working in a team fashion, it's really all of the jurisdictions
that all intersect to make cities more livable.
In the accelerated run to 5G and other connected city
deployments, it must not be overlooked that the city's primary
asset is its locally owned and controlled rights of way.
Collaborative right-of-way management that include city's
oversight to ensure public safety, equitable and inclusive
space allocation, and spectrum management is essential. The
only way to ensure that we have a secure network when we're all
done is to make sure that we begin at the beginning of the
supply chain. It has to begin there and it has to translate all
the way down to where people live in the cities, and that smart
cities and these technologies--the technology part is the easy
part, the harder part is the behavior part, and what must be
kept in mind is that cities are first and foremost about people
and that the applications must be simple and easy to explain.
So I encourage you to consider, to continue to consider,
the advantages that mid-size cities can bring as we move in
this rapid pace of acceleration that will change the face of
America forever.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Zentz follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kim Zentz, Chief Executive Officer, Urbanova
Good morning Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and
honorable members of the committee. I am Kim Zentz, Chief Executive
Officer of Urbanova, a nonprofit based in Spokane, Washington dedicated
to harnessing data to gain insights, empower people and solve urban
challenges in new ways.
I am both grateful for the invitation to address your committee and
enthusiastic to lend the perspective of mid-market metro areas to the
discussion of the country's next era of technology innovation in smart
and connected communities.
Key Points
5G and other smart and connected community enablers offer
the promise to improve social, economic and environmental
equity and resilience in communities of all sizes.
Collaboration across all sectors and jurisdictions is
required for success.
Mid-sized cities are the perfect laboratory to demonstrate
improved outcomes and health for residents, businesses and
visitors.
Impeccable end to end security and privacy practices are our
collective responsibility to each other.
About Us
Urbanova leverages the vibrant urban advantages of Spokane,
Washington to find new ways to make communities better for people.
Spokane's 770-acre downtown University District (about the size of
Central Park in New York) is the living laboratory for scalable,
replicable solutions that aim for outcomes measured by enabling
healthier citizens, safer neighborhoods, smarter infrastructure, a more
sustainable environment and a stronger economy.
How do we do this? Urbanova was formed based on established long-
term relationships and new partnerships with category-leading
innovators who share a belief and a stake in the promise of mid-sized
cities. Communities and their decision makers need experience and
evidence upon which to make technology-enabled decisions for the future
of their residents, businesses and visitors. Urbanova's community-scale
proving ground and global reach partners provide a transparent way for
decision makers to examine the strengths and potential pitfalls of
smart city solutions before scaling them citywide.
Successful smart city projects are not just about technology and
equipment, in fact, technology can be the ``easy part''. Equal measures
of planning for integration with existing systems (interoperability)
and managing change for the people who operate and depend on them are
also required. That is why the Urbanova partnership includes the City,
the regional utility, the research university, technology, services,
global analytics, telecommunications and behavioral science leaders to
ensure that we are examining opportunities holistically.
While I certainly do not speak for any one of Urbanova's partners,
we are especially fortunate to count Avista Corporation,\1\ Itron,\2\
the City of Spokane,\3\ Washington State University,\4\ McKinstry,\5\
The University District,\6\ Gallup \7\ and Verizon Smart Communities
\8\ among our invested partners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Avista Corporation is an energy company involved in the
production, transmission and distribution of energy as well as other
energy-related businesses. Avista Utilities is the operating division
that provides electric service to 383,000 customers and natural gas to
348,000 customers. Its service territory covers 30,000 square miles in
eastern Washington, northern Idaho and parts of southern and eastern
Oregon, with a population of 1.6 million.
\2\ Itron enables utilities and cities to safely, securely and
reliably deliver critical infrastructure services to communities in
more than 100 countries. Its portfolio of smart networks, software,
services, meters and sensors helps customers better manage electricity,
gas and water resources for the people they serve. Itron is dedicated
to creating a more resourceful world.
\3\ The City of Spokane, home to more than 220,000 people, is
located in the heart of the Inland Northwest. Its 2,000 employees
strive to deliver efficient and effective services that facilitate
economic opportunity and enhance the quality of life for all citizens.
\4\ Washington State University was founded in 1890 as Washington's
original land-grant university. WSU's 11 colleges drive a preeminent
research portfolio and provide transformational student education
experiences on campuses throughout the state as well as graduate and
professional programs that attract top minds from more than 90
countries.
\5\ McKinstry is a national leader in designing, constructing,
operating and maintaining high-performing buildings. From new
construction and ongoing operations to adaptive reuse and energy
retrofits, the company provides a single point of accountability across
the entire building lifecycle. McKinstry focuses on people and outcomes
to ensure the built environment serves owners, operators and occupants
alike.
\6\ The University District is a development association that also
oversees the public development authority for Spokane's University
District. The University District uses its unique connectivity to
create shared community wellness and vibrancy by developing the
infrastructure and programming that enable a globally-recognized hub of
education, innovation, research, and health care.
\7\ Gallup delivers analytics and advice to help leaders and
organizations solve their most pressing problems. Combining more than
80 years of experience with its global reach, Gallup knows more about
the attitudes and behaviors of employees, customers, students and
citizens than any other organization in the world.
\8\ Verizon Smart Communities' purpose is to improve the quality of
life for people living in cities around the world and increase the ways
and efficiency in which cities operate. It's not just about smart
technology, connectivity or applications; it starts with a focus on the
people and their basic wants and needs. We partner with each city to
design infrastructure, systems and processes that elevate the way they
provide services in new and cost-effective ways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rise of the Mid-sized City
It's been said that the 21st century is the century of the city as
the shift to urban areas continues to gain steam. Already, half of the
world's population resides in cities of 500,000 or fewer residents. No
matter how you count it, there are more than 3,000 communities in the
United States with population greater than 10,000 and less than a
million.
Cities of this type tend to be big enough for ambitious ideas to
gain traction and small enough to form the necessary coalitions to
embrace change and act fast. With the ever increasing access to
broadband services, already technology and talent are flocking to areas
of the country with fewer headaches and challenges to daily life than
those hindering quality of life in the very large metros. Furthermore
mid-sized cities are actively willing to share lessons learned and
insights with each other. Urbanova and Spokane hope to be a destination
for cities on learning tours as we gain additional insights from on-
the-ground project experiences.
However, the human and capital resource situation in mid-sized
cities is substantially more challenging. In order to realize the vast
benefits of smart infrastructure, thoughtful city leaders are in need
of innovative financing mechanisms, a coordinated and cooperative
policy environment, support for workforce training and development
programs and development of coherent standards and interoperability
frameworks across jurisdictions.
In the accelerated run to 5G and other connected city deployments,
it must not be overlooked that the city's primary asset is its locally
controlled rights of way (ROW). Collaborative right of way management
that includes cities' oversight to ensure public safety, equitable and
inclusive space allocation and local spectrum management is vitally
important to keep in perspective.
Smart City Enablers
With the adoption of breakthrough enablers like 5G infrastructure
and devices, cities like Spokane have the opportunity to capitalize on
years of intelligent operations, creative problem solving, integrated
planning/asset management and responsive citizen engagement to
systematically adopt durable solutions to the pain points identified by
the citizens--the ones with the lived experience in neighborhoods. City
leaders are and will always be focused on ensuring that public benefits
remain at the forefront of government operations. Approaching
challenges holistically--employing tools like crowd sourcing prior to
designing solutions and using decision criteria that ensure the
outcomes are measured in terms of improving economic, social and
environmental equity and resilience will be the expectation. There is a
tangible opportunity to move public engagement from an episodic to a
continuous experience.
As consumers and citizens we are living in a time of unprecedented
acceleration of change--socially, economically and environmentally.
Additionally we are experiencing the increasing availability of choices
to meet every subset of our needs. As solutions informed by massive
amounts of data become the norm, we have adjusted our expectations that
everything become more personalized, more participatory, more
predictive, and more preventive. Communities will increasingly have
more comprehensive inputs to fully understand complex, personalized and
localized systems. At Urbanova we think of this opportunity akin to
``mapping the city genome'' so that communities are no longer faced
with one-size fits most prospects when charting the course of the
future for residents, businesses and visitors.
5G promises to accelerate the smart city applications that rely on
high speed, high bandwidth and low latency. This includes a spectrum
from widespread self-driving mobility to AI-powered image recognition
shifting city services and industries into the realm of real-time,
authentically data-driven operations. The efficiency and effective use
of edge computing and edge intelligence opens the door to use cases
that dramatically improve operational metrics.
In addition, even smart city applications that do not depend upon
the high speeds delivered with 5G will benefit from the experience
gained as cities, businesses and people adjust to doing things with a
greater degree of inputs from a greater number of devices. The
behavioral changes will take longer than the adoption rate and
infrastructure modifications needed to realize the full benefits of 5G.
Economic Benefits
The promise of smarter and more connected communities is
fundamentally a leveling of the playing field. In their 2018 Book: The
New Localism--How Cities Can Thrive in the Age of Populism, Bruce Katz
and Jeremy Nowak assert: ``This new locus of power--this new localism--
is emerging by necessity to solve the grand challenges characteristic
of modern societies: economic competitiveness, social inclusion and
opportunity; a renewed public life; the challenge of diversity; and the
imperative of environmental sustainability.'' And ``Power now belongs
to the problem solvers.'' Those problem solvers, equipped with high-
speed, secure broadband services will live where the quality of life
suits their needs.
In Urbanova's Spokane University District proving ground, we're
fortunate to have a confluence of six higher education institutions
(including two medical schools) co-located in an area adjacent to our
thriving downtown and a medical district which serves as the medical
hub for the multi-state region of the Intermountain Northwest. This 770
acre area is poised for intelligent, connected commercial and
residential development. For example, Washington State University's
Elson S. Floyd College of Medicine was founded in 2015 and is a
community-based medical school dedicated to rural and underserved
populations. Students are immersed in team-based delivery techniques
which prepare clinicians to improve health and wellness for individuals
and populations.
Mid-sized cities have the greatest potential to lead an economic
future that bridges the urban-rural divide. Communities which are
presently less densely populated will benefit from the lessons learned
and intelligence gathered by nearby cities experiencing growth. In
fact, a 2017 report published by the National League of Cities noted
that more than half of the people who live in rural areas also live in
counties that are part of a metropolitan area.
Security and Privacy
Virtually every service provided by a city, utility or other
service provider is done so only with and at the consent of the people
served. In the case of technology-enabled services the potential is and
always will be dependent upon the faith people have in the service to
improve some aspect of collective or individual well-being. Apple CEO
Tim Cook, speaking in Brussels late last year said: ``. . . At its core
technology promises to learn from people individually to benefit us all
. . . For artificial intelligence to be truly smart it must respect
human values--including privacy. If we get this wrong, the dangers are
profound. We can achieve both great artificial intelligence and great
privacy standards. It is not only a possibility--it is a
responsibility.''
Essential security and privacy practices are not significantly
different from one communication transport infrastructure to another--
be it Wi-Fi, 4G LTE, DSL, etc.
The security of telecommunications networks begins at the origin of
the supply chain for each piece of equipment. The key area of support
for secure and successful realization of the potential of 5G
deployments is ensuring that suppliers are motivated to make verifiably
secure products. Procurement language must support evaluation before
purchase and sufficient time must be built into schedules for trust-
but-verify functionality prior to commissioning.
Conclusion
Communities empowered by the insights provided by quantitative and
qualitative data can capitalize on their unique strengths to
continuously improve the health and well-being of residents while
businesses grow and thrive and visitors return. Thoughtfully deployed
5G networks help make this tangible future a reality for all.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much. And let me thank
all five members of our panel. Very, very informative and
thought-provoking testimony.
We'll begin with a 5-minute round.
Mr. Gillen, last year Meredith Baker testified before this
Committee and said we were in danger of falling behind other
countries in the race for 5G saying that the United States at
that time was behind both China and South Korea, and that we
were ranked sixth in availability of critical mid-band
spectrum. We now have information that we still rank sixth in
availability of mid-band spectrum. Are we behind other
countries in the overall race to 5G? Where are we? And is there
still time? And what do you recommend to this Committee in
terms of statutory policy?
Mr. Gillen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
question, and it's the exact right focus. Where are we globally
on this important technology? Others see what 4G leadership has
meant to the United States and want to take that for the
industries of tomorrow with 5G. As you alluded to, a report we
did last year had us neck and neck with South Korea and China
in the race to 5G.
I think to the credit of both industry and government,
there has been a great response in the United States to update
how we're going site and actually place new 5G networks. And
we've seen investment from all four national carriers and
throughout the supply chain of responding to the threat from
China. We actually have a study out commissioned now, so
hopefully in a few months I can give you the latest rankings,
but we feel a lot better that we're in a position to compete
globally and to lead the world as we all want to be.
In terms of policy, as you alluded to, the key one for us
right now is we've done a great job in high band spectrum. We
went from zero auctions to three auctions planned. We need to
do the same thing on mid-band. The other countries have
approximately 300 megahertz that are going to be available.
We're only going to have about 70 megahertz, and fixing that
delta is key. We think the AIRWAVES Act is a great vehicle to
do that.
The Chairman. OK, help us with this. This is not the
Olympics where you cross the finish line and there's all the
evidence there. How do we know when we've won? And when will we
know who has won the race to 5G?
Mr. Gillen. I think we'll know in a few years. I think the
one thing you will--reason you won't see is where----
The Chairman. A few years and not a few months.
Mr. Gillen. Correct. Yes. This is a long generational
buildout we're going to have and a long generational of
investment. I think we'll know when we see where investment is
going. When you look at where new AI and robotics investments
are going, whose 5G platform are they building on? Why do
companies build their R&D facilities here? Because we led the
world in 4G, and you had to be here to have the most advanced
networks.
So when we see where that investment is going--Is that
Chinese based? Is that U.S. based? Where is that?--we'll have a
sense of where we stand in that race.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Berry, specifically what do you advocate in terms of
changes in Universal Service Fund policies?
Mr. Berry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Universal Service was
based on 24 years ago, a concept that you should have similar
reasonable services in rural America, and it was based on
interstate voice calls. We would call that--sort of--equivalent
to a 2G type of technology, although it was wireline. So we've
come a long way from that period in time to where we are now.
And as Brad just said, there is going to be an enormous amount
of new innovative services and uses of spectrum, and we're
going to have to update our view of what is a contribution to
the USF fund.
I think you have to also look at the other key critical
elements. Spectrum, you have to have spectrum. You have to have
that available in rural areas so that smaller geographic areas
can bid, and win, and utilize, and integrate that spectrum. And
I think you have to have infrastructure policies that allow you
to excel on siting in rural America. All of those things are
going to be important if you're going to have a Universal
Service Fund that keeps America, rural America, in the race.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Bhatt, how would the school bus accident have been
prevented with the implementation of 5G?
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And so if you look at
the number of school bus near misses every year in America,
it's an astounding number. And so with vehicle-to-vehicle
technology, you could have a signal coming from the school bus
alerting all vehicles that are equipped with the technology,
and as we drive forward, we'll get more and more of these
vehicles equipped, so that instead of relying on a driver
response to seeing those flashing lights and obeying those
flashing lights, the vehicle itself knows that it can't go by
there, it can't pass a school bus. And so there are all sorts
of applications, but particularly with school bus safety, I
think that's one we'd love to see more deployment.
The Chairman. So there is going to be a device in the
school bus, and you anticipate that every--every vehicle
manufactured after a certain date will have the capability of
actually sensing that and stopping regardless of how
inattentive the driver might be.
Mr. Bhatt. Yes, Mr. Chairman. So what you're starting to
see now is more and more connectivity within the vehicles. So
you have vehicles talking to vehicles. You have in Colorado now
they are working on a connected vehicle pilot on I-70. So you
have roadside units that are talking to the vehicles, so if a
vehicle deploys its airbag----
The Chairman. So we can do that now under 4G.
Mr. Bhatt. You can do that under 4G, but what 5G allows is
even faster connectivity. The latency, as the latency comes
down, you get direct vehicle-to-vehicle connectivity. You also
get greater penetration. And this is also involving broadband.
So there are multiple layers of connectivity here.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Cantwell.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And again thank you to the witnesses. I want to try to hit
on two issues if I could, and I know they sound, you know, at
two ends of the spectrum, but I think that's what we need to
address.
Mr. Wessel, you mentioned a couple of things. One, I think
your written testimony is far more extensive than your remarks,
so thank you for that. But I noticed in your testimony you say
in 2018, the heads of the CIA, FBI, NSA, DIA, NGA, and the
Director of National Intelligence publicly testified to their
concerns about utilizing products or services from Huawei.
So I don't know where you are on this question of what we
do to build out the network on security. You can give me your
thoughts on that. But I'm also interested in your ITU comments
because you are talking about an international standards body
setting, and they're already over there dominating the
standards body. Why aren't we leading the way in saying no one
should be able to have backdoor networking, you know, as part
of the system and leading a larger vocal concern about anybody
who has used these tactics, you know, as state actors to
participate in the standards-setting forum at all? Your
comments on that.
Mr. Wessel. Well, it's a great question, and thank you, and
one that I've thought a lot about. And after our hearing last
year at the Commission on 5G, IoT, and similar issues, we met
with some of our governmental participants: NIST, FCC, and
others. The U.S. goes to many of these standards-setting
bodies, as it does on world health and many others, looking at,
How do we define the best approach that's going to help the
global commons? We don't look at it as how are we going to
advance the interests of individual interests within our own
country or government?
China, for many years, has taken a very different approach
and has accelerated its work at the ITU and in other bodies and
has been able to direct the approaches to try and advance the
technologies that they are producing: Huawei, ZTE, and others.
So it is a clear industrial policy that you can relate back to
the five-year plans, China 2025, and others.
Senator Cantwell. But we should be--we should be clear that
we think violations of this kind of, you know, state actor
activity shouldn't--that the ITU standards-setting body, we
should come up with a framework that helps people understand
that we can't have people who are participating in these
activities sitting on standards boards and trying to influence
this outcome.
Mr. Wessel. I agree with you 1,000 percent.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
Ms. Zentz, I know Mr. Bhatt mentioned transportation, which
is a great aspect, but one thing that struck me about the
entire smart cities effort and interest, and you mentioned some
of your partners, Avista and others, is this issue of real-time
savings on water. You know, irrigation is such a big aspect of
the Washington economy, and our farmers and resources are being
challenged by the changes in climate. What do you think that
application could do for helping us in real-time information
about water usage?
Ms. Zentz. Thank you for that question. Yes, indeed, water
is, in fact, our most precious resource. And it's interesting
to note that it's not priced as our most precious resource at
the consumer level, and it's not managed as our most precious
resource by leveraging data in real time.
So there are applications where you--with the proper
information, people can understand how you manage water like
inventory. And so with the data, with the data-informed
information for those who are operating our water resources, be
they for irrigation or for potable water for citizens, then
applications that are related to 5G and other methods of
getting data to the operators help us substantially reduce the
water that is wasted and is not used properly.
Senator Cantwell. Is anybody else doing this right now
better than we are, or are we pioneering this aspect?
Ms. Zentz. You mean globally?
Senator Cantwell. Yes. I look--I mean, I know Israel is
very efficient on water usage, but I don't know if it's because
they're using data or using other things----
Ms. Zentz. Right.
Senator Cantwell.--that they've advanced. But----
Ms. Zentz. I don't know that there is any one country that
substantially leads the way, but the United States has a way
to--a ways to go to catch up because of those economic signals
that I mentioned earlier. We've got to put those economic
signals in real terms in front of the end user because that's
where you have the opportunity to conserve and make more use of
the resources.
Senator Cantwell. I agree. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Wessel, on Senator Cantwell's question,
is the horse already out of the barn in some areas of the
United States with regard to these Huawei-ZTE IoT devices, and
in some areas globally?
Mr. Wessel. There is certainly some deployment, and Huawei,
as I understand it, has about 9 percent of the essential
patents. But this--the horse is not fully out of the barn. We
also have some deployment management issues that are going to
be coming over the next several years, and there are a lot of
risk mitigation strategies we can engage in. And, again, as the
administration is doing with many of our global partners, Five
Eyes plus, trying to ensure the security of those systems. That
will help drive a market-based approach that hopefully western
suppliers will have greater opportunity to participate in the
rollout.
The Chairman. Do you think the proper authorities are on
this issue now?
Mr. Wessel. I think that as you're hearing us doing, is we
are, you know, focusing on these issues. This administration
has--has given attention to it, but it is such a broad and deep
problem, something I learn about new every day on new threat
vectors, et cetera, that much more needs to be done.
The Chairman. I hope so.
Now we have Senator Fischer followed by Senator Schatz.
STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
To the extent, Mr. Bhatt, that 5G becomes the vehicle-to-
infrastructure solution, I've heard concerns that a slow 5G
buildout in rural Nebraska and other rural areas of this Nation
could put them at a disadvantage compared to urban areas. I
think we all recognize that. If connected passenger and freight
vehicles ultimately depend on 5G, a slow buildout will mean
that rural communities will face significant economic losses.
During the buildout of 3G and 4G, rural areas were a lower
priority for carriers due to their population density. And we
saw a lower return on investment for those carriers, which
played into that as well.
It's my understanding that a 5G buildout will focus on
network densification, requiring a much greater use of antenna
locations, and that's going to further slow development in
those rural areas. How do you think rural states can work
together with carriers in order to address this?
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Senator. And as I mentioned, I was
the Secretary of Transportation at Delaware, I was the Director
in Colorado, and I was the Deputy in Kentucky, and----
Senator Fischer. You move around a lot.
Mr. Bhatt. I can't hold a job. Somebody else will be here
testifying for ITS America in a week.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bhatt. But those urban-rural issues are incredibly
important. And how do you make sure that people can remain in
the communities that they've grown up in and make sure, in
particular, that they can engage in this global marketplace?
And I think that what you're seeing is the transportation
network that was originally built first connected those
communities, and now you're starting to see broadband.
So in Wyoming, I-80 has a connected vehicle pilot, because
freight is an important component, and is using broadband lines
that are deployed to connect vehicles and the system and
provide more safe information. And I think that it's going to
be critical that all of our partner states, cities,
municipalities, work with private sector companies to make sure
that we don't have a digital divide, and there are
infrastructure opportunities in the next infrastructure bill or
the reauthorization where we can continue some of these
partnerships.
