[Senate Hearing 116-620]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                                                        S. Hrg. 116-620

 THE EVOLUTION OF NEXT-GENERATION TECHNOLOGIES: IMPLEMENTING MOBILE NOW

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               before the

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, TECHNOLOGY, INNOVATION AND THE INTERNET

                                 of the

                         COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
                      SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                            DECEMBER 5, 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

52-802 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

                                 ------                                

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, TECHNOLOGY, INNOVATION AND THE INTERNET

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman
ROY BLUNT, Missouri                  BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii, Ranking
TED CRUZ, Texas                      AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 TOM UDALL, New Mexico
CORY GARDNER, Colorado               GARY PETERS, Michigan
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
MIKE LEE, Utah                       JON TESTER, Montana
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona
TODD YOUNG, Indiana                  JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
RICK SCOTT, Florida








                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on December 5, 2019.................................     1
Statement of Senator Thune.......................................     1
Statement of Senator Schatz......................................     3
Statement of Senator Wicker......................................     5
Statement of Senator Cantwell....................................    83
Statement of Senator Blackburn...................................    84
Statement of Senator Lee.........................................    86
Statement of Senator Tester......................................    88
Statement of Senator Sinema......................................    90
Statement of Senator Rosen.......................................    92
Statement of Senator Blumenthal..................................    94
Statement of Senator Cruz........................................    95

                               Witnesses

Paul TenHaken, Mayor, City of Sioux Falls, South Dakota..........     6
    Prepared statement...........................................     7
Scott Bergmann, Senior Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, CTIA..    50
    Prepared statement...........................................    51
Mary Brown, Senior Director, Technology Policy, Cisco Systems, 
  Inc............................................................    57
    Prepared statement...........................................    58
Jonathan Adelstein, President and CEO, Wireless Infrastructure 
  Association....................................................    63
    Prepared statement...........................................    65
Sarah Morris, Director, New America's Open Technology Institute..    68
    Prepared statement...........................................    69

                                Appendix

Letter dated December 3, 2019 to Honorable Roger Wicker and 
  Honorable Maria Cantwell from Stuart P. Ingis, Counsel, Privacy 
  for America....................................................   101
Letter dated December 4, 2019 to Honorable Diane Rinaldo, Acting 
  Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, NTIA 
  from Hon. Roger F. Wicker and Hon. John Thune..................   103
Letter dated December 5, 2019 to Senator Roger Wicker, Senator 
  John Thune, Senator Maria Cantwell, and Senator Brian Schatz 
  from Tim McClees, Vice President of Legislative Affairs, 
  Aerospace Industries Association...............................   105
Response to written questions submitted to Scott Bergmann by:
    Hon. Shelley Moore Capito....................................   106
    Hon. Amy Klobuchar...........................................   108
Response to written questions submitted to Mary Brown by:
    Hon. Shelley Moore Capito....................................   108
Response to written questions submitted to Jonathan Adelstein by:
    Hon. Shelley Moore Capito....................................   109
    Hon. Jon Tester..............................................   110
Response to written question submitted to Sarah Morris by:
    Hon. Amy Klobuchar...........................................   111
    Hon. Brian Schatz............................................   112







 
                            THE EVOLUTION OF
                     NEXT-GENERATION TECHNOLOGIES:
                        IMPLEMENTING MOBILE NOW

                              ----------                              


                       THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2019

                               U.S. Senate,
       Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, 
                      Innovation, and the Internet,
        Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in 
room SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. John Thune, 
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Thune [presiding], Wicker, Blunt, Cruz, 
Sullivan, Gardner, Blackburn, Lee, Young, Scott, Schatz, 
Cantwell, Blumenthal, Markey, Peters, Tester, Sinema, and 
Rosen.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA

    The Chairman. Good morning. Everything got real quiet, real 
fast here, but good to have you all here this morning. The 
Senator from Hawaii informs me that the temperature dropped 
down to 69 last night in Honolulu so things are rough.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Well, in South Dakota, we don't have to deal 
with that until probably about June of next year. Good morning 
and welcome to today's hearing to examine the implementation of 
the Making Opportunities for Broadband Investment and Limiting 
Excessive and Needless Obstacles to Wireless Act, also referred 
to as the MOBILE NOW Act. It is our job as policymakers, 
particularly those of us who serve on the Commerce Committee, 
to make sure that the United States is a leader in the 
deployment of next-generation technologies.
    To fulfill that obligation, we must ensure that our market 
has access to both licensed and unlicensed spectrum and that 
the industry is not unnecessarily burdened when bringing this 
spectrum to market. That is where the MOBILE NOW Act plays a 
crucial role. MOBILE NOW reflected several years of hard work 
by many of the members who serve on this Committee. This 
important legislation made a down payment on both spectrum and 
infrastructure needs, positioning the United States to lead in 
the race to 5G, a race that has major implications for both our 
national and economic security. It is also our job as 
policymakers to make sure that legislative efforts, like the 
MOBILE NOW Act, are implemented.
    MOBILE NOW required identifying 255 megahertz for mobile 
and fixed wireless use, including 100 megahertz of spectrum 
below 8 gigahertz for unlicensed use and 100 megahertz of 
spectrum above 6 gigahertz for commercial licensed use. Both 
licensed and unlicensed spectrum play an integral role in the 
communications landscape. Wi-Fi is responsible for a growing 
amount of the data transmitted in our homes and offices and 
will have an increasing role as we continue to expand the 
Internet of Things in the 5G era. One particular band that has 
a lot of promise for fulfilling much of the unlicensed 
requirement in MOBILE NOW is the 6 gigahertz band. The FCC has 
begun the process to permit unlicensed use in this band while 
also protecting the incumbents serving critical infrastructure. 
It is my hope the FCC will move expeditiously on finalizing 
rules for that band.
    As this Committee has discussed previously, 5G, which is 
expected to create $275 billion in new investment, $500 billion 
in economic growth, and 3 million new jobs requires the right 
spectrum and smart policies on how to bring the spectrum to 
market. I applaud the FCC for its successful auctions of 
millimeter wave spectrum that is important for 5G, but as we 
have all recognized, we need much more mid-band spectrum to 
provide the capacity and flexibility needed to build a robust 
5G network. MOBILE NOW directed the Commission to evaluate 
commercial wireless use in the 3.7 to 4.2 gigahertz band or the 
C-Band, as it is known, mid-band spectrum that is ideally 
suited for 5G deployment. I was encouraged to see Chairman Pai 
announce his intention to bring the spectrum to market through 
a public auction, and I want to make sure that happens with no 
additional delays.
    To achieve that goal, Chairman Wicker and I introduced the 
5G Spectrum Act, which is legislation that would bring at least 
280 megahertz of spectrum to market through a public auction 
and require that at least 50 percent of the fair market value 
of the spectrum be captured for the taxpayer. The other portion 
of the proceeds would help to cover the costs of the auction 
and allow for the incumbents of the C-band to be fairly 
compensated for modifications to their infrastructure to clear 
the spectrum so that they can continue to serve broadcasters.
    Not having the right policies in place will slow our 
leadership in the deployment of next-generation technology, 
particularly in more rural areas. I appreciate Chairman 
Wicker's leadership on the 5G Spectrum Act, and I look forward 
to working with him to move that legislation. In addition to 
the FCC, the National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration has an important role with regard to spectrum. 
MOBILE NOW directed NTIA, in consultation with the FCC, to 
examine the feasibility of commercial services in the 3100 to 
3550 megahertz frequencies.
    Last February, I was pleased that NTIA identified the 3450 
to 3550 megahertz frequencies as a potential candidate for 
shared use, but that is only a first step under its requirement 
in MOBILE NOW. Today, I along with Chairman Wicker wrote to 
Acting Administrator Diane Rinaldo asking NTIA to review the 
remainder of the band and identify any other frequencies for 
shared use. Access to the right spectrum is only one part of 
the challenge. It can take several years and tremendous 
investment to deploy next-generation services.
    MOBILE NOW streamlined the process of applying for 
easements, rights of way, and leases for federally managed 
property, and established a shot clock for review of those 
applications. It also established a National Broadband 
Facilities Asset Data base listing Federal property that could 
be used by private entities for the purpose of building or 
operating communications facilities. And importantly, it helped 
reduce the costs of deploying fixed broadband by establishing a 
Dig Once policy. Like I said earlier, the MOBILE NOW Act 
incorporated many provisions from members on this Committee and 
it is our duty to make sure it is being implemented properly.
    Today, we are joined by a panel of expert witnesses to 
discuss the provisions in MOBILE NOW and to give us a 
perspective on what needs to be done to continue advancing 
American leadership in next-generation technologies. I would 
like to welcome Paul TenHaken, who serves as the Mayor of Sioux 
Falls, South Dakota. Mayor TenHaken has done exceptional work 
removing barriers to wireless infrastructure deployment, 
resulting in the City of Sioux Falls being one of the first 5G 
cities in the Nation.
    We are also joined by Mr. Scott Bergmann of CTIA; Ms. Mary 
Brown from Cisco; Mr. Jonathan Adelstein, President and CEO of 
the Wireless Infrastructure Association; and Ms. Sarah Morris 
from New America's Open Technology Institute. Thank you all for 
being here and I am going to turn now to the Ranking Member 
Schatz for his opening remarks.

                STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

    Senator Schatz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
holding this hearing. I am happy that we are continuing our 
oversight of our spectrum policies and implementation of MOBILE 
NOW. And as we sit here discussing spectrum issues, including 
advancing next generation licensed wireless services like 5G, 
we can't forget that millions of Americans currently lack 
broadband access.
    According to a recent FCC report, the number of people 
without sufficient broadband is staggering, 21.3 million 
people, roughly the same number of people as live in Florida, 
fall on the wrong side of the digital divide. And for these 
unconnected Americans, the lack of broadband has a significant 
impact on their daily lives and opportunities. It means kids 
sit in library parking lots for hours to use Wi-Fi connections 
so that they can do their homework. It means that businesses 
can't adopt cloud based software to improve their 
profitability. It means people have to drive long distances to 
Government offices instead of accessing services online, and 
health care providers are unable to monitor their patients' 
chronic medical conditions without expensive in-person visits.
    So depending on your situation and the broadband access in 
your community, you may think differently about the 
conversations that we are having here in Washington about 
spectrum. If you are connected, you are excited about the next 
generation of technology and the promise that it brings, but 
for people stuck on the wrong side of the digital divide, the 
discussion here is less exciting. In fact, if you are one of 
those millions, you may question the fairness of Congress 
focusing on the next generation of technologies while you 
remain unconnected and your world continue to feel further and 
further disadvantaged. But there is a win-win solution here.
    Through my bill the Investing in America's Digital 
Infrastructure Act which Senator Markey and Cantwell have co-
sponsored, we can free up important Spectrum for 5G 
connectivity while at the same time resolving important 
questions on how to achieve broadband equity and usher in next 
generation 911 services. Senator Klobuchar has been a champion 
of next gen 911 and I want to thank her for identifying public 
safety's needs for this important technology upgrade.
    Our solution is actually pretty simple. It is not 
complicated at all. It is essentially this, there is a swath of 
mid band spectrum known as the C-band which is controlled but 
underutilized by primarily foreign satellite companies, and I 
agree that we should reallocate the spectrum and publicly 
auction it off for 5G. But instead of giving those foreign 
satellite companies a windfall, we should direct that revenue 
from the auction to be used to bridge the remaining digital 
divide in rural and urban areas so that we can provide 
broadband in those communities for access healthcare, 
education, farming, and other opportunities. You can also use 
the auction revenues to upgrade our 911 infrastructure so that 
public safety can receive text, photos, and video to keep us 
safe.
    We all say that we want ubiquitous broadband and next gen 
911 but we haven't found the right economic incentives or 
funding mechanisms to make that happen. My bill allows us to 
complete both of these important goals and I appreciate my 
colleagues considering it as we continue to discuss how to move 
forward with 5G. Finally, as we continue to talk about 5G and 
the adoption of next-gen technologies, we have to be sure that 
everyone has access to the opportunities that those 
technologies provide. So when we think about broadband equity, 
particularly in the context of 5G license use, it is important 
to remember that unlicensed spectrum must be an essential part 
of spectrum policy.
    MOBILE NOW requires that the FCC allocate at least 100 
megahertz of spectrum for unlicensed use and this is essential 
because without suitable unlicensed spectrum, superfast 5G 
speeds and the new technologies that will bring will only be 
available with an expensive data plan, leaving behind 
innovative uses of unlicensed connectivity along with the 
people who could benefit most from them. As technology 
advances, we must be sure not to aggravate any gains we have 
made in closing the digital divide or even worse, create a new 
digital divide.
    I know that our witnesses and the organizations that they 
represent also want to ensure the promises of next-generation 
technology are delivered to all Americans and I look forward to 
hearing all of your testimony. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Schatz. We have been 
joined by the Chairman of the Full Committee, the Senator from 
Mississippi, Senator Wicker. I am going to recognize him for 
some remarks.

                STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI

    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a brief 
statement, but I thank you for convening this hearing on MOBILE 
NOW. I am pleased to see that our distinguished panel has 
representatives from licensed and unlicensed spectrum users, 
and from the folks working hard to deploy 5G infrastructure in 
America, including in America's rural communities.
    As I look up and down this Subcommittee dais, I would think 
the words of Senator Schatz about addressing those on the wrong 
side of the digital divide are probably well received by 
everyone in attendance on the Subcommittee. A special welcome 
to Mayor TenHaken of Sioux Falls, a city that is just about the 
same size as Jackson, Mississippi, but a city that has shown 
great leadership in bringing 5G early on.
    Mr. Chairman, you have called MOBILE NOW a down payment on 
the spectrum and infrastructure policies we will need to make 
America the next leader in the next generation. I think of it 
more as the foundation for 5G. We are all building on the 
important bipartisan legislation passed under your leadership, 
Mr. Chairman.
    Among other things, MOBILE NOW required the Federal 
Communications Commission to study making C-band spectrum 
available for 5G. I am pleased to note Mr. Chairman, that you 
and I recently introduced the 5G Spectrum Act to require the 
FCC to conduct an auction of that spectrum. This measure is the 
crucial next step in America spectrum policy.
    The 5G Spectrum Act will make sure that we have the C-band 
spectrum we need to win the race to 5G. And we need to win that 
race while also addressing those who are not nearly as far 
along. It will require the FCC to capture at least 50 percent 
of the value of that spectrum for the taxpayer, and it will 
require the FCC to begin a public auction next year.
    The 5G Spectrum Act provides the spectrum, the certainty, 
the speed, and the savings essential for America to win the 
race to 5G. I look forward to working with my colleagues on 
both ends of the dais to pass this important legislation. Thank 
you, sir.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Chairman Wicker, and thank you for 
putting the C-band Spectrum Act on the mark up for next week. I 
hope we can get that moving quickly. I can't emphasize enough 
how important C-band spectrum is to this great race that we are 
in with many of our competitors around the world to lead the 
way when it comes to 5th generation technology. I am so 
delighted to have, as I said, a great panel with us today. 40 
percent of the panel comes from South Dakota originally.
    Commissioner Adelstein is a proud West River guy, and of 
course the Mayor of Sioux Falls. Glad to have you here. So what 
I am going to do is recognize the Mayor first, start on my left 
and your right, and just move across the panel. If you could 
confine your oral remarks to no more than 5 minutes. Rest 
assured that we will put your entire statement in the permanent 
hearing record. So thank you all for being here. Mayor, please 
proceed.

              STATEMENT OF PAUL TENHAKEN, MAYOR, 
               CITY OF SIOUX FALLS, SOUTH DAKOTA

    Mr. TenHaken. Thank you, Chairman Thune and Ranking Member 
Schatz. Thank you for holding this hearing and for the 
invitation to provide testimony. I appreciate the opportunity 
to address you today on the importance of Internet connectivity 
at the municipal level, as well as the importance of the fifth 
generation of Internet connectivity to South Dakota and the 
upper Great Plains. Sioux Falls is a 200,000-person growing 
city in the heart of America.
    In 2008, I founded a marketing technology firm called Click 
Rain right in Sioux Falls, and thanks to the explosive growth 
of the Internet and digital commerce and light-touch Government 
regulation, our company quickly became one of the fastest 
growing companies in the Upper Midwest for marketing 
technology, making its way to the Inc. 5000 list for five years 
in a row as one of America's fastest growing private companies. 
I am very proud of that accomplishment.
    Today, nearly every sector of Sioux Falls economy relies on 
a fast and reliable Internet connection. Organizations in our 
market like Avera Health are operating on one of the most 
robust e-care back ends in the country, right in Sioux Falls. 
Carsforsale.com is a .com success story. This created hundreds 
of jobs in Sioux Falls. Asperity provides EMR software to 
urgent care clinics across the globe right in Sioux Falls. And 
the common thread of success amongst all these innovative 
companies is fast, reliable connectivity. In particular, the 
future of telemedicine from providers like Avera will be 
revolutionized as the prevalence of 5G grows.
    Imagine the ability of a doctor in Sioux Falls to consult 
with a doctor and a patient in a rural part of our state while 
sharing a 3D CT scan that is several gigabytes in size and a 4K 
resolution. 5G technology would allow this interaction to occur 
in milliseconds, whereas today it would be nearly impossible. 
It is disappointing to hear of communities demanding large sums 
of money from fees for small cell towers in the public right-
of-way, as well as unnecessary regulations and lengthy permit 
review times. These communities are essentially attempting to 
generate exorbitant profit not only from the wireless carriers 
that stay in the way of technology, but they are also robbing 
from the consumers in their markets.
    Most disappointing is that for every dollar these major 
metropolitan's demand from wireless carriers, they are taking 
away money from cities like Sioux Falls who are eager to foster 
the deployment of small cells and position to work with 
carriers as partners rather than adversaries. As the United 
States strives to be one of the first nations with a fully 
functional 5G network, the City of Sioux Falls aims to be one 
of the first mid-market cities with a 5G network. On November 
1, 2019, I was honored to join Senator Thune and Verizon 
Executive V.P. Craig Silliman to announce the 5G launch in 
Sioux Falls with ten active towers. In 2020, we anticipate 
several more Verizon small cells as well as the entry of AT&T 
and T-Mobile small cells into our market. The strategy for 
Sioux Falls in dealing with this was simple, cover our costs.
    As Mayor it is not my intent to profit off carriers that 
deploy small cell infrastructure. Sioux Falls seeks fair and 
reasonable compensation for City staff time to review 
applications from carriers and in turn we offer reasonable 
time-frame to approve or deny applications or work with the 
carrier on an alternative site. It is a very basic ask, make 
the City whole on our cost to review and house the 
infrastructure that they need to earn their profits.
    Cutting edge technology, innovation, and proactive planning 
are crucial to preparing Sioux Falls and the region for quality 
of life improvements driven by technology advancements, and 5G 
plays a pivotal role in that equation. For autonomous vehicles 
to be viable, we need 5G. For enhanced public safety with high-
definition feeds from police officer body cameras, for 
instance, we need 5G. Much like the new businesses and 
technologies that emerged after 3G and 4G, much of the 
innovation to be created based on 5G's potential hasn't even 
been imagined yet. The deployment of small cell towers is also 
a job creator in South Dakota.
    Recently, Sioux Falls local tech college, South East 
Technical Institute, and locally based VIKOR, a tower 
construction and maintenance company, partnered on a training 
program and together they will prepare students for careers as 
tower techs with the wireless infrastructure technician 
certificate.
    In closing, I want to thank the Committee's for its work in 
wireless and broadband deployment, especially the leadership of 
Chairman Thune. The Chairman understands the importance of 
connecting rural states with the rest of the world as well as 
the economic opportunities 5G offers to states like South 
Dakota.
    I am excited to foster and support 5G in Sioux Falls as we 
seek to model the way for what successful deployment can look 
like and remove unnecessary barriers to entry for this critical 
infrastructure. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. TenHaken follows:]