Senator Fischer. Do you look at those public-private
partnerships as a solution? Do you think that this technology,
as we see it with pilot projects now, but in the future, do you
think it's going to be able to make it just with states or
cities being able to get the infrastructure in to do this? I
mean, it's hard enough maintaining highways that we have now
without adding more technology to them. So do you think a
public-private partnership is an answer to that? And how is
that going to work? They're used in some states now with
infrastructure construction, but I think it's going to be
needed in the future when we look at the deployment here of 5G.
Now that I've led you into your answer, how do you view
that?
Mr. Bhatt. Yes.
[Laughter.]
Senator Fischer. I didn't mean to do that. But----
Mr. Bhatt. So----
Senator Fischer. How is that going to work when certain
states are leery of a public-private partnership when you look
at infrastructure?
Mr. Bhatt. Senator Fischer, I think you're exactly right.
If you look around the country, the vast majority of P3s that
are deployed are in areas where there is a lot of traffic or
there is a bridge, and it's a certain point. But I think that
you can also look at areas where an innovative P3 is using
availability payments. So as an example, in Delaware, we had
challenges with rural paratransit, where it would cost the
state $50 to provide a ride because it was just an expensive
ride, and not everybody needed that level of service, but you
could make an availability payment available to say, hey, for
$20, if a private sector partner wanted to come in and deliver
that ride, it created more opportunities.
So I think that between public sector infrastructure
investment, and there's a FAST Act reauthorization that will be
a good opportunity to spur that private sector innovation, and
then a firm, I think, steadfastness from Federal, State, and
local partners that says the rural component here is important,
I think we'll be able to achieve those outcomes.
Senator Fischer. Thank you.
Mr. Berry, when we look at the potential that's out there
for precision agriculture and the Internet of Things and being
able to have that growth, especially looking at agriculture,
manufacturing, how can policymakers help with that to achieve
those benefits in rural areas, those 5G benefits in rural
areas, so we can overcome the density challenges and we don't
deepen the digital divide?
Mr. Berry. Thank you, Senator. One of the things I should
have mentioned with Senator Wicker, and obviously you are very
well aware of the fact that we don't have the data. Ms. Zentz
was talking about data and transfer of data. We don't have the
information on where broadband exists in rural America. How can
you build on a solution if you don't know, you know, where
you're starting? So that's one thing I think policymakers can
do, is say we want actionable information on where these
services exist, so then you know how you can build a system
that will give you real time, 4G, 4G LTE, VoLTE, 4G Advance is
going to be the precursor and NB-IoT is going to be the
precursor to 5G. You can't get there unless you have coverage.
So that's the first thing we should do, and for the life of
me, I don't understand why we can't figure it out, everyone
here knows that they are lacking in coverage areas throughout
their states. And yet the FCC indicated they were going to stop
and look at the USF program, and then 5 days after they
announced that, they issued a report saying there was 100
percent coverage in the United States. We have to do better,
and that's where I think we start because I think we've got a
great lineup of good ideas here for the private sector to
engage in, in the 5G world.
Senator Fischer. Right. I think all of us here on this
Committee, if we just had different gadgets in our car, we
could drive around our states as we visit community and
constituents, and we could tell you where it works and where it
doesn't.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Fischer.
Senator Schatz, and to be followed by Senator Blackburn.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
Senator Schatz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all
of the testifiers.
I want to follow up on the line of questioning from Senator
Fischer. And it seems to me, Mr. Berry, that we continue to not
talk about the reason that we're not expanding broadband
coverage, and that is that the FCC is chicken to do
contribution reform. That's the problem. And every time we have
a problem with coverage in rural America, whether it's my state
or the Chairman's state or anybody's community, we wave a wand
called USF and we say this should be a new eligible use, but
it's a shrinking pie. And it's a shrinking pie of the
individuals who, as we all know, use landline telephones, and
then they subsidize broadband and other connectivity for the
rest of the country.
And so I worry that as we race to get 5G in as many places
as we can, we don't have 4G in many places, we don't have
broadband connectivity in many places. And we want to win every
race, but we don't want to admit that this takes resources. And
so 10 percent of this, you know, of an auction, none if it's
enough, none of it's enough. It is just enough for all of us to
claim that we're doing something about it, but if we really
want to think about it in the scale that is necessary, the way
we think about, say, rural electrification or the railroads or
the highways connecting our country, then we need more money
for that purpose, and the idea that we're going to keep
charging people with landlines to subsidize an ever-growing
list of stuff that we all love seems to be that we're--we're
whistling past the graveyard here.
Mr. Berry, can you comment on that?
Mr. Berry. Senator, I couldn't agree more, that the
investment opportunity or the economic opportunity that comes
from a small investment is--I mean, Brad's study and CTIA's
study show the economic growth that's potentially available in
the United States. We were going to have to address that issue,
but you've got to start with the data. If you get the data
right and you know where to target the money--we're getting
ready to make a $4.53 billion mistake if we deploy our
resources in a way without knowing where they should go.
And then you have to look at the second phase of it, which
I think you most appropriately pointed out, and that is those
that are making a lot of money off of filling up the data--
filling up the pipelines and providing data and information
across these networks, and everyone agrees that not only rural
America, but urban-suburban America, deserve the same type of
service, it costs money, it costs resources. And we need to
figure out who also should contribute in a contribution reform
mechanism. I said to a friend the other day that for the last
24 years U.S. consumers, just consumers, you and I, have made
almost $150 billion of investments in the USF fund. Corporate
America hasn't done so, and many of those are earning trillion
dollar benefits without the economic contributions. I think we
have to address it.
Senator Schatz. Thank you.
Let me just change the topic back to the Huawei
conversation.
Mr. Wessel, in your testimony, you describe this problem as
both a sort of cybersecurity challenge as well as a competitive
issue for the United States, and in your exchange with Senator
Cantwell, you focused, it seemed to me, primarily on the sort
of competitive aspects, race to 5G, how what we're doing
relates to our global competitiveness. Can you flesh out,
however, the cybersecurity concerns related to the supply
chain, and whether it's Huawei or any other company, where we
don't know for sure that we're cyber secure?
Mr. Wessel. I'd be happy to. And my prepared testimony, as
you said, dealt with that more, and after our six intelligence
and law enforcement experts or leaders talked about this last
week, they have more expertise than I do, although I'm
certainly informed by the work with them and their people.
The supply chain risks, the cyber risks, are paramount
there. As I indicated in the national intelligence law
discussion, Chinese companies are required to comply with
government decisions wherever they operate. So Huawei and
others saying that they're going to protect data in a foreign
market, as they just have talked about with Germany, or Merkel
has described that as a condition, they cannot do that based on
their own country's law, and we all know how China is
aggressive in the use of detention, et cetera. And I think
they're more likely to comply with what the politburo tells
them to do than they are concerned about being brought before a
court of law in Germany.
Senator Schatz. And so let me just finish up because I'm
over time.
Mr. Wessel. Yes.
Senator Schatz. As the Committee considers this particular
issue, I think we do want to divide this question. The
competitiveness issue is, listen, if somebody has got 7 percent
of our market in a free market, in a global market, we can live
with that, but if somebody that poses a cybersecurity risk to
us has 7 percent of the IoT market, that has to be brought down
to zero, or the cybersecurity risk has to be brought down to
zero with some good safeguards.
So I just want to make sure we don't think we're in just
some generic race like automobiles. This has to do with our
personal privacy, our business secrets, our intellectual
property, our global competitiveness. It's a little bigger than
whether some company can deploy, say, telehealth, you know, 7
months before us. Both are important, but they're not the same.
Mr. Wessel. This goes to traditional national security
issues that the military intelligence personal security when
you look at some of the applications you can have.
Let me quickly, if I can, though, also just----
Senator Schatz. With the Chairman's permission.
The Chairman. Quickly.
Mr. Wessel. Quickly, the rural issue you're raising also
has to be looked at here because the cost pressures, as
everyone has identified, has driven a number of rural areas to
utilize Huawei and ZTE Chinese equipment because of the cost
benefits, and the result of that has put us potentially into
have a two-tiered security issue that jeopardizes even more of
the rural areas that has to be addressed.
Senator Schatz. OK. Thank you.
The Chairman. There's a reason China has given that
technology away at a cut-rate price.
We now have Senator Blackburn, and she will be followed by
Senator Udall.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE
Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to you all. And you're exactly right, there
is a reason they're giving it all away, and it's they want
their data, our data, and they want the data mining, they want
the access. Huawei and ZTE, as we well know, are well known for
embedding that spyware and malware into their equipment, and
it's why several years ago at Energy and Commerce over in the
House, Mike Rogers and I had the amendment to block them from
selling to our U.S. Government and our military.
Mr. Berry, before I get going, thank you for raising the
coverage issue. The 477 maps, we've talked about it many times,
are a problem. NTIA needs to take over this mapping
responsibility and clean it up before we get going on this. And
we have to close the digital divide; it's imperative. And we're
not going to do that unless we know where we need to go, so
important to do that.
I want to come a different way at some of this with China.
And the Chairman and I both serve on Armed Services, and one of
the things that I have done as we've looked at some of these
telecom issues and technology issues, the integration of that,
is being concerned about fostering the right type environment
in our country for the commercial sector and the Department of
Defense to be able to share information. And I think it's
vitally important as we look at what is going on with 5G and
the applications that are there and as we consider spectrum
availability and as we look at supply chain.
And, Mr. Gillen, I want to come to you. If you will just
couch this a little bit and then Mr. Wessel quickly to follow
him, on how we can benefit and how we best have that
information shared between our commercial sector and Department
of Defense. And the reason I'm asking this is because when you
look at China, you never know where their commercial industrial
complex ends and their military complex begins, and we've all
seen it. And we know that they are reverse engineering, we know
that they are stealing our intellectual property. So let's
approach this issue with standards, concerns with the ITU, and
look at the supply chain, the spectrum availability for 5G and
how we have encouraged that information share.
Mr. Gillen. Thank you, Senator. I completely agree the need
to be strong partners with the national security community and
the Department of Homeland Security to know where the risks
are. I would say from when this Committee started talking about
this issue in 2012, just to give some context, the Chinese
vendor market share was roughly 4 percent in 2014. It's now .2
percent--2.2 of 1 percent. Globally, it's now 38 percent. And
so I think it is one of those that the more information we have
as to how it would help keep consumers safe, the more we can
act on it in terms of our own supply chain.
Senator Blackburn. OK. Mr. Wessel.
Mr. Wessel. Just quickly, your service on the Committee,
you understand all of the new drone technologies, situational
awareness, the use of AI, big data, et cetera. You point to the
key issues. How do we not only protect our networks but the
data that has the value in those networks? And that is, you
know, increasingly not just a Boeing or Northrop, it goes to a
much broader cross-section of issues. China is involved in
electronic reconnaissance of our critical infrastructure, has
been for years, and all that data empowers them should there be
any kind of a challenge or conflict that we have to deal with.
Senator Blackburn. What can the role of Congress be in
fostering greater information sharing? Is there antitrust
liability exemptions, for example, that we should consider?
Because we know we're in a race on this, and we also appreciate
setting the standards are important. Any thoughts there? No. No
one has an additional thought.
Mr. Wessel. I'd be happy to get back to you after giving it
some more thought.
Senator Blackburn. Please do. I think that it is something
that we need to be thoughtful about, but we also need to
realize that greater competitive challenge that is in front of
us.
And, Mr. Gillen, I appreciated your comments about the mid-
band spectrum. ``Goldilocks'' might be a pretty good term for
that utilization. And I appreciate that the FCC just completed
its first millimeter-wave auction, and they're looking at the
beginning of the second, and I know that we are lagging behind
in this mid-band spectrum. If we start with pulling more of
that mid-band and putting it into auction, making it available,
we are going to see the benefits of that via the economies of
scale that are going to be out there and are associated with
some of that global harmonization. We appreciate that. And I
know that there are interference and public interest concerns.
But at some point we are going to need to acknowledge that if
we just sit on it and maintain status quo, we are going to lose
the 5G race. Just a thought or two about what happens in the
near term, in the mid-term, if we fail to move forward with
making spectrum available and getting it out to auction
quickly, specifically in the mid bands?
Mr. Gillen. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for your
leadership on this issue for quite some time. I think the
consequence of not getting spectrum, particularly in mid-band,
is all the great things we were talking about on this dais can
come to fruition or can't come to fruition in the time-frame
that we all want them to be. So for us, it really is a matter
of mid-band is that missing piece to provide the connectivity
we need, and as you said, it's time for decisions.
Senator Blackburn. OK. Mr. Berry, anything to add?
Mr. Berry. Yes. I absolutely agree with your recognition
that mid-band is critical to deployment in the 5G world. 3.5,
the C-band, as we call it, the 3.7, the 4.2, and the L-band.
The L-band issue has been languishing for 7 years, no decision.
We have to do better on that.
It's going to also send signals to the OEMs, to the
manufacturers, that the devices and the capabilities and the
dingles and, you know, all the unique technology that comes
along with riding on spectrum is a signal that, hey, get ready
because we're going to need it. If we don't have the spectrum
identified and have it ready to go to market, it will be
literally years before the devices are available off the shelf.
Senator Blackburn. Yes.
Mr. Berry. So we have to think ahead, and you're absolutely
in the right place.
Senator Blackburn. Well, spectrum is the sweet sauce, so
thank you all very much. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Blackburn.
Senator Udall and then Senator Moran.
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Udall. Thank you, Chairman Wicker, and thank you to
the panelists today, and I look forward to our work together in
this Congress on this issue. Today's hearing on making sure the
U.S. leads on 5G and technological advances is critical to the
future of our mobile network and even more importantly, to both
national security and privacy interests. We have known about
the potential surveillance threats that Huawei and ZTE pose for
networks for nearly a decade, but, frankly, we have not done
enough to prevent their equipment from being used or to
encourage other manufacturers to work with all network
providers. If we ban this equipment on our networks, like we
are encouraging other countries to do, such as the European
Union, there is a significant cost, at least in the short term.
Mr. Berry, national security concerns about Huawei and ZTE
have been well documented over the past decade, including a
2012 report from the House of Representatives Intelligence
Committee that identified the risk, and I'm quoting here from
that report, Huawei's and ZTE's provision of equipment to U.S.
critical infrastructure could undermine core U.S. national
security interests, end quote. Now, given this alarming report
and other reports around the same time warning providers from
using this equipment, why did your members continue to do
business with these manufacturers?
Mr. Berry. Thank you, Senator. Good question, tough issue,
serious issue. Many of--very few of our members have that
equipment in their networks, and some of them have had it for
several years. Our members want to do the right thing, they
want to do the right thing by their consumers, they want to do
the right thing for the community, and obviously they want to
do the right thing for national security. I think by
recognizing the fact that most of them are in small rural areas
tax to find a way to build out a network on a shoestring, they,
you know, have a small revenue stream, a few customers to
attract to, and the attractiveness of getting into a service
for their consumers has been very appealing.
You should also note that our support programs under the
USF drives the cost down to the lowest common denominator. You
don't win and you don't get any credit for using equipment that
may actually cost more because it may or may not be on a
government's blacklist. So, yes, we want to work with the
government, we want to work with the entities and the
authorities that can identify and actually provide some
guidance.
The good thing is we're moving from a 4G LTE VoLTE to a 5G
network. We have an opportunity to secure a 5G network, and I
think we should have a national effort to do so, and I think we
have an opportunity to cycle some of those small carriers into
a more acceptable position from a national security point.
Senator Udall. Yes. Mr. Berry, last year your organization
responded to the Federal Communications Commission's supply
chain notice of proposed rulemaking and submitted a number of
declarations outlining problems that smaller carriers,
including those serving hard-to-serve expensive areas, have
attempting to procure equipment. These include that small
regional carriers lack the economies of scale to incentivize
other equipment manufacturers to work with them.
Two quick questions. Is this still accurate?
Mr. Berry. Many of my members, the same members that signed
the declaration----
Senator Udall. Right.
Mr. Berry.--are saying that it's--it's changing, that they
have--they've been--they've had--they had overtures from some
of the other vendors that, you know, recognize the dilemma
they're in, and I think slowly but surely we are recognizing
that when you don't have scope and scale, it's a different--
it's a different service that you're providing. And also, these
carriers have 3G technology, which, in many cases, no one is
making it anymore. So that is another challenge to get to the
next generation of technology and also provide your customers
service. In many areas, that's the only connectivity.
Senator Udall. And to stay within my time here, just a yes
or no on this one. Are those obstacles going to be even more
pronounced in a 5G buildout?
Mr. Berry. They could very well be. For those carriers that
have the technology and the network, yes. For those carriers,
the rest of the carriers, in the United States--as Mr. Gillen
said, Huawei is probably the leader, world leader, in 5G
technology, and taking out that, eliminating that, will in fact
put more pressure on us as a nation and us, on the carriers.
Senator Udall. Yes. And, obviously, Mr. Chairman, we need
to take a really hard look at these national security and
privacy issues.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. No question about it. Thank you, Senator
Udall.
Senator Moran followed by Senator Scott.
STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MORAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS
Senator Moran. Chairman Wicker, thank you for this hearing,
your debut hearing as Chairman. It's a great topic, an
important one, for us, both from a national security point of
view, but for our ability to remain a competitive country and
for rural America to have access to technology.
Mr. Gillen, I'm going to start with you first. The
President has called for a national spectrum strategy for
managing our resources, and he recently issued a Presidential
memorandum advancing that strategy. I chair the Commerce
Justice and Science Subcommittee, that has appropriations over
NTIA. This development caught my attention, what the
administration is saying. How can the administration's
development of that national strategy speed up 5G deployment in
the United States?
Mr. Gillen. Thank you, Senator. And we also think it's a
great opportunity to chart the course for where we're going to
be in spectrum for the next 5, 10, to 15 years. The key for us
is an actionable plan. There is so much spectrum out there
that's been identified, from low-, mid-, and high-band
spectrum, and the key is a schedule. When are we going to see
that? When are innovators going to be able to invest in it? And
when are we going to be able to plan to build these networks?
So I think the most important thing coming out of that strategy
is an actionable plan with particular focus, as we've talked
about a lot this morning, on mid-band. That's the place from
our U.S. perspective that we need the administration's lead on.
Senator Moran. Do you detect that that plan is forthcoming
in the works and a schedule is part of that?
Mr. Gillen. We certainly hope so. That is our advocacy, and
we're working closely with the Commerce Department and all
interested stakeholders to do that over the summer.
Senator Moran. Ms. Baker's testimony before 2008 in the--
excuse me, to the FCC, her testimony mentioned the FCC's
September 2018 Communications Security, Reliability and
Interoperability Council's report that highlighted the security
advances associated with 5G networks. What are those
improvements and what do they mean for your member companies?
Mr. Gillen. Thank you. It's a great question. We focused a
lot this morning on national security, and part of it is, How
do we secure our networks ourselves to protect our consumers?
And the--one of the things the wireless industry is most proud
is that every generation of wireless, the security gets
stronger. Previous generation's vulnerabilities are addressed.
I think the one that in 5G calls the most to me is the end-to-
end authentication that will happen in a 5G environment so that
when you're talking about Internet of Things devices, when
you're on a Wi-Fi connection, that your network protections
will go with you. And so, again, this is the most advanced
wireless technology for security we've had, and we're excited
for consumers to be able to benefit from it soon.
Senator Moran. Mr. Berry, your testimony caught my
attention, and I think we've had questions about this topic, so
I'm just going to say this in passing. I share your demand and
insistence on accurate mapping, and it's dissatisfying, it's
discouraging, to have us delayed in Mobility Phase II being
able to proceed because the inaccuracy of the maps. And I'm
saying this more for, again, the recognition by the FCC. I want
them to hear one more time from me and others about the
importance of getting those maps right. I would say once again
that the solution should not be that we know we have a bad map
and expect the consumer, the American citizen, to fix the map.
We need accurate maps from the FCC, and we will continue our
efforts to encourage that, to insist on that, but in the
meantime, we're delayed.
Mr. Berry. And if I must say, the FCC should be
congratulated for actually identifying, after looking over 20
million data points on those maps, that they're severely
inaccurate, and they should be congratulated in stopping the
process and trying to decide, what, in fact, should they do? I
think this Committee has given a lot of guidance over the last
year.
Senator Moran. So you're taking away from my insistence, my
complaints, to the FCC, by giving them a compliment. So I'll do
the same thing. I appreciate the direction that the Chairman
and others are now headed on this topic, but it is critical
that we get it right before we spend the money because it's
sad, but we need the money to be spent now to advance the
cause.
Mr. Berry, what examples of innovation from your membership
can you point to in the United States in our aim to win the
competitive global race on 5G?
Mr. Berry. Well, especially in rural areas, I think
innovation is the mother of invention for all these small
carriers. For example, C Spire in Mississippi has already put
together a consortium to identify new innovative ways to deploy
a network, and to get to gigabit speeds in a rural area?
They're using fixed wireless. They're using different types of
unlicensed spectrum. What's going to happen is precision
agriculture, health, education, distance learning, all those
things are going to immediately respond to new availability and
new connectivity. So you can look at Shentel out here in
Virginia just kicked off what they call their--I think they
call it the PowerHouse choice, and getting up to gigabit speeds
in rural areas that before they were, you know, hitting, you
know, lower speeds. So we're going to see the convergence of
technology bringing every, you know potential solution to bear,
and I'm hoping that rural America will, in fact, be recognized
as an innovator in that area.
Senator Moran. Mr. Wessel, I've run out of time, but your
testimony is very interesting to me, and I look forward to
perhaps a second round or an opportunity to have a conversation
with you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Markey.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
Senator Lee and I introduced the Government Spectrum
Valuation Act last Congress. That's legislation that will
finally ensure that the public knows the value of spectrum held
by the Federal Government so that we can know if it is being
put to its best use because you cannot effectively manage what
you have not measured.
Mr. Gillen, why is it so important that we evaluate whether
Federal spectrum is suitable for commercial or unlicensed use,
and then estimate the value of that spectrum to society?
Mr. Gillen. Thank you, Senator. We greatly appreciate your
leadership on this issue and more broadly creating more
efficiency in how government manages the spectrum it has. And
the key for us here is to provide a dollar figure and an
understanding on the gold mine that many agencies are sitting
on that they may not be aware of, and that as we look at what
the next opportunities for spectrum are, we need to provide
more transparency and awareness both within the government and
outside the government as to where those resources lie. So the
more transparency and sunshine we can bring to this process,
the more we'll get a modern spectrum policy.