              Prepared Statement of Paul TenHaken, Mayor, 
                   City of Sioux Falls, South Dakota
    Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Schatz, thank you for holding 
this hearing and thank you for the invitation to provide testimony. I 
appreciate the opportunity to address you today on the importance of 
Internet connectivity at the municipal level as well as the importance 
of the fifth generation of Internet connectivity to South Dakota and 
the upper Great Plains.
    Sioux Falls was incorporated in 1876 around the same time in 
history when communication in the United States was transformed by the 
telegraph system, and the same year Alexander Graham Bell sent the 
first human voice over an electric telegraph wire. Fast-forward to 
today, Sioux Falls is a nearly 200,000-person growing city in the heart 
of America. Our geographic distance from larger cities is immaterial 
for access to information and communication tools. Today, Sioux Falls 
and its citizens are data-driven, we are information creators and 
consumers, and we are mobile in a global economy. South Dakotans can 
work remotely for any global company, talk with clients around the 
world, and read news from Washington, DC, and other capitols throughout 
the world. Continued investment in connectivity, like 5G, helps ensure 
that South Dakota is a member of the national and international market.
    With the dawn of the digital age and the internet, once again, 
communication and information channels were revolutionized for rural 
America and birthed new businesses and fueled entrepreneurs, like 
myself. In 2008, I founded the marketing technology firm, Click Rain, 
in Sioux Falls. Thanks to the explosive growth of the Internet and 
digital commerce and light-touch government regulation, our company 
quickly become our way onto the Inc. 5000 list for five straight years 
as one of America's Fastest Growing Private Companies and one of the 
largest marketing technology firms in the upper Midwest.
    Today, nearly every sector of Sioux Falls' economy relies on a fast 
and reliable Internet connection. As an essential part of personal and 
professional life, our mobile devices and the infrastructure supporting 
the connection of these devices is an economic and quality of life 
driver for Sioux Falls, the State of South Dakota, and the entire 
region. Organizations in our market like Avera Health are operating one 
of the most robust eCARE backends in the country, right in Sioux Falls. 
CarsForSale.com is a dot-com success story that has created hundreds of 
jobs in Sioux Falls. Experity provides electronic medical record 
software to urgent care clinics across the globe. The common thread of 
success amongst all of these innovative companies: fast, reliable 
connectivity.
    In particular, the future of telemedicine from providers like Avera 
will be revolutionized as the prevalence of 5G grows. As recently 
featured in the Washington Post, Avera's eCARE launched in 1993 focused 
on telemedicine care, and today it provides a wide continuum of care 
including emergency, ICU, pharmacy, senior care, and behavioral health. 
This team has touched 2 million patients across 30 states and has saved 
$200 million in health care dollars over the past 25 years. 5G will no 
doubt increase the capability of patients to receive care from wherever 
they have access to a computer, tablet, or phone.
    Imagine the ability of a doctor in Sioux Falls to consult with a 
doctor and patient in Pierre, South Dakota, while sharing a 3D CT scan 
that is several gigabytes in size and at a 4K resolution. Traditional 
connections today would prohibit that type of communication on a 
routine or on demand basis and require that same patient to travel to 
Sioux Falls to see the Sioux Falls specialist and the 4K 3D image. 5G 
technology would allow this interaction to occur in milliseconds. This 
technology could also provide telemedicine for simple and complex 
medical needs from a patient's home or in an ambulance while being 
transported to the nearest hospital. The potential is great and the 
benefits are tremendous.
    The deployment of 5G is of great importance to the continued 
evolution of connecting rural America to the rest of the world. While 
states in middle America are often overlooked because we lack the 
population sizes compared to the coasts, our infrastructure needs are 
equal to those of the largest states in the Nation. In a global economy 
reliant on the internet, the fifth generation of mobile infrastructure 
is not a ``nice to have'' asset for Sioux Falls--it is a necessity.
    It is disappointing to hear of communities demanding large sums of 
money from fees for small cell towers in the public right-of-way as 
well as unnecessary regulations and lengthy permit review times. These 
communities are essentially attempting to generate exorbitant profit 
from the wireless carriers and stand in the way of technology that 
consumers in their communities are demanding. Most disappointing is 
that for every dollar these major metropolitans demand from wireless 
carriers, they are taking money away from cities like Sioux Falls who 
are eager to foster the deployment of small cells and positioned to 
work with carriers as partners rather than adversaries.
    As the United States strives to be the first nation with a fully 
functional 5G network, the City of Sioux Falls aimed to be one of the 
first mid-market cities with 5G infrastructure. Our strategy paid off 
as Verizon ``flipped the switch'' in recent weeks and activated its 
small cells in our downtown core. On November 1, 2019, it was an honor 
to join Senator Thune and Verizon Executive Vice President Craig 
Silliman to announce the 5G launch with ten active towers. In 2020, we 
anticipate several more Verizon small cells as well as the entry of 
AT&T and T-Mobile small cells into our market.
    The strategy for the City of Sioux Falls in dealing with wireless 
carriers was simple--cover our costs. As Mayor, it is not my intent to 
profit off carriers to deploy small cell infrastructure. Sioux Falls 
seeks fair and reasonable compensation for City staff time to review 
applications from carriers. In kind, we offer a reasonable time frame 
to approve or deny applications or work with the carrier on an 
alternative site. Lastly, we want easement fees that cover the 
inflationary costs we incur with carriers locating their technology on 
City assets. It's a very basic ask--make the City whole on our costs to 
review and house the infrastructure the carriers need to provide their 
service to customers.
    Verizon was the first carrier to contact Sioux Falls with interest 
in small cell contracts. For several weeks, our engineering and legal 
teams worked with Verizon on the permit process and contract based on 
the framework previously mentioned. To determine the fees, we processed 
mock applications to gauge the time and resources needed to reach a 
determination of a proposed location and evaluated the costs for 
electricity and pole maintenance. The agreement we reached was to co-
locate small cells on City light poles for ten years with the option of 
a five-year extension. This was important as to not clutter the public 
right-of-way additional items. Fees included a $500 per pole 
application fee, $175 annual per pole rental fee, and up to $6,000 in 
one-time costs for outside consultant needs. Verizon is responsible for 
the installation and removal of equipment, and the City is responsible 
for pole repair and maintenance. Lastly, based on test runs of the 
applications, the City agreed to a 60-day ``shot clock'' to approve or 
deny permit applications.
    Again, a simple strategy--cover the City's costs. Creating barriers 
to entry in a community is a disservice to the residents of your 
community and an impediment to the innovation and new economic 
development opportunities.
    Cutting-edge technology, innovation, forward-thinking, and 
proactive planning are crucial to preparing Sioux Falls and the region 
for quality of life improvements driven by technology advancements, and 
5G plays a pivotal role in the equation. For autonomous vehicles to be 
viable, we need 5G. For enhanced public safety with high-definition 
feeds for police officer body cameras and surveillance equipment, we 
need 5G. The opportunities 5G brings to our community are endless. Much 
like the new businesses and technologies that emerged with 4G, much of 
the innovation to be created based on 5G's potential have not been 
imagined yet. With a nationwide infrastructure connecting small towns 
and big cities, innovation can thrive throughout the United States, 
including Sioux Falls.
    The deployment of small cells is also a jobs creator in South 
Dakota. Recently, Sioux Falls' local technical college (Southeast 
Technical Institute) and locally based VIKOR (a tower construction and 
maintenance company) partnered on a new training program. Together, 
VIKOR and Southeast Tech will prepare students for careers as tower 
technicians within the eight-week Wireless Infrastructure Technician 
program. Thousands of individuals will need to enter the workforce to 
help deploy small cells and 5G nationwide.
    In closing, I want to thank the Committee's work in wireless and 
broadband deployment, especially the leadership of Chairman Thune. His 
vision for streamlined 5G deployment across the United States that is 
fair to communities, consumers, and carriers is a step in the right 
direction. The Chairman understands the importance of connecting rural 
states with the rest of the world as well as the economic opportunities 
5G offers to states like South Dakota. I am excited to foster and 
support 5G in Sioux Falls as we seek to model the way for what 
successful deployment can look like and remove unnecessary barriers to 
entry for this critical infrastructure.
    Attachments:
   City of Sioux Falls contract with CommNet Cellular Inc. d/b/
        a Verizon Wireless
   ``The most remote emergency room: Life and death in rural 
        America,'' The Washington Post, Eli Saslow, November 16, 2019
                                 ______
                                 
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                 
                                 
                                 ______
                                 

                          The Washington Post

    The most remote emergency room: Life and death in rural America

            By Eli Saslow--November 15, 2019 at 6:00 pm CST

    SIOUX FALLS, S.D.--A flashing red light summoned Dr. Brian Skow to 
his third emergency of the afternoon, and he hurried to a desk in a 
suburban office building. He sat in front of an oversize computer 
monitor, which showed a live video feed from inside a hospital room in 
eastern Montana. Two nurses were leaning over a patient on a stretcher, 
checking for a pulse, and squeezing oxygen out of a bag and into the 
patient's lungs.
    ``I'm Doctor Skow,'' he said, waving into a camera attached to his 
computer, introducing himself as the presiding emergency physician even 
though he was seated more than 700 miles away. ``How can we help you 
today?''
    ``We have a female patient, comatose and unresponsive,'' one of 
nurses in Montana said. The nurse was short of breath, and she looked 
up at the camera mounted to the wall of the exam room as she attached 
monitors to the patient's chest. ``She's a known diabetic. Blood sugar 
over 600. I--I don't really know. I haven't seen a whole lot of this.''
    ``You're doing great,'' Skow said. ``We'll walk through it 
together. That's why we're here.''
    As hospitals and physicians continue to disappear from rural 
America at record rates, here is the latest attempt to fill a widening 
void: a telemedicine center that provides remote emergency care for 179 
hospitals across 30 states. Physicians for Avera eCare work out of 
high-tech cubicles instead of exam rooms. They wear scrubs to look the 
part of traditional doctors on camera, even though they never directly 
see or touch their patients. They respond to more than 15,000 
emergencies each year by using remote-controlled cameras and computer 
screens at what has become rural America's busiest emergency room, 
which is in fact a virtual ER located in a suburban industrial park.
    At the cubicle to Skow's left, another doctor was examining a head 
injury in Kansas. To his right, a physician monitored a possible heart 
attack at a critical-access hospital in Minnesota. Meanwhile, Skow used 
a remote control to move the high-resolution camera in Montana, zooming 
in to check the patient's pupils for dilation and using a microphone to 
listen for breathing sounds.
    ``If she's in respiratory failure, we need to take over her 
airway,'' Skow told the nurse. ``Let's get all hands on deck.''
    He watched on the monitor as a few more nurses and a physician 
assistant came into the hospital room to prepare for an emergency 
intubation. They needed to insert a tube down the patient's throat to 
put her on a ventilator, but first that would require sedating and 
temporarily paralyzing her with medication, which meant she would no 
longer be capable of breathing on her own.
    ``Let's get her down nice and hard,'' Skow said, instructing the 
nurse to give the sedative first and then the paralytic. He zoomed in 
to check a bedside monitor that showed the patient's oxygen level at 
100 percent and then switched over to another camera adjacent to the 
breathing tube that allowed him to see down the inside of the patient's 
throat.
    ``So there's the epiglottis,'' he said, directing the nurse as she 
tried to navigate the breathing tube past the tongue and into the 
windpipe. ``There are your vocal cords. You've got a nice view right 
there. Do you see it?''
    ``There's a lot of blood in the airway,'' the nurse said.
    ``Yeah, I see that, too,'' Skow said. He switched to another camera 
to check the patient's oxygen level on the bedside monitor and watched 
as it dropped to 95 percent, 93 percent, then 90. If the patient were 
deprived of oxygen for too long, it could cause permanent brain damage 
or heart failure. He switched back to look down the patient's throat. 
``Can you advance a bit further?'' he asked the nurse. ``You've almost 
got it. Just an inch?''
    He watched the nurse maneuver the breathing tube as he drummed his 
fingers against his knee. During his own bedside shifts at the hospital 
in Sioux Falls, a City of 180,000, Skow had performed dozens of similar 
intubations under what he had come to think of as the standard 
conditions of an urban trauma center. He usually had another emergency 
physician nearby to provide backup, plus a trauma surgeon, a 
cardiologist, an anesthesiologist, and a team of up to 20 residents, ER 
nurses, and paramedics competing for space at the patient's bedside. 
But now on the screen in rural Montana, Skow counted a total of five 
people in the room. None were doctors. None had significant experience 
performing emergency intubations.
    He moved the camera again to check the patient's oxygen level. 
Eighty-five percent. Seventy-six and dropping faster.
    ``Let's bag up and give it another shot,'' he said, instructing the 
nurses to pause the intubation and squeeze air by hand into the 
patient's lungs. Skow asked them to try intubating again with a smaller 
breathing tube, and then he looked again through the camera into the 
patient's throat.
    ``You're right at the cords now. Can you advance just a bit?'' he 
asked, inching his hands forward to demonstrate as the nurse did the 
same.
    ``Yes. That's it!'' he said, watching as the tube slid into 
position and the oxygen level began to rise. One of the nurses at the 
bedside looked up at the camera and gave a thumbs up. ``Thanks,'' she 
said.
    ``That's all you,'' Skow said. ``I didn't even touch her.''
    * * *
    If anything defines the growing health gap between rural and urban 
America, it's the rise of emergency telemedicine in the poorest, 
sickest, and most remote parts of the country, where the choice is 
increasingly to have a doctor on screen or no doctor at all.
    The number of ER patients in rural areas has surged by 60 percent 
in the past decade, even as the number of doctors and hospitals in 
those places has declined by up to 15 percent. Dozens of stand-alone 
ERs are fighting off bankruptcy. Hundreds of critical-access hospitals 
either can't find a doctor to hire or can't afford to keep one on site. 
Often it is a nurse or a physician assistant left in charge of a 
patient, and for the most severe cases many of them now hit a red 
button on the wall that connects directly to Sioux Falls.
    In less than a decade, the virtual hospital has grown from a few 
part-time employees working out of a converted storage room into one of 
the country's most dynamic 24-hour ERs, where a rural health-care 
crisis plays out on screen. Each month the monitors show an average of 
300 cardiac episodes, 200 traumatic injuries, 80 overdoses and 25 
burns. There are patients suffering from heat stroke in South Texas and 
frostbite in Minnesota--sometimes on the same day. There are drowning 
deaths in summer, gunshot wounds during hunting season, car accidents 
on icy roads, and snakebites in spring.
    And now there was a video call coming into the office park from the 
latest hospital to seek virtual help, a critical-access facility in 
Onawa, Iowa, which had just finished installing its cameras a few hours 
earlier.
    ``Are we live?'' asked Karla Copple, the hospital's director of 
emergency services. She stood in an empty hospital room in Onawa, a 
farming town of 3,000 on the Missouri River, and looked up at a screen 
on the wall.
    ``Yes, I can see you,'' said a nurse at the virtual hospital. ``How 
are you today?''
    ``Just making a test call,'' Copple said. ``It's all working?''
    She had been trying to set up a partnership with the virtual 
hospital for the last year, ever since a car crash in Onawa sent four 
patients to the ER in critical condition when there was only one 
registered nurse on site. The hospital had a few doctors on staff, but 
they usually commuted into Onawa from their homes in Omaha, which was 
an hour away.
    ``In emergencies, every second counts!'' read an introductory 
brochure from the virtual hospital, and Copple began researching 
telemedicine and sharing data with her staff. Doctors at the virtual 
hospital could begin treating a patient an average of 21 minutes faster 
than doctors on call, who often lost time driving from home to the 
hospital. Telemedicine helped hospitals retain and recruit doctors 
because it gave them more support and allowed for more time off. It 
also allowed hospitals to treat more patients on site rather than 
having to transfer them to bigger facilities, resulting in increased 
billing charges and more hospital income.
    Late in the summer, Onawa had signed a subscription deal with the 
virtual hospital for the standard annual rate of about $70,000 per 
year. A charitable foundation offered to pay $170,000 to help cover 
initial equipment and technology costs, and an IT crew spent the next 
months outfitting two trauma rooms with fiber-optic cables, cameras and 
a microphone over the exam table, which Kopple was talking into now.
    ``You can hear me?'' she asked.
    ``Loud and clear,'' the nurse said. ``We can hear you from anywhere 
in the room. These microphones are amazing.''
    ``Okay then,'' Copple said. ``Next time it'll be for real.''
    * * *
    There are 15 doctors and 30 emergency nurses who rotate through 
shifts at the virtual hospital, and while all of them have trained for 
years inside regular ERs, nothing compared to the intensity of the 
industrial park. During one 24-hour shift, they often saw more critical 
cases on screen than most ER doctors encountered in a month: an average 
of one severe heart attack each shift, one suicide attempt, two 
pediatric emergencies, three traumatic injuries, four intubations, and 
five patients whose hearts had already stopped beating and needed 
immediate resuscitation.
    ``Do you feel a pulse?'' Dr. Kelly Rhone was asking into the camera 
one morning, as she watched a team of nurses perform CPR on a middle-
aged cancer patient at a small hospital in North Dakota. The patient's 
shirt had been ripped in half, and his body shook from the force of the 
CPR compressions.
    ``Pulse?'' Rhone asked again.
    ``I don't have one,'' a nurse said.
    ``Pupils?'' Rhone asked.
    ``Fixed and dilated,'' the nurse said.
    ``Okay. Let's do one of epi,'' Rhone said, instructing them to 
inject the patient with epinephrine, a medication used as a last resort 
to restart the heart. She zoomed in on a camera to look at a bedside 
monitor of the patient's vital signs and counted off the seconds using 
a clock at her desk. An emergency nurse sat next to her in the office 
park and worked on a separate computer to arrange for helicopter 
transport to a trauma center, in case the patient's heart started 
beating.
    ``Nice CPR,'' Rhone told the nurses in the room. ``You're doing 
great.''
    ``I'm going to go talk to the wife,'' one of the nurses said to 
Rhone, pointing toward the hallway. ``She's kind of hysterical. Any 
update you want me to give her?''
    ``Just that we're still working on it,'' Rhone said, even though 
she already suspected how this would end. There was statistically 
almost no chance the patient could be revived after several minutes 
without a heartbeat. ``Tell her we're doing everything we can.''
    She ordered another injection of epinephrine and watched as the 
nurses injected him. She called out for another pulse check, and 
watched as the nurses in the room found none. She zoomed in to see the 
patient's cardiac monitor and saw a flat line indicating no cardiac 
activity. ``Eight minutes since arrival,'' she told the nursing staff, 
as they continued CPR. ``Twelve minutes since arrival,'' she said. 
``Would his wife like a chance to come in?''
    She believed one of the worst things she could do was withdraw care 
too quickly. Even if she already knew the patient was dead, she wanted 
the medical staff in the room to come to that realization on its own 
time. The hospital served a community of fewer than 2,000, which meant 
someone on the nursing team probably knew the patient personally. Rhone 
wanted staff members to feel they had done everything they could.
    ``Fifteen minutes since arrival,'' she said, hoping to urge them 
toward a decision, and after another moment a few of the nurses stopped 
administering CPR, stepped back from the bed and went into the hallway 
to get the patient's wife. Rhone watched her come in and kneel at the 
bedside. She watched as the wife gripped her husband's jeans and buried 
her head into his chest. ``Oh, God. That's it. That's it,'' the wife 
said, as Rhone pushed her chair back from the computer monitor and 
checked the clock on her desk.
    ``It's 11:06 a.m.,'' she said quietly, speaking to one of the 
nurses in the room, so she could mark that down as the official time of 
death.
    She watched as a paramedic pulled a white sheet over the patient's 
body. Everyone in the room circled around the bed, and the wife started 
to pray. Her prayers turned to cries and her cries became louder, until 
after a few seconds the camera felt to Rhone like an intrusion, and she 
reached to her desk and switched the monitor off.
    * * *
    ``Is that TV talking?'' asked Silas Gruen, age 4. He adjusted his 
glasses and sat up on his hospital bed in Abilene, Kan., looking at a 
television screen mounted on the wall. He could see a woman in blue 
scrubs smiling at him as she typed into a keyboard.
    ``I think that's actually your doctor,'' said his mother, Amy.
    ``My doctor's a TV?''
    ``Well, kind of,'' Amy said, but before she could explain more the 
doctor on TV was talking again.
    ``So what exactly brought you in here today?'' the doctor asked.
    ``You mean in here?'' Amy asked, pointing down at the floor of the 
only hospital within 40 miles of her house, where she knew many of the 
employees. A sign near the doorway read, ``Local Care Is Loving Care,'' 
and soybean fields stretched in neat rows out the window. There was no 
doctor on site at the hospital during the day, so a physician assistant 
was attaching monitors to her son's chest and pricking his finger for a 
blood sample while a nurse tried to distract him by offering a juice 
box.
    This was the first time Amy had seen a virtual doctor in the ER, 
but at the moment she was more concerned about what had been happening 
that morning. She took a step closer to the screen and explained that 
Silas had woken up with nausea and a fever--common symptoms that 
concerned her because of his complex medical history. He had been born 
with a cleft lip and an eye condition, which meant they traveled every 
few months to find the specialized medical care that didn't exist in 
most rural areas. Silas's primary-care doctor was an hour away. He had 
regular appointments with specialists across the state. Already this 
morning, Amy had taken him to a walk-in clinic and then to the 
hospital, where a physician assistant who saw him had pushed the red 
button.
    The doctor on the screen introduced herself as Katie DeJong. She 
said she could see on the bedside monitors that Silas's blood sugar was 
dangerously low. She asked the physician assistant to give him 
medication and a chest X-ray, and then she turned her attention back to 
Amy, who was holding her son's hand and sitting on the edge of his 
hospital bed.
    ``What do you think, Mom?'' she said. ``What's your intuition?''
    ``He doesn't seem like himself,'' Amy said. She watched DeJong take 
notes on the screen. All Amy could see was a doctor, a nurse, and a 
blank yellow wall behind them. ``Where are you, anyway?'' she asked. 
``Kansas City?''
    ``Actually, South Dakota.''
    ``South Dakota?''
    ``Yep. Believe it or not.''
    Amy rubbed Silas's back and waited for DeJong to finish her 
evaluation. ``My concern here with the blood sugar is we don't know 
what's causing it,'' DeJong said. She explained that Silas needed 
further blood testing, specialized scans and maybe even an endocrine 
specialist--none of which was available at the moment in Abilene.
    ``I would definitely go ahead and transfer this,'' DeJong said to 
the physician assistant in the room, and a little while later Amy and 
Silas were riding through soybean fields in an ambulance on their 
search for adequate medical care again, as a new wave of emergencies 
took their place on the monitors in Sioux Falls.
    A farmer had fallen into a grain elevator and injured his head.
    A drug addict was foaming at the mouth and turning blue.
    A woman with pneumonia and a life-threatening sepsis infection was 
lying motionless on her hospital bed as her oxygen levels dropped.
    ``Who is our most experienced emergency provider in the room?'' 
DeJong asked, speaking to five staff members surrounding the patient 
with sepsis, who was rolling her head from side to side and had signs 
of a possible brain bleed. They needed to protect her airway by 
inserting a breathing tube.
    ``Who has the most experience to perform the intubation?'' DeJong 
asked again, louder this time, and finally a nurse stepped away from 
the bedside and looked up at the camera.
    ``I can try,'' she said.
    ``Great,'' DeJong said. ``That's terrific.''
    She moved her camera around the hospital room, zooming into 
cabinets and drawers to help point out necessary supplies for the staff 
to gather at the bedside. She ordered them to give the patient a 
sedative and then a paralytic. Then she held up her fingers to the 
camera to demonstrate the best technique for intubation.
    ``You're doing great,'' she said, as she watched the nurse try to 
insert a breathing tube for what DeJong could tell was probably the 
first time. The nurse leaned over the patient's throat, twisting the 
tube back and forth without advancing it down the airway.
    ``I'm not exactly sure what I'm seeing,'' the nurse said.
    ``No problem,'' DeJong said, as the patient's oxygen levels began 
to drop on the bedside monitor. ``Let's bag up and try again.''
    ``I still can't seem to advance it through,'' the nurse said, on a 
second attempt, as the patient's oxygen level dipped again.
    ``That's okay,'' DeJong said. ``This is hard. Is there a more 
experienced provider who wants to make our next try?''
    ``I think I almost had it,'' said the more experienced provider, 
after taking over and failing on the next attempt. They had been trying 
to intubate for 15 minutes. A nurse stepped away from the bedside and 
rubbed sweat from his head. ``We're doing fine,'' DeJong said. ``We 
just need to focus on technique.'' She held up a pencil and pretended 
it was a breathing tube to demonstrate. She tilted her neck to show the 
proper position of the patient's head.
    They began another attempt as she moved the camera around the 
hospital room, hovering over the patient's throat and zooming in on the 
oxygen levels, pushing the boundaries of technology and bumping up 
against its limitations. She wanted to reach into the screen. She 
wanted to be at the bedside. She wanted to be using her own hands to 
intubate, but instead she was 400 miles away, and for the moment all 
she could do was remain calm and reassuring as she pressed in closer to 
the monitor.
    ``You're doing great,'' she said, as the tube began to slide into 
place. ``You're giving the patient everything you can.''
Eli Saslow
    Eli Saslow is a reporter at The Washington Post. He won the 2014 
Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Reporting for his year-long series about 
food stamps in America. He was also a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize 
in Feature Writing in 2013, 2016 and 2017.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Mayor. Very efficient. You nailed 
it right on five minutes.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. TenHaken. It's the South Dakota way.
    The Chairman. There you go. Alright, thank you. Mr. 
Bergmann, please proceed.