Senator Markey. Do you agree that we should incentivize
agencies to vacate or share spectrum that they don't need
perhaps through incentive auctions where the Federal agency
relinquishing or sharing their spectrum gets to keep some of
the auction proceeds?
Mr. Gillen. It's a very interesting idea to create win-win
opportunities, yes, Senator.
Senator Markey. OK. And what do you think about the
legislation Senator Lee and I have introduced?
Mr. Gillen. We fully support it.
Senator Markey. Thank you. That's--that's very important to
us.
On cyber shield, I've long said there's a Dickensian
quality to the Internet. It's the best of wires and the worst
of wires simultaneously. It's the best of spectrum and the
worst of spectrum simultaneously. It can enable. It can
ennoble. It can degrade. It can debase. And right now Americans
are reeling from the dark side of the digital revolution, and
that's why I was proud to join with Congressman Lieu in
introducing the Cyber Shield Act. And what that bill does is it
establishes an advisory committee of cybersecurity experts from
academia, industry, consumer advocacy communities, and the
public to create cybersecurity benchmarks for IoT devices, such
as baby monitors, cameras, toasters, refrigerators, and IoT
manufacturers can then voluntarily certify that their product
meets those industry-leading cybersecurity standards and data
security benchmarks, and display this certification to the
public. Recently, CTIA released their own cybersecurity
certification regime for IoT devices requiring all devices
carried on their network to receive a certification, but this
certification isn't consumer facing, it's between the wireless
carriers and the IoT device manufacturers.
Mr. Gillen, could you help to merge what you're doing with
the idea that the public should know what those cybersecurity
certification standards are and to provide consumers with that
information so that they can, like an Energy Star product,
understand what the rating for that product is?
Mr. Gillen. We would welcome the opportunity to sit down
with you and work on what that looks like for us. Eighteen
months ago, we identified that there was a concern around IoT
cybersecurity and that so any device that touches the wireless
network meets these basic requirements. The question then for
us is, What does a consumer mark look like? What information
are you conveying? And that, as you alluded to, Energy Star is
something that consumers can get their heads around, and
cybersecurity is a really challenging one, but we look forward
to working with you on what that looks like.
Senator Markey. Yes, but do you think the consumers
ultimately should have that information as well?
Mr. Gillen. Absolutely, yes.
Senator Markey. Absolutely. Great. And I think that's
important just so they can make up their own mind. And whoever
controls 5G networks controls that valuable data it transmits,
potentially granting companies--governments the ability to
change, reroute, or copy data without detection, a prospect
with alarming privacy and national security implications that
cannot be ignored. And that's why we can't let firms like
Huawei and ZTE, two massive Chinese telecommunications
companies that national security officials fear, may use their
telecom and computing networks to intercept military,
government, civilian, and corporate communications and win the
race to 5G. And we also can't let those companies like Super
Micro Computer, Incorporated, which allegedly produces
microchips, designed and manufactured by China's People's
Liberation Army, to sell their technology to U.S. national
security agencies, and that's why I'm joined by--with Senator
Cortez Masto and Senator Brown in sending this letter calling
on the administration to investigate reports of Chinese
government efforts to secretly manipulate U.S. technology.
We thank all of you for what you're doing here.
Mr. Wessel especially, I'm going to ask you if you could
respond in writing. I can see that my time has expired.
The Chairman. Why don't we insert that letter in the record
at this point, Senator Markey?
Senator Markey. I would--I would appreciate it if that
would be included in the record.
The Chairman. Without objection, that will be done.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Markey. And I would ask Mr. Wessel if you could
provide in writing how you believe we should be able to----
The Chairman. I'm sure Mr. Wessel will do that.
Senator Sullivan.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate
the panel's testimony here today.
I want to ask Mr. Gillen and Mr. Berry a little bit more on
the issue of C-band. And I think a number of folks have seen
that as a favorable band of spectrum for 5G deployment, but I
do have some concerns about what that could mean for states
like mine that have issues of connectivity already.
So let me--let me just ask a couple questions that relates
to that. I certainly want to ensure that the race to repurpose
spectrum in the rollout of 5G does not have negative
consequences. Let me just mention this as it relates to Alaska
where incumbents are already providing critical broadband and
public safety services through the C-band spectrum, how can we
insurance--how can we ensure a balanced approach that helps us
win the 5G race while also responsibly managing those that are
using the C-band spectrum? And, quite frankly, will that go
very well? It seems to be a bit of a difficult balancing act.
Mr. Gillen. We--we certainly share your concerns, Senator
Sullivan. We know that Alaska has unique uses of the C-band
today. For us, we think there is a win-win opportunity, that
there is vacant capacity available. The satellite industry has
said that 200 of the 500 megahertz can be made available
without impacting the current uses of those that are relying on
those services, and we think that's an important factor as we
consider it. I think from our standpoint, 200 is a good start,
but we need more. And I think, as you said, we have to find the
balance of protecting users, but also the political reality of
China has 500 megahertz of mid-band, Germany has 400, we're at
70. This 500 megahertz is the next best and only opportunity to
do that. So we need to get creative. We need to protect who's
there now. But we also have to keep our futures in mind.
Senator Sullivan. Let me ask, and Mr. Berry, you can
respond to this as well, but I understand there's a proposal
floating around regarding the reallocation of C-band, and to be
sold by foreign satellite companies. I'm told that this
proposal would--these companies would conduct a private sale
and keep all the profits. Why wouldn't we auction the spectrum
that is licensed by the taxpayers and use the estimated $40
billion in proceeds to expand rural broadband in places like
Alaska that need it, and, of course, other states represented
on this panel?
Mr. Berry. Good question, Senator. GCI is also a member of
CCA, and so we are very focused on the fact that we don't want
to impair those individuals and those companies that are
currently using C-band. Some interesting work has been done by
the C-band group itself, i.e., the satellite companies that
have identified additional excess capacity, and they would like
to sell it. Now, whether it's through an auction or a private
auction or it's sort of an innovative concept they came up
with, I'm sort of with Mr. Gillen, that I'd love to see more
spectrum available while we continue to service existing users.
The work that's been done shows that you can, in fact, make
that spectrum available without eliminating existing
capabilities, and I think, you know, additional satellites and
so forth and so on. The issue of whether or not it should be
auctioned through an FCC public auction or a private auction is
novel. Many of our carriers have not seen on record the type of
assurances that they would like to see in a private type of
auction that normally you would see in a public auction. So----
Senator Sullivan. Do you see my point about, though, with a
public auction and the ability to use the proceeds on areas?
And if you look at the makeup of this Committee, we have a lot
of states that are similarly situated than mine. I think mine
is the most dramatic example of challenges with regard to
connectivity and to be able to use that to help.
Mr. Berry. Well, you know, the AIRWAVES Act is a good
example of being able to get that rural element, rural reward,
of access to the revenue created by an auction. So it's going
to be a very difficult time.
The other issue is, How fast do we get it? I mean, you
know, we're behind on the mid-band spectrum.
Senator Sullivan. Yes.
Mr. Berry. I think there's a way to do both, i.e., get
access to the spectrum and more--and maybe more spectrum in an
efficient way.
Senator Sullivan. OK. Let me ask one final question. Mr.
Wessel, we have set up a new subcommittee here, Senator Markey
and I will be the two chair and ranking, and that's focused on
economic security issues. It does have 5G as part of our
jurisdictional approach. There's a lot of focus on China. Can
you help us with just from your perspective, not just China,
but principles in which we need to think about these issues
that I know have already been discussed fairly significant as
we look at 5G in the--in the mindset of national security?
Mr. Wessel. Let me get back to you, if I can, with putting
greater thought into that. The new effort you are going to--
about to undertake is vital, and clearly was identified with
the creation of that jurisdiction. The connection between
national and economic security is, you know--is deepening. In
China, those two are synonymous, and we need to have a broad
agenda to develop. So I'd be happy to get back to you on that,
sir.
Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Wessel, for taking that
question on the record.
Senator Sinema.
STATEMENT OF HON. KYRSTEN SINEMA,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA
Senator Sinema. Well, thank you, Chairman Wicker and
Ranking Member Cantwell, for holding this important hearing
today.
I share the views expressed by many of my colleagues
regarding the need for the U.S. to lead in emerging
technologies like 5G, and I'm really proud to represent the
State of Arizona. We're at--we're at the forefront of testing
new technologies, like self-driving cars, and we're building
out smart cities that leverage IoT technologies.
In 2017, our State legislature passed legislation to make
it easier for 5G operators to install small cell equipment in
Arizona, and Gilbert became the first community in Arizona to
fully implement small wireless facilities in municipal rights
of way.
We understand this time of the year between 850 and 1,000
residents are living in our communities, but I recently heard
from a community from Sunscape, Sunscape RV Resort, which is
just east of Casa Grande, Arizona, lives in--is in Pinal
County. And Sunscape residents are all 55 years and older. Many
of them live in--are in their seventies. And depending on the
time of year, between 850 and 1,000 residents live at Sunscape
RV center. But no matter what cell provider they choose, the
area has lacked reliable cell phone service for 15 years. This
is a huge problem for these older Arizonans, most of whom live
on fixed incomes. And these Arizonans have all paid for cell
phone service, often over $100 a month, but they can't even
effectively use these cell phones in their own homes. It's
wrong, and it needs to change, but, more importantly, it's
unsafe because seniors have acute health care needs that
sometimes require immediate medical attention. And so when
requests for medical assistance and 9-1-1 calls get dropped due
to bad cell service, it risks lives.
Yesterday, my staff visited Sunscape RV Center to hear from
park residents and management directly about the challenges
they face, and we learned that this challenge isn't unique to
this park. The minute you get off the highway, that's just a
few miles away, service starts to get spotty. And this problem
is as real for the surrounding neighborhoods as it is for
Sunscape. And yet this isn't an uninhabited or especially far-
flung place. Arizonans call these places home, and they deserve
the same basic services that are afforded to those who live in
our populated cities.
For us, cell phone service means being able to stay in
touch with friends and family even if they don't live close by,
and many of us couldn't imagine life without it. So what these
families need isn't anything groundbreaking, they just need a
new tower or some other means of expanding and improving
service in the area, but it would mean the world to these
Arizonans who are just trying to enjoy their golden years. So
these guys are not asking for a handout, they pay companies for
services that aren't being delivered, and I'd like to fix that.
So I hope that Sunscape's story should serve as a reminder
that as we discuss the benefits of moving to 4G to 5G in the
cities, there are communities all across my state and in our
country that still don't have reliable 3G. In the digital age,
these disparities in service are fundamentally disparities of
opportunity. Rural communities must be a bigger part of the
connectivity conversation, and we can't consider the race to 5G
won until we all cross the finish line.
Mr. Chairman, we know that customer density is one of the
biggest challenges to delivering quality cost competitive 5G in
rural areas. So my question today is for Mr. Berry, who I thank
him for being here.
Congress passed the RAY BAUM'S Act in 2018, which reformed
the permitting process for broadband infrastructure on Federal
lands. And the FCC has taken steps to break down State and
local barriers to 5G deployment. So what progress, if any, has
been made as a result of these changes? And what else can you
suggest to be done to help communities like the Sunscape RV
community?
Mr. Berry. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate it. I think you
are seeing what many of your colleagues are seeing, and that is
that we do not have coverage in 100 percent of the United
States. And, again, I'd like to go back to the data. This is
good information, that this is data points that we ought to
include in the FCC's review of the map. Those areas, we'd love
to work with you. Number one, that's--we'll sit down with some
of our members that may or may not be in the area. I'm sure
that other carriers would also like to address that issue. So
we can do that.
On the larger scale, it is--it's a problem you see over and
over. We're talking about 5G and basic coverage is not
available in most areas. So can we address it? There may be
some unique innovative ideas that we can--technology that we
could utilize to help address those areas, but one--one
community alone is extremely difficult to build out the capital
investments. So we'd like to work with you and find out if
there are solutions that we can do, help that one community,
but, again, it's across not only your state, but almost all of
the rural states, that we have these huge gaps in coverage, and
we're going to have to do a better job of identifying if we're
going to find either USF or other innovative ways to service
those areas.
Senator Sinema. Thank you.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Berry, this community can skip over 4G right to 5G,
can't they?
Mr. Berry. I don't know if they could do that. You have to
have connectivity, and many of the 5G services are going to be
built on fundamental 4G type of LTE network. But there are
certain types of 5G services that, as we've heard today, that
are inherent in the 4G technology itself. So, you're going to
have to have higher bandwidth and probably fiber connectivity
or some type of fixed wireless capability going back to fiber
if you're going to get the 5G in a remote area like that.
The Chairman. Well, let's see about that.
Senator Lee.
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH
Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks to each of you for being here. This is a really
important topic. As we've talked a lot about today, more
technology necessarily requires more spectrum, which happens to
be a limited resource with large valuable bands under the
control of the Federal Government. And this is going to require
us to look at both the licensed and the unlicensed parts of the
spectrum because both play an important role and both form part
of this cohesive whole that is so important for the development
of technology in our country and throughout the world.
Federal agencies have very little incentive to share the
spectrum that they have been allocated to them or to make it
available for commercial use even if it's being used in a way
that might be terribly inefficient. This isn't surprising, it
is understandable, this is in inherent in the nature of
government in many respects, but it's our job, as a Congress,
to watch out for that fact and to do what we can to make sure
that we manage this resource effectively.
There does seem to be an absence of market-based allocation
of spectrum, which I think has led to greater inefficiencies
and some misallocations, and that, in turn, has a tendency to
stifle the development of other technologies upon which we
could rely and from which we could benefit greatly.
It's one of the reasons why at the end of the last Congress
I was pleased to team up with Senator Markey to introduce the
legislation that he referred to during his remarks, which is
the Government Spectrum Valuation Act. This bill doesn't
transition any Federal spectrum allocations. In fact, it's a
data bill that requires the calculation of the value of the
Federal spectrum allocations specifically so that Congress can
better understand what might be described properly as the
opportunity costs associated with the holdings of spectrum by
and within the Federal Government among these Federal agencies,
and to make more informed decisions in partnership with Federal
agencies.
So, Mr. Gillen, it sounds like, from your interaction, your
exchange with Senator Markey, that given that spectrum is a
limited resource, you believe that it is important for Congress
to have the best data and tools necessary to identify any
inefficiencies that might exist within the Federal holdings of
spectrum.
Mr. Gillen. Absolutely. And thank you for the legislation.
It's an important data point, and as you said, this is about
data. This is about providing the transparency as to what
agencies have, and as you started talking, the focus, these
agencies have a mission to run. They're not in charge of
spectrum. They don't necessarily even know what they have. And
so a lot of this is, How do we provide the tools for the
Commerce Department and the other agencies to better the
roadmap of what spectrum could be in the future available and
what the economic opportunities there are?
Senator Lee. So in that respect, this could be helpful to
both Congress and to the agencies themselves who manage it and
may or may not know what it is that they have or understand
what value it has.
Mr. Gillen. 100 percent, and the consumers in the end that
could benefit from new spectrum allocated through that process.
Senator Lee. You've noted that NTIA is studying the 3.45
gigahertz band, which is a very key piece of mid-band spectrum.
I'm pleased that NTIA is studying that. Do you think that an
estimation on the 3.5--the 3.45-gigahertz band and its
commercial value might be helpful as we consider that band's
allocation?
Mr. Gillen. We do think it would be helpful. We think it
would be helpful as we start to talk about what commercializing
that band looks like. Understanding the opportunity would be
first and foremost.
Senator Lee. Overall, do you think that requiring the
identification of these opportunity costs of Federal spectrum
allocations that I've described could help better equip--equip
Congress to work with Federal agencies and manage Federal
spectrum efficiently?
Mr. Gillen. Yes. I think this is a great tool that we would
have greatly benefited from in the past as we try to figure out
what agencies are using spectrum for, and do they even
understand the value of what they have? So I think this is the
type of transparency we're going to need as these spectrum
fights only are going to get harder as there is less and less
spectrum to go around.
Senator Lee. So what then is the risk if we don't do it, if
we don't do something like this?
Mr. Gillen. We're going to miss opportunities where we
could more efficiently use spectrum both within the agencies
and as a country.
Senator Lee. And that, in turn, could stifle innovation
within the marketplace.
Mr. Gillen. Everything we're talking about on this day is
if we don't continue to provide a pipeline of spectrum, we're
not going to get everything we want.
Senator Lee. Thank you very much. I see my time has
expired. I appreciate each of you for being here.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Lee.
Senator Thune.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding this hearing. This is an issue of enormous consequence,
I believe, to our global competitiveness, our economy, and the
country that embraces and gets ahead and wins the race on 5G I
think is going to benefit enormously in terms of the economic
dividends that will come with that.
Mr. Gillen, a number of cities and states across the
country are modernizing their siting policies in order to reap
the benefits of 5G, and much of the early investment in 5G is
going to places that have acted first. That's why I'm pleased
that in my home state of South Dakota, the City of Sioux Falls,
among others, has adopted a forward-looking approach to the
opportunities that next-generation wireless services will
bring.
I am also pleased that the FCC has updated its guidance to
states and localities to reflect new wireless infrastructure
such as small cells. All of this is consistent with the
STREAMLINE Small Cell Deployment Act, bipartisan legislation
that Senator Schatz and I introduced last Congress.
Let me just ask this question: How important is
streamlining the siting process to deployment of 5G?
Mr. Gillen. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for your
focus, and you've really driven this issue. To get 21 states to
act, to get cities like Sioux Falls to engage on this, you've
brought the leadership to make this happen, and it is critical.
We are not going to get where we want on 5G if we continue to
have rules that look like everything is a 200-foot tower along
the sideways--along the highway. And so fundamentally it's, How
do we modernize these--modernize these rules for tomorrow's
networks? And with your leadership, we've made great progress
over the last 2 years.
Senator Thune. Thank you. And you're losing your voice, so
I'm sorry to make you answer these questions, but I've got one
other one. As you know, a robust wireless network with the
speed and capacity to handle thousands and eventually millions
of autonomous vehicles is crucial to realizing what I think are
going to be enormous safety benefits that a connected
transportation system would offer. During this Congress, I
expect to continue to work on defining a Federal framework for
this emerging technology. Could you speak to the ways in which
the deployment of 5G will benefit the emergence of autonomous
vehicles?
Mr. Gillen. Absolutely, and the importance of the ability
to test here. If we want innovation to happen here, if we want
this leadership for the industries of tomorrow to happen in the
United States, we have to be an incubator for it. We have to
allow the testing of it. We have to allow that to be developed.
And so your legislation is critical. When we start talking
about the life-saving aspects that my colleagues have talked so
eloquently about this morning, that to get to those things, we
need to test these technologies and we need to understand what
they are, and that we need your legislation.
Senator Thune. OK. Mr. Berry, last October, U.S. Cellular,
a member of both CCA and CTIA, expressed support for the rural
dividend included in Senator Gardner's AIRWAVES Act, which
would allocate 10 percent of auction proceeds to wireless
deployment in unserved and underserved areas. Given that the
FCC is moving ahead with auctions of much needed new spectrum
licenses regardless of legislation, what are your thoughts
about immediately creating a rural dividend mechanism to
capture the benefit from auctions for targeted rural buildout
support?
Mr. Berry. Senator, thank you. We're totally in favor of
that concept. We supported it last year. I would note that we
did a study at CCA, the assessment of the economic impact of
the AIRWAVES Act itself, and we just looked at the expected
revenue from two auctions, 24 and 28. What would be the
economic impact to rural America should that rural dividend be
in place? $1.25 billion economic impact to agriculture, $3.35
billion to health care, and $850 million impact to
transportation, and that's just from one suggested auction,
it's actually two auctions, 101 and 102, but that was a good
example to use. And by the way, the study came pretty close to
what was actually the number auctioned in the recent 101
auction. So I think those numbers are really low-ball numbers.
If we're talking about three or four or five different types of
auctions, we're talking about a huge opportunity for rural
America that I totally support, yes.
Senator Thune. One last quick question. Mr. Gillen, you
testified before this Committee that midrange spectrum
leverages both capacity and coverage opportunities, which is
helpful in more rural settings. Tell us why this band is so
important to America's 5G leadership and what we can do to
ensure that the wireless industry has enough mid-band spectrum
to deploy 5G.
Mr. Gillen. Thank you, Senator. The value of mid-band is
that it provides both capacity and coverage, that right now we
have high-band spectrum that is incredibly valuable, but it
only can go a couple blocks. We have low-band spectrum that can
go miles, but it doesn't carry the amount of bandwidth that
we're going to need for a lot of 5G applications. We think in a
lot of places mid-band will be what we'll be using for 5G. It's
also, frankly, something that we just don't have that much of
right now available in the market, only 70 megahertz that will
be auctioned hopefully by this time next year. So for us, it
really is, How do we get our national resources focused on
making sure we have all type of spectrum for all different
types of applications and communities?
Senator Thune. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time
is expired.
Thank you all very much.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Thune.
Senator Blumenthal.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
having this hearing.
We've heard from a lot of witnesses, from you today and
others previously, about the very important potential of 5G
technology. It promises to bring us a new era of connectivity
with Internet speeds as much as five times faster than what we
have today with much lower latency, and that's all a good
thing, but 5G, as you well know, also uses higher frequency
waves that don't travel as far and will rely on a network of
hundreds of thousands, potentially millions, of small cell
sites. And the question then is, Are there any health
implications, any public safety implications, to those
additional sites that are likely to be located close to homes,
schools, workplaces, and closer and closer to the ground?
Correct?
Mr. Gillen. Correct, Senator, yes.
Senator Blumenthal. So in December 2018, I sent a letter to
FCC Commissioner Carr asking him to site for me recent
scientific studies demonstrating the safety of this technology,
what research has been done, where has it been published and
compiled? He has essentially failed to do so, and just echoed
the general statements of the FDA, which shares regulatory
responsibility for cell phones with the FCC. If you go to the
FDA website, pretty unsatisfactory. There basically is a
cursory and superficial citation to existing scientific data
saying, quote, The FDA has urged the cell phone industry to
take a number of steps, including support additional research,
on possible biological effects of radio frequency fields for
the type of signal emitted by cell phones. I believe that
Americans deserve to know what the health effects are, not to
prejudge what scientific studies may show, and they deserve
also a commitment to do the research on outstanding questions.