STATEMENT OF SCOTT BERGMANN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, REGULATORY 
                         AFFAIRS, CTIA

    Mr. Bergmann. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Thune, and 
Ranking Member Schatz, and members of the Subcommittee. I am 
Scott Bergmann, on behalf of CTIA and the wireless industry, I 
want to thank you for your work on the MOBILE NOW Act and your 
continued focus on ensuring that we have got the spectrum we 
need to maintain U.S. wireless leadership as we enter the 5G 
era. Thanks to your leadership, this forward-looking bipartisan 
legislation helped jumpstart our Nation's focus on mid band 
spectrum. We know that the full power of 5G will be 
transformative, and this Committee's continued focus on smart 
spectrum policies will be critical.
    Thanks to your efforts thus far and key actions from the 
FCC, the United States has gained a first mover advantage in 
5G. U.S. wireless providers were the first to commercially 
deploy 5G, and this head start is key to ensuring that the U.S. 
is a world leading 5G innovation hub. We are building faster 
and with more certainty thanks to this Committee's leadership. 
Citizens across the country are benefiting today from your 
vision, and by 2025 half of U.S. connections will be 5G. So 
from the first 5G hospital in Chicago to the first 5G enabled 
cities, schools, and factories, we are just scratching the 
surface of the 5G economy.
    Now as this Committee recognized the MOBILE NOW, to fully 
achieve our 5G future we need to make available more spectrum. 
The benefits that we expect to reap, economic growth, job 
creation, improvements in healthcare, and our environments are 
all predicated on access to spectrum. Unfortunately, we know 
the roadmap for success and all of the above spectrum policy 
are focused on low, mid, and high band spectrum. Our wireless 
networks will need all three. Mid band in particular will be a 
workhorse for 5G and a sweet spot for innovation. It offers 
capacity and coverage meaning, that it can handle the increased 
traffic that 5G will drive and it can travel distances.
    Freeing up mid band will also be a spectrum stimulus for 
our country. Making 400 megahertz available will drive $274 
billion in economic growth and create 1.3 million new American 
jobs. The challenge is that today, the U.S. has a mid-band 
deficit and we are behind globally on this key input. By the 
end of next year, our rivals will have four times the amount of 
mid-band that we have. Now fortunately this Committee 
recognized the most promising opportunities for closing that 
mid band gap. We appreciate MOBILE NOW is focused on 
repurposing the 3.7 gigahertz band or C-band for wireless use, 
and we thank the Committee for its continued attention to this 
band.
    We believe that any solution to the C-band should include a 
public auction of at least 280 megahertz with an auction date 
set for next year and with a path to clear the band for 5G 
services as quickly as possible. Now the 6 gigahertz band 
represents another opportunity to bring new licensed and 
unlicensed services. We support the introduction of unlicensed 
operations into the lower portion of the band so long as the 
FCC provides interference protection for the critical services 
that operate there today, including public safety, utilities, 
broadcasters, railroads, and rural providers.
    The expansive 6 gigahertz band can also provide 
opportunities for license use. We recommend a balanced approach 
and making the upper portion of the band available for license 
services, including 5G, would generate significant auction 
revenues for Congressional priorities such as rural broadband. 
The Committee also deserves credit for identifying the lower 3 
gigahertz band, and we look forward to NTIA's report expected 
this spring on the feasibility of opening this band for 
commercial use.
    Through MOBILE NOW, Congress also took important steps to 
help speed setting of wireless infrastructure on Federal lands 
and properties, and we applaud the Act's inclusion of 
reasonable timelines as well as steps to streamline the Federal 
siting process.
    CTIA appreciates this Committee's actions through MOBILE 
NOW, and we look forward to continuing to work with you to 
ensure U.S. wireless leadership. Thank you again for the 
opportunity to speak with you and I welcome your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Bergmann follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Scott Bergmann, Senior Vice President, 
                        Regulatory Affairs, CTIA
    Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Schatz, and members of the 
Subcommittee, on behalf of CTIA and the U.S. wireless industry, thank 
you for the opportunity to testify today.
    CTIA commends this Committee, Congress, the Federal Communications 
Commission (FCC), and the Administration for their ongoing leadership 
in identifying and repurposing spectrum for 5G. The full power of 5G 
will be transformative, and this Committee's focus on crafting smart 
spectrum policies is critical to our country's 5G future. The benefits 
that we expect to reap from 5G in the U.S.--economic growth, job 
creation, the promise of smart cities, and improvements in public 
safety, health care, and our environment, to name a few--are predicated 
on access to sufficient spectrum suitable for 5G.
    And thanks to your leadership, the MOBILE NOW Act that Congress 
enacted last year stands as a critical ``down payment'' for our 5G 
future. This forward-looking, bipartisan law helped jump-start our 
Nation's focus on mid-and high-band spectrum. Thanks to your efforts, 
along with key actions the FCC has taken to make spectrum available for 
5G, the United States gained a first-mover advantage in 5G with the 
world's first commercial launches.\1\ This head start is key to 
ensuring that the U.S. is a world-leading 5G innovation hub. We are 
building faster and with more certainty thanks to this Committee's 
leadership, and we are pleased to report that residents of South 
Dakota, Mississippi, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, 
Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, and Texas, among others, are 
benefiting today from your vision. From the first 5G hospital in 
Chicago to the first 5G-enabled factories, smart cities, entertainment 
companies, and schools, we are just scratching the surface of the 5G 
economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ CTIA, A National Spectrum Strategy to Lead in 5G, at 2 (Apr. 2, 
2019), https://api.ctia.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019/04/A-National-
Spectrum-Strategy-to-Lead-in-5G.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To fully achieve our 5G future, as the MOBILE NOW Act recognized, 
we need to identify and repurpose more spectrum. And that need is 
pressing--especially in the mid-band. Now we need to finish the job 
fast, and I'm confident we will with this Committee's continued focus 
on wireless leadership.
    I am pleased to have this opportunity to report on our Nation's 5G 
progress, the impact of the MOBILE NOW Act so far, and the steps we 
must take and directions to pursue to maintain U.S. leadership in 5G.
America's Ever-Growing Demand for Wireless, the Arrival of 5G, and 
        Maintaining U.S. Leadership in the Wireless Ecosystem
    Wireless has never played a more central role in how Americans 
live, work, and play, and 5G will be even more transformative--making 
our lives better, our communities safer, and our Nation more 
prosperous. The next few years will define our 5G future and, even as 
there is more work to do, we are bullish on maintaining U.S. leadership 
as 5G emerges and flourishes.
    The U.S. led the world in 4G--not just as the first mover in 
network deployments, but in market-transforming innovation as well. And 
we are well-positioned for 5G: last year, U.S. wireless providers were 
the first to deploy commercial 5G networks, and today we are poised to 
turn the United States into the center of 5G-powered innovation. But 
other countries are working to seize the mantle of 5G leadership, and 
U.S. private sector investment, innovation, and initiative cannot do it 
alone. Thankfully, Congress, the FCC, and the Administration understand 
that a sound spectrum policy is critical for our 5G future.
    Unprecedented Growth in Wireless. The U.S. continues to experience 
unprecedented growth in demand for wireless services. In 2018, we saw 
an 82 percent increase in mobile data use from the prior year.\2\ To 
put this in perspective, 2018's mobile data is more data than Americans 
used in the first six and a half years of this decade combined. And the 
number of voice minutes and text messages in 2018 were up, too.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ CTIA, 2019 Annual Survey Highlights, at 1 (June 20, 2019), 
https://www.ctia.org/news/2019-annual-survey-highlights.
    \3\ Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There are now more mobile devices than there are people living in 
the U.S., with a total of 421.7 million connected devices.\4\ Data 
usage on smartphones continues to skyrocket--up to 6.6 GB of data per 
month on average, an increase of more than 30 percent in 2018. And the 
number of data-only devices, like connected cars, smartwatches, and 
health monitors, grew more than 10 percent in 2018.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Id. at 4.
    \5\ Id.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    This growth is made possible because of the wireless industry's 
continued, massive investment in the United States. In 2018, the 
wireless industry invested $27.4 billion in capital expenditures \6\--
primarily for expanding the capacity and coverage of wireless networks 
and upgrading network technology to support 5G. The results are 
tangible: in terms of infrastructure deployment, the number of cell 
sites increased by more than 25,000 in 2018,\7\ the biggest year-over-
year increase since 2010-2011; and in terms of service, consumers today 
are experiencing even faster download speeds, 90 percent faster than 
just five years ago.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Id. at 5.
    \7\ Id.
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    U.S. Leadership and the Power of Innovation. Most importantly, 
these numbers tell a story of American innovation and, looking ahead, 
the U.S. is uniquely positioned to take advantage of 5G's promise. If 
we get it right, we can and will--again--lead the world in the next 
generation of wireless, which means real and significant benefits for 
the U.S. economy and consumers.
    But we are not alone in this drive to lead on 5G, as other nations 
are eager to lead as well. The good news is that the U.S. has a proven 
playbook in 4G leadership that translates to the 5G era: competition, 
innovation, and investment. While other nations scramble to do what we 
have done, these core principles form a U.S. playbook that is 
fundamentally different from other countries--and that's a good thing. 
State-owned carriers won't be able to replicate the dynamic that 
allowed us to lead the world in 4G and propels us forward in the 5G 
revolution.
    U.S. 5G competition, innovation, and investment are ready to go: 
U.S. wireless providers are starting to invest a projected $275 billion 
to deploy 5G, creating three million jobs, and adding $500 billion to 
the U.S. GDP.\9\ U.S. wireless providers are deploying a deep and wide 
5G platform, with half of U.S. connections expected to be 5G by 2025, 
compared with only 28 percent of connections in China. Of course, more 
work needs to be done, and that begins with spectrum, in particular, 
mid-band spectrum. Other nations are on track to have four times the 
mid-band spectrum available by the end of 2020. Japan, China, and South 
Korea have each assigned hundreds of megahertz of mid-band spectrum to 
their national carriers. This Committee's work on the MOBILE NOW Act 
was a jump start to our 5G future, and full implementation of various 
key provisions in the Act will help us finish the job fast.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Id. at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How the U.S. Will Lead on 5G: Spectrum Availability and Smart 
        Infrastructure Policies
    We need an all-of-the-above approach to spectrum strategy that 
includes a healthy mix of low-, mid-, and high-band spectrum. The 
Spectrum Act of 2012 set the framework for the 600 MHz broadcast 
incentive auction, and wireless providers right now are building out 
low-band 5G-capable networks on track to reach more than 200 million 
Americans with 5G this year. That is one of the clearest examples that 
a future-oriented spectrum policy creates remarkable opportunities for 
U.S. consumers.
    In the MOBILE NOW Act, this Committee recognized the critical role 
of spectrum to our wireless future and provided meaningful leadership 
and legislative direction to the FCC. Section 603 of the MOBILE NOW Act 
directed the FCC and the National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration (NTIA) to identify at least 255 megahertz of Federal and 
non-Federal spectrum for licensed and unlicensed wireless broadband use 
by December 31, 2022, with at least 100 megahertz for licensed 
commercial use below 6 GHz.\10\ The provision is an important start, 
but we need to move quickly to execute, particularly on mid-band 
spectrum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-141, 
Division P (RAY BAUM'S Act of 2018), Title VI (MOBILE NOW Act), 
Sec. 603, 132 Stat. 348.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Following this Committee's lead and Chairman Pai's 5G FAST Plan, 
the FCC has done important work making spectrum available, and later 
this year the FCC will auction three more high-frequency bands. Now, we 
need to focus on delivering critical mid-band spectrum to market. To 
that end, we commend the FCC for scheduling an auction of the Priority 
Access Licenses in the 3.5 GHz band for June 2020. But more work needs 
to be done to build on that 70-megahertz mid-band down payment.
    Mid-Band Spectrum. As the Committee recognized through the MOBILE 
NOW Act, mid-band spectrum will be a workhorse for 5G and 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 it can travel distances, 
which is helpful in more rural and suburban settings. Mid-band spectrum 
has great potential to facilitate the rapid 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 
these reasons, freeing up mid-band can be a spectrum stimulus for our 
country. Recent estimates have shown that making 400 megahertz of 
licensed mid-band spectrum available in the U.S. will drive $274 
billion in GDP growth and 1.33 million new jobs.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ David W. Sosa, Ph.D. and Greg Rafert, Ph.D., The Economic 
Impacts of Reallocating Mid-Band Spectrum to 5G in the United States, 
ANALYSIS GROUP (Feb. 2019), https://www.ctia.org/news/the-economic-
impacts-of-mid-band-spectrum-in-the-united-states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The 3.7 GHz Band. This Committee recognized some of the most 
critical mid-band opportunities and took steps to advance investigation 
of those bands. We appreciate the MOBILE NOW Act's interest in 
repurposing mid-band spectrum between 3.7 GHz and 4.2 GHz, the ``C-
Band,'' for commercial wireless services.\12\ We thank Chairmen Wicker 
and Thune, as well as Ranking Members Schatz and Cantwell and Senator 
Markey, for your focus on this band. Additionally, we applaud Senators 
Gardner and Hassan for their early work making the C-Band available for 
commercial use in the AIRWAVES Act. It is encouraging to see the bi-
partisan recognition of the need to make more mid-band available for 
innovative 5G services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ MOBILE NOW Act Sec. 605(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We are pleased that Chairman Pai recently announced a clear 
direction for repurposing the C-Band, and we share the goals he set 
forth: making available a significant amount of spectrum for 5G; doing 
it quickly; generating revenue for the U.S. government; and protecting 
the services currently delivered over the C-Band. We support a public 
auction of at least 280 megahertz and urge the Commission to move to an 
order, set an auction date for next year, and clear the band for new 5G 
services as soon as possible.
    The 6 GHz Band. In addition, unlicensed spectrum is a necessary 
input in an all-of-the-above spectrum strategy, and Section 603 of the 
MOBILE NOW Act also directed the FCC and NTIA to identify 100 megahertz 
below 8 GHz for unlicensed use. The FCC has just announced its intent 
to make available 45 megahertz of 5.9 GHz for unlicensed use, 
consistent with MOBILE NOW.
    The 6 GHz band represents another opportunity, like the 3.5 GHz 
band, where we can enable new licensed and unlicensed services. The FCC 
has a proceeding underway examining 1,200 megahertz in this band, and 
we support the introduction of unlicensed operations in the lower 
portion provided the FCC adopts an interference protection framework 
that protects critical incumbent fixed-link services that will remain 
in the band, including those licensed to power companies, public safety 
entities, broadcasters, and rural broadband providers. Unlicensed 
devices (including indoor and very low power outdoor/indoor devices) 
can co-exist so long as they are subject to a trusted mechanism that 
knows their location and ensures their operations will not cause 
harmful interference into the nearly 100,000 fixed links providing 
vital communications for public safety, critical infrastructure, and 
wireless backhaul.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ See Ex Parte Letter from CTIA to FCC, ET Docket No. 18-295 
(filed Oct. 22, 2019).
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    The 6 GHz band--which is an expansive 1,200 megahertz of mid-band 
spectrum--can also provide opportunities for cleared licensed use. CTIA 
has called for the FCC to take a balanced approach to the 6 GHz band by 
exploring the upper portion of the band for licensed, flexible-use, 
including for 5G.\14\ While the mobile wireless industry has access to 
zero licensed mid-band spectrum above 3 GHz today and is only slated to 
gain access to 70 megahertz of licensed spectrum in the 3.5 GHz band 
next year, the unlicensed community today has access to 705 megahertz 
in the same frequency range. Given this stark divide, policymakers 
should look to provide balance in its allocation of this critical mid-
band spectrum opportunity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ See Comments of CTIA, ET Docket No. 18-295 (filed Feb. 15, 
2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Through an auction of upper 6 GHz spectrum, the license winners, 
the FCC, and NTIA would work to find a home for incumbents that 
provides comparable reliability, throughput, and operating costs to 
their current locations. Some microwave links could move to the 7 GHz 
band that today is lightly used by Federal government users for similar 
services. CTIA has proposed that the FCC work with NTIA to add a non-
federal allocation to the 7.125-8.4 GHz band, which NTIA has already 
identified for potential sharing with commercial services, so these 
frequencies can be available as one option for relocating fixed links 
from the repurposed portion of the 6 GHz band. The 7 GHz band is 
already home to fixed microwave services, so this combination would 
promote more efficient and effective use of spectrum. This proposal can 
be a win-win, as exploration of licensing in the upper 6 GHz band need 
not delay FCC action on unlicensed operations in the lower portion of 
the band.
    The Lower 3 GHz Band. The Committee deserves great credit for 
identifying the opportunity in the 3100-3550 MHz band early and 
jumpstarting a process to ensure that commercial and Federal systems 
have the resources needed to thrive. The Department of Defense (DOD) 
currently operates high-powered radar systems in the band, and there 
are some non-federal secondary users, including entities offering 
radiolocation services. That's why we are eagerly awaiting the NTIA 
report required in the MOBILE NOW Act on the feasibility of opening 
spectrum in this band for commercial wireless use.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ MOBILE NOW Act Sec. 605(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We hope the Committee helps shepherd this review and ensures 
expeditious action to leverage opportunities for more efficient use of 
this band. The FCC will vote this month on a proposal to consider 
relocating the non-federal services from the upper 250 megahertz, 3300-
3550 MHz, to the lower portion of the band to help ready the band for 
additional 5G use.\16\ We support NTIA's and the FCC's focus on this 
band, as this spectrum could play a crucial role in our Nation's 5G 
goals as we seek to identify additional, much-needed mid-band spectrum, 
and we look forward to working collaboratively with this Committee, 
DOD, and NTIA to open this band to robust commercial mobile wireless 
use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Facilitating Shared Use in the 3.1-3.55 GHz Band, Draft Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, WT Docket No. 19-348, FCC-CIRC1912-03 (draft 
rel. Nov. 21, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We also applaud Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member Schatz for 
introducing the Supplementing the Pipeline for Efficient Control of The 
Resources for Users Making New Opportunities for Wireless (SPECTRUM 
NOW) Act, which requires the auction of 100 megahertz between 3450 MHz 
and 3550 MHz for wireless use. We are pleased that NTIA launched an 
investigation into this 100-megahertz segment of the band,\17\ and we 
appreciate FCC Commissioner O'Rielly's comments that the ``top 100 
megahertz should be reallocated immediately, and . . . the requisite 
study [of the 3100-3550 MHz band] needs to get done quickly, not years 
from now, so that we know what is there and what protections will be 
needed.'' \18\ Many nations are set to deploy 5G in these frequencies, 
and it is critical that we consider this band's ability to support 
commercial mobile services as soon as possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ U.S. Department of Commerce, Annual Report on the Status of 
Spectrum Repurposing (Aug. 2019).
    \18\ Michael O'Rielly, Commissioner, Federal Communications 
Commission, Remarks Before the Mobile World Congress Americas 2019 
Everything Policy Track (Oct. 23, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additional High-Band Spectrum and International Harmonization. We 
also appreciate the MOBILE NOW Act's directive on, and the FCC's 
continued consideration of, the 42 GHz band for terrestrial wireless 
operations. Terrestrial mobile use of the 42 GHz band would benefit 
from significant economies of scale, as it is within the same ``tuning 
range'' of equipment specified by 3GPP for high-band spectrum that is 
being auctioned later this month. Manufacturers can design and build 
equipment capable of operating across the 37-43.5 GHz range, which was 
identified for 5G at the World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-19) 
last month, and already includes the 37 GHz and 39 GHz bands that will 
be included in FCC Auction 103. We urge this Committee to continue its 
focus on the 42 GHz band, as it has the potential for global 
harmonization, which can create economies of scale and drive down the 
cost of wireless equipment.
    To that end, with the close of WRC-19 last month, one overriding 
message is clear: the demand for wireless services continues to grow 
rapidly and the need to deliver additional spectrum to meet this demand 
is more urgent than ever. We thank the U.S. delegation for its 
commitment to advancing our Nation's 5G goals in the international 
arena.
    Support for Transitioning Federal Spectrum While Maintaining the 
Federal Mission. Sound spectrum policy encourages Federal use of more 
modern and spectrally efficient communications systems, and auction 
proceeds can serve to transition Federal systems to modern technologies 
and free up spectrum for commercial use. Since it was first adopted in 
2005, the Spectrum Relocation Fund (SRF) has proven to be an innovative 
legislative tool that can be used to cover the costs of relocating or 
updating Federal agency systems or R&D efforts to free up additional 
spectrum. At its heart, the SRF provides the certainty that any Federal 
spectrum band transition or new system deployment necessary to free up 
spectrum will be fully covered.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ CTIA, The Benefits of Spectrum Auctions for Wireless 
Consumers, Providers, and Federal Agencies, at 1 (Apr. 2019), https://
api.ctia.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/The-Benefits-of-Spectrum-
Auctions-for-Wireless-Consumers-Providers-and-Federal-Agencies.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We support enhanced flexibility and funding in the SRF so that 
Federal incumbents can consider improvements to their current systems 
and enhance the efficiency of their spectrum use. In turn, more 
efficient Federal use can unlock additional spectrum for exclusive or 
shared commercial use. Going forward, all spectrum users will need to 
increase efforts to be good stewards of this limited natural resource--
and the wireless industry is proud to be a leader in such efforts. 
Earlier this year, a CTIA study found that U.S. wireless providers have 
increased their spectrum efficiency 42 times since 2010.\20\ We hope to 
continue to work with this Committee on ways to further enhance the SRF 
to reallocate or share additional federally held spectrum when and 
where it could be used more efficiently.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ CTIA, Smarter and More Efficient: How America's Wireless 
Industry Maximizes Its Spectrum, (July 2019), https://www.ctia.org/
news/wireless-providers-increased-spectrum-efficiency-by-42-times-
since-2010-new-paper-shows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To that end, we appreciate again Chairman Wicker's and Ranking 
Member Schatz's effort through the SPECTRUM NOW Act, as well as 
Senators Moran and Udall's leadership to help agencies more efficiently 
and effectively manage their spectrum resources. We also applaud 
Senator Lee for introducing the Government Spectrum Valuation Act, 
which would better equip this Committee and the Administration to 
ensure spectrum is being put to its best and highest use by determining 
its market value. We also recognize Senator Markey's past work to 
incentivize agencies to move off spectrum that could otherwise be 
reallocated to consumer uses. We hope these important legislative 
efforts move forward this Congress.
    Finally, it is important to note that Congress has recognized the 
value of exclusive-use licensing by directing NTIA to give priority to 
allocations that involve exclusive, non-federal use,\21\ and that 
spectrum sharing should only be considered when spectrum cannot be made 
available on an exclusive-use basis. We were troubled by a provision in 
the Senate-passed version of the National Defense Authorization Act 
(NDAA), Section 214, which allows DOD, not the FCC or NTIA, to 
establish a sharing program on spectrum used by DOD and incumbent 
commercial systems. Commercial spectrum has never been--and should not 
be--governed by DOD. Any consideration of spectrum sharing policy 
decisions, technologies, or reports involving Federal and non-federal 
spectrum should be led by the FCC and/or NTIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ 47 U.S.C. Sec. 923(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Infrastructure Siting and Wireless Broadband Deployment. Thanks to 
efforts by this Committee and the FCC, expanding wireless broadband is 
a national priority. The MOBILE NOW Act took important steps to help 
wireless providers site infrastructure on Federal lands and properties. 
CTIA supports reasonable and enforceable timelines for handling siting 
applications and applauds Section 606's inclusion of a 270-day shot 
clock to grant or deny an application to site wireless facilities on 
Federal lands. We also commend the MOBILE NOW Act's efforts to 
streamline and standardize the process by which broadband providers can 
obtain access to Federal properties for siting wireless facilities. We 
encourage the Committee to ensure Federal agencies are taking the steps 
necessary to ease the burdens of deploying on federally managed lands 
and properties.
    Finally, we applaud Senators Gardner and Sinema for introducing the 
TOWER Act to increase broadband deployment and close the workforce 
shortage in the communications industry. The wireless industry is 
projected to invest heavily in deploying 5G and this legislation will 
help ensure we have the skilled workforce necessary.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. CTIA appreciates 
this Committee's actions through the MOBILE NOW Act to promote U.S. 
leadership in 5G. We look forward to continuing to work with all of you 
through the implementation of this important law and on additional 
efforts to advance our ability to maintain global leadership in 5G.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Bergmann. Ms. Brown.