So my question for you, particularly Mr. Gillen and Mr.
Berry, how much money has the industry committed to supporting
additional independent research? I stress ``independent
research.'' Is that independent research ongoing? Has any been
completed? Where can consumers look for it? And we're talking
about research on the biological effects of this new
technology.
Mr. Gillen. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for your focus on
the issue. Safety is paramount, and as you alluded to, we rely
on the expert agencies, rely on the findings of the FDA, and
others as to the requirements to keep all of us safe. There are
no industry-backed studies to my knowledge right now. I'm happy
to visit with you as to what opportunities you think there
needs to be more studies. And we're always for more science. We
also rely on what the scientists tell us.
Senator Blumenthal. So essentially the answer to my
question ``How much money?''--zero.
Mr. Gillen. I can certainly follow up with you, Senator. To
my knowledge, there are no active studies being backed by
industry today.
Senator Blumenthal. Anybody else know of industry
commitments to back research, fund it, support it, to ascertain
scientifically the health effects?
Mr. Berry. Senator, I'm not aware either, but I do know
that with small cells especially, you're going to have lower
power levels. And, of course, as from a carrier perspective,
you want to be able to manage interference so that that
interference is the lowest interference possible. So, I would
think that some of those studies or some of that information
could be utilized in looking at the health consequences, but,
no, I'm not aware of any----
Senator Blumenthal. So there really is no research ongoing.
We're kind of flying blind here as far as health and safety is
concerned.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Tester, after two hours of testimony, I'm sure
you'll agree there is not a single question you could think of
to ask this panel. Is that correct?
Senator Tester. No, I've got a----
Senator Wicker. OK.
Senator Tester. I've got one that's unique. To be honest
with you, Mr. Chairman, it wouldn't matter anyway.
The Chairman. Senator Tester, you are recognized. You are
recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Tester. All right. Thank you.
So, Mr. Gillen, I'm from Montana. Can you give me a time-
frame for when we're going to get service in the great state of
Montana, 5G?
Mr. Gillen. I cannot, Senator, I think in terms of since
the last time we had the opportunity to talk. The nice thing is
we've seen rural carriers figure out their path to 5G. We have
C Spire in Mississippi, we have Cellcom in Green Bay has moved
forward with how that looks like. When it will reach Billings,
I don't have an answer for you.
Senator Tester. Well, not even--I mean, Billings is
certainly one of the more urban, in fact, the most urban area
in Montana. We'd love to have it in Billings next week. But in
your testimony you spoke about how 5G can help with
telemedicine and can help with smart farming. I don't think I'm
wrong on this, telemedicine has its greatest effect in rural
areas. Farming doesn't happen in downtown Cincinnati.
So how can we get those kind of effects if we don't have
that service out there? is the question. I mean, we're not
talking about Billings now, now we're talking about Scobey, and
not a lot of folks live in Scobey anymore, but if you're going
to have smart farming, you've got to have the infrastructure,
and if the infrastructure is focused on the more populated
areas, which I get it, to pay the bills, you have to do that,
what do we have out there to help drive it to rural areas in a
realistic way that will do it in a timely manner? Because as I
pointed out to this Committee before, when I go to my farm, you
can get texts, but this damn thing doesn't work.
Mr. Gillen. And I think it comes back to a lot of the
conversation this morning about, How do we get to unserved
areas? It is the FCC's Mobility Fund, and we have to get the
maps right, and we have to get that money going. It's the rural
dividend in AIRWAVES that would be $70 million from this most
recent auction if it had been in place.
Senator Tester. So do you anticipate that the digital
divide will get wider with--with implementation of 5G?
Mr. Gillen. We don't think it will get wider. It's also
going to take time. We think that 5G has the opportunity in
places that aren't fixed broadband opportunities, there may be
applications that will get broadband in places that it's not
today.
Senator Tester. OK. I don't need to reemphasize my concern
here. My concern is I think there is some great opportunity
here to do some marvelous things to really create some real
economy, not only in the buildout, but after the buildout is
done. My other concern is, is that most of the stuff that's
driven around here is driven on population, so the benefits
that rural America could get to help repopulate those areas are
a long ways off.
I want to talk about something that probably already has
been talked about, Mr. Chairman, and that's Chinese equipment.
Mr. Wessel, do you believe that we should rip this
equipment out right now?
Mr. Wessel. I think there are certain critical networks
that it should be ripped out of, but I think----
Senator Tester. So in my local telephone co-op, the one
right next to my local telephone----
Mr. Wessel. I believe that you need to do a security
evaluation. As you know, there is I-25 corridor and many other
critical sites that, you know, we need. We have assets that
need to be protected.
Senator Tester. Yes, yes. I agree. Is there--is there--is
there access for those small telcos to be able to get security
evaluation? Do they have access to folks who can do that? Or do
they have access to any money that could help them do that?
Mr. Wessel. I'm not aware of money in terms of access to
information. We found it to be very spotty between State DHS,
Federal DHS, and other authorities that the localities don't
know--necessarily know where to go for the kind of advice they
need.
Senator Tester. So, yes. And so--or where to go to--I mean,
because, look, I know many of the folks in Montana, if not all
of them, and I know that they don't want to put this country in
any sort of security risk. And so Mr. Berry, how are these guys
going to do it because I--they aren't running on very big
profit margins, and I don't know any of them that have a big
old bank account. And so how--it's a problem. I will tell you I
think it's a big problem. How can we find out if actually this
outfit actually is in our backyard to the point where this
stuff needs to be fixed and needs to be fixed immediately? And
how can the guys do it? I'm sure they're members of yours.
Mr. Berry. We have several members that have the
technology, and some of them in your state, as you referred to.
It's--it's a difficult issue. I mean, as you said, they're
running on a shoestring compressed with enormous responsibility
to service an area that no one else exists. I mean, one of the
carriers in your area services an area larger than all of the
country of Great Britain and it's----
Senator Tester. You got it.
Mr. Berry.--islands, and no one knows who they are.
Senator Tester. Yes.
Mr. Berry. Can we address it? I think we can. I think we
need a little better direction from the authorities that have
identified this as a national security threat. And I think as
we mature and move to a 5G world, you can cycle out some of
this technology that they identify as the most troublesome
technology. And you're talking about some carriers that are in
3G trying to get to 4G----
Senator Tester. Yep.
Mr. Berry.--they're caught betwixt and between because
they--3G technology is not being made anymore, and rip and
replace is a huge--and it's probably more cost than the value
of their revenue. So it's a tough question. We want to work
with the U.S. Government and do the right thing.
Senator Tester. So I know the Chairman wants this hearing
extended as long as I possibly can, but I'm not going to do
that. What I do need because I don't--we've got a problem,
mission control, we've got to figure out how to solve it. My
guess is that Congress is going to have to be part of that
solution. Man, if anybody at this table can get back with some
ideas on what we need to be doing, I know the chairman will be
open to listening, and the ranking member, and I certainly will
be because I think--I think we've got a problem here that we
need to deal with, and I don't think it's going to be dealing
with by just saying, ``Rip the equipment out, fellows, you've
just got to get rid of it,'' because it's just not going to
work that way. So we need some input. OK? Ideas, solutions.
Thank you all for being here. And, Mr. Chairman, thank you
for your ability to let me go on a little bit over.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Tester. Actually, I think
those are two good notes to end on. And I can assure you, you
have a lot of teammates behind this dais on your first point,
which is bridging the rural divide. So I think we all want to
work with you. A majority of the constituencies represented at
this table are directly affected by that. And then I think it
was well worth you coming and making that point about exactly
what do we do and exactly what needs to be done from a security
standpoint about this equipment that's already there.
So thank you very much, and there being no further
questioners, the testimony will end.
Let me say--let me say this, because there are a lot of
interested parties that have participated in this, and I
appreciate the attendance. As we wrap up today's hearing, it is
apparent that 5G will be a platform for significant economic
opportunity and U.S.-based innovation. I would also note that
as we are on the cusp of this new industrial revolution, we
need to ensure trust across the ecosystem among companies,
consumers, and communities. 5G's power and pervasiveness only
highlights the need for a Federal privacy framework, as this
technology knows no boundaries.
So as we continue our efforts to win the race to 5G, I view
it as this Committee's assignment and this Committee's
obligation to create meaningful privacy legislation that
protects consumers and fosters continued investment and
innovation in the United States. This is a great opportunity
for bipartisan lawmaking in this Committee, and my goal is
legislation that will reach the President's desk. I look
forward to continuing to work with members of this Committee in
a bipartisan manner toward that goal, which will be critical
for our Nation to remain globally competitive and lead the
world on the cutting edge of new technologies.
Now, I want to add something to the record in light of what
Senator Blumenthal raised just so we can have a complete
record. I am told the National Cancer Institute has determined
that, ``although many studies have examined the potential
health effects of nonionizing radiation from radar, microwave
ovens, cell phones, and other sources, there is currently no
consistent evidence that nonionizing radiation increases cancer
risk.'' And that is a quote from the National Cancer Institute.
And I will--I would be happy to have other information
submitted to members of the Committee. But I will cite in the
record the exact web address for this information.
[The information referred to follows:]
National Cancer Institute
Question. Why is there concern that cell phones may cause cancer or
other health problems?
Answer. There are three main reasons why people are concerned that
cell phones (also known as ``mobile'' or ``wireless'' telephones) might
have the potential to cause certain types of cancer or other health
problems:
Cell phones emit radiofrequency radiation (radio waves), a form of
non-ionizing radiation, from their antennas. Parts of the body nearest
to the antenna can absorb this energy.
The number of cell phone users has increased rapidly. There were
over 400 million cell phone subscribers in the United States in 2017,
according to the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet
AssociationExit Disclaimer. Globally, there are more than 5 billion
cell phone usersExit Disclaimer.
Over time, the number of cell phone calls per day, the length of
each call, and the amount of time people use cell phones have
increased. Because of changes in cell phone technology and increases in
the number of base stations for transmitting wireless signals, the
exposure from cell phone use--power output--has changed, mostly
lowered, in many regions of the United States (1).
The NCI fact sheet Electromagnetic Fields and Cancer includes
information on wireless local area networks (commonly known as Wi-Fi),
cell phone base stations, and cordless telephones.
Question. What is radiofrequency radiation and how does it affect
the human body?
Answer. Radiofrequency radiation is a form of electromagnetic
radiation. Electromagnetic radiation can be categorized into two types:
ionizing (e.g., x-rays, radon, and cosmic rays) and non-ionizing (e.g.,
radiofrequency and extremely low frequency, or power frequency).
Electromagnetic radiation is defined according to its wavelength and
frequency, which is the number of cycles of a wave that pass a
reference point per second. Electromagnetic frequencies are described
in units called hertz (Hz).
The energy of electromagnetic radiation is determined by its
frequency; ionizing radiation is high frequency, and therefore high
energy, whereas non-ionizing radiation is low frequency, and therefore
low energy. The NCI fact sheet Electromagnetic Fields and Cancer lists
sources of radiofrequency radiation. More information about ionizing
radiation can be found on the Radiation page.
The frequency of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation ranges
from 30 kilohertz (30 kHz, or 30,000 Hz) to 300 gigahertz (300 GHz, or
300 billion Hz). Electromagnetic fields in the radiofrequency range are
used for telecommunications applications, including cell phones,
televisions, and radio transmissions. The human body absorbs energy
from devices that emit radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation. The
dose of the absorbed energy is estimated using a measure called the
specific absorption rate (SAR), which is expressed in watts per
kilogram of body weight.
Exposure to ionizing radiation, such as from x-rays, is known to
increase the risk of cancer. However, although many studies have
examined the potential health effects of non-ionizing radiation from
radar, microwave ovens, cell phones, and other sources, there is
currently no consistent evidence that non-ionizing radiation increases
cancer risk in humans (2).
The only consistently recognized biological effect of
radiofrequency radiation in humans is heating. The ability of microwave
ovens to heat food is one example of this effect of radiofrequency
radiation. Radiofrequency exposure from cell phone use does cause
heating to the area of the body where a cell phone or other device is
held (e.g., the ear and head). However, it is not sufficient to
measurably increase body temperature. There are no other clearly
established effects on the human body from radiofrequency radiation.
Question. How is radiofrequency radiation exposure measured in
epidemiologic studies?
Answer. Epidemiologic studies use information from several sources,
including questionnaires and data from cell phone service providers, to
estimate radiofrequency radiation exposure. Direct measurements are not
yet possible outside of a laboratory setting. Estimates take into
account the following:
How ``regularly'' study participants use cell phones (the number of
calls per week or month)
The age and the year when study participants first used a cell
phone and the age and the year of last use (allows calculation of the
duration of use and time since the start of use)
The average number of cell phone calls per day, week, or month
(frequency)
The average length of a typical cell phone call
The total hours of lifetime use, calculated from the length of
typical call times, the frequency of use, and the duration of use
Question. What has epidemiologic research shown about the
association between cell phone use and cancer risk?
Answer. Researchers have carried out several types of epidemiologic
studies in humans to investigate the possibility of a relationship
between cell phone use and the risk of malignant (cancerous) brain
tumors, such as gliomas, as well as benign (noncancerous) tumors, such
as acoustic neuroma (tumors in the cells of the nerve responsible for
hearing that are also known as vestibular schwannomas), meningiomas
(usually benign tumors in the membranes that cover and protect the
brain and spinal cord), and parotid gland tumors (tumors in the
salivary glands) (3).
In one type of study, called a case-control study, cell phone use
is compared between people with these types of tumors and people
without them. In another type of study, called a cohort study, a large
group of people who do not have cancer at study entry is followed over
time and the rate of these tumors in people who did and didn't use cell
phones is compared. Cancer incidence data can also be analyzed over
time to see if the rates of brain tumors changed in large populations
during the time that cell phone use increased dramatically. These
studies have not shown clear evidence of a relationship between cell
phone use and cancer. However, researchers have reported some
statistically significant associations for certain subgroups of people.
Three large epidemiologic studies have examined the possible
association between cell phone use and cancer: Interphone, a case-
control study; the Danish Study, a cohort study; and the Million Women
Study, another cohort study.
Interphone
How the study was done: This is the largest health-related case-
control study of cell phone use and the risk of head and neck tumors.
It was conducted by a consortium of researchers from 13 countries. The
data came from questionnaires that were completed by study
participants.
What the study showed: Most published analyses from this study have
shown no statistically significant increases in brain or other central
nervous system cancers related to higher amounts of cell phone use. One
analysis showed a statistically significant, although modest, increase
in the risk of glioma among the small proportion of study participants
who spent the most total time on cell phone calls. However, the
researchers considered this finding inconclusive because they felt that
the amount of use reported by some respondents was unlikely and because
the participants who reported lower levels of use appeared to have a
slightly reduced risk of brain cancer compared with people who did not
use cell phones regularly (4-6).
An analysis of data from all 13 countries participating in the
Interphone study reported a statistically significant association
between intracranial distribution of tumors within the brain and self-
reported location of the phone (7). However, the authors of this study
noted that it is not possible to draw firm conclusions about cause and
effect based on their findings.
Additional analyses of data from Interphone countries
An analysis of data from five Northern European countries in the
Interphone study showed an increased risk of acoustic neuroma only in
those who had used a cell phone for 10 or more years (8).
In subsequent analyses of Interphone data, investigators addressed
issues of risk according to specific location of the tumor and
estimated exposures. One analysis of data from seven of the countries
in the Interphone study found no relationship between brain tumor
location and regions of the brain that were exposed to the highest
level of radiofrequency radiation from cell phones (9). However,
another study, using data from five of the countries, reported
suggestions of an increased risk of glioma and, to a lesser extent, of
meningioma developing in areas of the brain experiencing the highest
exposure (10).
Danish Study
How the study was done: This cohort study, conducted in Denmark,
linked billing information from more than 358,000 cell phone
subscribers with brain tumor incidence data from the Danish Cancer
Registry.
What the study showed: No association was observed between cell
phone use and the incidence of glioma, meningioma, or acoustic neuroma,
even among people who had been cell phone subscribers for 13 or more
years (11-13).
Million Women Study
How the study was done: This prospective cohort study conducted in
the United Kingdom used data obtained from questionnaires that were
completed by study participants.
What the study showed: Self-reported cell phone use was not
associated with an increased risk of glioma, meningioma, or non-central
nervous system tumors. Although the original published findings
reported an association with an increased risk of acoustic neuroma
(14), this association disappeared after additional years of follow-up
of the cohort (15).
In addition to these three large studies, other, smaller
epidemiologic studies have looked for associations between cell phone
use and cancer. These include:
Two NCI-sponsored case--control studies, each conducted in multiple
U.S. academic medical centers or hospitals between 1994 and 1998 that
used data from questionnaires (16) or computer-assisted personal
interviews (17). Neither study showed a relationship between cell phone
use and the risk of glioma, meningioma, or acoustic neuroma.
The CERENAT study, another case--control study conducted in
multiple areas in France from 2004 to 2006 using data collected in
face-to-face interviews using standardized questionnaires (18). This
study found no association for either gliomas or meningiomas when
comparing regular cell phone users with non-users. However, the
heaviest users had significantly increased risks of both gliomas and
meningiomas.
A pooled analysis of two case-control studies conducted in Sweden
that reported statistically significant trends of increasing brain
cancer risk for the total amount of cell phone use and the years of use
among people who began using cell phones before age 20 (19).
Another case--control study in Sweden, part of the Interphone
pooled studies, did not find an increased risk of brain cancer among
long-term cell phone users between the ages of 20 and 69 (20).
The CEFALO study, an international case--control study of children
diagnosed with brain cancer between ages 7 and 19, which found no
relationship between their cell phone use and risk for brain cancer
(21).
Investigators have also conducted analyses of incidence trends to
determine whether the incidence of brain or other cancers has changed
during the time that cell phone use increased dramatically. These
include:
An analysis of data from NCI's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End
Results (SEER) Program evaluated trends in cancer incidence in the
United States. This analysis found no increase in the incidence of
brain or other central nervous system cancers between 1992 and 2006,
despite the dramatic increase in cell phone use in this country during
that time (22).
An analysis of incidence data from Denmark, Finland, Norway, and
Sweden for the period 1974-2008 similarly revealed no increase in age-
adjusted incidence of brain tumors (23).
A series of studies testing different scenarios (called simulations
by the study authors) were carried out using incidence data from the
Nordic countries to determine the likelihood of detecting various
levels of risk as reported in studies of cell phone use and brain
tumors between 1979 and 2008. The results were compatible with no
increased risks from cell phones, as reported by most epidemiologic
studies. The findings did suggest that the increase reported among the
subset of heaviest regular users in the Interphone study could not be
ruled out but was unlikely. The highly increased risks reported in the
Swedish pooled analysis were strongly inconsistent with the observed
glioma rates in the Nordic countries (24).
A 2012 study by NCI researchers (25) compared observed glioma
incidence rates in U.S. SEER data with rates simulated from the small
risks reported in the Interphone study (6) and the greatly increased
risk of brain cancer among cell phone users reported in the Swedish
pooled analysis (19). The authors concluded that overall, the incidence
rates of glioma in the United States did not increase over the study
period. They noted that the U.S. rates could be consistent with the
small increased risk seen among the subset of heaviest users in the
Interphone study. The observed incidence trends were inconsistent with
the high risks reported in the Swedish pooled study. These findings
suggest that the increased risks observed in the Swedish study are not
reflected in U.S. incidence trends.
An analysis of primary brain tumor incidence data (including some
of the first benign brain and central nervous system tumor data that
SEER began collecting in 2004) reported that the incidence of acoustic
neuromas (also known as vestibular schwannomas) was stable (unchanged)
from 2004 to 2010 (26).
A 2018 national study that examined trends in brain tumor incidence
among adults aged 20-59 years in Australia found that incidence rates
for brain tumors overall and for individual histologic types, including
glioma, were stable over three time periods--1982-1992, 1993-2002, and
2003-2013--including one (2003-2013) during which cell phone use was
substantial (27).
An analysis of U.S. cancer incidence during 1993-2013 found no
change in the overall incidence rate of malignant CNS cancers among
children ages 0 to 19 years in the United States (28).
Question. What are the findings from experimental studies?
Answer. In 2011, two small studies were published that examined
brain glucose metabolism in people after they had used cell phones. The
results were inconsistent; whereas one study showed increased glucose
metabolism in the region of the brain close to the antenna compared
with tissues on the opposite side of the brain (29), the other study
(30) found reduced glucose metabolism on the side of the brain where
the phone was used.
The authors of these studies noted that the results were
preliminary and that possible health outcomes from changes in glucose
metabolism in humans were unknown. Such inconsistent findings are not
uncommon in experimental studies of the biological effects of
radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation in people (4). Some factors
that can contribute to inconsistencies across such studies include
assumptions used to estimate doses, failure to consider temperature
effects, and lack of blinding of investigators to exposure status.
Another study investigated the flow of blood in the brain of people
exposed to the radiofrequency radiation from cell phones and found no
evidence of an effect on blood flow in the brain (31).
Early studies involving laboratory animals showed no evidence that
radiofrequency radiation increased cancer risk or enhanced the cancer-
causing effects of known chemical carcinogens (32-35).
Because of inconsistent findings from epidemiologic studies in
humans and the lack of clear data from previous experimental studies in
animals, in 1999 the Food and Drug Administration nominated
radiofrequency radiation exposure associated with cell phone exposures
for study in animal models by the U.S. National Toxicology Program
(NTP), an interagency program that coordinates toxicology research and
testing across the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and is
headquartered at the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences, part of NIH.
The NTP studied radiofrequency radiation (2G and 3G frequencies) in
rats and mice (36, 37). This large project was conducted in highly
specialized labs that specified and controlled sources of radiation and
measured their effects. The rodents experienced whole-body exposures of
3, 6, or 9 watts per kilogram of body weight for 5 or 7 days per week
for 18 hours per day in cycles of 10 minutes on, 10 minutes off. A
research overview of the rodent studies, with links to the peer-review
summary, is available on NTP website. The primary outcomes observed
were a small number of cancers of Schwann cells in the heart and non-
cancerous changes (hyperplasia) in the same tissues for male rats, but
not female rats, nor in mice overall.