 STATEMENT OF MARY BROWN, SENIOR DIRECTOR, TECHNOLOGY POLICY, 
                      CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.

    Ms. Brown. Thank you, Chairman Thune, Ranking Member 
Schatz, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the 
opportunity to testify on the implementation of MOBILE NOW Act. 
Cisco, based in San Jose, California, designs and sells a broad 
range of IP based technologies, including wireless 
technologies. Mr. Chairman, in a letter you sent to FCC 
Chairman Pai in 2018, you said the MOBILE NOW Act is critical 
for paving the way for wireless innovation and securing 
American leadership in next-generation technologies. Cisco 
agrees.
    MOBILE NOW has changed the debate and revolutionized 
spectrum policy. It gave permission to have bolder 
conversations about spectrum, how to use it efficiently, how to 
speed the deployment of new technologies, both licensed and 
unlicensed. For example, Mr. Chairman, you yourself have noted 
that more than half of all U.S. data traffic will run over 
unlicensed technologies, and that given the strong growth in 
data traffic, unlicensed technologies will need access to 
between 500 megahertz and 1.6 gigahertz of spectrum in order to 
stay abreast of consumer demand.
    This should be no surprise given the tsunami of smart home 
appliances, connected devices that work in schools, increasing 
use of smartphones, and the growing use of Wi-Fi in sectors 
throughout our economy. In fact, the Wi-Fi Alliance has 
estimated that the value of Wi-Fi in the U.S. alone could reach 
nearly $1 trillion by 2023. Industry has had a close eye on 
demand growth and has been responding in two ways. First, we 
have been innovating through five and now six generations of 
Wi-Fi technology, each more efficient and powerful than the 
last.
    Second, we have been looking for more spectrum, 
particularly since there has been no new spectrum for Wi-Fi 
since 2003. So let's think back to 2003. Thin, notebook 
computers were still six to 7 years in the future. We didn't 
have smart TVs, they were dumb. We didn't have Kindles. It was 
4 years before the first iPhone. Today, we are running all 
these devices and countless more on the same spectrum.
    As we look to 2020 and beyond, the unlicensed industry is 
at a pivotal moment. First, there is no dispute, demand 
continues to rise. Second, our newest technology much more 
spectrally efficient than in the past, is requiring new 
spectrum to support wider radio channels. These realities 
sparked an evaluation that led industry to take a hard look at 
the 6 gigahertz band. At 6 gigahertz, unlicensed use is highly 
complementary to incumbent microwave links. Microwaves are 
elevated on tall buildings, towers, or ridges, are high 
powered, highly directional, and outdoors. Unlicensed devices 
are mostly indoors, near the ground, and low-power.
    Early studies confirmed that unlicensed could operate 
without harming license microwaves. Even when we modeled the 
heavy presence of unlicensed devices in the band, there was 
virtually no interference and what little interference there 
was did not cause any degradation to incumbent microwave links. 
If the link needed to operate at five nines of reliability, it 
would continue to operate at five nines. The FCC agreed that 
sharing this band seemed promising, recognizing that the 
microwave systems in 6 gigahertz support critical 
infrastructure and public safety in addition to 
telecommunications and mobile activities of broadcasters.
    FCC's Chairman Pai said it best, we are aiming to have the 
best of both worlds, protect today's incumbent users of the 
band while turbocharging Wi-Fi networks and applications of the 
future. The unlicensed industry therefore responsibly proposed 
a set of technical restrictions to do just that. We proposed 
three classes of devices, each subject to its own unique set of 
technical rules.
    We then studied how these devices would operate in 6 
gigahertz using a variety of tools and techniques in common use 
by the engineering community, such as radio propagation models 
to predict the behavior of radio signals at specified power 
levels, measurements and models of building entry loss, the 
effect of ground clutter and blocking signals, and much more.
    All of our work has been filed on the FCC docket for public 
review. Of course incumbents in the FCC staff are examining 
this exact question in parallel with us, all with the goal of 
getting to the most accurate answer possible. In the end, the 
FCC's engineering staff will decide which analysis is 
reasonable, and based on their view, will recommend to the 
Commission adoption of the rules that protect incumbents.
    Based on the FCC's record, Cisco and the unlicensed 
community remain optimistic that there is a way to fulfill 
Chairman Pai's vision for 6 gigahertz, protecting incumbents 
while allowing robust unlicensed use. As Chairman Pai has said, 
with the massive amount of wireless traffic that is offloaded 
to Wi-Fi, opening up this wide swath of spectrum of unlicensed 
use could be a big boost to our Nation's 5G future.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the 
implementation of MOBILE NOW.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Brown follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Mary Brown, Senior Director, Technology Policy, 
                          Cisco Systems, Inc.
    Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Schatz and members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the 
implementation of the MOBILE NOW Act.
    Cisco, based in San Jose, California, designs and sells a broad 
range of technologies that have been powering the Internet since 1984. 
Across networking, security, collaboration, applications and the cloud, 
Cisco integrates new technologies providing a highly secure, 
intelligent platform for digital business and business operations, 
enabling our customers to manage more users, devices and things 
connecting to their networks. Our customers include businesses of all 
sizes, public institutions, governments, and service providers. Cisco 
has over 15,000 U.S. patents and employs over 75,000 people globally, 
with more than half in the US. Our wireless portfolio provides indoor 
and outdoor wireless coverage designed for seamless roaming use of 
voice, video, and data applications. These products include wireless 
access points that are standalone, controller appliance-based, switch-
converged, and Meraki cloud-managed offerings. This past year, we 
introduced Catalyst and Meraki Wi-Fi 6 access points designed for high-
density public or private environments to improve speed, performance, 
and capacity for wireless networking in both homes and enterprises.
    Mr. Chairman, in a 2018 letter to FCC Chairman Pai, you said ``the 
MOBILE NOW Act is critical for paving the way for wireless innovation 
and securing American leadership in next-generation technology.'' Cisco 
agrees.
    MOBILE NOW has changed the debate, and revolutionized spectrum 
policy. It gave permission to have bolder conversations about spectrum, 
how to use it efficiently, and how to speed up the deployment of new 
technologies.
    For example, no longer does industry need to wait until existing 
channels get congested with traffic before discussing the need for new 
allocations, and for regulators to approve them. Spectrum allocations 
can now be made on the basis of fostering new technology that enable 
consumers and businesses to take advantage of the best technologies 
industry has to offer, accelerating innovation in edge devices, 
applications, and more.
    No longer are we focused on incremental additions to existing 
allocations that for decades stood as the way in which spectrum was 
allocated--instead, the Act specifies large swaths of spectrum be 
identified and made available.
    No longer are we ignoring the utility of mid-band spectrum--the 
legislation emphatically points to the importance of mid-band spectrum 
for both licensed and unlicensed technologies, and tasks the FCC and 
NTIA to evaluate a variety of bands and make spectrum available.
    It is in our country's best interest to have these bold 
conversations on how to strengthen our economic and technological well-
being through the use of licensed and unlicensed technologies.
    For example, Mr. Chairman, you yourself have noted that more than 
half of all U.S. data traffic will run over unlicensed technologies, 
and that given the strong growth in data traffic, unlicensed 
technologies will need access to 500 megahertz to 1.6 gigahertz of 
spectrum in order to stay abreast of consumer demand.
    FCC Commissioner O'Reilly agrees. ``It is undisputed that the 
exponential growth of wireless data, especially over unlicensed 
networks, has led to severe congestion in our highly-prized unlicensed 
spectrum bands, primarily 2.4 and 5 GHz.'' Currently, Cisco estimates 
that 50.4 percent of total Internet traffic in 2017 was initiated or 
completed on Wi-Fi, and that share will grow to 56.6 percent by 2022, 
at the same time that the base of Internet traffic is growing 
threefold.
    Why is the demand for unlicensed spectrum both strong and growing? 
FCC Commissioner Carr explains: ``Wi-Fi networks are the workhorses of 
our connected lives. We hear so much in telecom about the difficulty of 
connecting the `last mile.' And when we are at home or at work the 
final few feet of that last mile are often spanned by Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, 
or another unlicensed technology. Few realize that without Wi-Fi and 
the unlicensed spectrum it uses, even the best commercial wireless 
networks would strain to keep up with consumer demand. In fact ,. . . 
even among Americans with unlimited mobile data plans, two-thirds of 
their data still rides on Wi-Fi.''
    And it's not just our smartphone addiction that is creating demand. 
It's also the connected devices you now find all around you. A few 
years ago, there was no such thing as a wireless Smart TV to enable 
streaming services from the Internet. Today, that market segment for 
Smart TVs alone is barreling toward the $200 billion mark, with more 
innovation on the way.
    Your TV isn't the only thing that's gotten ``smart.'' In homes 
across the country, connected home security, smart lighting, heating 
and cooling systems, doorbells, appliances, wireless speakers and your 
Kindle all use Wi-Fi.
    The power of Wi-Fi is transforming not only how we live, but how we 
work and learn. In offices and schools, laptops, smartphones and 
tablets use Wi-Fi to connect to your e-mail server, allow you to take 
video calls, connect to large smart screens for video conferencing, 
share and jointly create documents and then lets you print them. From 
warehouses to factories to clothing retailers to restaurants to 
commercial aviation to hotels, Wi-Fi is ubiquitous. In fact, some of 
the most intensive uses of Wi-Fi are in work settings, along with other 
environments where large numbers of people are looking to connect; 
university campuses, airport concourses, sports stadiums, and 
convention centers are all transforming and providing better customer 
experiences thanks to Wi-Fi.
    With all the activity supported by unlicensed technologies, it 
should be no surprise that there have been economic measurements of 
what that activity means to the U.S. economy. FCC Commissioner Jessica 
Rosenworcel has noted: ``Wi-Fi adds more than $500 billion to the 
United States economy every year--and $2 trillion globally. It has 
democratized Internet access, helped carriers manage their networks, 
and fostered all sorts of wild innovation.'' The thing I like about the 
Commissioner's quote is that it gives you a sense that the economic 
success story of Wi-Fi continues to grow--as we innovate the 
technology, find new uses for it, and connect more things with it. It's 
no surprise that the Wi-Fi Alliance has estimated the value of Wi-Fi--
in the U.S. alone--could reach nearly $1 trillion by 2023.
    Industry has had a close eye on demand growth and has been 
responding in two ways. First, we have been innovating, through five, 
and now six, generations of Wi-Fi technology, each more efficient and 
powerful than the last. Second, we have been looking for more spectrum. 
In the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Congress 
directed the FCC and NTIA to study both 5350-5470 MHz and 5850-5925 MHz 
to determine if those bands could be opened to unlicensed use, which 
would have given Wi-Fi access to most of the 5 GHz band while sharing 
with incumbents. In the case of the first band named, the answer was 
``no'' and in the case of the second, the FCC is adopting a Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking later this month, seeking comment on whether 45 MHz 
of the band could be utilized by Wi-Fi, while still meeting intelligent 
transportation requirements that the band was intended to support. In 
sum, despite best efforts--by you, the FCC and the NTIA--The Middle 
Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act has thus far provided no new 
spectrum for Wi-Fi--in fact, there has been no new spectrum for Wi-Fi 
since 2003.
    Let's think back to 2003. In 2003, we didn't have thin notebook 
computers; they were still six to seven years in the future. We didn't 
have Smart TVs; they were still dumb. We didn't have Kindles. Nintendo 
Wii was 3 years away. And in 2003, we still had to wait 4 years for the 
iPhone. Today, we're running all these devices and countless more on 
the same spectrum allocation using generations of innovation in every 
home and workplace in America.
    In 2003, although the Commission had, on paper, opened up an 
additional 255 megahertz of spectrum in the 5 GHz range for unlicensed 
devices, it came with a catch--that the technology deployed there 
needed to be able to avoid government radars. It turned out that doing 
so added cost--to the devices themselves, and also ``costs'' in terms 
of activities the radios had to perform unrelated to consumer or 
enterprise traffic. As a result, low cost consumer devices never 
operated in these new frequencies. Instead, they were relegated to the 
5 GHz bands that were not encumbered with sharing requirements--only 
about 225 megahertz of spectrum. And so, as demand continued to rise, 
the only way to address it was through innovation in technology.
    Today, as we look to 2020 and beyond, the unlicensed industry is at 
a pivotal moment.
    First--there is no dispute--demand continues to rise. More powerful 
devices and more powerful broadband networks, including 5G, mean that 
we use our unlicensed connectivity more. Second, new technology--much 
more spectrally efficient than in the past--is requiring new spectrum. 
Our Wi-Fi technology shares a common building block with licensed 
cellular services. To permit the throughput speeds that consumers are 
demanding of their devices, both technologies need wider radio 
channels, much wider than in the past. This was an important 
contribution of MOBILE NOW, enabling regulators to look for large 
swaths of spectrum to support this engineering reality for both 
licensed and unlicensed services.
    For the unlicensed community, these dual realities of rising demand 
and a need for wider channels, sparked an evaluation that led the 
industry to take a hard look at the 6 GHz band. The opportunity to 
deploy multiple 80 megahertz or 160 megahertz wide channels was as 
attractive to the cable industry as it was to enterprise manufacturers 
like Cisco and to smartphone makers as well. Cable providers must 
simultaneously support a great user experience throughout a household 
where multiple people are individually using a broadband connection. 
Cisco increasingly faces dense deployment requirements of customers who 
are relying on Wi-Fi more than they ever did in the past, while 
smartphone manufacturers, like Apple, must produce devices that stay 
ahead of evolutions in cellular technology.
    At 6 GHz, the nature of incumbents means that unlicensed use is 
highly complementary to existing uses. Microwaves transmit and receive 
antennas are typically located at high elevations (e.g., a tower on a 
ridge or a tall building). Unlicensed devices are typically low, and if 
not low, then inside a building. Microwaves are high-power and 
outdoors. Unlicensed is mostly indoor and low power. These are 
complementary technologies from an interference analysis perspective.
    The unlicensed industry commissioned a Monte Carlo style 
engineering study that took into account all of the known microwave 
links listed in the FCC's databases, and in a computer simulation, 
randomly placed 1 billion unlicensed devices according to the U.S. 
population--so placing more devices in cities where there are more 
people. What we found was encouraging--that even by taking an 
unlicensed radio operating as it would in the 5 GHz band (i.e., no new 
mitigations), there was virtually no interference and what little 
interference there was would not cause any degradation to incumbents' 
microwave links. If the link needed to be highly reliable and operate 
at five ``nines'' of reliability, it would continue to operate at five 
``nines.''
    The FCC agreed that sharing this band seemed promising. But we all 
understood that our initial study was not completely dispositive on the 
question of harmful interference.
    That is because within 6 GHz are incumbent use cases that support 
critical infrastructure and public safety, in addition to 
telecommunications and mobile activities of broadcasters. The FCC was 
very clear--for a sharing regime to work, the unlicensed industry would 
need to show that incumbent operational capabilities would not be 
impaired, now or in the future.
    FCC Chairman Pai said it best. ``This band is currently populated 
by microwave services that are used to support utilities, public 
safety, and wireless backhaul. But studies have shown that sharing this 
band with unlicensed operations is feasible--and can put massive 
amounts of new spectrum into the hands of consumers. . .. We're aiming 
to have the best of both worlds: protect today's incumbent users of the 
band while turbocharging the Wi-Fi networks and applications of the 
future.''
    The unlicensed industry therefore responsibly proposed a suite of 
mitigations to do just that--meet the requirement not to cause harm now 
or in the future while allowing Wi-Fi to share the band. We proposed 
three classes of devices, each subject to its own unique set of 
mitigations.
    For higher power outdoor and indoor devices, we proposed using a 
database approach to avoid microwave links as those are licensed by the 
FCC. A mechanism we called Automated Frequency Control, or AFC, would 
inform higher power devices of available frequencies in a specific 
geographical location. For devices receiving instructions from a 
properly tested and defined AFC, interference is not an issue--those 
devices will be operating in frequencies other than those in use by 
nearby microwaves.
    We also proposed a Low Power Indoor class which would likely become 
the largest group of devices, such as Wi-Fi access points in your home 
or business. The mitigation technique is essentially lower power. For 
indoor devices, radio emissions degrade when trying to exit buildings, 
and the vast majority of devices would operate low to the ground, away 
from microwaves.
    Finally, we proposed Very Low Power devices with power spectral 
density levels 40 times lower than those for indoor low power devices. 
An example would be using Wi-Fi to connect your laptop or watch to your 
smartphone.
    We then studied those classes of devices using a variety of 
techniques--from the traditional way that engineers use to place new 
microwaves into the band, to virtually flying down the main beam of a 
microwave link from a receiver to see, in an urban setting, if Wi-Fi 
devices might be in the main beam and contribute to a possible harmful 
interference event. We simulated the impact of devices on an actual 
link in an experimental lab set up. We examined specific ``worse case'' 
links. We studied how microwave links are engineered to understand how 
they would respond in the face of unlicensed energy. All of this, and 
more, is contained in the record of the FCC docket.
    In doing this, we wanted to understand--will the microwave links 
continue to operate as designed? That is not a question of who the 
licensee is because the physics of microwave, and often the vendors, 
are the same no matter what the use case. It's a question about whether 
radio emissions from unlicensed transmitters create harmful 
interference to existing users and thereby block the links from 
performing its mission. We also wanted to inform the incumbents of our 
thinking, and ideally persuade the FCC staff to adopt our point of 
view.
    How do you make a determination that unlicensed use of the band 
will not cause interference?
    You must start with a clear understanding of the technology used by 
incumbents. How strong or powerful are the radio signals that are being 
transmitted from point A to point B? Much of this knowledge today comes 
from what are called ``propagation models'' that predict, 
mathematically, how signals behave in unobstructed ``free space'' or 
open air or, alternatively, in the presence of ground clutter such as 
buildings and trees. As it has always done, the FCC analysis must 
decide which models are reasonable ones to use in analyzing the band.
    What practical constraints exist in designing a link? For example, 
it turns out radio emissions are sometimes devilishly inconsistent 
(especially so in the wee hours of the morning), so microwave designers 
use power and antenna technology to ensure that the links work all the 
time, without question.
    For radios that can be adjusted to change throughput speed (known 
as ``modulations'') are there minimums needed to support specific 
applications? You may not need the fastest throughput to accomplish the 
mission, but there may be a minimum that has to be honored.
    And finally, how are the incumbent links and receive antennas 
positioned geographically and by height?
    Then and only then can you examine the new use case--unlicensed--to 
evaluate mathematically whether the incumbent links will experience 
harmful interference.
    A word about harmful interference vs interference. Radio emissions 
are notably untidy. Interference is something all radio engineers must 
plan for as it is a common condition. Harmful interference, however, 
needs to be avoided because it stops the radio from completing its job.
    With the AFC design likely to be subject to a further, follow-on 
proceeding, what interference questions are most pressing for the FCC 
to resolve in a 6 GHz Report and Order?
    The important use case for unlicensed in the record that has 
attracted the most attention is Low Power Indoor (LPI), and by 
extension, Very Low Power devices. Engineers will look at the power 
levels, for LPI--the building entry or exit loss caused by building 
materials, reasonable propagation models, and calculate whether the 
unlicensed energy in a main beam or reaching the receiver will cause 
harmful interference. They will do so using a variety of assumptions 
and techniques, trying to be conservative in their analysis to 
overstate the possibility that the analysis will reveal an issue.
    Based on the voluminous engineering record to date, Cisco--and the 
unlicensed community--remain optimistic that a set of mitigations can 
be found that allow robust use of the band by unlicensed devices 
including Low Power Indoors and Very Low Power, while continuing to 
give incumbents full use of the band for their current and future 
needs.
    Of course, incumbents and the FCC staff are examining this exact 
question in parallel with the unlicensed industry--all with a goal of 
getting to the most accurate answer possible. It's a lot of hours of 
engineering staff time, and we are deeply grateful for the Commission's 
willingness to engage this task. At the conclusion of all of this work, 
the FCC's engineering staff will decide what analysis is reasonable, 
and will base their findings and recommended mitigations on what the 
staff believes will protect incumbents.
    Incumbents have also raised questions about testing. It's important 
to understand the role of testing, because there is a lot to 
understand.
    As an initial matter, it is important to note one fundamental 
point. Even when rules are adopted, existing devices cannot simply 
switch to using 6 GHz. They simply do not have the capability to do so. 
For one, existing devices do not have the silicon to allow them to 
operate in the 6 GHz range. For another, they do not have the all-
important FCC identification number that would allow them to operate 
under whatever new rules are adopted. As a result, even if they could 
magically operate in 6 GHz, it would be illegal for them to do so 
without passing FCC certification specific to 6 GHz.
    Second, the unlicensed industry is no stranger to testing--testing 
is our friend, not our enemy. All unlicensed devices must undergo 
testing for adherence to FCC rules, and new rules to allow unlicensed 
devices into new bands must themselves be tested. In fact, we have to 
test the rules before we can test the devices in order to make sure the 
rules work as intended.
    The AFC mechanism for high power devices is a good example of this. 
No rules exist today that would allow Cisco or any other company to 
design and implement an AFC. The FCC first needs to specify those rules 
to enable prototype AFCs to be built. Depending upon how much the FCC 
specifies in its Report and Order, additional rules and requirements 
may need to be adopted in a follow-on proceeding. Once prototype AFCs 
are built, it becomes possible to test the AFC rules to see if they 
work as intended. That is a process that we've seen in all sharing 
scenarios--from Dynamic Frequency Selection in 5 GHz, to TV White 
Spaces databases, to CBRS databases. Once the rules have been tested, 
then and only then can manufacturers bring forth actual AFCs to be 
tested for commercial use. To do so, the AFCs will need to be tested by 
the developer, likely tested by a third party, and then, likely tested 
by the FCC lab as well.
    This is a process that will take some time, and the unlicensed 
industry is hopeful that, unlike CBRS, it is a process that can be 
measured in months, not years. It is also a process that is conducted 
transparently, with stakeholders of all types participating.
    As with all operations in unlicensed bands, the FCC remains in the 
driver's seat before, during and after market entry. The unlicensed 
entry has a strong stake in ensuring that market entry is successful, 
because without the FCC continuing to approve devices, significant 
investment will be lost.
    We continue to believe that, from an engineering perspective, 
sharing the band with unlicensed is both possible and desirable.
    We further agree with FCC Chairman Pai: ``This decision will help 
[the FCC] meet the [Congressional] mandate. . .to make more spectrum 
available for unlicensed use. It is also part of our aggressive and 
balanced spectrum strategy: pushing more licensed and unlicensed 
spectrum into the commercial marketplace and including a mix of low-
band, mid-band, and high-band spectrum. And with the massive amount of 
wireless traffic that is off-loaded to Wi-Fi, opening up this wide 
swath of spectrum for unlicensed use could be a big boost to our 
Nation's 5G future.''
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the implementation of 
the MOBILE NOW Act.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Brown. Mr. Adelstein.