These experimental findings raise new questions as to the potential
for radiofrequency radiation to result in cellular changes and offer
potential avenues for further laboratory studies. Cancers in the heart
are extremely rare in humans, where the primary outcomes of potential
concern with respect to radiofrequency radiation exposure from cell
phones are tumors in the brain and central nervous system. Schwann
cells of the heart in rodents are similar to the kind of cells in
humans that give rise to acoustic neuromas (also known as vestibular
schwannomas), which some studies have suggested are increased in people
who reported the heaviest use of cell phones. The NTP has stated that
they will continue to study this exposure in animal models to further
advance our understanding of the biological underpinnings of the
effects reported above.
Another animal study, in which rats were exposed 7 days per week
for 19 hours per day to radiofrequency radiation at 0.001, 0.03, and
0.1 watts per kilogram of body weight was reported by investigators at
the Italian Ramazzini Institute (38). Among the rats with the highest
exposure levels, the researchers noted an increase in heart schwannomas
in male rats and non-malignant Schwann cell growth in the heart in male
and female rats. However, key details necessary for interpretation of
the results were missing: exposure methods, other standard operating
procedures, and nutritional/feeding aspects. The gaps in the report
from the study raise questions that have not been resolved.
Question. Why are the findings from different studies of cell phone
use and cancer risk inconsistent?
Answer. A few studies have shown some evidence of statistical
association of cell phone use and brain tumor risks in humans, but most
studies have found no association. Reasons for these discrepancies
include the following:
Recall bias, which can occur when data about prior habits and
exposures are collected from study participants using questionnaires
administered after diagnosis of a disease in some of the participants.
It is possible that study participants who have brain tumors may
remember their cell phone use differently from individuals without
brain tumors. Many epidemiologic studies of cell phone use and brain
cancer risk lack verifiable data about the total amount of cell phone
use over time. In addition, people who develop a brain tumor may have a
tendency to recall cell phone use mostly on the same side of the head
where their tumor was found, regardless of whether they actually used
their phone on that side of the head a lot or only a little.
Inaccurate reporting, which can happen when people say that
something has happened more or less often than it actually did. People
may not remember how much they used cell phones in a given time period.
Morbidity and mortality among study participants who have brain
cancer. Gliomas are particularly difficult to study, for example,
because of their high death rate and the short survival of people who
develop these tumors. Patients who survive initial treatment are often
impaired, which may affect their responses to questions. Furthermore,
for people who have died, next-of-kin are often less familiar with the
cell phone use patterns of their deceased family member and may not
accurately describe their patterns of use to an interviewer.
Participation bias, which can happen when people who are diagnosed
with brain tumors are more likely than healthy people (known as
controls) to enroll in a research study. Also, controls who did not or
rarely used cell phones were less likely to participate in the
Interphone study than controls who used cell phones regularly. For
example, the Interphone study reported participation rates of 78
percent for meningioma patients (range among the individual studies 56-
92 percent), 64 percent for glioma patients (range 36-92 percent), and
53 percent for control subjects (range 42-74 percent) (6).
Changing technology and methods of use. Older studies evaluated
radiofrequency radiation exposure from analog cell phones. Today, cell
phones use digital technology, which operates at a different frequency
and a lower power level than analog phones. Digital cell phones have
been in use for more than two decades in the United States, and
cellular technology continues to change (3). Texting and other
applications, for example, are common uses of cell phones that do not
require bringing the phone close to the head. Furthermore, the use of
hands-free technology, such as wired and wireless headsets, is
increasingExit Disclaimer and may reduce exposure by distancing the
phone from the body (39, 40).
Question. What are other possible health effects from cell phone
use?
Answer. A broad range of health effects have been reported with
cell phone use. Neurologic effects are of particular concern in young
persons since the brain is the primary exposed organ. However, studies
of memory, learning, and cognitive function have generally produced
inconsistent results (41-44).
The most consistent health risk associated with cell phone use is
distracted driving and vehicle accidents (45, 46).
Question. What have expert organizations said about the cancer risk
from cell phone use?
Answer. In 2011, the International Agency for Research on
CancerExit Disclaimer (IARC), a component of the World Health
Organization, appointed an expert Working Group to review all available
evidence on the use of cell phones. The Working Group classified cell
phone use as ``possibly carcinogenic to humans,'' based on limited
evidence from human studies, limited evidence from studies of
radiofrequency radiation and cancer in rodents, and inconsistent
evidence from mechanistic studies (4).
The Working Group indicated that, although the human studies were
susceptible to bias, the findings could not be dismissed as reflecting
bias alone, and that a causal interpretation could not be excluded. The
Working Group noted that any interpretation of the evidence should also
consider that the observed associations could reflect chance, bias, or
confounding rather than an underlying causal effect. In addition, the
Working Group stated that the investigation of risk of cancer of the
brain associated with cell phone use poses complex methodologic
challenges in the conduct of the research and in the analysis and
interpretation of findings.
In 2011, the American Cancer SocietyExit Disclaimer (ACS) stated
that the IARC classification means that there could be some cancer risk
associated with radiofrequency radiation, but the evidence is not
strong enough to be considered causal and needs to be investigated
further. Individuals who are concerned about radiofrequency radiation
exposure can limit their exposure, including using an ear piece and
limiting cell phone use, particularly among children.
In 2018, the ACS issued a statement on the draft NTP reportsExit
Disclaimer noting that the findings were still inconclusive, and that,
so far, a higher cancer risk in people has not been seen, but that
people who are concerned should wear an earpiece when using a cell
phone.
The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
states that the weight of the current scientific evidence has not
conclusively linked cell phone use with any adverse health problems,
but more research is needed.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) notes that studies
reporting biological changes associated with radiofrequency radiation
have failed to be replicated and that the majority of human
epidemiologic studies have failed to show a relationship between
exposure to radiofrequency radiation from cell phones and health
problems. The FDA, which originally nominated this exposure for review
by the NTP in 1999, issued a statement on the draft NTP reports
released in February 2018, saying ``based on this current information,
we believe the current safety limits for cell phones are acceptable for
protecting the public health.'' FDA and the Federal Communications
Commission share responsibility for regulating cell phone technologies.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states
that no scientific evidence definitively answers whether cell phone use
causes cancer.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) concludes that
currently no scientific evidence establishes a definite link between
wireless device use and cancer or other illnesses.
In 2015, the European Commission Scientific Committee on Emerging
and Newly Identified Health Risks concluded that, overall, the
epidemiologic studies on cell phone radiofrequency electromagnetic
radiation exposure do not show an increased risk of brain tumors or of
other cancers of the head and neck region (2). The Committee also
stated that epidemiologic studies do not indicate increased risk for
other malignant diseases, including childhood cancer (2).
Question. What studies are under way that will help further our
understanding of the possible health effects of cell phone use?
Answer. A large prospective cohort study of cell phone use and its
possible long-term health effects was launched in Europe in March 2010.
This study, known as COSMOSExit Disclaimer, has enrolled approximately
290,000 cell phone users aged 18 years or older to date and will follow
them for 20 to 30 years (47, 48).
Participants in COSMOS will complete a questionnaire about their
health, lifestyle, and current and past cell phone use. This
information will be supplemented with information from health records
and cell phone records.
The challenge of this ambitious study is to continue following the
participants for a range of health effects over many decades.
Researchers will need to determine whether participants who leave the
study are somehow different from those who remain throughout the
follow-up period.
Although recall bias is minimized in studies such as COSMOS that
link participants to their cell phone records, such studies face other
problems. For example, it is impossible to know who is using the listed
cell phone or whether that individual also places calls using other
cell phones. To a lesser extent, it is not clear whether multiple users
of a single phone, for example family members who may share a device,
will be represented on a single phone company account. Additionally,
for many long-term cohort studies, participation tends to decline over
time.
Question. Has radiofrequency radiation from cell phone use been
associated with cancer risk in children?
Answer. There are theoretical considerations as to why the possible
risk should be investigated separately in children. Their nervous
systems are still developing and, therefore, more vulnerable to factors
that may cause cancer. Their heads are smaller than those of adults and
consequently have a greater proportional exposure to the field of
radiofrequency radiation that is emitted by cell phones. And, children
have the potential of accumulating more years of cell phone exposure
than adults do.
Thus far, the data from studies in children with cancer do not
support this theory. The first published analysis came from a large
case-control study called CEFALO, which was conducted in Denmark,
Sweden, Norway, and Switzerland. The study included children who were
diagnosed with brain tumors between 2004 and 2008, when their ages
ranged from 7 to 19 years. Researchers did not find an association
between cell phone use and brain tumor risk either by time since
initiation of use, amount of use, or by the location of the tumor (21).
Several studies that will provide more information are under way.
Researchers from the Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology
in Spain are conducting another international case-control study--Mobi-
KidsExit Disclaimer--that will include 2000 young people (aged 10-24
years) with newly diagnosed brain tumors and 4000 healthy young people.
The goal of the study is to learn more about risk factors for childhood
brain tumors.
Question. What can cell phone users do to reduce their exposure to
radiofrequency radiation?
Answer. The FDA has suggested some steps that concerned cell phone
users can take to reduce their exposure to radiofrequency radiation
(49):
Reserve the use of cell phones for shorter conversations or for
times when a landline phone is not available.
Use a device with hands-free technology, such as wired headsets,
which place more distance between the phone and the head of the user.
Hands-free kits reduce the amount of radiofrequency radiation
exposure to the head because the antenna, which is the source of
energy, is not placed against the head (40). Exposures decline
dramatically when cell phones are used hands-free.
Question. Where can I find more information about radiofrequency
radiation from my cell phone?
Answer. The FCC provides information about the specific absorption
rate (SAR) of cell phones produced and marketed within the last 1 to 2
years. The SAR corresponds with the relative amount of radiofrequency
radiation absorbed by the head of a cell phone user (50). Consumers can
access this information using the phone's FCC ID number, which is
usually located on the case of the phone, and the FCC's ID search form.
Question. How common is brain cancer? Has the incidence of brain
cancer changed over time?
Answer. In the United States, 23,820 new diagnoses and 17,760
deaths from brain and other central nervous system cancers are
estimated for 2019 (51). Brain cancer incidence rates have declined
slightly in recent years and mortality (death) rates have increased
slightly (52).
There is great variability in survival by brain tumor subtype, and
by age at diagnosis. Overall, the 5-year relative survival for brain
cancers diagnosed from 2008 through 2014 was 33.2 percent (53). This is
the percentage of people diagnosed with brain cancer who will still be
alive 5 years after diagnosis compared with the survival of a person of
the same age and sex who does not have cancer.
The risk of developing brain cancer increases with age. From 2011
through 2015, there were fewer than 4.5 brain cancer cases for every
100,000 people in the United States under age 65, compared with
approximately 19.1 cases for every 100,000 people in the United States
who were ages 65 or older (53).
Selected References
Lonn S, Forssen U, Vecchia P, Ahlbom A, Feychting M. Output power
levels from mobile phones in different geographical areas; implications
for exposure assessment. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2004;
61(9):769-772.
[PubMed Abstract]
SCENIHR. 2015. Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly
Identified Health Risks: Potential health effects of exposure to
electromagnetic fields (EMF): http://ec.europa.eu/health/
scientific_committees/emerging/docs/scenihr_o_041.pdfExit Disclaimer,
accessed August 15, 2015.
Ahlbom A, Green A, Kheifets L, et al., Epidemiology of health
effects of radiofrequency exposure. Environmental Health Perspectives
2004; 112(17):1741-1754.
[PubMed Abstract]
International Agency for Research on Cancer. Non-ionizing
Radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic FieldsExit
Disclaimer. Lyon, France: IARC; 2013. IARC monographs on the evaluation
of carcinogenic risks to humans, Volume 102.
Cardis E, Richardson L, Deltour I, et al., The INTERPHONE study:
design, epidemiological methods, and description of the study
population. European Journal of Epidemiology 2007; 22(9):647-664.
[PubMed Abstract]
The INTERPHONE Study Group. Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile
telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case-control
study. International Journal of Epidemiology 2010; 39(3):675-694.
[PubMed Abstract]
Grell K, Frederiksen K, Schuz J, et al., The intracranial
distribution of gliomas in relation to exposure from mobile phones:
Analyses from the INTERPHONE study. American Journal of Epidemiology
2016; 184(11):818-828.
[PubMed Abstract]
Schoemaker MJ, Swerdlow AJ, Ahlbom A, et al., Mobile phone use and risk
of acoustic neuroma: results of the Interphone case-control
study in five North European countries. British Journal of
Cancer 2005; 93(7):842-848.
[PubMed Abstract]
Larjavaara S, Schuz J, Swerdlow A, et al., Location of gliomas in
relation to mobile telephone use: a case-case and case-specular
analysis. American Journal of Epidemiology 2011; 174(1):2-11.
[PubMed Abstract]
Cardis E, Armstrong BK, Bowman JD, et al., Risk of brain tumours in
relation to estimated RF dose from mobile phones: results from five
Interphone countries. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2011;
68(9):631-640.
[PubMed Abstract]
Johansen C, Boice J Jr, McLaughlin J, Olsen J. Cellular telephones
and cancer: a nationwide cohort study in Denmark. Journal of the
National Cancer Institute 2001; 93(3):203-207.
[PubMed Abstract]
Schuz J, Jacobsen R, Olsen JH, et al., Cellular telephone use and
cancer risk: update of a nationwide Danish cohort. Journal of the
National Cancer Institute 2006; 98(23):1707-1713.
[PubMed Abstract]
Frei P, Poulsen AH, Johansen C, et al., Use of mobile phones and
risk of brain tumours: update of Danish cohort study. British Medical
Journal 2011; 343:d6387.
[PubMed Abstract]
Benson VS, Pirie K, Schuz J, et al., Mobile phone use and risk of
brain neoplasms and other cancers: Prospective study. International
Journal of Epidemiology 2013; 42(3): 792-802.
[PubMed Abstract]
Benson VS, Pirie K, Schuz J, et al., Authors' response to: the case
of acoustic neuroma: comment on mobile phone use and risk of brain
neoplasms and other cancers. International Journal of Epidemiology
2014; 43(1):275. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyt186Exit Disclaimer.
Muscat JE, Malkin MG, Thompson S, et al., Handheld cellular
telephone use and risk of brain cancer. JAMA 2000; 284(23):3001-3007.
[PubMed Abstract]
Inskip PD, Tarone RE, Hatch EE, et al., Cellular-telephone use and
brain tumors. New England Journal of Medicine 2001; 344(2):79-86.
[PubMed Abstract]
Coureau G, Bouvier G, Lebailly P, et al., Mobile phone use and
brain tumours in the CERENAT case-control study. Occupational and
Environmental Medicine 2014; 71(7):514-522.
[PubMed Abstract]
Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. Pooled analysis of case-
control studies on malignant brain tumours and the use of mobile and
cordless phones including living and deceased subjects. International
Journal of Oncology 2011; 38(5):1465-1474.
[PubMed Abstract]
Lonn S, Ahlbom A, Hall P, et al., Long-term mobile phone use and
brain tumor risk. American Journal of Epidemiology 2005; 161(6):526-
535.
[PubMed Abstract]
Aydin D, Feychting M, Schuz J, et al., Mobile phone use and brain
tumors in children and adolescents: a multicenter case-control study.
Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2011; 103(16):1264-1276.
[PubMed Abstract]
Inskip PD, Hoover RN, Devesa SS. Brain cancer incidence trends in
relation to cellular telephone use in the United States. Neuro-Oncology
2010; 12(11):1147-1151.
[PubMed Abstract]
Deltour I, Johansen C, Auvinen A, et al., Time trends in brain
tumor incidence rates in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden, 1974-
2003. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2009; 101(24):1721-1724.
[PubMed Abstract]
Deltour I, Auvinen A, Feychting M, et al., Mobile phone use and
incidence of glioma in the Nordic countries 1979-2008: consistency
check. Epidemiology 2012; 23(2):301-307.
[PubMed Abstract]
Little MP, Rajaraman P, Curtis RE, et al., Mobile phone use and
glioma risk: comparison of epidemiological study results with incidence
trends in the United States. British Medical Journal 2012; 344:e1147.
[PubMed Abstract]
Kshettry VR, Hsieh JK, Ostrom QT, Kruchko C, Barnholtz-Sloan JS.
Incidence of vestibular schwannomas in the United States. Journal of
Neuro-oncology 2015; 124(2):223-228.
[PubMed Abstract]
Karipidis K, Elwood M, Benke G, et al., Mobile phone use and
incidence of brain tumour histological types, grading or anatomical
location: a population-based ecological study. BMJ Open 2018;
8(12):e024489.
[PubMed Abstract]
Withrow DR, Berrington de Gonzalez A, Lam CJ, Warren KE, Shiels MS.
Trends in pediatric central nervous system tumor incidence in the
United States, 1998-2013. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
2018 Nov 21. pii: cebp.0784.2018. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-18-0784
[PubMed Abstract]
Volkow ND, Tomasi D, Wang GJ, et al., Effects of cell phone
radiofrequency signal exposure on brain glucose metabolism. JAMA 2011;
305(8):808-813.
[PubMed Abstract]
Kwon MS, Vorobyev V, Kannala S, et al., GSM mobile phone radiation
suppresses brain glucose metabolism. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and
Metabolism 2011; 31(12):2293-301.
[PubMed Abstract]
Kwon MS, Vorobyev V, Kannala S, et al., No effects of short-term
GSM mobile phone radiation on cerebral blood flow measured using
positron emission tomography. Bioelectromagnetics 2012; 33(3):247-56.
[PubMed Abstract]
Hirose H, Suhara T, Kaji N, et al., Mobile phone base station
radiation does not affect neoplastic transformation in BALB/3T3 cells.
Bioelectromagnetics 2008; 29(1):55-64.
[PubMed Abstract]
Oberto G, Rolfo K, Yu P, et al., Carcinogenicity study of 217 Hz
pulsed 900 MHz electromagnetic fields in Pim1 transgenic mice.
Radiation Research 2007; 168(3):316-326.
[PubMed Abstract]
Zook BC, Simmens SJ. The effects of pulsed 860 MHz radiofrequency
radiation on the promotion of neurogenic tumors in rats. Radiation
Research 2006; 165(5):608-615.
[PubMed Abstract]
Lin JC. Cancer occurrences in laboratory rats from exposure to RF
and microwave radiationExit Disclaimer. IEEE J of electromagnetics, RF,
and microwaves in medicine and biology 2017; 1(1):2-13.
Gong Y, Capstick M, Kuehn S, et al., Life-time dosimetric
assessment for mice and rats exposed in reverberation chambers of the
2-year NTP cancer bioassay study on cell phone radiation. IEEE
Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility 2017; 59(6):1798-1808.
[PubMed Abstract]
Capstick M, Kuster N, Kuehn S, et al., A radio frequency radiation
exposure system for rodents based on reverberation chambers. IEEE
Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility 2017; 59(4):1041-1052.
[PubMed Abstract]
Falcioni L, Bua L, Tibaldi E, et al., Report of final results
regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from
prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field
representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station environmental
emission. Environmental Research 2018; 165:496-503.
[PubMed Abstract]
Kuhn S, Lott U, Kramer A, Kuster N. Assessment methods for
demonstrating compliance with safety limits of wireless devices used in
home and office environmentsExit Disclaimer. IEEE Transactions on
Electromagnetic Compatibility 2007; 49(3):519-525.
Kuhn S, Cabot E, Christ A, Capstick M, Kuster N. Assessment of the
radio-frequency electromagnetic fields induced in the human body from
mobile phones used with hands-free kits. Physics in Medicine and
Biology 2009; 54(18):5493-508.
[PubMed Abstract]
Brzozek C, Benke KK, Zeleke BM, Abramson MJ, Benke G.
Radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation and memory performance:
Sources of uncertainty in epidemiological cohort studies. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2018;15(4). pii:
E592.
[PubMed Abstract]
Zhang J, Sumich A, Wang GY. Acute effects of radiofrequency
electromagnetic field emitted by mobile phone on brain function.
Bioelectromagnetics 2017; 38(5):329-338.
[PubMed Abstract]
Foerster M, Thielens A, Joseph W, Eeftens M, Roosli M. A
prospective cohort study of adolescents' memory performance and
individual brain dose of microwave radiation from wireless
communication. Environmental Health Perspectives 2018; 126(7):077007.
[PubMed Abstract]
Guxens M, Vermeulen R, Steenkamer I, et al., Radiofrequency
electromagnetic fields, screen time, and emotional and behavioural
problems in 5-year-old children. International Journal of Hygiene and
Environmental Health 2018 Oct 9. pii: S1438-4639(18)30502-9.
[PubMed Abstract]
Atchley P, Strayer DL. Small screen use and driving safety.
Pediatrics 2017; 140(Suppl 2):S107-S111.
[PubMed Abstract]
Llerena LE, Aronow KV, Macleod J, et al., An evidence-based review:
distracted driver. The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 2015;
78(1):147-152
[PubMed Abstract]
Schuz J, Elliott P, Auvinen A, et al., An international prospective
cohort study of mobile phone users and health (Cosmos): design
considerations and enrolment. Cancer Epidemiology 2011; 35(1):37-43.
[PubMed Abstract]
Toledano MB, Auvinen A, Tettamanti G, et al., An international
prospective cohort study of mobile phone users and health (COSMOS):
Factors affecting validity of self-reported mobile phone use.
International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health 2018;
b221(1):1-8.
[PubMed Abstract]
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2009). Radiation-Emitting
Products: Reducing Exposure: Hands-free Kits and Other Accessories.
Silver Spring, MD. Retrieved June 18, 2012.
U.S. Federal Communications Commission. (n.d.). FCC Encyclopedia:
Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) for Cellular Telephones. Retrieved June
18, 2012.
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA: A
Cancer Journal for Clinicians 2019; First published online: January 8,
2019. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21551Exit Disclaimer.
[PubMed Abstract]
Cronin KA, Lake AJ, Scott S, et al., Annual Report to the Nation on
the Status of Cancer, part I: National cancer statistics. Cancer 2018;
124(13):2785-2800.
[PubMed Abstract]
Noone AM, Howlader N, Krapcho M, et al., (eds). SEER Cancer
Statistics Review, 1975-2015, National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD,
https://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2015/, based on November 2017 SEER
data submission, posted to the SEER website, April 2018.
That being said, the hearing record will remain open for
two weeks. During this time, Senators are asked to submit any
questions for the record. Upon receipt, the witnesses are
requested to submit their written answers to the Committee as
soon as possible, but no later than Wednesday, February 20,
2019, by the close of business.
Now, if there is nothing further from my capable staff, we
will conclude the hearing.
The witnesses have been absolutely terrific, and I want to
thank each and every one of you for participating.
This hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
ACT | The App Association
Washington, DC, February 20, 2019
Hon. Roger Wicker,
Chairman,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Maria Cantwell,
Ranking Member,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member Cantwell,
I applaud the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation for examining how the United States can best position
itself to compete with overseas interests to establish a secure,
reliable, and evolving set of 5G technologies. The hearing you held on
February 6, ``Winning the Race to 5G and the Next Era of Technology
Innovation in the United States,'' focused rightly on how Federal
policies can positively impact our competitiveness on 5G and related
technologies. To supplement the record on these issues, we are
directing the Committee's attention to the important role standard-
essential patents (SEPs) and related standards-setting activities play
in fostering a competitive landscape that maximizes our efforts in
leading the race to 5G. ACT | The App Association's small business
member companies create products and services in the mobile app economy
that rely on far-reaching and fast mobile Internet connections. They
have a large stake in the ability of the United States to host and
drive the development of 5G networks and the innovation that occurs on
top of the 5G standard.
1. SEPs are central to 5G development, and abusive SEP licensing
practices harm innovation. The standards-setting system in the United
States is strong and supports a private-sector driven approach that is
superior to the government-controlled tactic other countries have
chosen. In the United States, companies convene in neutral settings
called standards-setting organizations (SSOs). The SSOs provide a forum
in which interested stakeholders can take part in the development of
technical standards. The gathering of companies across an industry to
decide on the technologies that comprise a standard raises inherent
antitrust concerns. As such, companies that wish to offer intellectual
property (IP) as part of a standard typically must sign an agreement to
license those patents that are declared essential to a standard on
terms that are fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND). By
requiring FRAND licensing of SEPs, SSOs thereby avoid antitrust
liability by preventing SEP holders from ``holding up'' implementers of
a standard--which must necessarily take a license on SEPs--until they
accept unreasonable royalty rates and/o other unfair licensing terms.
The litigation brought by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
against Qualcomm is a prime example of the problems created by SEP
abuse and the importance of allowing U.S. antitrust law to curb such
problems. Qualcomm refuses to license chip makers who are competitors
to its cellular SEPs, only licenses end device producers if they also
agree to exorbitant royalties and has engaged in other coercive
licensing practices such as offering royalty rebates to one customer to
exclude a competitor. Despite Qualcomm's FRAND commitments, it only
licenses end device producers such as its customers because, as
Qualcomm told the IRS, it is ``humongously more lucrative'' to do
so.\1\ Astonishingly, as a result of its breach of FRAND commitments
and other coercive licensing practices, Qualcomm collects more than 25
percent of all patent royalties in the entire world.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FTC v. Qualcomm, trial exhibit CX6786-R, at 71 (emphasis
added).
\2\ FTC v. Qualcomm, trial transcript of Jan. 29, 2019, at 2125.
This is not 25 percent of cellular phone royalties or even all
telecommunications royalties. This is 25 percent of all patent
royalties in all fields--communications, computers, medical devices,
pharmaceuticals, chemicals, materials, aeronautics, automotive, energy,
and all other fields in which inventions are patented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through different administrations, the FTC has been consistently
supportive of using antitrust law to curb SEP abuse where there is
evidence of anticompetitive conduct. Moreover, the United States Patent
and Trademark Office (USPTO) and United States Department of Justice
(DoJ) issued a joint Policy Statement in 2013 reinforcing the FRAND
concepts and discouraging abusive licensing tactics like SEP owners
using injunctions to pressure would-be innovators that must use
standards to compete. Unfortunately, the current head of DoJ's
Antitrust Division recently outlined plans to withdraw from the 2013
Policy Statement. The 2013 Policy Statement reflects good policy, and
accurately restates a robust and growing body of Federal legal
precedent that underscores the importance of upholding FRAND licensing
commitments. Proposed withdrawal from the Policy Statement comes at a
difficult time, just as the United States is competing to develop 5G
technology. It is now more important than ever to ensure that U.S.
antitrust authorities stop SEP abuse. A refusal to enforce competition
laws where SEP holders hold up SEP licensees in a way that has
anticompetitive impact could have grave consequences for the
development of technical standards and would devastate American efforts
to win the ``race to 5G.'' Moreover, allowing abusive licensing to
occur harms not just the American innovators that must use the 5G
standard to develop new products, but it also harms consumers in the
form of higher prices and lower quality. We urge the Committee to
recognize the importance of enforcing competition laws in the SEP
context to further American leadership in 5G networks. A broad
coalition of manufacturers, software and device companies, and
retailers support these views, which are described in more detail in a
January 2019 letter to the United States Department of Commerce.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Letter from ACT | The App Association, Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers, et. al., to Hon. Wilbur Ross, Sec'y of Commerce, U.S.
Dept. of Commerce, and Hon. Andrei Iancu, Under Sec'y of Commerce for
Intellectual Property and Dir. Of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Offc.,
Re: Preserving American Leadership in Standards, Licensing, and
Innovation; and Significant Concerns with DOJ AAG Announcements on
December 7, 2018 (Jan. 31, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The United States should maintain robust competition in the
market for premium baseband chipsets. An important component of 5G
connectivity is the premium baseband chipset, a piece of hardware that
connects smartphones and other devices to advanced wireless networks.
There are only two competitors left in the commercial premium baseband
chipset market and both are U.S. companies, Intel Corporation (Intel)
and Qualcomm Incorporated. They have been developing baseband chipset
technologies in 4G and are poised to compete for the 5G baseband
chipset market.
Very shortly after the FTC filed its complaint in U.S. Federal
court, Qualcomm filed two patent infringement cases in the United
States International Trade Commission (USITC), seeking to ban the
importation into the U.S. of all iPhones with Intel modem chips in
them. These two ITC cases could chase Intel out of the market entirely,
leaving the United States vulnerable to a lack of competition. At issue
in the first case are 88 Qualcomm patent infringement claims pressed
against Apple for their use in late model iPhones (but only the models
with Intel premium baseband chipsets), 87 of which have been dismissed
throughout the course of the proceeding. The primary remedy at the
USITC's disposal in these kinds of cases is a ban on the importation of
the allegedly infringing item (in this case, most late model
iPhones).\4\ This remedy is extraordinary and well out of proportion to
the plain patent infringement issue it seeks to address when applying
the public interest factors as required by the relevant statute. In
fact, the proposed remedy at the USITC would cause significant
collateral damage that is unjustified given other infringement remedies
readily available in Federal court that Qualcomm also is diligently
pursuing for the same alleged patent infringement.\5\ The Committee
should be aware of the implications for 5G deployment in the U.S. that
could result from an import ban on iPhones with Intel premium baseband
chipsets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1337(d).
\5\ Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 17-cv-1375 DMS (MDD) (S.D.
Cal.). The trial in Qualcomm's district court companion case is
scheduled to begin on March 4th.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The administrative law judge (ALJ) assigned to review the first ITC
case declined to issue the import ban, even though he agreed that one
of the 88 patent claims was infringed. First, he noted his concern that
if iPhones with Intel chipsets are banned, Intel would exit the 4G and
5G markets and only one U.S. premium baseband chipset maker would
remain. Allowing only a single premium baseband chipset maker to remain
in such an important market, the ALJ reasoned, would deprive consumers
of the higher quality, more secure, lower priced technologies that are
driven by competition.
Second, the ALJ determined that undermining the quality and
strength of 5G technology would degrade our national security. In
brief, ALJ Pender found that ``competition is necessary for quality,
innovation, competitive pricing, and, in this case, the preservation of
a strong U.S. presence in the development of 5G and thus the national
security of the United States.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ In the Matter of Certain Mobile Electronic Devices and Radio
Frequency and Processing Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1065,
Initial Determination and Recommended Determination at 195.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A lack of competition in the market for 5G hardware could cede
leadership in the development of the standard to other countries. Some
of these nations--if allowed to lead the development of necessary
hardware and the associated standard--would likely require the
inclusion of insecure technologies designed to maintain an open
backdoor for their own intelligence gathering. This would inevitably
compromise mission-critical communications connecting to a 5G network.
The full USITC is poised to review the ALJ's final initial
determination, and we believe that determination--declining to impose
the import ban--should be upheld to preserve competition and U.S.
competitiveness in 5G. The App Association's member companies depend on
secure and evolving next-generation networks, undergirded by robust
competition and strong standards. Ceding ground to foreign interests in
the ``race to 5G'' would seriously undermine our member companies'
ability to reach consumers with innovative products and services
delivered through a secure and reliable network.
Committee members and witnesses raised important points throughout
the Committee's 5G hearing. The role of robust competition, and
honoring FRAND commitments as a means of ensuring such competition,
should not be understated, and the Committee should at least be aware
of the grave consequences of a failure to enforce competition laws
against SEP abuse, and specifically, of degrading competition in the
premium baseband chipset market. We urge the Committee to take these
important factors into account as it considers policy options and
levers that best position the United States to lead the development of
and further innovation in and building on the 5G standard.
Sincerely,
Morgan Reed,
President,
ACT | The App Association.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger Wicker to
Brad Gillen
Question 1. Mr. Gillen, during our hearing you expressed the
importance of making more mid-band spectrum available for 5G
deployment. Could you please discuss why making C-Band spectrum
available is important to 5G deployment in the United States?
Answer. To achieve our 5G goals, we are going to need different
types of spectrum, but mid-band is key as it can offer both capacity
and coverage. Mid-band spectrum will be critical to help fulfill 5G's
promise to drive transformational improvements in health care,
education, transportation, and nearly every other industry.
Unfortunately, the U.S. ranks sixth globally in terms of mid-band
spectrum availability. Other countries are making four times more mid-
band spectrum available than the U.S. South Korea just auctioned a
significant amount of mid-band spectrum earlier this year. Here in the
U.S., we don't have any mid-band auctions planned right now.
We need to move quickly to catch up on mid-band and C-band spectrum
between 3.7-4.2 GHz offers the best path to making a large swatch of
mid-band available to support robust 5G networks.
Question 2. Do you believe Congress needs to take action to make C-
Band spectrum available for 5G deployment in a timely manner?
Answer. This Committee has provided meaningful leadership and
legislative direction to the FCC on mid-band spectrum, including the C-
band, and we urge that leadership to continue. In fact, a provision in
the Mobile Now Act, which became law as part of the Ray Baum's Act last
year, directs the FCC to report by September 23, 2019, on ``the
feasibility of allowing commercial wireless services, licensed or
unlicensed, to use or share use of the frequencies between 3700
megahertz and 4200 megahertz.''
We need Congress's support to stress the urgency with which we need
FCC action on the C-band. Continued direction and oversight of the FCC
by this Committee is important to advance the reallocation of this key
band.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jerry Moran to
Brad Gillen
Question 1. As your testimony noted, China announced that its three
existing state-owned wireless providers will receive a total of 460
megahertz of mid-band spectrum for 5G. What can we do to make sure U.S.
wireless providers have access to a similar amount of spectrum as
quickly as possible?
Answer. A predictable pipeline of spectrum will do much to advance
U.S. 5G interests, and help us match the aggressive efforts foreign
governments are taking to allocate spectrum for 5G.
Encouragingly, the Administration and the FCC have identified all
the right bands. Now it is about execution and speed to keep up with
the rest of the world.
The Administration's forthcoming National Spectrum Strategy
provides a unique opportunity to develop a five-year schedule of
spectrum auctions, which is needed to accelerate the deployment of 5G
networks and fully realize the connected life and Internet of Things
breakthroughs of 5G-enabled services. Congress should ensure the
Strategy supports our Nation's 5G ambitions.
A long-term plan will allow wireless providers to plan and build
their 5G networks to maximize efficiency and robustness. A schedule
that provides access to the same or similar mid-band spectrum bands
that are being made available throughout Asia and Europe is key.
By harmonizing U.S. mid-band spectrum with bands being made
available for 5G around the globe, economies of scale would be
achieved, reducing both the costs and time to deploy 5G. Analysis Group
recently estimated the economic impact of U.S. policymakers freeing up
mid-band spectrum and found that 400 MHz of mid-band spectrum will
drive $274 billion in GDP and 1.33 million new jobs.
Congress should also encourage several specific ongoing mid-band
spectrum activities at the FCC and NTIA:
The FCC recently finalized rules for the 3.5 GHz band for
mobile broadband, which will result in 70 MHz of licensed
spectrum to be auctioned soon
The FCC has an open proceeding to evaluate repurposing up to
500 MHz of C-band spectrum (3.7-4.2 GHz)
The Commerce Department's NTIA recently initiated a review
of the 3.45 GHz band
Question 2. While I have supported legislation like the RAPID Act
and the MOBILE NOW Act to streamline overly-cumbersome regulations,
what else should Congress be doing to increase U.S. competitiveness in
5G deployment?
Answer. Congress should encourage and provide oversight of two
important Administration activities. First, the October 2018
Presidential Memorandum directed the development of a National Spectrum
Strategy. Congress should support a proactive, 5G-centric spectrum
strategy that includes a clear long-term spectrum plan. Second, the U.S
Government will participate later this year in the 2019 World Radio
Conference. Congress should encourage the Administration to take
positions that reinforce America's 5G leadership and to maintain access
to critical spectrum bands that have already been identified for 5G use
in the U.S.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to
Brad Gillen
Question 1. In the race to find and repurpose spectrum for 5G, it
is critically important that we also responsibly consider incumbent
uses. This is especially important in Alaska, where incumbents are
providing critical broadband and public safety services via C-Band
spectrum. In any band transition, how can the wireless industry,
working with the FCC, ensure that distance learning and telemedicine
capabilities, and even FAA safety communications in Alaska will not be
disrupted? In particular, permitting private parties to manage any
reallocation and transition process raises red flags. If there is not
traditional FCC oversight, how would we ensure that those incumbent
uses would be protected and that nothing would go wrong during a
privately managed transition process?
Answer. Mid-band spectrum, including the C-band, will be critical
to fulfilling 5G's promise to drive transformational improvements in
health care, education, transportation, and nearly every other
industry. We are seeing countries like China and South Korea move
forward aggressively to make mid-band spectrum available to deploy 5G.
Today, however, the U.S. has a mid-band spectrum deficit, ranking sixth
globally in terms of mid-band spectrum availability and we need to
catch up quickly. The large swath of spectrum in the C-band offers the
best path to making mid-band spectrum available to secure America's 5G
leadership.
The C-band today can be utilized more efficiently to accommodate
the interests of both wireless and satellite providers. We appreciate
that the C-band is used in a different manner in Alaska than in the
continental U.S., and we pledge to work with you to ensure continued
access to key satellite-based services as well as important access to
mid-band spectrum for Alaskan wireless operators.
Question 2. Satellite companies have proposed a private sale of C-
Band spectrum in which no money would go back to U.S. taxpayers. By
contrast, FCC spectrum auctions have raised billions of dollars in the
past. Do you agree that funding U.S. priorities like expanded rural
broadband should come before enriching foreign satellite companies? If
not, why?
Answer. CTIA is focused on making C-band spectrum available for 5G
as soon as possible. As noted above, the United States is behind
globally in terms of mid-band availability and we are committed to
working with all stakeholders to remedy that deficit expeditiously.
We share your interest in using auction proceeds to help support
rural wireless broadband deployment through a rural dividend or similar
program. Unfortunately, no such mechanism is in place today, and we
would welcome the opportunity to work with you to better leverage
spectrum auctions--however constructed--to benefit rural America.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Shelley Moore Capito to
Brad Gillen
Question 1. In your testimonies, many of you discuss the framework
for 5G. While I understand the importance of innovation and support
faster speeds, I have concerns that rural locations will not be
adequately addressed: What ways exist to ensure 5G develops in
combination with rural broadband connectivity?
Answer. The potential of 5G will continue to evolve as more capable
networks get deployed and new services and use-cases develop on these
platforms. As with any network, larger scale will ultimately mean more
value, for both users and providers, and more opportunity for
innovation. Therefore, it will be in the interest of all stakeholders
to extend 5G connectivity broadly. One of the most promising aspects of
deployment on new spectrum, particularly in the low-and mid-bands, is
that fiber-like speeds will be achievable with wireless connectivity.
This could be a particularly meaningful way to improve the economics of
broadband deployment in rural areas. We continue to believe that the
FCC's Mobility Fund and a rural dividend for future spectrum auctions
will be critical to reaching unserved areas with advanced wireless
connectivity.
Question 2. What are some steps the FCC can make to continue to
streamline the deployment of 5G while ensuring rural areas continue to
receive broadband and Internet support?
Answer. The FCC's action in 2018 to address both Federal and local
siting reforms are the most important steps the agency can take to
promote widespread deployment and all stakeholders should commit to
implementing those reforms expeditiously.
Further, sufficient spectrum is key to winning the 5G race and
unlocking the corresponding economic and societal benefits.
Encouragingly, the Administration and the FCC have identified all the
right bands. Now it is a matter of us finishing the job fast by getting
that spectrum in the hands of innovators.
We want to build out to as many communities as quickly as possible,
and forward-thinking policies such as those recently adopted in West
Virginia and by the FCC will help us do just that while preserving
local siting authority.
Question 3. How can 5G be rolled out quickly to avoid a gap where
there are have and have nots?
Answer. The wireless industry is projected to invest $275 billion
over the next decade to deploy 5G. This private capital investment will
follow the $226 billion made in our networks just since 2010. The
competitive nature of the broadband market--including within just the
mobile sector--and the promise that fully scaled 5G network deployments
hold for new economic activity provide tremendous incentive for
wireless providers to not only deploy 5G as quickly as possible, but
also as broadly as possible. As noted above, we also support the FCC's
Mobility Fund and an auction rural dividend to help reach those
communities uneconomic to serve today.
Question 4. How does the Mobility Fund play a role in 5G
deployment?
Answer. The FCC's Mobility Fund II will deliver mobile wireless
services to rural areas without sufficient access to the critical
services enabled by 4GLTE today, such as public safety, healthcare,
education and economic opportunities. Providers can speed the
deployment of 5G to rural areas by leveraging the capabilities and
infrastructure deployed with Mobility Fund support. We encourage the
FCC to move forward with funding.
Question 5. 5G wireless services will require the deployment of a
vast network of small cells. However, these networks will also need
fiber-based wireline networks for their backhaul network. Could you
explain to me the importance of a fiber backhaul and the allocation of
spectrum in deploying these small cells?
Answer. 5G will rely on both towers and small cells, and we should
seek out solutions to promote the deployment of both. Backhaul is an
essential component of wireless communications networks, and that
includes both fiber and wireless backhaul solutions. This has been true
since the earliest mobile voice calls were connected between 200-foot
towers and will be true when real-time automobile data is sent back-
and-forth over small cells on lampposts. The Committee should support
widespread deployment of fiber to support both wired and wireless
communications.
Question 6. Fortunately, every school and library in my state of
West Virginia has a fiber connection, but this not the case when kids
go home from school. Many of them cannot do their homework assignments.
This digital divide cannot continue to be overlooked. How will 5G help
our students at home? How long will it take for these students to see
the benefits of 5G at their homes?
Answer. Mobile broadband has been an effective tool to enhance
education outside the classroom. A survey by Grunwald Associates found
that more than two-thirds of parents said that mobile devices have
opened learning opportunities to kids that were not available before.
By delivering data speeds up to 100 times faster than 4G networks, 5G
will further enhance learning through applications such as virtual
reality and augmented reality. The potential for 5G to improve outcomes
for students and resources for educators is yet another incentive to
build out next generation wireless network capabilities as quickly and
broadly as possible.
Question 7. Despite significant investment, the vast majority of my
state lacks competitive access to a fiber network. How can Internet
providers ensure rural Internet access remains competitive as 5G gains
more prevalence?
Answer. 5G promises to deliver fiber-like speeds with the added
benefit of mobility. The two critical areas where we need congressional
leadership is providing access to more spectrum and modernizing the
siting rules for tomorrow's networks.
Question 8. How can Congress ensure the regulatory conditions are
in place in order to ensure states like mine can participate in the 5G
economy?
Answer. Congress should continue to anticipate the tremendous
bandwidth and connectivity needs of a 5G future and ensure a pipeline
of spectrum is available to fully realize the connected life and
Internet of Things possibilities. Congress should also use its
oversight authority to identify and eliminate unnecessary barriers to
the deployment of 5G infrastructure, including by streamlining
deployment on Federal lands and modernizing the guardrails Congress
placed on local regulatory authority decades ago to ensure availability
of nationwide mobile services. Congress should explore the potential of
new and improved services that 5G networks will facilitate, which will
reach nearly every facet of the economy. For those areas unserved
today, the key lies in support for the FCC's Mobility Fund and a rural
dividend mechanism to direct future auction revenues to unserved rural
America.
Question 9. Each member of this Committee has today or previously
mentioned the importance of having accurate data and noted the flawed
information that our current maps provide. Last year, I visited Flying
W Plastics, a local polyethylene pipe products manufacturer in Gilmer
County, West Virginia. According to a recent FCC Broadband Progress
report, Gilmer County, WV is 100 percent served with 25 Mbps/3Mbps
service. While visiting, I found this to be inaccurate. They do not
have adequate broadband and unfortunately, this is not the only example
like this in my state. So my question is: When there are communities in
my state who are still struggling to achieve 3 or even 4G, how do you
suggest we measure the accuracy of their broadband availability?
Answer. This Committee should be credited with identifying
challenges with our broadband mapping. Timely and relevant data is
critical to measuring broadband services that reflects consumer's real-
world experiences. The FCC's Mobility Fund II challenge process
provides a unique opportunity to determine how provider reported data
and on-the-ground information can be harnessed to effectively determine
the availability of mobile wireless broadband services.