 STATEMENT OF JONATHAN ADELSTEIN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, WIRELESS 
                   INFRASTRUCTURE ASSOCIATION

    Mr. Adelstein. Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Schatz, 
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 
testify and thank you for holding this hearing. You know, it 
shows your commitment to deploying wireless broadband, getting 
5G out. We are grateful for the leadership of this Committee in 
enacting MOBILE NOW and overseeing its implementation so 
effectively. America leads the world in communications, and it 
will take continued dedication by all of us working together, 
the Federal Government and the private sector, in order to 
continue to lead on 5G. This will spur massive growth in the 
broader economy just as the Mayor had noted. Wireless consumers 
are already reaping the benefits of the efforts you have made 
with more bandwidth at lower prices per megabit.
    MOBILE NOW includes many provisions that will help the U.S. 
maintain leadership in wireless. You have enabled the FCC to 
make key swathes of prime spectrum, including millimeter wave 
and the 3 gigahertz band available for wireless use. The 
spectrum provisions of MOBILE NOW, I think, are historic and 
have had that historic impact. We need as much spectrum as we 
can get as fast as we can get it. But we like to say at WIA 
that without infrastructure, spectrum is just theoretical. You 
took some big steps in MOBILE NOW as well to make sure that you 
can streamline, as you noted Mr. Chairman, wireless 
infrastructure deployment on Federal lands. That is going to 
boost wireless broadband, especially in rural areas, which is 
of such concern as so many of you.
    I am especially thrilled that MOBILE NOW codified into law 
many of the reforms that we recommended in the streamlining 
Federal siting working group, which I chaired at the FCC. FCC 
Chairman Pai pointed that group of experts in order to address 
the very same issues that you address in MOBILE NOW and we 
appreciate the Chairman's leadership as well. One of the 
toughest challenges that we noted in siting on Federal lands is 
that the long application review process drags on. It can take 
anywhere from 18 months to never before we get the agency to 
act. MOBILE NOW thankfully requires agencies to approve or deny 
applications within 270 days. MOBILE NOW also requires NTIA to 
develop recommendations to streamline the process for 
considering applications including a procedure for tracking 
them.
    For many years, many Administrations have tried to improve 
Federal siting of wireless infrastructure. MOBILE NOW is a 
milestone but there is still a lot of work that remains to be 
done. WIA members are reporting to me that agencies are still 
blowing past the shot clocks because there is no real 
enforcement mechanism. Remedies such as deemed granted would 
ensure that Federal agencies meet their deadlines.
    Also, there is little transparency in the application 
process. It is like a black box. It goes in there and then it 
is exceedingly difficult to work with Federal agencies once the 
applications are submitted. Another challenging phase is that 
as wireless technology evolves, the workforce needs to evolve 
along with it. I have noted that there is really three pillars 
of wireless broadband that increase data capacity, spectrum, 
more infrastructure, and more advanced technology. But I think 
there is a fourth pillar now that we really need which is 5G 
workforce development. It deserves the attention of Congress. 
To win the race of 5G we have to develop a properly trained 
work force, and currently the U.S. doesn't have a workforce 
sufficiently large enough or with the skills needed to meet the 
challenges of 5G.
    I applaud the efforts like those that Mayor TenHaken 
outlined. What they have done in Sioux Falls in the partnership 
of Southeast Tech and VIKOR is really a model, I think, for the 
rest of the country in establishing the tower tech training 
program there. It is no wonder that Sioux Falls is in the lead 
on so many of these issues in 5G. And your leadership in 
general on the mass release agreement in your testimony is 
brilliant. If every community did what you did, we wouldn't 
need your help as much.
    WIA is also leading efforts to expand wireless workforce 
training and development, and we are national sponsor of the 
Telecommunications Industry Registered Apprenticeship Program. 
It is multi-employer. It is nationwide. It is credentialed by 
the Department of Labor. We brought apprenticeships into the 
wireless industry for the first time and it is a great model 
for creating sustainable careers, and it is needed for 
supporting 5G wireless build-out.
    Congress has long supported apprenticeships. It is a time-
tested, industry-led career pathway through which employers can 
develop and prepare the future work force. TIRAP is seeing some 
success. We have got more than 2,000 apprentices signed up, 28 
employers signed up, including VIKOR as a matter of fact. So, 
you know developing this type of workforce takes long lead 
time. And as we look to 5G, I think we are in danger of falling 
behind. Congress and the Department of Labor can work together 
to expand on these partnerships and the stakes are high.
    As you have noted, without a properly trained workforce, 
China, which has centralized authority to quickly redirect 
massive labor resources through Government intervention, could 
beat us to the finish line. We can't let that happen. Fully 
realizing the potential of 5G depends on how the infrastructure 
gets deployed and MOBILE NOW is a great step forward.
    The Subcommittee has shown decisive bipartisan leadership 
and the wireless infrastructure industry applauds your efforts. 
Thank you again for holding this hearing and look forward to 
your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Adelstein follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Jonathan Adelstein, President and CEO, 
                  Wireless Infrastructure Association
    Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Schatz, and members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for holding this important hearing and for the 
opportunity to testify. I am President and CEO of the Wireless 
Infrastructure Association (WIA), the principal association 
representing the entire wireless infrastructure ecosystem.\1\ WIA is 
focused on ensuring that the infrastructure is in place to make 5G a 
reality. WIA and our members are grateful for the leadership of this 
Subcommittee in clearing the path for the deployment of 5G wireless 
infrastructure, and for the focus today on the many effective measures 
enacted in the MOBILE NOW Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Wireless Infrastructure Association https://wia.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The United States has led the world in mobile communications, most 
significantly in 4G. It will take continued, dedicated efforts by both 
the wireless industry and the Federal government, such as those 
undertaken by this Subcommittee, for the U.S. to remain in the lead for 
5G. The wireless infrastructure industry is honored to work with this 
Subcommittee on sound policies to encourage the deployment of 
broadband. We must work together so that the U.S. can remain on the 
cutting edge of wireless deployment in order to maximize the growth it 
spurs in the broader economy. This Subcommittee has shown great 
leadership in promoting broadband deployment. Wireless consumers are 
reaping the rewards with more bandwidth at lower prices per megabit.
    Today's hearing is focused on the implementation of the landmark 
MOBILE NOW Act.\2\ MOBILE NOW includes a number of important provisions 
that are helping maintain U.S. leadership in wireless innovation and 
propelling us towards victory in the global race to 5G. Critically, you 
have enabled the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to make key 
swaths of prime spectrum, including millimeter wave and the 3 GHz band, 
available for wireless use, with some set aside for unlicensed use. We 
are eagerly waiting for the next report on mid-band spectrum which will 
evaluate the potential of commercial wireless services in the 3.1GHz--
3.55Ghz band.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-141, 
Div. P, Tit. VI (Mar. 23, 2018) [hereinafter ``MOBILE NOW''].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    MOBILE NOW has brought NTIA and the FCC together to determine the 
best ways to share spectrum between Federal and non-federal users. This 
collaboration will help provide additional spectrum to public safety 
personnel in times of emergency. MOBILE NOW also encouraged NTIA to 
provide a national plan for unlicensed spectrum, and it helped bring 
wireless to those who need it most by encouraging the GAO to assess 
ways to deploy broadband to low-income neighborhoods. MOBILE NOW helped 
to shine a light on the need for broadband deployment across the 
country. NTIA released their broadband plan earlier this summer, which 
has demonstrated substantial progress towards MOBILE NOW's target of 
identifying 255 MHz of spectrum for mobile and fixed wireless 
broadband, well ahead of schedule.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ See Annual Report on the Status of Spectrum Repurposing, NTIA 
(Aug. 2019) (making 84 MHz of Low-Band spectrum available and 
identifying other potential channels). See also MOBILE NOW Sec. 603 
(setting target date for 255 MHz to be identified by December 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, the RAY BAUM'S Act, which MOBILE NOW was rolled into, 
included an important provision that WIA supported to give 
communications tower owners and operators priority access to their 
sites during federally declared emergencies. Allowing this access is 
essential to ensuring the resiliency of our wireless networks so they 
are available when consumers need them most.
    RAY BAUM'S also enabled the auctioning of key millimeter wave 
spectrum that will bolster 5G networks. This auction was made possible 
because the measure allowed deposits for spectrum bidding to go to the 
Department of Treasury. This provision, which WIA strongly supported, 
eliminated a persistent roadblock identified by Chairman Pai.\4\ The 
previous requirement of placing deposits in interest bearing accounts 
was preventing the FCC from proceeding with needed spectrum auctions 
because public institutions refused to set up special purpose accounts 
that the Communications Act required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Oversight of the Federal Communication Commission Before the H. 
Comm. on Energy And Commerce, Testimony of FCC Chairman Ajit Pai at 5--
6 (Oct. 25, 2017) https://www.fcc.gov/document/chairman-pai-testimony-
house-oversight-hearing-0 (describing the need for Congress to allow 
upfront deposits directly into the treasury as financial institutions 
would not set up accounts which would satisfy the Communications Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The spectrum provisions in MOBILE NOW are historic in their 
impact--we need as much spectrum as we can get, as fast as we can get 
it. But MOBILE NOW went even further. We have a saying at WIA that 
without infrastructure, spectrum is just theoretical. And MOBILE NOW 
also included several big steps forward to streamline and expedite 
wireless infrastructure siting on Federal lands. These steps are 
helping boost deployment of broadband networks, especially in rural 
areas.
    Many of these provisions were included in the final report of the 
Streamlining Federal Siting Working Group, which is part of the FCC's 
Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee (BDAC). I was honored FCC 
Chairman Pai appointed me to chair that Working Group. The Working 
Group identified 10 challenges faced by network builders when it comes 
to deploying on Federal lands,\5\ and MOBILE NOW addresses many of 
them. One of the toughest challenges in siting on Federal land is the 
long and sometimes never-ending application review process. It can take 
anywhere from 18 months to never for a Federal agency to act on an 
application. Among the most significant provisions, MOBILE NOW requires 
agencies to approve or deny applications within 270 days, and they 
would have to explain any denial in writing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ See Broadband Deployment Advisory Comm.: Streamlining Fed. 
Siting Working Group, Final Report (Jan. 23, 2018) https://www.fcc.gov/
sites/default/files/bdac-federalsiting-report-012018-2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Another big obstacle is unharmonized application forms across 
different agencies. MOBILE NOW calls on General Service Administration 
(GSA) to develop a common application form for all agencies to use. 
Additionally, there is a lack of transparency in the application 
process overall, and it is exceedingly difficult to get status updates 
of applications that have already been submitted. MOBILE NOW addresses 
these challenges by requiring NTIA to develop recommendations to 
streamline the process for considering applications, including a 
procedure for tracking applications. NTIA is to work with several other 
departments, including Labor, Agriculture, Defense, Transportation and 
GSA to develop these recommendations. This report is to be submitted by 
March 2020.
    And we are already seeing progress because of MOBILE NOW. The Navy 
is working to implement policies to streamline the process of siting on 
naval bases. The Air Force is following suit, and we hope to see 
progress on their siting procedures soon. Additionally, the Forest 
Service recently began a process, as required by the 2018 Farm Bill, to 
streamline their procedure for infrastructure siting. The proposed 
Forest Service rule included many of the same provisions that were part 
of MOBILE NOW, including the 270-day shot clock.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ See Land Use; Special Uses; Streamlining Processing of 
Communications Use Applications, 87 FR 50703, Proposed Rule, Forest 
Service (Sept. 25, 2019) https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FS-
2019-0019-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While MOBILE NOW moved the Federal government in the right 
direction, much work remains on making Federal lands more attractive to 
broadband infrastructure investment. Hurdles still exist for 
applications to even progress to the point where the 270-day shot clock 
applies. Minor modifications to existing procedures could expedite the 
entire process. By implementing a Cost Recovery Agreement, applicants 
could provide a standardized estimate of the total cost up front. 
Agencies could then use this upfront application fee to begin 
evaluating the substance of an application, including environmental 
reviews, without drawing from their taxpayer-funded budget. This simple 
measure would incentivize faster initial reviews of an application.
    In addition, some mechanism, such as a deemed granted remedy, is 
needed to ensure that Federal agencies meet their deadlines. WIA 
members are reporting to us that agencies are still blowing past the 
shot clocks because there is no real enforcement mechanism.
    MOBILE NOW and RAY BAUM's Act have certainly put us on the right 
path. The spectrum and siting provisions are very positive, and I would 
like to commend this Subcommittee and the FCC for its work.
    I have long noted three pillars of wireless broadband that increase 
capacity to meet growing demands for broadband data: making more 
spectrum available, streamlining infrastructure siting, and advancing 
technological efficiency. I would add a fourth pillar that is now 
needed to hold up the edifice: 5G workforce development. It deserves 
the attention of Congress that to win the race to 5G, we must develop a 
workforce properly trained to deploy these next generation networks. 
And currently, the U.S. does not have a workforce sufficiently large or 
properly trained to meet the challenges of 5G. We cannot build the 
advanced networks to serve our needs tomorrow without a properly 
skilled workforce today.
    Winning the global race to 5G means the U.S. will continue to 
benefit from many innovative new businesses beyond the wireless 
industry that will develop from it: 3 million jobs and $500 billion in 
economic growth.\7\ We need to repeat the success of winning the 4G 
race, which spurred millions of new jobs and the creation of entirely 
new industries, like the app economy. But as wireless technology 
evolves, the workforce needs to evolve along with it. The skills of 
yesterday no longer suffice for the demands of today's wireless jobs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ See, e.g., The Global Race to 5G, at 2, CTIA (Apr. 2018) 
https://api.ctia.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Race-to-5G-Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    WIA has led efforts to expand wireless workforce training and 
development. WIA is the national sponsor of the Telecommunications 
Industry Registered Apprenticeship Program (TIRAP), a multi-employer, 
nationwide apprenticeship program credentialed by the Department of 
Labor to support wireless workforce development.\8\ TIRAP brought 
apprenticeships into the wireless industry for the first time and it is 
helping telecommunications workers create sustainable careers and 
supporting 5G infrastructure build-out and deployment needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ See About, Telecommunications Industry Registered 
Apprenticeship Program https://www.tirap.org/ (last visited Dec. 3, 
2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Apprenticeship, as Congress has recognized, is a time-tested, 
industry-driven, career pathway through which employers can develop and 
prepare their future workforce, and workers can obtain paid work 
experience, classroom instruction, and a nationally recognized 
credential. It is gaining in popularity here in the U.S., and I would 
like to think that we were a little ahead of the times when we helped 
to create TIRAP for our relatively new industry with the Department of 
Labor, the FCC, and a consortium of employers back in 2014. WIA became 
the national sponsor in 2017.
    TIRAP is seeing tremendous success. More than 2,000 apprentices 
have enrolled, with 28 participating employers. TIRAP provides 
apprentices in-the-field experience and classroom instruction, all 
while getting paid. That's why 94 percent of apprentices remain with 
the employers after completing their programs.
    TIRAP is collaborating to develop curricula that can be implemented 
into community and technical colleges to provide academic support to 
apprentices. WIA and the Power and Communication Contractors 
Association (PCCA) are partnering to expand training initiatives into 
these colleges. PCCA has developed successful utility technician 
training programs that WIA will enhance with wireless curricula, 
including those we developed through our innovative Technology and 
Education Center (TEC), to teach workers skills they need for 5G 
deployment.
    Developing the workforce through training and apprenticeships 
require long lead times. Now, however, as we look to deploy 5G across 
the country, we are in danger of falling behind if we do not move with 
enough speed. Congress and the Administration, especially the 
Department of Labor, can expand on partnerships with industry to 
develop the 5G workforce. The stakes are high. Without a properly 
trained 5G workforce, China, which has centralized authority to quickly 
bring massive labor resources to bear through government intervention 
in the markets, will beat us to the finish line.
    5G could prove one of the most transformational standards in the 
history of technology. The wireless industry stands ready to make the 
investments needed to build the most advanced networks in the world--
estimated at $275 billion--to build out 5G.\9\ It's estimated that one 
out of every 100 Americans will benefit from a new 5G job.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ See The Global Race to 5G, at 2, CTIA (Apr. 2018) https://
api.ctia.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Race-to-5G-Report.pdf.
    \10\ See The Race to 5G, section 4, CTIA (last visited Dec. 2, 
2019) ctia.org/the-wireless-industry/the-race-to-5g#section-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Wireless networks are like highways--more traffic means we need new 
roads and more lanes. 5G will be 100 times faster, be able to connect 
100 times more devices, and will be 5 times more responsive. This means 
its speed, bandwidth and low latency will lead to numerous 
technological breakthroughs in healthcare, transportation, smart cities 
and education. Fully realizing the potential of 5G depends on how the 
infrastructure gets deployed. MOBILE NOW is a great step forward. This 
Subcommittee has shown decisive, bipartisan leadership, and the 
wireless infrastructure industry applauds your efforts. We stand ready 
to build upon it to deliver to consumers the networks they will rely 
upon to keep our economy and job base growing.
    Thank you again for holding this hearing and for inviting me. I 
look forward to working with you all on these vital issues and 
answering any questions you have.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Adelstein. Ms. Morris.

             STATEMENT OF SARAH MORRIS, DIRECTOR, 
            NEW AMERICA'S OPEN TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE

    Ms. Morris. Thank you, Chairman Thune, Ranking Member 
Schatz, and the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify at 
this hearing today on the implementation of the MOBILE NOW Act. 
My name is Sarah Morris and I am the Director of New America's 
Open Technology Institute. The Open Technology Institute works 
at the intersection of technology and policy to ensure that 
every community has equitable access to technology and its 
benefits. We cover a wide range of issues and that work 
includes the long-standing advocacy by our wireless feature 
project led by my colleague, Michael Calabrese, to promote more 
efficient and equitable spectrum policy.
    The United States has a deeply troubling connectivity 
challenge. Ensuring that everyone has access to Internet 
service that is robust and affordable requires a multi-faceted 
approach that takes into account varying circumstances and 
needs. Wireless access is a part of that approach, but it is 
not the entire solution, and global 5G networks do not 
represent the full range of ways to deliver wireless service. 
Moreover, affordability remains a critical barrier to broadband 
adoption even where infrastructure exists.
    This testimony addresses both of those digital divides, 
which are of course not mutually exclusive, the rural-urban 
divide and the divide between the poor and the more well off. 
As this Subcommittee considers the implementation of MOBILE NOW 
and the evolution of next-generation technologies, I urge you 
to consider a broad framework for connectivity that recognizes 
the importance and limitations of 5G networks, the role of 
other wireless technologies and approaches to both enabling and 
accelerating 5G quality services, particularly high capacity 
fixed wireless and next-generation Wi-Fi, the need for better 
data and clearer disclosures about Internet price and service, 
and the ongoing affordability gap for low-income folks, and the 
role that the universal service fund can play in mitigating 
that gap.
    While mobile 5G can play a role in improving capacity in 
certain areas, it is not a panacea for addressing the rural and 
low income digital divides. Both the business models for 5G 
deployment and the characteristics of the technology itself 
make it ill-suited for rural deployment and beyond the reach of 
poor Internet users. To support a robust Internet ecosystem 
that is accessible to all Internet users, whether urban, 
suburban, or rural, we need a forward-looking and balanced 
approach that recognizes the importance of substantial 
increases in mid band spectrum, on a licensed, unlicensed, and 
shared basis for both mobile and fixed wireless service.
    The MOBILE NOW Act is an important component of that 
approach. Indeed critical work has been done to ensure that 
spectrum is available for unlicensed and spectrum uses but 
there is even more work to be done, and I hope we can leverage 
the Subcommittee's bipartisan interest to keep momentum from 
moving forward, including opening up the entire 6 gigahertz 
band for unlicensed use and reallocating part of the 5.9 
gigahertz band for unlicensed use, ultimately creating a high-
capacity Wi-Fi super band that enables multiple contiguous 
channels of gigabit fast connectivity in every home and 
business.
    In addition, the C-band presents an opportunity for two 
things. First, to reallocate at least 200 megahertz at the 
bottom of the bands to flexible use, direct terrestrial 
broadband, using a public auction with proceeds being used to 
close the digital divide as the America's Digital 
Infrastructure Act introduced by Ranking Member Schatz, and 
Senators Markey, and Cantwell suggest. And second, to 
coordinate shared access to underutilized spectrum in the upper 
portion of the band for rural point to mobile point broadband 
providers.
    And yet with so much attention focused on next generation 
networks, it is troubling that we continue to lack adequate 
information about current broadband networks in the United 
States. Internet users and would be subscribers are left 
particularly in the dark when it comes to basic information 
about the cost of Internet service. This Subcommittee should 
consider ways to revisit, for example, the broadband nutrition 
label adopted by the FCC and to put pressure on the FCC to 
collect pricing information as part of its Form 477 process.
    And finally, even where broadband service is available, it 
remains beyond the reach of many people in all areas of the 
country, from rural to urban, because of cost. Wireless 
solutions for connectivity should be aimed at alleviating this 
divide not exacerbating it. A well-functioning and fully 
supported lifeline program is key to making Internet 
accessible, affordable for low-income households.
    And yet, rather than work on ways to increase participation 
in this successful but underutilized program, there have been 
multiple efforts under Chairman Pai's leadership to weaken the 
program, causing enrollment nationwide to drop by 2.3 million, 
people about 20 percent since 2017. We must do better to ensure 
that low-income families, veterans, tribes, and other 
marginalized communities aren't left on the wrong side of the 
digital divide. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Morris follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Sarah Morris, Director, 
                New America's Open Technology Institute
Introduction
    Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Schatz, and Members of this 
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here today. I am Sarah Morris, 
Director of New America's Open Technology Institute, and I appreciate 
the opportunity to testify about wireless Internet technology, its 
future, and its impact.
    The United States still has a deeply troubling connectivity 
challenge. Ensuring that everyone has access to Internet service that 
is both robust and affordable requires a multifaceted approach that 
takes into account varying circumstances and needs. Wireless access is 
a part of that approach, but it is not the entire solution; similarly, 
mobile 5G networks do not represent the full range of ways to deliver 
wireless service. And affordability remains a critical barrier to 
broadband adoption, even where networks exist.
    Many rural areas lack fixed broadband service altogether. As the 
Pew Research Center notes: ``Even though rural areas are more wired 
today than in the past, other research shows that substantial segments 
of rural America still lack the infrastructure needed for high-speed 
internet, and what access these areas do have tends to be slower than 
that of non-rural areas.'' \1\ The Federal Communications Commission's 
2018 Broadband Deployment Report found that only 69.3 percent of people 
living in rural areas lived in a census block where at least one fixed 
Internet service provider (ISP) had deployed high-speed fixed 
broadband.\2\ However, the data that underlies that report likely 
overstates broadband deployment numbers, as even the FCC has 
conceded.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Andrew Perrin, ``Digital gap between rural and nonrural America 
persists,'' Pew Research Center, (May 31, 2019), https://
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/31/digital-gap-between-rural-and-
nonrural-america-persists/.
    \2\ 2018 Broadband Deployment Report (``2018 Broadband Deployment 
Report''), GN Docket No. 17-199, (Feb. 2, 2018),  50 Table 1, https://
www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progress-reports/2018-
broadband-deployment-report.
    \3\ Section 706 NOI  16-17; Report and Order and Second Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WC Docket No. 19-195, WC Docket No. 11-
10 (Rel. Aug. 6, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Wireless can help bridge the gap to rural communities, though many 
of the challenges that make it difficult to provision fixed broadband 
are also present in the deployment of wireless services. The role of 
cellular networks in supporting rural Internet access is important, but 
limited, and reliant on a foundation of high-capacity fixed networks 
and Wi-Fi for offloading capacity. Point-to-multipoint wireless is 
another cost-effective solution for rural areas, but one that is 
similarly reliant on both fiber and Wi-Fi.
    To support a robust Internet ecosystem that is accessible to all 
Internet users, whether they live in urban, suburban, small town or 
rural communities, we need a forward-looking and balanced approach that 
recognizes that substantial increases in mid-band spectrum on a 
licensed, unlicensed and shared basis for both mobile and fixed 
wireless service. The MOBILE NOW Act is an important component of that 
approach.
    Moreover, as this subcommittee considers the role of wireless 
technologies in improving rural connectivity, it should also recognize 
the need for better data about Internet deployment, quality of service, 
price, and adoption. While we need not completely halt deployment of 
next-generation wireless technologies in service of better mapping and 
data, it remains troubling that policymakers and consumers continue to 
lack adequate information about current broadband networks in the 
United States.
    Finally, even where broadband service is available, it remains 
beyond the reach of many people in all areas--from rural to urban--
because of cost. The digital divide is still very stark and real for 
low-income users, and wireless solutions for connectivity should be 
aimed at alleviating this divide, not exacerbating it.
    As this subcommittee considers the implementation of the MOBILE NOW 
Act, and the evolution of next-generation technologies, I urge you to 
consider a broad framework for connectivity that recognizes:

   both the importance and limitations of mobile 5G networks;

   the role of other wireless technologies and approaches to 
        both enabling and accelerating 5G-quality services, 
        particularly high-capacity fixed wireless (point-to-multipoint) 
        and next-generation Wi-Fi 6;

   the need for better data and clearer disclosures about 
        Internet price and service; and

   The ongoing affordability gap for low-income households and 
        the role that the Universal Service Fund can play in mitigating 
        that gap.

    My testimony explores each of these considerations in detail below.
1. 5G is Important, But it is Not a Panacea
    While mobile 5G can play a role in improving capacity in certain 
areas, it is not a panacea for addressing the rural and low-income 
digital divides. Both the business models for 5G deployment, and the 
characteristics of the technology itself, make it ill-suited for rural 
deployment, and beyond the reach of poor Internet users.
    Rural, small town, Tribal and historically marginalized communities 
are most likely to find themselves on the losing side of the digital 
divide. The FCC's most recent Broadband Deployment Report reveals that 
``the gap in rural and Tribal America remains notable: over 26 percent 
of people in rural areas and 32 percent of people in Tribal lands lack 
coverage from fixed terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps broadband, as compared 
to only 1.7 percent of Americans in urban areas.'' \4\ A Pew Research 
Center survey reported that 24 percent of rural adults said that a lack 
of high-speed Internet access is a ``major problem'' in their 
community.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ FCC, Fixed Broadband Deployment Data from FCC Form 477 (May 2, 
2019) (data as of Dec. 31, 2017), https://www.fcc.gov/general/
broadband-deployment-data-fcc-form-477.
    \5\ Monica Anderson, ``About a quarter of rural Americans say 
access to high-speed Internet is a major problem,'' The Pew Research 
Center (Sep. 10, 2018), https://tinyurl.com/y6c6uqcl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Affordability and choice among competing Internet providers 
continue to be major deterrents as well. Just 45 percent of U.S. adults 
who make less than $30,000 a year have broadband at home, compared to 
87 percent of adults who make more than $75,000 annually.\6\ A recent 
Department of Education survey found that 38 percent of households with 
children under 18 and no home broadband access said it was because 
service was too expensive.\7\ A lack of competition in many areas 
aggravates the issue of affordability. More than 50 percent of rural 
households had at most only one choice for an ISP offering service at 
the minimum adequate service level of 25/3 mbps as of year-end 2017, 
according to the FCC's December 2018 Communications Marketplace 
Report.\8\ Even when rural consumers have access to broadband, they 
frequently pay higher prices for lower-quality service despite the fact 
that, on average, they earn less than people living in urban areas.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ ``Internet/Broadband Fact Sheet,'' Pew Research Center (Feb. 5, 
2018), https://tinyurl.com/y3bnc92t.
    \7\ ``Student Access to Digital Learning Resources Outside of the 
Classroom,'' U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education 
Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics (Apr. 2018), https:/
/nces.ed.gov/pubs2017/2017098.pdf. Another 38 percent said it was 
because they did not need it or they were uninterested in it.
    \8\ FCC, Communications Marketplace Report (rel. Dec. 26, 2018), 
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-first-consolidated-
communications-marketplace-report-0.
    \9\ Sharon Strover, ``Reaching rural America with broadband 
Internet service,'' PhysOrg (Jan. 17, 2018), https://phys.org/news/
2018-01-rural-america-broadband-internet.html#jCp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Because of the enormous costs of building out geographically 
extensive 5G networks, national and regional carriers will focus 
initially on the more densely-populated urban and affluent suburban 
areas with the largest returns on investment. The characteristics of 
millimeter wave spectrum also suggest that the fastest speeds and 
capabilities of 5G that the industry has touted as ``revolutionary,'' 
will only be possible in high-density urban areas. Mobile carriers have 
even admitted that their 5G networks will not be scaled to rural 
areas.\10\ In fact, a Verizon executive conceded earlier this year that 
the low-band spectrum 5G services that mobile carriers are expecting to 
deploy to rural areas are likely to merely resemble ``good 4G 
service.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Jon Brodkin, ``Millimeter-wave 5G will never scale beyond 
dense urban areas, T-Mobile says,'' Ars Technica (April 22, 2019), 
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/04/millimeter-wave-
5gwill-never-scale-beyond-dense-urban-areas-t-mobile-says/; Sean 
Hollister, ``Verizon and T-Mobile agree much of the U.S. won't see the 
fast version of 5G,'' The Verge (April 24, 2019), https://
www.theverge.com/2019/4/24/18514905/verizon-t-mobile-agree-rural-
united-states-dont-getmillimeter-wave-5g.
    \11\ Jon Brodkin, ``Verizon: 5G speeds on low-spectrum bands will 
be more like ``good 4G'','' Ars Technica (Aug. 8, 2019), https://
arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/08/verizon-5g-speeds-on-
lowspectrum-bands-will-be-more-like-good-4g/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mobile broadband and 5G should also not be considered a substitute 
for better fixed broadband services. Mobile networks are currently 
heavily reliant on Wi-Fi and fixed networks for backhaul and offloaded 
traffic. A majority of the mobile data traffic in 2017 was offloaded 
onto fixed networks, according to Cisco, and that number is set to 
increase to 59 percent of traffic being offloaded from mobile networks 
onto Wi-Fi by 2022.\12\ 5G will be heavily reliant on fiber 
availability,\13\ and in areas lacking in high-speed fixed networks 
(such as rural and Tribal areas), 5G will either make little to no 
impact, or will never be fully deployed. One cannot argue that mobile 
networks, and the possibility of future 5G networks--which have not 
been deployed in systemic and widespread manners--are a substitute for 
fixed networks when they rely on these fixed networks to operate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Cisco, Cisco Visual Networking Index: Global Mobile Data 
Traffic Forecast Update, 2017-2022 White Paper (Feb. 18, 2019), https:/
/www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/
visualnetworking-index-vni/white-paper-c11-738429.html.
    \13\ Ernesto Falcon, Enough of the 5G Hype, Electronic Frontier 
Foundation Blog (Feb. 11, 2019), https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/02/
enough-5g-hype.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Further, not only will the deployment of 5G in rural areas be 
limited, but both households and businesses consume on average nearly 
ten times the data allowed under existing monthly mobile plans.\14\ The 
differential use of mobile versus fixed broadband plans along income 
levels further reiterates that mobile broadband is not a substitute for 
improved fixed broadband services: while 26 percent of U.S. adults 
making less than $30,000 annually are smartphone-only broadband users, 
only 6 percent of those making more than double that a year are using 
only mobile broadband.\15\ This is particularly worrying as mobile 
broadband is typically accessed through smartphones and other devices 
limited in their functionality for important online activities, like 
finding employment and completing homework. This means that lower-
income consumers experience asymmetric difficulties in finding a job 
because they can't afford fixed broadband services nor have access to a 
computer.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Jon Brodkin, ``Comcast usage soars 34 percent to 200GB a 
month, pushing users closer to data cap,'' Ars Technica (April 26, 
2019), https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/04/comcast-
usage-soars34-to-200gb-a-month-pushing-users-closer-to-data-cap/; 
Daniel Frankel, ``Charter: Broadband-Only Users Average 400GB of 
Monthly Data Usage,'' Multichannel News (May 2, 2019), https://
www.multichannel.com/news/charter-says-average-cord-cutter-uses-400gb
-of-data-per-month.
    \15\ Monica Anderson, ``Mobile Technology and Home Broadband 
2019,'' Pew Research Center (June 13, 2019), https://
www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/06/13/mobile-technology-and-home-
broadband-2019/.
    \16\ Andrew Burger, ``Pew: Smartphone-Only Internet Users Find Them 
an Incomplete Home Broadband Substitute,'' Telecompetitor (Oct. 6, 
2016), https://www.telecompetitor.com/pew-smartphone-onlyinternet-
users-find-them-an-incomplete-home-broadband-substitute/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. We Need Multiple Paths to Connectivity
    The MOBILE NOW Act sent an important signal that a substantial 
increase in the amount of mid-band spectrum allocated for wireless 
broadband, both licensed and unlicensed, is critical for facilitating a 
robust and broadly-available 5G wireless ecosystem. In 2017 OTI 
supported the original Senate version of MOBILE NOW because it took a 
forward-looking and balanced approach that required substantially more 
unlicensed mid-band spectrum and also required the FCC and NTIA to 
evaluate the feasibility of greater shared use of underutilized bands 
including the lower 3 GHz band (3100 to 3550 MHz) and C-band (3700 to 
4200 MHz). There are two fundamental reasons why it's critical that 
substantially more mid-band spectrum is made available on a licensed, 
unlicensed and dynamically shared basis.
    First, the world's most robust and productive 5G wireless ecosystem 
will not be built out by mobile carriers alone or solely with 
exclusively-licensed spectrum. America's 5G wireless ecosystem, like 
the current 4G wireless ecosystem, will rely on a combination of 
national or regional carrier networks for truly ``mobile'' connections 
(for use `on the go') and a far larger number of complementary, high-
capacity and customized networks deployed by individual business firms 
and households to meet their particular needs at a lower cost.
    Today Wi-Fi makes Internet access and broadband data on smartphones 
and laptops faster and far more affordable. Wi-Fi already carries 
between 70 and 80 percent of all mobile device data traffic. In a 5G 
world, indoor and customized small cell networks using next-generation 
Wi-Fi, private LTE and other technologies will enhance the ecosystem 
and fuel advanced applications such as home and industrial Internet of 
Things, virtual reality and near-real time interactive video.
    A second reason to make more mid-band spectrum available on a 
licensed, unlicensed and shared basis is that a guiding goal of the 
Communications Act is to ``encourage the deployment on a reasonable and 
timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all 
Americans.'' \17\ 5G networks are not likely to reach rural, small town 
or even many exurban communities for many years. However, smaller and 
local providers of high-capacity fixed wireless broadband that rely 
primarily on unlicensed and coordinated sharing of unused spectrum 
capacity can more rapidly extend high-capacity and more affordable 
fixed broadband access to these underserved areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ 47 U.S.C. Sec. 1302(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    More mid-band unlicensed (at 5.9 and 6 GHz) and shared spectrum 
(unused C-band spectrum for fixed wireless broadband) can serve as the 
public infrastructure that enables high-capacity broadband in 
underserved areas. Capital costs to deploy fixed point-to-multipoint 
(P2MP) wireless connections using vacant C-band and unlicensed spectrum 
are about one-seventh the cost of fiber and are still able to provide 
high-throughput broadband service.\18\ Fixed wireless networks are also 
far more cost-effective per gigabyte for this purpose than mobile 
systems. In addition, anywhere a high-capacity fixed service is 
available, next-generation Wi-Fi (known more formally as Wi-Fi 6) can 
provide the same consumer benefits as licensed 5G and more 
affordably.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ See The Carmel Group, Ready for Takeoff: Broadband Wireless 
Access Providers Prepare to Soar with Fixed Wireless, at 12, Fig. 6 
(2017).
    \19\ Wi-Fi 6: The Next Generation of Wi-Fi is Here, WiFi Forward 
(May 20, 2019), http://wififorward.org/2019/05/20/wi-fi-6-the-next-
generation-of-wi-fi-is-here/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. C-band: Public Auction Revenue and Spectrum to Close the Broadband 
        Divide
    The MOBILE NOW Act required the FCC to evaluate ``the feasibility 
of allowing commercial wireless services, licensed or unlicensed, to 
share use of the frequencies between 3700 megahertz and 4200 
megahertz.'' To its credit, the Commission exceeded this requirement by 
adopting a NPRM in July 2018 that sought comment on two proposals that 
together could make every megahertz of the C-band available for 5G 
services in rural and other less densely-populated parts of the 
country.
    The C-band NPRM sought comment on two proposals that OTI generally 
supports: First, to reallocate at least 200 megahertz at the bottom of 
the band from incumbent Fixed Satellite Services (FSS) to flexible-use 
terrestrial broadband; and second, to authorize coordinated sharing of 
unused spectrum for high-capacity, fixed wireless service (on a 
licensed, P2MP basis) in the upper portion of the band that would 
remain dedicated to FSS. Since the Fixed Service is co-primary in the 
band (for the coordinated licensing of point-to-point links), the NPRM 
also proposed to redefine the Fixed Service to include localized P2MP 
fixed wireless broadband use that is most needed in rural and 
underserved areas.
    OTI and multiple public interest coalitions support both of these 
proposals. A reallocation of C-band has the potential to ensure that 
all 500 megahertz of today's grossly underutilized C-band is put to 
work to fuel America's 5G future and to close the rural broadband 
divide. Each of these proposals represents an essential component of a 
potential win-win-win solution that achieves three vital public 
interest outcomes: First, to reallocate and auction a substantial 
portion of the C-band to promote mobile 5G networks; second, to enable 
high-speed fixed wireless service in rural, small town, Tribal and 
other underserved areas at a fraction of the cost of trenching fiber; 
and third, to protect existing earth stations from undue disruption or 
harmful interference.
i. The Opportunity to Designate Public Auction Proceeds for Broadband 
        Infrastructure
    OTI strongly supports the ``Investing in America's Digital 
Infrastructure Act,'' introduced last month by Senators Cantwell, 
Schatz and Markey. This legislation would require a public auction of 
not less than 200 megahertz of C-band, designate proceeds to a Digital 
Divide Trust Fund, and reimburse the costs of incumbent C-band services 
while also ensuring their protection from harmful interference. 
Although Chairman Pai recently announced that he will be proposing a 
public C-band auction, it remains important for Congress to both 
reinforce the public auction requirements of the Communications Act and 
take advantage of this rare opportunity to designate spectrum auction 
revenue to invest in advanced broadband infrastructure in unserved and 
underserved communities, as well as other advanced technologies, 
particularly next-generation 9-1-1 services.
    Both of these objectives should have strong bipartisan support. 
First, just as Congress in 2012 designated the initial $7 billion from 
the auctions of AWS-3 and 600 MHz TV spectrum to fund FirstNet, under 
your leadership Congress can set aside up to $30 billion or more of C-
band auction revenue to pay for broadband infrastructure in unserved 
and underserved areas. According to FCC data, broadband is unavailable 
to roughly 25 million people in the United States, more than 19 million 
of whom live in rural communities. With proceeds set to be raised by 
the auction, Congress should not miss this rare opportunity to narrow 
the rural/urban digital divide by directing both dollars and unused C-
band spectrum for fixed wireless broadband and backhaul in rural areas.
    Second, as OTI has explained in multiple FCC filings, a private 
auction or sale would violate Section 309(j) of the Communications Act 
and willfully ignore Congressional intent and precedent. Congress has 
twice passed legislation ensuring that when the TV bands at 700 MHz and 
600 MHz were consolidated for auction to mobile carriers, local 
broadcast stations would either receive no windfall (the 2002 Auction 
Reform Act \20\) or receive at most incentive payments limited by a 
competitive reverse auction (the 2012 incentive auction bill \21\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Spectrum Reform Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-195, 47 U.S.C. 
Sec. 309(j)(15)(C)(iv), available at https://www.congress.gov/bill/
107th-congress/house-bill/4560/text?overview=closed.
    \21\ Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub.L. 
112-96, Subtitle D--Spectrum Auction Authority, Sec. 6402, (enacted 
Feb. 22, 2012), codified at 47 U.S.C. Sec. 309(j)(8)(G) (``Spectrum 
Act''), available at https://www.congress.gov/112/plaws/publ96/PLAW-
112publ96.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A multi-billion-dollar windfall for satellite companies that never 
paid for the spectrum they share is both unprecedented and unnecessary, 
particularly for the 200 megahertz or more than can be cleared by 
consolidating existing satellite services into unused transponder 
capacity in the upper portion of the band. The vast majority of the 
local TV stations that are being cleared off the 600 MHz band received 
only compensation for expenses incurred to switch frequencies. This 
approach would work well for at least the lower 200 megahertz of C-
band, given that incumbents have acknowledged all current FSS video and 
radio distribution can be accommodated above 3900 MHz. If incentive 
payments are necessary to clear an additional 100 megahertz, FCC 
precedent suggests that the Commission should authorize winning bidders 
to engage in good-faith negotiations with incumbents for premium 
payments that would secure their agreement to clear at an early date.
    Legislation reinforcing the requirement of public auctions also 
remains important, regardless of the FCC's ultimate decision. Private 
auctions or sales tend to distort competition in the mobile market, 
excluding smaller and rural ISPs. Even serious consideration of a 
private sale and windfall sets a dangerous precedent, suggesting that 
incumbent licensees should always wage maximum resistance against 
giving up or sharing unused spectrum unless the Commission agrees to 
give them public revenue that until now has always, with few 
exceptions, flowed back to the public.
ii. Shared Access to Unused C-band Spectrum Can Spur Fixed Wireless 
        Broadband
    OTI and a broad coalition of rural ISPs and high-tech companies 
believe any Congressional action on C-band should also require the FCC 
to authorize coordinated, shared access to unused spectrum across the 
entire band to the extent it does not cause harmful interference to 
incumbent services (viz., earth stations that receive satellite 
signals) or to future licensed mobile services.
    Like the TV band prior to its consolidation, the C-band's overall 
capacity is grossly underutilized--and even after repacking the FSS 
incumbents, large amounts of spectrum will remain unused in rural areas 
in particular. Spectrum itself is public infrastructure that can be 
used to help close the digital divide. Unlocking every megahertz of the 
C-band will promote a more inclusive, robust and affordable 5G wireless 
ecosystem for everyone.
    By requiring rural ISPs and other operators to rely on an automated 
coordination system, the FCC can fully protect existing earth stations 
(and thereby TV and radio consumers) in the same way that the FCC has 
certified a Spectrum Access System (SAS) to coordinate shared use of 
the adjacent 3.5 GHz band between the U.S. Navy and terrestrial 
broadband providers. The FCC should be required to authorize shared use 
of unused spectrum across the entire C-band and to determine the 
technical rules that ensure there is no harmful interference to 
licensed and incumbent services. An engineering study filed in July by 
wireless ISPs, Google and Microsoft showed that even on a co-channel 
basis, unused spectrum can be easily coordinated with earth stations 
and shared locally for rural broadband, enterprise networks and other 
uses in 78 percent of the country where at least 80 million people 
live.
    In sum, C-band gives Congress an opportunity to mandate both a 
public auction and coordinated shared access to unused spectrum in the 
C-band, which together can provide billions in funding for digital 
infrastructure and the spectrum that rural broadband providers, schools 
and other enterprises need to close the connectivity gap in underserved 
areas.
B. Next-Generation Wi-Fi: Accelerating Affordable 5G Services for 
        Everyone
    The MOBILE NOW Act took a balanced approach that required the 
identification of substantial new allocations of both licensed and 
unlicensed spectrum. Although OTI strongly preferred the original 
Senate version of MOBILE NOW--which would have required 100 megahertz 
of unlicensed below 6 GHz, rather than below 8 GHz--the Act 
nevertheless had the salutary impact of encouraging the FCC's ambitious 
effort to authorize unlicensed sharing of unused spectrum across the 
entire 6 GHz band (as much as 1200 megahertz). OTI and our broad-based 
Public Interest Spectrum Coalition strongly support the Commission's 
proposals to increase unlicensed spectrum access at both 5.9 GHz and 
from 5925 to 7125 MHz.
    Unlicensed spectrum is what ultimately makes both mobile and fixed 
broadband service more available, more productive and more affordable 
for an overwhelming majority of people at home, at work, at school and 
in public places. Wi-Fi generates hundreds of billions of dollars in 
economic activity and consumer surplus each year, in substantial part 
as a critical complement to mobile carrier networks that would 
otherwise be overwhelmed by consumer demand.\22\ Most consumers do not 
even realize that between 70 and 80 percent of the total mobile data 
traffic flowing over smartphones never touch their mobile carrier 
network. Wi-Fi also plays a key role in connecting education, 
manufacturing, agriculture and healthcare technologies. IoT and other 
high-capacity, local-area networks--most of which will be indoors and 
connect everything--are likely to make unlicensed spectrum an even more 
critical part of a truly robust 5G ecosystem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ ``Economic Value of Unlicensed Spectrum in the U.S. Tops $525 
Billion,'' Wi-Fi Forward, (May 17, 2018), http://wififorward.org/2018/
05/17/new-report-economic-value-of-unlicensed
spectrum-in-the-u-stops-525-billion/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The good news is that Wi-Fi 6, is ready to go now and can 
accelerate 5G-quality services for everyone. Because mobile 5G networks 
are massively expensive to deploy, they won't be available outside 
dense urban, high-traffic and affluent suburban areas for many years. 
Wi-Fi 6, by contrast, can upgrade connectivity in any home or business 
that has a gigabit-capable fixed broadband service.
    In other words, Wi-Fi 6 can bring 5G capabilities more quickly to 
urban, suburban and rural areas alike. But, there's a big if . . . 
Accelerating affordable 5G capabilities for everyone depends on a 
sufficient amount of contiguous, wide-channel unlicensed spectrum.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