Question 10. Last Congress, I introduced the Gigabit Opportunity
(GO) Act and I plan to reintroduce it this Congress. This legislation
would seek expedited deployment of broadband services in low-income
rural and urban communities. The GO Act gives states flexibility,
streamlines existing regulations, and eliminates barriers to investment
so we can connect our low-income and rural communities. How can tax
proposals like the GO Act make a measurable difference in promoting
rural broadband deployment? Could similar proposals help in 5G
deployment?
Answer. CTIA supported the GO Act last Congress and we applaud your
leadership on this issue. The wireless industry is projected to invest
nearly $300 billion over the next decade to deploy 5G. A tax-based
incentive proposal such as the Gigabit Opportunity Act would ensure
more of that private investment goes into better networks and services
for consumers.
Question 11. Congress has made several steps towards improving the
deployment and accessibility of broadband to rural and tribal
communities. For example, the AIRWAVES Act introduced by my Senate
colleagues--Senator Gardner and Senator Hassan--included a ``rural
dividend'' that would have dedicated 10 percent of any future spectrum
auction funds to support the deployment of wireless infrastructure in
unserved and underserved communities. How will rural set asides like
this be used differently than Federal support already being distributed
through programs like USF and RUS?
Answer. The rural dividend would provide policymakers and
communications providers an additional, and more targeted and flexible,
tool to further close our Nation's digital divide. We agree it is
important that any new program complement and support existing rural
funding mechanisms, and we welcome the opportunity to work with you to
ensure funds directed at rural America have the most impact to expand
connectivity.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to
Brad Gillen
T-Mobile/Sprint Merger. In April 2018, CTIA issued a report, which
states that 5G deployment by our national providers is ``driven by the
intense competition in the wireless market.'' But the heads of T-Mobile
and Sprint claim that their merger--which would reduce the number of
competing national providers from four to three--is necessary for the
United States to win the global race to 5G.
Question 1. In your opinion, is further consolidation of wireless
carriers necessary for America to win the ``Global Race to 5G''?
Answer. CTIA defers to the Committee, the Department of Justice,
and the Federal Communications Commission to evaluate the benefits of
proposed transactions. The most important issue from our perspective is
that American companies are clearly focused on leading in 5G
deployment. This focus drives significant investment and shows our
commitment to global leadership.
Spectrum and Public Safety. As we discuss national security
threats, we must also recognize the role that 5G will play in the U.S.
public safety systems.
Question 2. How can 5G technologies be leveraged to advance public
safety communications, including opportunities for obtaining more
accurate locations of 9-1-1 callers?
Answer. The wireless industry is confident that the benefits of 5G
will be leveraged to advance public safety communications, especially
with regard to obtaining more accurate 9-1-1 call location information.
Specifically, the deployment of ``small cells'' required for 5G
will result in denser, more granular networks across the country. This
densification process means that 9-1-1 location information will be
available with more specificity than today's systems allow. Moreover,
as this densification process is coupled with growing numbers of in-
home products that connect to the 5G network, E911 location accuracy
will improve.
Apart from 9-1-1 enhancements, 5G promises to offer additional
benefits for first responders. Enhanced vehicle to vehicle
communications for public safety vehicles has tremendous potential. The
FirstNet dedicated public safety network will include the latest 5G
network upgrades and enhancements for the benefit of its millions of
public safety users. And the ability of 5G networks to process the
ever-increasing amount of video utilized by law enforcement will be a
critical component of public safety capabilities in the future.
Finally, CTIA members are focused on developing 5G products and
capabilities for the benefit of public safety. For example, Verizon
recently announced the first five participating companies for its 5G
First Responder Lab, an innovation incubator that will give leading
first responder technology companies from around the globe access to 5G
technology to develop, test and refine 5G solutions for public safety.
The five companies in this initial effort will focus on a range of
technologies, including sensor data, visual data from drones,
analytics, and augmented reality for firefighters in zero visibility
situations.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jon Tester to
Brad Gillen
Question 1. How can we help small carriers that have Huawei
Equipment in their networks?
Answer. CTIA is focused on protecting the security interests of
consumers and the U.S. wireless industry, including the security of the
U.S. communications supply chain. Huawei has only a fraction of 1
percent of the U.S. wireless infrastructure equipment market. Although
Huawei is not in the plans of any national U.S. operators, CTIA members
are committed to working closely with national security officials to
assess and evaluate potential national security threats presented by
Chinese equipment.
Question 2. What kind of workforce is needed to implement
infrastructure for 5G?
Answer. The demands for 5G infrastructure will require a wide
variety of resources in the field. CTIA member companies as well as
supporting vendors and contractors will require employees with
experience in the following areas:
Fiber cable laying and splicing
Replacing and setting poles in the city and metro areas
Aerial work platforms, operating bucket trucks and manlifts
to deploy equipment on poles
Electricians to install demarcation points in poles
Welders to cut hand holes in existing infrastructure
Field technicians to connect, test, and troubleshoot
installations for turn up and longer term for maintenance, and;
RF Engineers to design and optimize networks.
Question 3. How can we make sure the workforce have the skills and
training to deploy 5G infrastructure?
Answer. A critical component of making sure we have the workforce
with the skills and training necessary to deploy 5G is public
awareness. Federal, state, and local officials, along with the wireless
industry, should take steps to ensure that relevant colleges, trade
schools, employee unions, and government training programs are aware of
the skills necessary to construct modern communications networks as
well as the need for such employees throughout the wireless industry.
Industry is taking concrete steps to prepare interested workers for
the employment opportunities presented by 5G network deployment. For
example, CTIA member Ericsson has established Centers of Excellence
around the United States to develop a trained and educated wireless
workforce. These Centers are enhanced training facilities that provide
best-in-class field services, training, and support for Ericsson
employees and partners. Trainees participate in operator-specific
courses taught by industry experts, ranging from site installation to
integration.
Question 4. If we need workers, can we put training programs in
rural areas?
Answer. Yes, we welcome the opportunity to work with you. Many of
the skills needed could be gained from basic electronics trade schools.
Question 5. How are you thinking about workforce training, do you
see a role for community colleges, job crops, and trade schools?
Answer. Yes, the wireless industry is recruiting from all of these
today. CTIA members predict that demand for good people with the basic
skills described above will be high for the coming years. According to
Accenture, 5G investments will lead to 3 million new jobs nationally.
These do not include the construction jobs that will also be created
during the buildout of 5G networks. Community colleges, job corps, and
trade schools will all be institutions carriers and equipment suppliers
look to in strengthening their workforces.
Question 6. What overlap do you see for our Nation's veterans, who
have come home with a variety of skills that may be useful for
implementing 5g? Things like heavy equipment, large trucks, technical
electronics, and engineers?
Answer. The wireless industry is actively engaged with military
veterans entering the civilian workforce after serving our country.
CTIA members appreciate relevant experience gained while in the
military as well as the work ethic instilled in so many servicemembers
while in uniform.
CTIA member companies are leading the way in veteran hiring, with
carriers making commitments to hire tens of thousands of veterans in
the coming years. Additionally, many of CTIA's members have partnered
with Warriors4Wireless (W4W). W4W is a non-profit that trains
experienced veterans for futures in the telecommunications industry.
Currently W4W is working with industry partners to provide tower
climbing and fiber optic installation certification through a local
community college. Further, T-Mobile is also working closely with a
leading non-profit (FourBlock) to help military veterans transition
into corporate careers.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger Wicker to
Steve Berry
Question 1. As you know, last Congress I introduced the SPECTRUM
NOW Act to help relocate Federal users of spectrum that is to be made
available for commercial use. Do you agree that the reforms contained
in SPECTRUM NOW would help provide better support for Federal users
while also making it easier to make spectrum available for 5G?
Answer. Increased demands for wireless service and the launch of
next generation and 5G technologies require additional spectrum for
commercial use. The SPECTRUM NOW Act would provide Federal users with
the research and development tools necessary to use spectrum more
efficiently, upgrade technologies where appropriate, and reallocate
spectrum for commercial use, benefitting Federal users and consumers
alike. CCA continues to support this effort.
Question 2. Mr. Berry, 5G can help expand the use of telemedicine,
precision agriculture, and other technologies that will be particularly
beneficial to rural Americans. However, closing the broadband gap in
rural areas with existing networks has been and continues to be a
priority for this Committee. What are the unique challenges you foresee
in deploying 5G in rural areas and what can Congress and the FCC do to
address those issues?
Can you describe the infrastructure that will be needed to connect
thousands of small cells? And, what kind of fiber investments will be
needed to deliver 5G services to less densely populated areas of the
country?
Answer. Modern wireless technologies are already powering
revolutionary uses of telemedicine, precision agriculture, and other
technologies. These services will be supercharged as 5G is deployed,
while enabling technologies beyond our imaginations today. Many of
these technologies will have the greatest and most immediate impact in
rural areas, so it is vital that these areas are not left behind.
Practically speaking, 5G will be built upon 4G LTE technologies,
and we need reliable data to understand where 4G coverage exists so
policymakers can advance solutions to close the digital divide.
Additionally, all carriers need access to low-, mid-, and high-band
spectrum frequencies to meet demands today and deploy 5G in the years
ahead. For rural areas in particular, carriers need additional access
to low-and mid-band frequencies. Completing the 600 MHz repack on or
ahead of schedule and advancing solutions to allocate additional mid-
band spectrum for commercial wireless use, including in the C band,
will help carriers serve rural America.
Carriers also must have certainty regarding infrastructure
deployment policies. As noted in my testimony, 5G will rely on a ``high
fiber'' diet, and a greater focus on fiber deployment for backhaul
services, in addition to microwave and satellite, is necessary to
prevent backhaul from becoming a choke point in 5G networks. This is
the case for small cells and larger towers, and significant investments
are necessary in both urban population centers and less dense rural
areas.
Question 3. Mr. Berry, your organization filed comments with the
FCC explaining how a prohibition of suppliers like Huawei could cost
rural telecommunications carriers hundreds of millions of dollars and
disrupt service to their customers. Can you provide any additional
information regarding what would be required to eliminate Huawei and
ZTE equipment from the networks of your member companies?
Answer. CCA and its members fully support efforts to protect and
harden networks from cybersecurity and other national security threats.
Working collaboratively with Congress and other Federal authorities,
carriers need clear information regarding what equipment and services
are secure for future 5G builds, as well as clear information on
potential current threats to make appropriate changes to their existing
networks. Carriers must have access to equipment that is secure,
particularly for carriers that lack economies of scale, and additional
resources based on threat assessments to provide all Americans with
wireless services they can use with confidence.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jerry Moran to
Steve Berry
Question 1. As you and your members are aware, the Mobility Fund
Phase II auction was expected to allocate $4.53 billion to support the
deployment of 4G LTE network service over the next ten years, but it
has been delayed due to questions around the quality of the data
submitted in formulating the initial eligibility map. Whether it is 4G
or 5G mobile service, would you agree that accurate data and maps are
critical to effectively closing the Digital Divide?
Answer. Reliable data is absolutely critical to effectively closing
the digital divide. 5G services will be built upon 4G services,
doubling down on the need for a reliable and accurate depiction of 4G
coverage before disbursing $4.53 billion over the next decade. In the
wireless industry, a ``generation'' of services often enters its peak
in its tenth year. With 5G being deployed today, if the Mobility Fund
Phase II (``MF II'') is built upon unreliable data, the digital divide
will be significantly increased by the conclusion of MF II, failing
rural America, leaving communities behind.
Question 2. While I have supported legislation like the RAPID Act
and the MOBILE NOW Act to streamline overly-cumbersome regulations,
what else should Congress be doing to increase U.S. competitiveness in
5G deployment?
Answer. CCA commends your leadership to increase certainty for
carriers as they navigate the broadband infrastructure deployment
processes and welcomes further efforts to deploy the network
infrastructure that will support 5G. These services will depend on a
mix of small cells and macro towers, with readily available access to
fiber and other advanced backhaul technologies.
Additionally, 5G deployments are dependent on increased access to
spectrum, the invisible infrastructure that powers wireless services.
Carriers require a mix of low-, mid-and high-band spectrum to keep up
with existing growing demands for wireless use and deploy advanced 5G
services. Congress plays a key role in ensuring that these finite,
taxpayer owned resources are used to benefit all Americans, and CCA
supports continued work to identify spectrum bands that can be
reallocated for commercial use to increase U.S. competitiveness in 5G
deployment.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to
Steve Berry
Question 1. In the race to find and repurpose spectrum for 5G, it
is critically important that we also responsibly consider incumbent
uses. This is especially important in Alaska, where incumbents are
providing critical broadband and public safety services via C-Band
spectrum. In any band transition, how can the wireless industry,
working with the FCC, ensure that distance learning and telemedicine
capabilities, and even FAA safety communications in Alaska will not be
disrupted? In particular, permitting private parties to manage any
reallocation and transition process raises red flags. If there is not
traditional FCC oversight, how would we ensure that those incumbent
uses would be protected and that nothing would go wrong during a
privately-managed transition process?
Answer. The C-Band is an important source of limited mid-band
spectrum for 5G, and policymakers should focus on reallocating as much
spectrum in the band as is possible to support modern wireless
deployments. Fortunately, that is not mutually exclusive with
protecting incumbent users, including several CCA members. CCA supports
continued oversight from Congress and the FCC to ensure that this
process is conducted in a way that protects existing users while
serving the public demand for modern wireless services. Any
reallocation of C-Band spectrum should be accomplished in a manner that
promotes the public interest.
Question 2. Satellite companies have proposed a private sale of C-
Band spectrum in which no money would go back to U.S. taxpayers. By
contrast, FCC spectrum auctions have raised billions of dollars in the
past. Do you agree that funding U.S. priorities like expanded rural
broadband should come before enriching foreign satellite companies? If
not, why?
Answer. As FCC Chairman Pai has advocated in his Digital
Empowerment Agenda and bipartisan, bicameral members of Congress have
supported in legislation, any auction of spectrum should include a
``rural dividend'' with a portion of the funds reserved to support
rural broadband deployment. Rural broadband expansion, and any other
priorities as directed by Congress, should be prioritized before
disbursing any compensation above transition costs to current license
holders.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Shelley Moore Capito to
Steve Berry
Question 1. In your testimonies, many of you discuss the framework
for 5G. While I understand the importance of innovation and support
faster speeds, I have concerns that rural locations will not be
adequately addressed: What ways exist to ensure 5G develops in
combination with rural broadband connectivity?
Answer. 5G services will have the greatest and most immediate
impact on rural areas. That is why it is critical that rural America is
not left behind as 5G networks are deployed and new services are
developed. To ensure that 5G develops in rural areas alongside
deployment in urban areas, the FCC should adopt policies to support
rural deployment and Congress should reconfirm the mandate to ensure
reasonably comparable services in urban and rural areas.
Question 2. What are some steps the FCC can make to continue to
streamline the deployment of 5G while ensuring rural areas continue to
receive broadband and Internet support?
Answer. The FCC has taken significant steps to help streamline the
deployment of wireless network infrastructure. However, the job is not
done. Carriers must have certainty regarding the costs and time
necessary to deploy, maintain, and upgrade broadband infrastructure.
Steps taken now to streamline current infrastructure deployment will
ease and accelerate the deployment of 5G technologies.
The Congressional mandate for reasonably comparable services in
urban and rural areas was not a snapshot in time as the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 was enacted but intended to continue to
support an evolving level of telecommunications and information
services. In 2019, that includes the deployment of 5G, and CCA strongly
supports efforts to ensure that rural areas are included in 5G
deployment plans.
Question 3. How can 5G be rolled out quickly to avoid a gap where
there are have and have nots?
Answer. 5G services are built upon today's 4G LTE networks. Absent
policies to close the digital divide today, 5G will exacerbate this
problem and leave rural Americans behind in the connected future. To
ensure a rapid deployment of 5G services in rural America in the
future, policymakers should focus on expanding current 4G deployments,
and eliminating barriers deterring investment in unserved and
underserved areas.
Question 4. How does the Mobility Fund play a role in 5G
deployment?
Answer. If based upon reliable coverage data to determine eligible
areas, the Mobility Fund holds tremendous potential to provide the
business case for carriers to deploy 4G LTE services that will support
future 5G deployments in rural areas.
Question 5. 5G wireless services will require the deployment of a
vast network of small cells. However, these networks will also need
fiber-based wireline networks for their backhaul network. Could you
explain to me the importance of a fiber backhaul and the allocation of
spectrum in deploying these small cells?
Answer. Fiber is a critical foundation of wireless networks. Absent
sufficient backhaul, including through fiber, small cells will face a
choke point that slows the services available to consumers.
Additionally, absent sufficient spectrum access, carriers are unable to
provide the wireless capacity to meet consumer demands. For 5G services
to meet their potential, carriers require both sufficient access to
finite spectrum resources and readily available fiber backhaul
services.
Question 6. Fortunately, every school and library in my state of
West Virginia has a fiber connection, but this not the case when kids
go home from school. Many of them cannot do their homework assignments.
This digital divide cannot continue to be overlooked. How will 5G help
our students at home? How long will it take for these students to see
the benefits of 5G at their homes?
Answer. Closing the digital divide will help ensure that all
students have the resources they need to succeed, regardless of where
they live. Connectivity is key. 5G services will provide new services
from increased access to lectures and homework assignments to augmented
and virtual reality demonstrations to advance studies. These services
will be available to students as 5G services are deployed in their
communities, underscoring the importance of rapid deployments. CCA also
supports legislation to allow E-Rate funds to be used to provide Wi-Fi
on school buses, to allow drive time to be used as connected learning
time.
Question 7. Despite significant investment, the vast majority of my
state lacks competitive access to a fiber network. How can Internet
providers ensure rural Internet access remains competitive as 5G gains
more prevalence?
Answer. Backhaul is a critical component to 5G services. Increased
business opportunities unlocked through 5G deployments as well as
sufficient support to deploy fiber to deliver fixed and mobile services
are required to provide rural areas with reasonably comparable services
as more densely populated areas.
Question 8. How can Congress ensure the regulatory conditions are
in place in order to ensure states like mine can participate in the 5G
economy?
Answer. No state should be left behind in the 5G economy. Congress
can take steps to ensure that all carriers have access to sufficient
spectrum resources, certainty regarding the permitting and deployment
process, and support to ensure that reasonably comparable services are
deployed in urban and rural areas.
Question 9. Each member of this Committee has today or previously
mentioned the importance of having accurate data and noted the flawed
information that our current maps provide. Last year, I visited Flying
W Plastics, a local polyethylene pipe products manufacturer in Gilmer
County, West Virginia. According to a recent FCC Broadband Progress
report, Gilmer County, WV is 100 percent served with 25 Mbps/3Mbps
service. While visiting, I found this to be inaccurate. They do not
have adequate broadband and unfortunately, this is not the only example
like this in my state. So my question is: When there are communities in
my state who are still struggling to achieve 3 or even 4G, how do you
suggest we measure the accuracy of their broadband availability?
Answer. Reliable broadband coverage data is critical to adopting
policies to close the digital divide. Broadband availability should be
measured using standardized parameters that reflect the your
constituents' experiences as they seek to connect.
Question 10. Last Congress, I introduced the Gigabit Opportunity
(GO) Act and I plan to reintroduce it this Congress. This legislation
would seek expedited deployment of broadband services in low-income
rural and urban communities. The GO Act gives states flexibility,
streamlines existing regulations, and eliminates barriers to investment
so we can connect our low-income and rural communities. How can tax
proposals like the GO Act make a measurable difference in promoting
rural broadband deployment? Could similar proposals help in 5G
deployment?
Answer. There is no single solution to connecting all Americans
with advanced mobile broadband, it will require policies that embrace
an all-of-the-above approach. CCA supports the GO Act as one tool
available to advance broadband deployment. Tax incentives can help
carriers make the business case for 5G deployments where, absent
incentives, no current business case exists to provide service.
Investments in broadband networks foster opportunities for economic
development and job creation throughout the entire community.
Question 11. Congress has made several steps towards improving the
deployment and accessibility of broadband to rural and tribal
communities. For example, the AIRWAVES Act introduced by my Senate
colleagues--Senator Gardner and Senator Hassan--included a ``rural
dividend'' that would have dedicated 10 percent of any future spectrum
auction funds to support the deployment of wireless infrastructure in
unserved and underserved communities. How will rural set asides like
this be used differently than Federal support already being distributed
through programs like USF and RUS?
Answer. If enacted, the rural dividend is an important tool to
ensure that funding is available to support rural broadband
deployments. A 2018 study assessing the economic impact of the AIRWAVES
Act estimated that had the rural dividend been in place for FCC
Auctions 101 and 102, as much as $2 billion could have been generated
to support rural broadband deployment.
As with today's USF and RUS programs, policymakers must remain
cognizant of the potential for overbuilds or biases towards any one
technology. CCA supports using proceeds from the rural dividend to
specifically ensuring that funding is available to wireless deployments
in rural America.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to
Steve Berry
Improving Broadband Mapping. In order to successfully deploy 5G
nationwide, we need reliable data on where service exists and where it
does not. The information currently collected does not provide an
accurate picture of deployment in rural areas.
Question. In your testimony, you stated that reliable coverage maps
are necessary for policies to spur 5G deployment. How could consumer-
reported data improve the accuracy of the FCC's coverage maps and
benefit rural areas?
Answer. The FCC should consider all data sources available,
including consumer-reported data, to improve the current coverage maps.
No one is more familiar with what coverage is available than the
consumers that rely on service where they live, work, and travel. With
appropriate safeguards regarding compatibility of devices and
throttling polices should be reflected, consumer-reported data can
improve the integrity of coverage data.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jon Tester to
Steve Berry
Question 1. How can we help small carriers that have Huawei
Equipment in their networks?
Answer. Congress can help small carriers by providing specific
information regarding threats, approved equipment, and assistance to
access and deploy equipment that addresses cybersecurity and national
security concerns.
Question 2. What kind of workforce is needed to implement
infrastructure for 5G?
Question 3. How can we make sure the workforce have the skills and
training to deploy 5G infrastructure?
Question 4. If we need workers, can we put training programs in
rural areas?
Question 5. How are you thinking about workforce training, do you
see a role for community colleges, job crops, and trade schools?
Question 6. What overlap do you see for our Nation's veterans, who
have come home with a variety of skills that may be useful for
implementing 5g? Things like heavy equipment, large trucks, technical
electronics, and engineers?
Answer. As carriers work to deploy 5G services, they rely on an
increased workforce while simultaneously working to repack the 600 MHz
band, enhance public safety services, preserve and expand 4G services,
and deploy 5G. This requires an all-of-the-above approach, including
expanding access to workforce training for tower erectors and other
skilled positions. Community colleges, job crops, and trade schools
play a critical role in developing the workforce necessary to meet
deployment demands, and should include training programs in rural
areas.
Particularly regarding workforce training for our Nation's
veterans, CCA supports programs that arrange certified training using
GI bill benefits and place qualified veterans in open positions and
apprenticeships, including the Warriors 4 Wireless nonprofit program.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. John Thune to
Shailen P. Bhatt
Question. In your testimony you state that ITS America ``strongly
supports preserving the entire 5.9 gigahertz band for Vehicle-to-
Everything.'' I agree that safety is a paramount consideration, but
I've said for years that it would be a positive public policy outcome
if engineers could find a reliable way for both Wi-Fi and connected
vehicle technology to co-exist in the 5.9 gigahertz band. Along those
lines, the FCC has talked about a new Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to
reexamine this band. Would ITS America support the Commission moving
forward with this action to see what may be achievable?
Answer. Since the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) commenced
its ET Docket 13-49 in 2013, Intelligent Transportation Society of
America (``ITS America) has supported sharing of the 5.9 GHz band
between ITS and unlicensed devices provided that such sharing does not
cause harmful interference to life-saving ITS services. ITS America
supported the consensus on a three-phase testing methodology to be
overseen by the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology (OET)
arrived at with the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation's support (See September 9, 2015 letter). OET accepted
public comments on its Phase 1 Test Report in late 2018. ITS America
continues its support of the consensus plan for testing and the
completion of testing by OET to determine whether sharing of the 5.9
GHz band is viable. Initiation by the FCC of an ancillary and
collateral rulemaking bypassing the completion of testing is not in the
best interests of the public as it will further complicate an already
uncertain regulatory environment into which many public and private
parties are investing their scarce resources to develop and deploy
lifesaving services, unduly tax those resources and delay the
introduction of those services. We urge instead that OET be provided
all support necessary to promptly complete its testing of band sharing.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Jerry Moran to
Shailen P. Bhatt
Question. The FCC completed testing that showed that it could
segment the 5.9 gigahertz band and provide spectrum for both
transportation and unlicensed technologies. But your testimony calls
for the FCC and DOT to engage in years of additional testing that, in
the opinion of Commissioner O'Rielly, is no longer needed. Why would we
need to spend more years testing a kind of sharing no one wants,
instead of moving ahead with a process of segmenting the band, so both
automotive companies and Wi-Fi consumers each have spectrum?
Answer. ITS America agrees with National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's (NHTSA) assessment, that the three-phase testing must
continue to ensure that this lifesaving technology is deployed and that
the driving public can have confidence in the results. ``The three
phases of the test plan are interdependent and ongoing, and the testing
will show whether unlicensed devices can safely operate in the 5.9 GHz
band.'' (U.S. Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration issues statement on safety value of 5.9 GHz
spectrum, October 24, 2018)
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Shelley Moore Capito to
Shailen P. Bhatt
Question 1. In your testimonies, many of you discuss the framework
for 5G. While I understand the importance of innovation and support
faster speeds, I have concerns that rural locations will not be
adequately addressed: What ways exist to ensure 5G develops in
combination with rural broadband connectivity?
Answer. ITS America represents state and city departments of
transportation, metropolitan planning organizations, automotive
manufacturers, technology companies, engineering firms, automotive
suppliers, insurance companies, and research universities that are
researching and deploying intelligent transportation technologies.
While ITS America includes among our members wireless communications
companies, we are not a trade association representing the wireless
communications industry, and as such, we do not have a policy specific
to how that industry is planning to deploy 5G in rural and urban areas.
ITS America is an intelligent transportation association. Our mission
is the research and deployment of advanced transportation technologies.
As such, ITS America does not have a specific policy on ways to ensure
5G develops in combination with rural broadband connectivity.
Ubiquitous access to high-speed broadband is key to intelligent
transportation technologies that are saving lives; reducing crashes;
extending the life of transportation infrastructure; improving
capacity; reducing the rate and growth in congestion; moving more
people in fewer vehicles; improving travel times and reducing
greenhouse gas emissions.
Our members believe that it should be a Federal priority to close
the digital divide in rural areas (as well as economically
disadvantaged urban areas). To do so, we believe the goal should be
broadband in any, all forms, to help address rural broadband
connectivity. For rural communities, ITS America supports increasing
grants that are currently eligible under the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. We recommend including in an infrastructure bill funding
to further expedite broadband in rural areas. Also, we support
expanding broadband grant programs to enable grant recipients to use
grants to deploy various types of infrastructure capable of offering
middle-mile, last-mile wired, and wireless broadband access.
Question 2. What are some steps the FCC can make to continue to
streamline the deployment of 5G while ensuring rural areas continue to
receive broadband and Internet support?
Answer. ITS America does not have a specific policy on steps the
FCC can make to continue to streamline the deployment of 5G while
ensuring rural areas continue to receive broadband and Internet
support.
ITS America is considering dig once policy in the reauthorization
of Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act that would
establish a new Federal funding (non-Highway Trust Fund) to assist
states and localities to (1) identify a broadband utility coordinator
to facilitate the broadband infrastructure right-of-way efforts within
the state; (2) register broadband infrastructure entities that seek to
be included in those facilitation efforts; (3) establish a process to
electronically notify such entities of the state transportation
improvement program on an annual basis; (4) coordinate statewide
telecommunication and broadband plans and state and local
transportation and land use plans, including strategies to minimize
repeated excavations that involve the installation of broadband
infrastructure in a right-of-way; and (5) ensure that any existing
broadband infrastructure entities are not disadvantaged.
Funding under this new FAST Act reauthorization program would
assist states and localities with recovering costs associated with
conduit installation, maintenance of conduit, and conduit inventory. We
believe this program would benefit rural communities by combining
broadband conduit installation with highway construction, including
expansion, resulting in a decreased frequency of construction on
highways, decrease broadband installation costs, increase access to and
reliability of broadband networks, increased public and economic
benefits, and decrease time needed to deploy fiber.
Please note that this policy does not establish a mandate or
requirement that a state or locality install broadband infrastructure
in a highway right-of-way.
Question 3. How can 5G be rolled out quickly to avoid a gap where
there are have and have nots?
Answer. See answer to question 1 above.
Question 4. How does the Mobility Fund play a role in 5G
deployment?
Answer. ITS America does not have a specific policy on how the
Mobility Fund can play a role in 5G deployment. While ITS America does
not have a specific policy on the Mobility Fund, we support Federal
grants to expand mobile broadband networks to areas that are unserved
and underserved.
Question 5. 5G wireless services will require the deployment of a
vast network of small cells. However, these networks will also need
fiber-based wireline networks for their backhaul network. Could you
explain to me the importance of a fiber backhaul and the allocation of
spectrum in deploying these small cells?
Answer. In Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) applications, backhaul
is the fiber-optic or wireless connection between the roadside unit
(RSU) and traffic management center or other operational centers that
allows data to be exchanged and enables supervisory control of the
system.
Question 6. Fortunately, every school and library in my state of
West Virginia has a fiber connection, but this not the case when kids
go home from school. Many of them cannot do their homework assignments.
This digital divide cannot continue to be overlooked. How will 5G help
our students at home? How long will it take for these students to see
the benefits of 5G at their homes?
Answer. See answer to question 1 above.
Question 7. Despite significant investment, the vast majority of my
state lacks competitive access to a fiber network. How can Internet
providers ensure rural Internet access remains competitive as 5G gains
more prevalence?
Answer. ITS America does not have a specific policy on how Internet
providers can ensure rural Internet access remains competitive as 5G
gains more prevalence.
Question 8. How can Congress ensure the regulatory conditions are
in place in order to ensure states like mine can participate in the 5G
economy?
Answer. See answer to question 1 above.
Question 9. Each member of this Committee has today or previously
mentioned the importance of having accurate data and noted the flawed
information that our current maps provide. Last year, I visited Flying
W Plastics, a local polyethylene pipe products manufacturer in Gilmer
County, West Virginia. According to a recent FCC Broadband Progress
report, Gilmer County, WV is 100 percent served with 25 Mbps/3Mbps
service.
While visiting, I found this to be inaccurate. They do not have
adequate broadband and unfortunately, this is not the only example like
this in my state. So my question is: When there are communities in my
state who are still struggling to achieve 3 or even 4G, how do you
suggest we measure the accuracy of their broadband availability?
Answer. ITS America does not have a specific policy on how to best
measure the accuracy of broadband availability.
Question 10. Last Congress, I introduced the Gigabit Opportunity
(GO) Act and I plan to reintroduce it this Congress. This legislation
would seek expedited deployment of broadband services in low-income
rural and urban communities. The GO Act gives states flexibility,
streamlines existing regulations, and eliminates barriers to investment
so we can connect our low-income and rural communities. How can tax
proposals like the GO Act make a measurable difference in promoting
rural broadband deployment? Could similar proposals help in 5G
deployment?
Answer. ITS America did not take a policy position on the Gigabit
Opportunity (GO) Act.
Question 11. Congress has made several steps towards improving the
deployment and accessibility of broadband to rural and tribal
communities. For example, the AIRWAVES Act introduced by my Senate
colleagues--Senator Gardner and Senator Hassan--included a ``rural
dividend'' that would have dedicated 10 percent of any future spectrum
auction funds to support the deployment of wireless infrastructure in
unserved and underserved communities. How will rural set asides like
this be used differently than Federal support already being distributed
through programs like USF and RUS?
Answer. ITS America does not have a specific policy position on how
rural set-asides can be used differently than Federal support already
being distributed through programs like the Universal Service Fund and
Rural Utilities Service.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Jerry Moran to
Michael Wessel
Question. Your testimony highlighted the concerns of China's
involvement in international standards-setting organizations and the
potential impact on technological interoperability and operations.
Would you please describe examples of their involvement and potential
harms stemming from it?
Answer. China has had an aggressive strategy to influence the
standards and rules that will drive the development and deployment of
5G equipment. Most importantly, China has put substantial energy and
resources into participating and leading the design of standards at
international standards setting bodies such as the International
Telecommunications Union (ITU), where they chair more committees than
any other delegation. China has participated--via government and
``private sector'' participants--to drive standards in ways that will
promote the interests of their companies. This strategy has the
potential to provide enormous advantages to Chinese firms and the
government.
5G will be the communications technology that provides greater
connectivity between devices than ever before. The Internet of Things
(IoT) will be dramatically enhanced by 5G. 5G will create enhanced
capabilities for cyberespionage as the ``attack surfaces'' will be
exponentially increased. The countries and companies that control the
technology have the capabilities to use their technologies for
intelligence, counterintelligence, surveillance and other efforts which
could be averse to our interests.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Edward Markey to
Michael Wessel
Question 1. Mr. Wessel, how can we identify hostile foreign
equipment in our telecommunications networks?
Answer. The deployment of 5G alongside the increasing expansion of
the Internet of Things (IoT) and IoT devices will significantly expand
threat vectors and attack surfaces which bad actors, primarily nation-
state actors, can exploit and the presence of potentially hostile
foreign-produced, serviced and maintained equipment in those networks
increases those risks. The first step in addressing these risks is a
comprehensive and regularly-occurring supply chain examination of our
Nation's telecommunications networks. We have already endured years of
Chinese cyberespionage targeting our Nation's economic and national
security systems, some of which were facilitated and directed by the
Chinese government. Given that reality, allowing Chinese companies--
many of which are under direct or coercive state control--to provide
network equipment and services for our telecommunications
infrastructure creates extreme and unacceptable vulnerabilities. It
needlessly gives potential hostile actors control over the source code,
updates, and servicing of key networks.
The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission's (USCC)
2018 Report to Congress envisions the regular supply chain examination
I suggested, recommending that Congress mandate that the Office of
Management and Budget's Federal Chief Security Officer Council prepare
an annual report to Congress to ensure supply chain vulnerabilities
from China are adequately addressed. This must be supplemented with
aggressive efforts to assess the vulnerabilities in the private sector
and, for critical economic and national infrastructure, foreign
equipment suppliers from unsecure and untrusted vendors should be
excluded. Where necessary, networks should be segmented or isolated to
maximize security.
Question 2. How to we address the threat they pose? Do we need to
remove them from the networks altogether? Do we need to install
patches?
Answer. Ideally, when potentially hostile foreign supplied
equipment is identified in any of our networks it can and should be
removed. In networks that transmit critical economic and security data
or support critical infrastructure, the removal of potentially
malevolent equipment is critical and imperative. If a situation were to
arise in which the removal of the equipment is not possible, it is
vital thatm at a bare minimum, U.S. authorities be given complete
transparency with regard to the examination of hardware, data storage
and security, source code, and updates in use and accessibility
throughout the network, with no exceptions. Equipment, software and
updates should not be deployed until full assessments have been
completed.
The USCC's 2018 Report to Congress also recommended that Congress
direct the National Telecommunications and Information Administration
and the Federal Communications Commission to identify steps to ensure a
rapid and secure deployment of 5G networks, and whether new statutory
authorities are required to protect the security of domestic 5G
networks.
As we chart a path into the next-generation of connectivity, it is
important that our policymakers are provided any and all relevant
technical information that identifies and mitigates future threats. It
is my hope that Congress will act quickly to initiate the necessary
examinations of our domestic 5G needs and vulnerabilities that can
provide the data and situational awareness needed to craft a
comprehensive response to the dangers posed by potentially foreign-
produced equipment from hostile actors being utilized in U.S. networks.
Question 3. The New York Times reported on the Trump
Administration's efforts to pressure other countries to reject China's
offer for a 5G network. Is this the right strategy, in your view? If
not, what is a better approach to addressing China's efforts for a 5G
expansion in other countries?
Answer. The United States reaps enormous benefits from its
information and intelligence sharing relationships with its allies, as
to those partners. These relationships represent a critical component
of our Nation's intelligence collection, analysis, and operations
apparatus and are a vital aspect of a secure long-term national
security strategy. However, for those relationships to provide that
security to the U.S. and our allies, high-level sensitive intelligence
must only be shared via safe and secure networks. Huawei equipment is a
long-identified security risk. The presence of Huawei equipment on a
network represents a serious vulnerability today that will only grow
with time. It is entirely appropriate for the U.S. to make clear to its
allies that current intelligence-sharing regimes may require
significant changes if Huawei equipment is going to be utilized on
their networks. We must always protect U.S. intelligence findings,
including sources and methods, and that may require limitations on
intelligence-sharing over networks that we cannot confirm are secure.
If our friends abroad are unwilling to secure their networks from
Huawei, we must adopt new systems to allow for sharing intelligence,
while segregating key data from networks that include potentially
malignant equipment. The costs of exposing our critical national
security information is too high for inaction. As our partners around
the world wrestle with their own challenges in deploying a secure 5G
network, the U.S. must continue to make its case that the proven
security threats from companies like Huawei are too dangerous to risk.
These concerns should also be assessed vis-a-vis other critical
communications systems. The operation of financial markets, our
electric grids and countless other supported infrastructure should not
be put at risk.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Jon Tester to
Michael Wessel
Question. How can we help small carriers that have Huawei Equipment
in their networks?
Answer. Small or regional telecommunications carriers have not been
provided enough support in identifying and mitigating potential threats
posed by the presence of Huawei, or other foreign suppliers'
potentially suspect equipment on their networks. Regional companies
often face challenges in providing reliable services to fewer users
over larger geographic areas and have found, in some cases, that using
cheaper (subsidized) foreign-supplied equipment, namely Huawei, is a
more cost-effective option. It is imperative that Federal authorities
work with those regional telecommunications firms to provide up-to-date
information on the threats and security flaws that are associated with
equipment provided by Huawei and other foreign firms.
It is imperative that Federal authorities provide more support to
those smaller and regional carriers, especially with regard to the
threats and security flaws associated with equipment from Huawei and
other foreign companies.
The first step should include the deployment of formal information-
sharing protocols between authorities at the federal, state, regional,
and local levels. The more information we can provide smaller carriers
about the developing and ongoing cybersecurity threats they face, the
better they will be able to address and manage them. Next, new security
standards may be needed to identify the potentially malevolent
equipment and remove it from networks. And finally, if these standards
require the replacement of suspicious hardware on the networks of
smaller carriers which do not have the resources to undertake a costly
project such as this, Federal support should be provided for firms to
secure their systems by replacing suspicious and potentially malevolent
equipment with safe, secure systems.
In conjunction with these efforts, it is appropriate to assess
whether Huawei and other equipment and services provided by suspect
actors is supported by state-provided subsidies. These subsidies, while
lowering the acquisition cost for consumers, also has the impact of
unfairly skewing the market and limiting opportunities for market-based
suppliers, many of which are trusted vendors. The initial cost may be
lower by procuring these potentially subsidized products and services
but the long-term security costs are unacceptable.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Shelley Moore Capito to
Kim Zentz
Question 1. In your testimonies, many of you discuss the framework
for 5G. While I understand the importance of innovation and support
faster speeds, I have concerns that rural locations will not be
adequately addressed: What ways exist to ensure 5G develops in
combination with rural broadband connectivity?
Answer. In order to fully realize the substantial benefits of 5G
for all citizens, our work as a country on this deployment must be done
in concert with all stakeholders. Central and local governments, the
public sector and the private sector must join forces to ensure an
equitable and resilient deployment. Failing this effort risks creating
divided and socially exclusive communities across the country.
Question 2. What are some steps the FCC can make to continue to
streamline the deployment of 5G while ensuring rural areas continue to
receive broadband and Internet support?
Answer. Cities and communities of all sizes must be collaboratively
included in the discussions that affect the oversight of their rights
of way to ensure public safety, space, local spectrum management and
aesthetics. The FCC must take steps to ensure that these local
responsibilities are not reduced or over-ridden by actions taken to
accelerate 5G deployment.
Question 3. How can 5G be rolled out quickly to avoid a gap where
there are have and have nots?
Answer. Smaller and mid-sized communities can be pilot
installations. Starting in the lower population areas allows the unique
challenges of smaller communities to receive deserved attention and the
pilot effort allows stakeholders with roles in the installation to
learn lessons at a smaller scale than might be present in an attempt to
accelerate deployment in densely populated urban areas.
Logical practice dictates that taking care to get smaller-scale
pilot installations done right before attempting large scale deployment
will best serve all stakeholders interests in time, budget and
efficiency over-all. The deployment schedule will be slower and more
careful in the pilot installation, lessons learned will be cataloged
and evaluated, stakeholders can weigh in before the larger scale
commitments to equipment and personnel are made. With the known
variables under control, the balance of the deployment can move much
more smoothly and effectively--on time and on budget.
Question 4. How does the Mobility Fund play a role in 5G
deployment?
Answer. I cannot effectively speak to the applicability of the
Mobility Fund and its governing principles. However, I do believe that
mobility applications will be among the first and likely most
compelling use-cases for high-speed, low latency 5G equipment.
Furthermore, mobility is at the very heart of every community (of all
sizes) because of its fundamental enablement of economic, social and
environmental equity and resiliency.
Question 5. 5G wireless services will require the deployment of a
vast network of small cells. However, these networks will also need
fiber-based wireline networks for their backhaul network. Could you
explain to me the importance of a fiber backhaul and the allocation of
spectrum in deploying these small cells?
Answer. Wireless communications networks are worthless without
reliable backhaul networks. The allocation of spectrum must take into
account all of the factors that comprise essential service to citizens
as well as the effective use of spectrum--including mid-band. With the
deployment of 5G, applications will distribute to the most effective
segment of spectrum, thus there will be some lower and mid-band
spectrum capacity that should not be ignored in the balancing of
priorities for communities' spectrum needs. In other words, not all
applications will suddenly demand 5G to function effectively.
Question 6. Fortunately, every school and library in my state of
West Virginia has a fiber connection, but this not the case when kids
go home from school. Many of them cannot do their homework assignments.
This digital divide cannot continue to be overlooked. How will 5G help
our students at home? How long will it take for these students to see
the benefits of 5G at their homes?
Answer. N/A
Question 7. Despite significant investment, the vast majority of my
state lacks competitive access to a fiber network. How can Internet
providers ensure rural Internet access remains competitive as 5G gains
more prevalence?
Answer. N/A
Question 8. How can Congress ensure the regulatory conditions are
in place in order to ensure states like mine can participate in the 5G
economy?
Answer. Digital connectivity is essential infrastructure and is
increasingly the lynchpin for safety, health and well-being of our
citizens. Thus Congress should treat relevant policy decisions with the
same thoroughness as water, electricity, roads, bridges, sewers, etc.
Question 9. Each member of this Committee has today or previously
mentioned the importance of having accurate data and noted the flawed
information that our current maps provide. Last year, I visited Flying
W Plastics, a local polyethylene pipe products manufacturer in Gilmer
County, West Virginia. According to a recent FCC Broadband Progress
report, Gilmer County, WV is 100 percent served with 25 Mbps/3Mbps
service. While visiting, I found this to be inaccurate. They do not
have adequate broadband and unfortunately, this is not the only example
like this in my state. So my question is: When there are communities in
my state who are still struggling to achieve 3 or even 4G, how do you
suggest we measure the accuracy of their broadband availability?
Answer. Clearly, the best decisions cannot be made absent the best
information that is possible to cost-effectively obtain.
Question 10. Last Congress, I introduced the Gigabit Opportunity
(GO) Act and I plan to reintroduce it this Congress. This legislation
would seek expedited deployment of broadband services in low-income
rural and urban communities. The GO Act gives states flexibility,
streamlines existing regulations, and eliminates barriers to investment
so we can connect our low-income and rural communities. How can tax
proposals like the GO Act make a measurable difference in promoting
rural broadband deployment? Could similar proposals help in 5G
deployment?
Answer. N/A
Question 11. Congress has made several steps towards improving the
deployment and accessibility of broadband to rural and tribal
communities. For example, the AIRWAVES Act introduced by my Senate
colleagues--Senator Gardner and Senator Hassan--included a ``rural
dividend'' that would have dedicated 10 percent of any future spectrum
auction funds to support the deployment of wireless infrastructure in
unserved and underserved communities. How will rural set asides like
this be used differently than Federal support already being distributed
through programs like USF and RUS?
Answer. N/A
[all]