i. Extending Gigabit-Fast Wi-Fi Across the 6 GHz Band is Feasible and 
        Essential
    Authorizing unlicensed use of 1200 contiguous megahertz of spectrum 
across the entire 6 GHz band--from 5925 to 7125 MHz--is the fuel 
necessary to power gigabit-fast and affordable Wi-Fi 6 and other 
unlicensed innovations of greatest benefit to consumers and the 
economy. OTI and the Public Interest Spectrum Coalition strongly 
support the FCC's pending proposal to allow at least indoor use of 
unlicensed devices and networks across all four band segments (a total 
of 1200 megahertz). We likewise support the FCC's proposal to allow 
outdoor unlicensed operations--as well as indoor operations at standard 
power (1 watt)--in two band segments that total 850 megahertz, subject 
to registration and recurring authorization by a geolocation database. 
These Automated Frequency Coordination (AFC) systems will be similar 
to, but simpler than, the Spectrum Access System that facilitates 
sharing and protects Navy operations in the new CBRS band at 3.5 GHz.
    The FCC's proposed rulemaking has one critical shortcoming, 
however, that threatens to diminish the value of Wi-Fi 6 to the vast 
majority of Americans at home and at work. In addition to authorizing 
Wi-Fi at standard power, subject to coordination by an automated 
database (AFC), the Commission also proposes to allow indoor-only 
operations at a much lower power (one-fourth the power of the limit for 
standard Wi-Fi), but only in the U-NII-6 and U-NII-8 band segments. 
These two band segments are not contiguous and total only 350 
megahertz.
    Consumer advocates, as well as rural broadband providers and the 
Nation's largest high-tech companies, have all urged the Commission to 
authorize lower-power, indoor-only unlicensed use across the much 
larger U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 band segments without the cost and 
complexity of geolocation database coordination. These two band 
segments total 850 megahertz. Although expensive, professionally-
installed, higher-power and AFC-controlled unlicensed access will be 
important for enterprise networks and outdoor deployments, the failure 
to set a power level at which Wi-Fi can operate indoors across the 
entire 6 GHz band will sacrifice what is likely to be the greatest 
benefit of this rulemaking.
    Wi-Fi is the workhorse of the Internet because low-cost, off-the-
shelf routers and devices can easily and affordably offer access to 
unlicensed spectrum that provides high-capacity connectivity in homes, 
at work, at school, in libraries, restaurants, retailers and most 
public spaces. Without affordable, do-it-yourself access to the 850 
megahertz in U-NII-5 and U-NII-7, a majority of homes and small 
businesses in particular could be limited to a single 160 megahertz 
channel between 6875 and 7125 MHz, greatly limiting the potential of 
what could be a wide-channel Wi-Fi band for all of the essential uses 
noted above.
    We remain hopeful that engineering facts will prevail over 
incumbent fears. Members of this Committee should encourage the 
Commission to adopt a rebuttable presumption that lower-power, indoor-
only (LPI) unlicensed access does not create an undue risk of harmful 
interference to incumbents.
    First, harmful interference to incumbent point-to-point (FS) links 
at this power level from LPI inside a building would be extremely rare. 
The two operate in entirely different locations and with transmit 
characteristics that are complementary.
    Second, fixed point-to-point links are high power and use high-
quality, highly-directional antenna, whereas Wi-Fi on a LPI basis would 
operate indoors at very low duty cycles and at extraordinarily low 
power.
    Third, moving Wi-Fi and other unlicensed traffic onto networks 
required to be low-power and indoors could reduce the overall risk of 
interference to FS incumbents. And by making 1200 contiguous megahertz 
available inside every building, unlicensed routers and other devices 
will spread their transmissions over multiple and much wider channels, 
further reducing the risk.
    Finally, while we agree that AFC systems will be necessary to avoid 
interference outdoors and for standard power deployments, AFCs in this 
band can be relatively simple databases that are easy to implement. 
Geolocation database coordination is well-established and reliable in 
bands, such as in U-NII-5 (5925 to 6425 MHz) and U-NII-7 (6525 to 6875 
MHz), where incumbent operations are geographically fixed and change 
location or operating parameters infrequently. The FCC has a long 
history of ensuring that coordination technologies and procedures work 
to give primary licensees in shared band a high degree of protection 
from harmful interference. Fears about theoretical and corner-case 
scenarios that could result in fleeting interference should not preempt 
the truly enormous economic and social benefits of authorizing 
unlicensed sharing across the entire 6 GHz band.
ii. The Vacant 5.9 GHz Band is a Roadblock to a Potential Wi-Fi 
        Superhighway
    OTI welcomed Chairman Pai's recent announcement that the Commission 
will vote this month to seek comment on a further notice of rulemaking 
that proposes to reallocate the lower 45 megahertz of the unused 
Intelligent Transportation Services (ITS) band for next-generation Wi-
Fi and other unlicensed public uses. The 5.9 GHz band lies directly 
between the upper portion of the 5 GHz band, which is currently used 
for unlicensed Wi-Fi and rural broadband, and the 6 GHz band that the 
FCC has proposed to open for shared unlicensed use.
    Indeed, we believe the Commission should go further and relocate 
auto safety communications to a different band (such as the mostly 
vacant 4.9 GHz public safety band) and thereby create a contiguous 
``Wi-Fi Superhighway'' that extends from the upper 5 GHz band 
continuously up to 7125 MHz. As Commissioner Mike O'Rielly so aptly put 
it, the 5.9 GHz band is ``the missing link between the 5 GHz and 6 GHz 
bands.'' Reallocating the 5.9 GHz band for unlicensed use would create 
a very high-capacity Wi-Fi ``superband'' that would enable multiple 
contiguous channels of gigabit-fast connectivity in every home and 
business.
    The 5.9 GHz band is currently allocated for auto safety signaling 
using a specific technology called Dedicated Short-Range Communications 
(``DSRC''). Back in 1999 the FCC allocated this 75 megahertz (5850 to 
5925 MHz) for shared use by DSRC technology on a licensed basis. For 
two decades the band has gone almost completely unused. The 5 GHz band 
has become a telling experiment in market forces and innovation. Wi-Fi 
also emerged in 1999 and consumers today are celebrating its 20th 
anniversary. Over that time, while the auto industry left the 5.9 GHz 
band fallow, unlicensed innovation and Wi-Fi use has surged, saturating 
both the 2.4 GHz band and two segments of the 5 GHz band with intensive 
spectrum re-use that generates hundreds of billions of dollars annually 
in consumer surplus. Wi-Fi bands are congested because they carry the 
vast majority of wireless Internet traffic and are an input for 
virtually every other industry. The ``car band,'' meanwhile, sits 
idling and empty.
    DSRC has also been eclipsed by newer technologies that render the 
requirement to use DSRC in the 5.9 GHz band a relic of an abandoned 
policy that would have mandated DSRC radios in every new vehicle and 
would have taken at least another two decades, at a high cost to 
consumers, to be effective.\23\ Unfortunately, the Department of 
Transportation (DOT) has not yet formally withdrawn its proposed DSRC 
mandate; nor has it acknowledged, as the European Union has, that real-
time safety signaling for V2X applications will require at most 30 
megahertz. Since Cellular V2X is in its infancy and is likely to 
operate as an application on general purpose mobile 5G networks, it 
would be a win-win for consumers to relocate V2X safety signaling and 
achieve a Wi-Fi superhighway capable of fueling affordable 5G-quality 
connectivity for everyone, whether they live in rural, suburban or 
urban communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ Harding, J. et al., ``Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communications: 
Readiness of V2V Technology for Application,'' National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, Report No. DOT HS 812014 (Aug. 2014), at 24 
(``Even if the market drives faster uptake by consumers of aftermarket 
devices . . . it will still take 37 years before we would expect the 
technology to fully penetrate the fleet.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. We Need Better Data and Consumer Disclosures
    As we move to another generation of cellular wireless technology, 
policymakers and consumers still lack good, comprehensive data on the 
current landscape. While we need not halt progress until our data and 
maps are perfect, the Federal government's current data collection 
efforts have significant gaps.
    Most notable in those gaps is the complete absence of pricing data. 
The high cost of Internet service is one of the biggest reasons the 
digital divide exists,\24\ and yet no government agency collects data 
on prices or affordability. This must change. The FCC's Form 477 
program, and the related broadband availability maps, are an ideal 
opportunity for the Federal government to begin collecting these data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ Monica Anderson, Andrew Perrin, Jingjing Jiang, Madhumitha 
Kumar, ``10 percent of Americans don't use the internet. Who are 
they?'' Pew Research Center (April 22, 2019), https://
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/22/some-americans-dont-use-the-
internet-who-are-they/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    OTI has long urged the FCC to add pricing data to its Form 477 data 
collection, but the Commission continues to ignore this recommendation. 
It's now time for Congress to act. Congress is moving on legislation to 
direct the FCC to improve its broadband maps after years of inaction; 
similarly, Congress should pass legislation directing the FCC to 
collect pricing data. Without this information, Congress and the FCC 
will not fully understand the digital divide or how to combat it.
    The issue of pricing data highlights another fundamental problem: 
it is difficult, if not impossible, for policymakers, researchers and 
consumers to find even basic information about the cost of broadband 
service in the United States--hidden and incomprehensible fees are a 
frequent complaint of consumers who do not understand why they are 
being charged as much as they are.\25\ This makes it virtually 
impossible for consumers to comparison shop or hold their provider 
accountable if they don't get the service they paid for.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ James K. Willcox, People Still Don't Like Their Cable 
Companies, CR's Latest Telecom Survey Finds, Consumer Reports (Aug. 8, 
2018), https://www.yahoo.com/news/people-still-don-apos-t-
100123290.html; Jonathan Schwantes, How Cable Companies Use Hidden Fees 
to Raise Prices and Disguise the True Cost of Service, Consumer Reports 
(Oct. 2019), https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/wp-content/uploads/
2019/10/CR_WhatTheFeeReport_6F_sm-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This lack of information is true for both mobile and fixed Internet 
service. On mobile, the problem is exacerbated because, unlike 
advertisements for fixed Internet service that usually include at least 
a reference to speed tiers, mobile advertisements tend to reference 
service in the context of sweeping statements about ``lightning fast 
speeds'' or ``the fastest mobile internet.'' Even if consumers know 
what they are paying, they don't know what they are paying for.
    Senator Markey's TRUE Fees Act would be a good step toward clearer 
advertisements and disclosures. But Congress should also direct the FCC 
to implement what we call a ``broadband nutrition label,'' a clear, 
standardized format for broadband service plans that is based on the 
FDA's nutrition label for food products.\26\ OTI has long advocated for 
such a label, and the FCC adopted it in 2016.\27\ However, just a year 
later, new FCC Chairman Ajit Pai repealed the nutrition label.\28\ 
Congress can and should restore the broadband nutrition label. It's 
clear that consumers need to be empowered with better knowledge about 
the service to which they are subscribing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ See Emily Hong et al., Broadband Truth in Labeling: Empowering 
Consumer Choice Through Consumer Disclosure, New America's Open 
Technology Institute (Aug. 3, 2015), https://static.newamerica.org/
attachments/4508broadbandtruthinlabeling2/Broadband%20
TruthinLabeling%202015.c9ecf56cc29149488ad3263779be60b0.pdf.
    \27\ Jon Brodkin, FCC's ``nutrition labels'' for broadband show 
speed, caps, and hidden fees, Ars Technica (April 4, 2016), https://
arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/04/fccs-nutrition-labels-
for-broadband-show-speed-caps-and-hidden-fees/.
    \28\ See Micah Singleton, FCC Introduces Broadband Labels Inspired 
by Nutrition Facts, The Verge (Apr. 4, 2016); Restoring Internet 
Freedom, FCC Declaratory Ruling, Report, and Order, WC Docket No. 17108 
(rel. Jan. 4, 2018) at  231.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Affordability Remains a Critical Barrier to Robust Internet Adoption
    With 5G service out of reach for low-income Internet users, 
Congress must ensure that other, more affordable connectivity options 
remain available. The digital divide remains pervasive, with stark 
differences in connectivity between lower-income and higher-income 
users. As the Pew Research Center found in a study conducted earlier 
this year, 44 percent of adults in households making less than $30,000 
annually are without home broadband services, and 46 percent lack 
computers.\29\ Meanwhile, 94 percent of adults in households making 
$100,000 or more annually have home broadband services.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ Monica Anderson and Madhumitha Kumar, ``Digital divide 
persists even as lower-income Americans make gains in tech adoption,'' 
Pew Research Center, (May 7, 2019), https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2019/05/07/digital-divide-persists-even-as-lower-income-americans-
make-gains-in-tech-adoption/
    \30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unequal broadband access can also be seen in the ``homework gap''--
the gap between school-age children who had access to broadband at home 
and those who don't. There are an estimated three million students in 
the U.S. without Internet access at home, and that lack of home 
broadband access is linked with lower test scores in reading, math and 
science than students who can use the Internet at home for homework and 
studying.\31\ According to a Pew Research Center analysis of 2015 U.S. 
Census Bureau data, 35 percent of households with children between 6 
and 17 years old earning less than $30,000 annually do not have 
broadband access at home, compared to just 6 percent of such households 
earning $75,000 or more annually.\32\ These broadband disparities are 
even more pronounced for black and Hispanic low-income households.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ Michael Melia et al., AP: 3 million U.S. students don't have 
home internet, Associated Press (June 10, 2019), https://apnews.com/
7f263b8f7d3a43d6be014f860d5e4132.
    \32\ Monica Anderson and Andrew Perrin, ``Nearly one-in-five teens 
can't always finish their homework because of the digital divide,'' Pew 
Research Center, (October 26, 2018), https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2018/10/26/nearly-one-in-five-teens-cant-always-finish-their-
homework-because-of-the-digital-divide/
    \33\ Monica Anderson and Andrew Perrin, ``Nearly one-in-five teens 
can't always finish their homework because of the digital divide,'' Pew 
Research Center, (October 26, 2018), https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2018/10/26/nearly-one-in-five-teens-cant-always-finish-their-
homework-because-of-the-digital-divide/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A well-functioning and fully-supported Universal Service Fund is 
key to making broadband, including mobile broadband, accessible for 
low-income households. The Fund's Lifeline Program provides a $9.25 
monthly subsidy to offset the costs of phone and Internet service for 
qualifying households. Approximately 10.7 million people in the United 
States subscribe to Lifeline, although that number represents only 
about 28 percent of eligible households.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ ``Get Started,'' Universal Service Administrative Co., https:/
/www.usac.org/li/about/process-overview/stats/default.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rather than work on ways to increase participation in this 
successful but underutilized program, the FCC has undertaken multiple 
efforts to weaken the Lifeline program under Chairman Pai's leadership. 
A recent report from USA Today in collaboration with the Center for 
Public Integrity notes: ``Enrollment nationwide has dropped by 2.3 
million people--about 21 percent--since 2017.'' \35\ In November 2017, 
the agency proposed a series of changes to the program that, together, 
would severely hobble the program.\36\ These proposed changes include: 
a ban on standalone broadband from the program; strict limitations on 
subscribers' lifetime use and the program's budget; and a ban on 
wireless resellers, which make up around 70 percent \37\ of Lifeline-
supported connections. OTI vigorously opposes this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ Jared Bennett and Ashley Wong, Millions of poor lose access to 
cellphone service under Trump administration reforms, USA Today (Nov. 
5, 2019), https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2019/11/
05/under-trump-millions-poor-lose-cellphone-service/2482112001/
    \36\ ``FCC Passes Proposal That Would Destroy the Lifeline 
Program,'' (November 16, 2017). https://www.newamerica.org/oti/press-
releases/fcc-passes-proposal-would-destroy-lifeline-program/; Fourth 
Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Notice of Inquiry in the 
Matter of Bridging the Digital Divide for Low-Income Consumers, 
Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, Telecommunications 
Carriers Eligible for Universal Service Support, WC Docket No. 17-287, 
WC Docket No. 11-42, WC Docket No. 09-197 (Rel. Dec. 1, 2017), https://
transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1201/FCC-17-
155A1.pdf
    \37\ FCC, Universal Service Monitoring Report, CC Docket No. 96-45, 
WC Docket No. 02-6, WC Docket No. 02-60, WC Docket No. 06-122, WC 
Docket No. 10-90, WC Docket No. 11-42, WC Docket No. 13-184, WC Docket 
No. 14-58, (Data Received Through September 2017), https://www.fcc.gov/
sites/default/files/2017_universal_service_monitoring_report.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The efforts to undermine the Lifeline program don't end there. Last 
month, the FCC released a Report and Order that eliminates Lifeline 
Broadband Providers (LBPs) designation from the 2016 Lifeline 
Modernization Order, which directly affects the number of carriers who 
participate in the Lifeline program. Additionally, the FNPRM lays out a 
series of troubling questions that the Commission is considering asking 
Lifeline applicants, such as ``whether they would be able to afford 
their Lifeline-supported service without the Lifeline discount,'' and 
statements that some consumers may be willing to ``purchase some level 
of broadband service even in the absence of a Lifeline benefit'' 
because they ``may value broadband access so highly.'' \38\ As 
Commissioner Starks pointed out, ``To the best of my research, I don't 
believe we've ever probed elderly Medicare recipients on how much they 
actually value their medical services; nor should we probe vulnerable, 
Lifeline recipients on how much they value their connectivity.'' \39\ 
Separately, the FCC has also announced new minimum standards, 
increasing the broadband usage standard from 2 GB per month to 3 GB 
starting this month \40\--significantly less than the 8.75 GB outlined 
in the 2016 Order.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\ Fifth Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, Memorandum 
Opinion and Order, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Notice of Inquiry 
in the Matter of Bridging the Digital Divide for Low-Income Consumers, 
Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, Telecommunications 
Carriers Eligible for Universal Service Support, WC Docket No. 17-287, 
WC Docket No. 11-42, WC Docket No. 09-197, (Rel. Nov. 14, 2019), 
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-19-111A1.pdf
    \39\ Id.
    \40\ Order in the Matter of Lifeline and Link Up Reform and 
Modernization, Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for Universal 
Service Support, Connect America Fund, WC Docket No. 11-42 WC Docket 
No. 09-197 WC Docket No. 10-90 (Rel. Nov. 19, 2019), https://
docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-19-116A1.pdf
    \41\ Third Report and Order, Further Report and Order, and Order on 
Reconsideration in the Matter of Lifeline and Link Up Reform and 
Modernization, Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for Universal 
Service Support, Connect America Fund, WC Docket No. 11-42, WC Docket 
No. 09-197, WC Docket No. 10-90 (Rel. April 27, 2016), https://
docs.fcc.gov>public>attach
ments>FCC-16-38A1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to the attempts to weaken the Lifeline program 
directly, the FCC has also proposed capping the Universal Service Fund 
more broadly, a move that would pit the Fund's four programs against 
each other, potentially limiting eligible access in the already 
underutilized Lifeline program and overstretched E-Rate fund.\42\ The 
Commission has also proposed combining the E-Rate and Rural Health Care 
programs under a single program cap.\43\ These proposals undermine the 
very purpose of the Universal Service Fund: to help critical 
populations--including low-income consumers, tribal communities, 
schools and libraries, and rural residents--gain vital communications 
services. These changes would likely reduce participation from eligible 
consumers, especially low-income consumers who already underutilize 
Lifeline. The changes would also likely harm participation in the 
program from providers who have told the Commission that capping the 
USF would bring uncertainty to the future of each program.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Matter of Universal 
Service Contribution Methodology, WC Docket No. 06-122, (Rel. May 31, 
2019), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-19-46A1.pdf
    \43\ Id.
    \44\ Comments of CTIA, WC Docket No. 06-122 (filed July 29, 2019), 
at 5 (``The Commission has recognized that predictability is essential 
for those who receive support from the four USF programs, as certainty 
of funding is necessary to help support recipients plan, invest, and 
innovate. As described below, however, an overall USF cap may introduce 
uncertainty for both program participants and beneficiaries, and reduce 
the Commission's flexibility to respond to the evolving needs of low-
income consumers and rural communities.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We must ensure that affordable Internet access remains a 
cornerstone to both the Lifeline and E-Rate programs. Rather than 
trying to expand low-income communities' participation in these 
programs, the FCC has continually added new barriers to make the 
programs less accessible to these critical communities. These changes 
have been misguided, and Congress should urge the FCC to reverse its 
course.
    In addition to the Universal Service Fund, Congress should consider 
other mechanisms to make Internet access more affordable. For instance, 
we need more competition among Internet service providers. Competition 
lowers prices, and there are things Congress can do to facilitate a 
more competitive Internet market.\45\ For example, Congress should 
remove barriers to municipal broadband networks, which have been 
successful in introducing affordable and fast broadband access in 
underserved communities.\46\ More than a dozen states have laws on the 
books that prevent these networks from existing. These laws were 
written by the big incumbent broadband providers, like AT&T, to protect 
them from competition. They are doing nothing to help the millions of 
people in the country who lack any broadband service. Congress should 
remove these laws and allow local communities to invest in their own 
infrastructure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\ See, e.g., Comments of New America's Open Technology Institute 
on Competition and Consumer Protection Issues in U.S. Broadband Market, 
Docket No. FTC-2018-0113, (May 31, 2019), https://
newamericadotorg.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Comment_Submitted_by_Jos
hua_Stager.pdf.
    \46\ Jon Brodkin, ``Comcast, beware: New city-run broadband offers 
1Gbps for $60 a month,'' Ars Technica, (August 30, 2019), https://
arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/08/comcast-beware-new-city-run-
broadband-offers-1gbps-for-60-a-month/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
    I am grateful for the Committee's attention to these important 
issues, and for the opportunity to present this testimony. I look 
forward to your questions.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Morris, and to the entire 
panel for your great testimony. As I said, if you have other 
written parts of your remarks or information you would like to 
include in the record, we will be happy to do that. Mayor, we 
have discussed the need for additional mid band spectrum, 
particularly C-band spectrum since it has both a capacity and 
coverage characteristics needed to serve more rural areas like 
Sioux Falls and the rest of South Dakota.
    And to follow up on our efforts in MOBILE NOW, which 
recognized the importance of the spectrum, I have recently 
introduced as was noted earlier along with Chairman Wicker the 
5G Spectrum Act to make a large swath of C-band spectrum 
available quickly, while also securing some of the revenues 
that will be generated for the Federal Government, for the 
taxpayer. Mayor, could you talk about how important it is that 
we make available the spectrum that is necessary to broaden the 
geographic reach of 5G technology so that all areas in Sioux 
Falls and similar markets have the benefits of this new 
technology?
    Mr. TenHaken. Yes, absolutely. Thank you for the question, 
Senator. I was joking with Mr. Adelstein that we have a big 
portion of our state in the room right now. But we have 
850,000, 900,000 people in South Dakota and so with Sioux 
Falls' MSA being 300,000, about a third of the State lives in 
the MSA, as you know, and two thirds is spread out all over a 
very large state, and connectivity and access is a real 
challenge.
    C-band spectrum provides an incredible opportunity as Ms. 
Morris said, for point-to-point axis, fixed wireless access to 
bring a better level of connectivity across our state. I think 
it is very important when we talk 5G. A lot of times the focus 
is on municipalities and we think this is for large 
municipalities, and this is a municipality access thing. But, 
it is also a rural thing. A state like South Dakota could 
benefit tremendously from opening up more spectrum, especially 
in that C-band for the fixed asset pieces.
    I was recently in China, on a delegation with some other 
Mayors from the Midwest, Midwest Heartland China delegation 
association trip, and you not only see the small cells all 
over, but they are pushing 5G tremendously hard. They are 
leaping over us because they don't have the same bureaucratic 
challenges that we have. They decide they are going to do what 
they are going to do because the Government owns the ISPs and 
telecoms. But while I was there, less than 2 weeks earlier, 
Beijing rolled out their first commercial 5G services and they 
had 40,000 people sign up within 10 days.
    And the point of that being we can't afford to wait real 
long on some of these issues if we want to continue to lead 
opening up spectrum, exposing connectivity, better connectivity 
to some of the rural parts of our country. It is going to spur 
the innovation. We need to remain competitive on an 
international stage. I am excited for the auction to be 
happening next year to take the first step in making this a 
reality.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Bergmann, not only will C-band 
spectrum result in the benefits that were discussed by the 
Mayor, but it also plays a crucial role in the United States' 
standing in that race to 5G, which of course has also enormous 
National Security implications. But to ensure that C-band 
spectrum is brought to market quickly, can you speak to the 
need for the 5G Spectrum Act which we talked about earlier?
    Mr. Bergmann. Yes. Thank you, Chairman Thune. So CTIA 
appreciates and very much supports the work that you and 
Chairman Wicker are doing with the 5G Spectrum Act. It focuses 
on one of the most critical bands for our 5G future, the 3.7 
gigahertz band. And you have put your finger right on something 
that is absolutely essential to our ability to lead in 5G. I 
thought the Mayor said it exactly right, we can't afford to 
wait.
    The spectrum has all the right characteristics for 
delivering 5G. It has coverage and capacity. It is 
internationally harmonized, and we know what it means. It means 
economic growth. It means millions of new jobs, and it means 
positioning ourselves to be the world leader when it comes to 
the 5G economy. That is the Innovation that we want to see 
happen here in the U.S. and that band is really critical to 
that.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Ms. Brown, in your testimony you 
said that over 56 percent of Internet traffic will be initiated 
or completed in Wi-Fi by 2022. Do we currently have the 
unlicensed spectrum needed to support the growing demand for 
Wi-Fi?
    Ms. Brown. No, we do not. The statistic I cited is from the 
Cisco VNI study which also shows that while unlicensed 
continues to become a more and more important way in which 
Internet traffic is delivered, the underlying growth in 
Internet traffic during that same period is growing three-fold.
    So even while unlicensed becomes a more important component 
of that, the base is exploding. Enterprise networks are 
somewhat of the canary in the coal mine, so to speak. We are 
already seeing congestion in certain applications and certain 
kinds of network deployments on the existing spectrum that we 
have.
    We know from studies from the Wi-Fi Alliance that you 
yourself have said, have cited, that we need between half a gig 
and 1.6 gig more. So that is why the industry has united around 
the idea of trying to find a way to share the entire 6 
gigahertz band with the incumbents.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Schatz.
    Senator Schatz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all 
the testifiers. I appreciate Mayor that you had a rough flight. 
My flights are usually rough Sunday to Monday. So, you look 
good.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. TenHaken. Thank you. I do my best.
    Senator Schatz. Ms. Morris, if and when the C-band spectrum 
is reallocated by public auction, how do you recommend that the 
proceeds be used to benefit the American public as quickly as 
possible?
    Ms. Morris. We need to reinvest in closing the digital 
divide, and I think that your Act, as I mentioned in my opening 
statement, gets at the heart of what we need to do. We have to 
make sure that the proceeds from the reallocation of this 
public resource through a public auction go back to benefit 
people throughout the country.
    Senator Schatz. Yes, I just want to emphasize for the 
members still on the dais here, what an extraordinary 
opportunity we have. I have been on this Committee for a long 
time now and we are always puzzling through either how to 
incrementally increase the amount of money available for rural 
broadband or to slice ever more thinly the existing resources. 
But this is an opportunity to bring more resources to bear on 
rural broadband.
    There is not a single United States Senator, even those of 
us who come from places that you don't immediately think of as 
rural--we all have rural communities and we all care deeply 
about rural broadband. So this is a huge opportunity. Mr. 
Bergmann, I want to test what I believe is a little bit of 
sloganeering around the race to 5G, right. Because the way it 
is framed is as though if Korea or China reached some sort of 
milestone before us that it is almost not worth doing and I 
want to test that proposition because I think we should hurry.
    I think we should do everything we can, but I don't think 
we should be hasty, and I don't think we should ignore the 
digital divide question. So is this really a race in the sense 
of being binary or do we just need to move as fast as we can, 
given the fact that we have a democratic system and not a 
dictatorship where we can just command that we are going to do 
5G, free up 800 megahertz, and go for it? Mr. Bergmann, your 
thoughts here.
    Mr. Bergmann. Thank you, Senator. I think the lesson we 
learned from 4G is that there is a tremendous advantage to 
having this infrastructure out there quickly and having the 
innovation come to the U.S. That is the advantage that we had 
because we were first to lead and had the first 4G networks----
    Senator Schatz. But isn't it just one of the inputs? I mean 
when we think--you were talking about the spectrum as one of 
the inputs and it seems to me that the American economy, 
Silicon Valley, the innovation happening not just in the 
Valley, but in small towns and cities and rural areas across 
the country, that we have some pretty good structural 
advantages despite our disagreements about other stuff.
    And that I don't want to frame this as though we are 
forever behind if we don't immediately free up spectrum and do 
everything that the companies want us to do. As you know, I 
have been a longtime advocate for 5G, but I want to test this 
proposition that we should move forward without rigor and 
without supervision because look at all these interesting and 
exciting use cases. That is what I want to test.
    Mr. Bergmann. To be sure, those other elements, the ability 
of the U.S. technology industry to bring its might to bear in 
the 5G economy is absolutely critical. I think that having 
spectrum and having those 5G networks here is a critical 
component to that overall formula, because what we want to see 
is we want to see that next generation of innovation, whether 
it be AR, VR, robotics, artificial intelligence.
    We want to see those tech companies being able to develop 
first here in the U.S. and 5G networks are a critical part of 
that and making sure we have enough spectrum is a critical part 
of that.
    Senator Schatz. Sure. Now, let me ask you, to me the most 
exciting--some of the most exciting applications in truly rural 
areas, not Sioux Falls a sort of urban area or at least 
somewhat of a city or a town in a rural state, the most 
exciting use cases are telehealth, educational opportunities, 
farming, and the question I have for you is pretty blunt. Does 
5G pencil out at this point in places that are truly rural?
    Mr. Bergmann. This Committee has appropriately recognized 
two goals, making sure we are the world's leader in wireless, 
and also making sure that our wireless extends to all parts of 
the country. And we should be able to do both those things.
    Senator Schatz. So I am going to take that as a no, not 
yet, and that it is our job to develop subsidies and incentives 
to make it work because my understanding of 5G is it depends on 
density. And you get density in a small town of 35,000 people 
but you don't have density where Tester lives, right. And that 
is the problem.
    So I don't want us to get too fantastical in our thinking, 
imagining that this is--especially with Commissioner Pai's 
decision yesterday or announcement or whatever it was to take 
something that is currently designated for rural broadband and 
just declare that is going to be 5G. Well listen, for the 
backhaul we are going to need some wires anyway, so you can't 
just pile on another new exciting thing on the same finite 
resources.
    Ms. Morris, I am going to take this one for the record. I 
am just going to ask the question but ask you to give me the 
answer in writing. What is network slicing and why should we be 
worried about it? Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Schatz. I am going to 
recognize the Ranking Member of the Committee, Senator 
Cantwell.

               STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON

    Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to 
the ranking member for holding this important hearing. Mr. 
Bergmann and other members of the panel today, I am still very 
concerned about the spectrum adjacent to 24 gigahertz. The FCC 
has approached the issue the worst possible way by just 
dismissing the science. And obviously at the World Radio 
Communication Conference, they adopted better protections.
    And so I want to know whether your companies, who have been 
defending the preferred approach by the FCC, will now respond 
to what the international community is doing, and how do you 
look at this issue now that they have spoken that there is 
legitimate scientific concern here for weather and weather 
forecasting information?
    Mr. Bergmann. Thank you, Senator. And we certainly 
appreciate your focus on weather issues. We believe it is 
possible to have both accurate weather forecasting and 5G, and 
we are certainly very supportive of the approach that was 
developed in advance of the World Radio Conference and also 
appreciate that additional protections were granted at the 
World Radio Conference. So we are looking forward to seeing----
    Senator Cantwell. So will you work toward that 
international standard?
    Mr. Bergmann. We are certainly supportive of that 
international standard that was developed as well too.
    Senator Cantwell. Mr. Adelstein or anybody else, do you 
want to comment on this? How important it is that NOAA and NASA 
have accurate forecasting abilities?
    Mr. Adelstein. I think it is critical that we protect those 
forecasting abilities, but I do, having served the FCC for a 
number of years, have enormous respect for the office of 
engineering and technology and the analysis that they did that 
determined that they could operate safely together without 
harming those operations. I think that they operate with the 
highest integrity. I think that the technical analysis that was 
done----
    Senator Cantwell. So what do you make of the international 
decision then, because they obviously say there is more that 
needs to be done?
    Mr. Adelstein. Well, I really defer to the FCC on this. I 
think that they are going to respond appropriately. I think 
that their engineers have really done a tremendous job over the 
years of allocating enormous amounts of spectrum having us lead 
the world without any real examples of harmful interference as 
a result of their efforts there. You know, when I was at the 
FCC, I think, to date, their top priority is avoiding harmful 
interference. This is something they believe in, it's in their 
bones. I think they are going to respond appropriately.
    Senator Cantwell. So you distrust the scientists at NOAA 
and NASA who disagree?
    Mr. Adelstein. If you look at the way that the FCC 
responded to some of that, there were issues with the way that 
the scientists at the Department of Commerce handled it. It 
wasn't--they are not experts in the way that some of the 
analysis was done. I think they had major flaws.
    Senator Cantwell. And back to the international people 
again, they are not experts?
    Mr. Adelstein. Well, there is, you know--I trust our FCC, I 
would put it that way.
    Senator Cantwell. OK. And I can tell you one thing. We are 
not going to shortchange weather information or NASA. They are 
too darn important, and they have to have forecasting. So 
anyway, we will continue to get to the bottom of this. Thank 
you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
    Senator Blackburn.

              STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE

    Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 
for this hearing today. As you all know, I had the opportunity 
while in the House to work with Senator Thune last year and 
pass what was the best telecom bill, the biggest one we have 
had since 2012. And of course he authored the MOBILE NOW, and 
then I had authored the FCC reauthorization.
    And in that we put the spectrum auction fix which will 
allow the FCC to deposit those payments directly with the 
treasury, and of course that enabled the 24 gigahertz and the 
28 gigahertz auctions, which brought us about $2.7 billion in 
proceeds. We know we need all the spectrum that we can get, and 
we look forward to continuing to work through the process and 
recoup as much spectrum as we possibly can, and then move 
forward with these mid-band auctions that will help enable the 
expansion of 5G technology.
    Mr. Bergmann, I want to come to you. In addition to serving 
here, I am also on armed services where I have been popping 
back and forth this morning. We have talked some about our 
futures and some of the strategic threats that we are going to 
face. And of course, we have got our wireless technology that 
is going to be necessary and quite involved. I know that you 
are aware of some of the concerns that others and I have 
expressed about Section 214 that was reported out in the NDA.
    I would like to hear from you, if you could briefly, on the 
concerns of the wireless industry when it comes to section 214.
    Mr. Bergmann. Thank you so much, Senator, for your 
attention to this. We certainly are aware of DOD's interest in 
5G technology and we support and appreciate the DOD wants to 
take advantage of 5G and build it into its capabilities. Our 
members are actually very interested in serving DOD and helping 
them achieve their mission.
    We have had concerns however with the NDA and section 214 
which we regard as a departure from traditional spectrum 
policy. Section 214 has had a couple of different variations 
but anything that takes away this Committee's jurisdiction to 
set spectrum policy is concerning to us. Things that take away 
the FCC and NTIA's jurisdiction over spectrum is also 
concerning to us. We really appreciate your focus on that and 
certainly support removing section 214.
    Senator Blackburn. You know, just before the NDAA went out, 
DOD had asked for $52 million in Fiscal Year 2019 for a new 
start to accelerate their development of 5G technology, both 
military and civilian, and to develop the capability for some 
shared spectrum, and I am quoting from their request, ``in 
contested and congested areas.'' So we have got this unusual 
terminology and then we have this mix of military and civilian.
    I would like to hear from you the industry perspective of 
how you interpret that language of congested and contested. 
What would that mean to you all as you look at the spectrum 
utilization?
    Mr. Bergmann. Thank you, Senator. We know the DOD is very 
interested in spectrum sharing technologies. I think there is a 
lot of interest in focus around spectrum sharing technologies. 
For us the gold standard always will be exclusive use of 
spectrum that allows us to make sure we can deliver quality of 
service to consumers.
    But when you think about terms like contested and 
congested, they really get at the heart of what access to 
spectrum do you have, and do you have that certain you need to 
provide that quality of service to consumers. So we would 
certainly, I think, be concerned about things that suggest that 
DOD might have access to commercial bands. And you know, again, 
when you get to congested spectrum, that is exactly the issue, 
is can you deliver those services? It is really critical that 
we have that certainty so that we can deliver those services 
that consumers need in their times of emergency, right.
    So that is a really key consideration for us and something 
that we would be concerned about if DOD now controlled those 
decisions.
    Senator Blackburn. And I guess, your position and the 
position of everyone from industry would be you support the 
traditional position is that the NTIA and the FCC has a 
responsibility for spectrum management?
    Mr. Bergmann. Yes, Senator. We would agree that has been a 
very successful approach.
    Senator Blackburn. Everybody on the panel agree with that? 
Everybody? OK. Thank you. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Blackburn, and thank you 
for your leadership as a member of the House of Representatives 
on this in the last session of Congress and now here as a 
United States Senator as a very critical member of this 
Committee. So thank you. Next up, Senator Lee.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE, 
                     U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH

    Senator Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to 
each of you for being here. Spectrum as we know is a limited 
resource. There is only so much of it that exists around us in 
our known universe, and so as a result, we have to figure out 
ways to use it efficiently. Fortunately, we can find ways of 
doing that because as technology develops our capacity to 
utilize existing spectrum, it is also enhanced, but I think it 
is clear from our testimony that we have received today that 
mid band spectrum holds exceptional promise. That will be 
useful not only for the development of 5G networks but also for 
the development of technology generally moving forward.
    Now, Mr. Bergmann, I will start with you. Off the top of 
your head, can you tell us about how much mid band spectrum you 
estimate the Federal Government has control of or access to, 
you know, as compared to non-Federal uses, including both 
licensed and non-licensed use?
    Mr. Bergmann. Thank you, Senator, for your attention to mid 
band spectrum. It is absolutely critical to our 5G future. I 
will go a little bit off the top of my head with my estimate on 
Federal spectrum, but it is multiple gigahertz of spectrum and 
that sort of critical 3 to 7 gigahertz band.
    And one of our challenges is that we have a severe national 
deficit when it comes to mid band spectrum for the commercial 
license industry. We have zero megahertz in that range today. 
We are on track to have 70 megahertz with a 3.5 auction that 
will happen next year. That is shared spectrum and it is 
subject to very, very low power levels.
    That is part of the reason that we are so supportive of 
this Committee's focus on the 3.7 gigahertz band, the lower 3 
gigahertz band, and we would love to explore the opportunities 
for taking a balanced approach to the 6 gigahertz band and 
exploring some of that for license use as well too.
    Senator Lee. Well, that is a lot of spectrum. A lot that 
the Government has control over. It is interesting though 
Federal agencies have very little incentive to share spectrum 
or to make it available for commercial use or any other 
competing use than that over which they have jurisdiction to 
make it available and to thereby make sure that it is used 
efficiently.
    The only way that we have achieved the efficiencies that we 
have is through market competition and yet within the 
Government controlled spectrum, those things are absent. Do you 
think that the lack of market-based allocation means that we 
have greater spectrum inefficiencies within our Federal 
allocations, greater inefficiencies than we would otherwise 
have?
    Mr. Bergmann. Senator, I think you are exactly right. You 
put your finger on one of the biggest challenges, which is how 
to drive greater efficiencies in Government use of spectrum. In 
the commercial sector, we have competition driving efficiency. 
U.S. wireless carriers have increased their efficiency 42 times 
since 2010, and the key challenge is, how do you drive greater 
efficiency with Federal use? We know that when we do that, we 
can actually free up spectrum for commercial wireless use, and 
we can deploy more advanced systems for Federal Government 
missions as well, too.
    Senator Lee. Is there room for reform?
    Mr. Bergmann. We think there is.
    Senator Lee. Ms. Brown, how about you? Do you think there 
is room for reform in this area? And if so, what should we do?
    Ms. Brown. Absolutely. I think there is plenty of room for 
reform. Among other things, I sit on the Commerce Department 
Spectrum Management Advisory Committee and one of the issues we 
are wrestling with this year is just that problem. We have a 
system in the United States where we have FCC looking at 
commercial and trying to make that the most efficient use case, 
and then we have the Federal agencies coordinating with NTIA.
    And it has really set up a world of two fiefdoms that it is 
very difficult to penetrate. We are looking at the question of, 
is there a different governance model that the Committee could 
recommend to NTIA that in turn could be recommended out to the 
larger policy Committee? It is a critical question.
    Senator Lee. I know of one such solution and this is why I 
have introduced something called the Government Spectrum 
Valuation Act. The bill does not transition any Federal 
spectrum. It rather would require NTIA to estimate the value of 
the Federal spectrum allocations between 3 gigahertz and 95 
gigahertz.
    Providing for evaluation in this range and giving us access 
to this kind of crucial data I think would be helpful and be 
vital to give us in Congress as policymakers the ability to 
understand and make more informed decisions in this area. Ms. 
Brown, do you think this kind of data, this kind of information 
that would be produced through legislation like this would be 
helpful?
    Ms. Brown. Absolutely. I think that would be a great 
contribution to understanding how we are using spectrum today, 
to have that data. I think there is lots of data we don't have. 
We don't have data about how Federal systems are going to 
evolve over time, the kinds of technologies that that set of 
vendors is going to be developing in the future.
    We don't have any way to have a coherent conversation 
around, is the Federal spectrum being used efficiently? Do we 
have enough to serve the important missions of the Executive 
branch agencies while at the same time ensuring that we 
maximize the opportunity on the commercial side to have 5G and 
unlicensed technologies available to American consumers and 
businesses? I think your bill is an important piece. I think 
there is lots of other data we need as well.
    Senator Lee. Thank you. I look forward to learning more 
from you about the other kinds of data that would be helpful 
there. I appreciated your answers. Part of what this reminds us 
is look, a certain amount of spectrum is of course necessary 
for Government agencies. There is a valid use for it. 
Governments don't have access to the same data points as a 
market economy does.
    Market economy is kind of like its own nervous system. It 
sends its own signals. It gathers its own data. Governments are 
not that way. They never can be. We can't pretend otherwise, 
but we can gather some data points so as to give us at least 
the ability to make things more efficient. Thank you very much 
for your answers. I see my time has expired.
    The Chairman. It is a good discussion. I think a new model 
is in order. It is time to initiate some of these reforms, so 
we look forward to talking with the Senator from Utah about his 
bill. Next up is the Big Sky country, our neighbor from Montana 
where the population density isn't so high either, but they 
also like spectrum and high-speed broadband services out there. 
Senator Tester.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA

    Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to 
thank all of you for testifying. And I particularly want to 
thank the Chairman for his focus on rural America because quite 
frankly we are in need of some attention. And I am sure that 
many of the folks on this Committee, if not all of you, saw 
Chairman Pai's announcement yesterday on 5G in rural America, 
$9 billion to build 5G infrastructure in rural America. Sounds 
marvelous. However, I continue to be frustrated in this 
process.
    Folks in Montana, rural Montana and rural parts of this 
country waited years and years for the mobility fund phase 2 
money to get out the door and as you well know, never happened. 
In 2019, we waited for most of the year for the FCC to 
investigate issues around the mapping for the mobility fund. 
After a year, we learned what we already knew and that was that 
the maps were a joke.
    So another year has gone by with zero progress for wireless 
infrastructure in rural America, as many of you pointed out. A 
couple of you certainly directly pointed that we can't wait on 
this kind of stuff. And another year where Washington 
bureaucracy and gridlock here in this body is shortchanging 
rural America.
    So while I, and I believe everybody supports Chairman Pai's 
good intentions to spend $9 billion in rural America, I have 
got some serious concerns about their ability to execute 
because I just haven't seen it happen. And that is why I would 
say to you, and I know Chairman Wicker is not here, but we need 
an oversight hearing on it. And I believe that Chairman Pai is 
in front of the House as we speak.
    And I think it is important that we also get that 
bipartisan mapping bill out. I know this Committee has sent it 
out. It needs to out of the Senate and move on because rural 
America deserves better and the divide is growing. Let me give 
you a real life experience that happened to me a week ago 
yesterday. Some hay was to be delivered by a trucking company 
out of South Dakota. As a matter of fact called me up. We gave 
them two numbers. We gave them a cell number because while on 
the farm, cell doesn't work too good, and we give them the 
landline number because when I am of course off the farm, we 
need to have the cellphone.
    They called me up, said we want to load up the semi load of 
hay, great. Frozen night before, we had no snow, perfect. I am 
there on the farm. We can load it up. We didn't get the call. 
They called the cell number on the farm. Now, I don't know why, 
I don't know if it was the time of year. I don't know if it was 
because the moon was in the wrong spot. I don't know if it is 
because my pickup was parked in the wrong spot in the yard, but 
I don't get calls seldom when I am on the farm.
    We happen to be going to town to get some Thanksgiving 
goodies and picked up the message an hour and a half after they 
dropped it off. I called them up and of course they had a load 
from somewhere else and I lost that opportunity to market. That 
is the kind of disadvantage we are put into in rural America.
    So my question is you guys know that. I mean, you know, 
that I mean. You know things aren't exactly cherry in rural 
America when it comes to 5G. So there is a potential to get 
some money from this public auction. But what else do we need 
to do to make sure that this is a priority? I have heard all of 
you speak about it in some form or another and I agree with 
Jonathan Adelstein when he said infrastructure--without 
infrastructure, spectrum is just theoretical and that is a 
fact.
    If we don't do something with it, it isn?t going to happen. 
And all those advantages we get with it are history. So could 
you just very briefly tell me, if you were in my shoes, in one 
sentence, what would you do? Who wants to go first? Mayor? And 
if you say we have already done enough, go ahead. I wouldn't 
agree with that but go ahead.
    Mr. TenHaken. Well, your story rings true and you know, you 
are preaching to the choir, but I will give you my story. I 
tried to get a lift on the way over here and I couldn't get a 
connection from four blocks away because of the buildings and I 
ended up flagging down a guy who gave me a lift. I would have 
been late, and it is a similar story but on a very different 
situation. But I hear the stories like you are talking about 
with rural challenges all the time. I think that is why----
    Senator Tester. Because we don't have 4G, 3G, 2G. We have 
got no G.
    Mr. TenHaken. I think that is why I am kind of bullish on 
the fixed wireless solutions that C-band would allow because 
that will improve some of those rural wireless access issues.
    Senator Tester. But there has to be money involved because 
Schatz already pointed out, the cost flow doesn't happen yet. 
It may never happen. I mean we had an REA setup because the 
companies would not electrify rural America, so we set up a 
program to do that. Mr. Bergmann.
    Mr. Bergmann. So thank you, Senator, and I was encouraged 
to see earlier this week one of our member companies turned up 
their 5G network and it extends into Montana. So it will be 
excited to see that but to your point, I think there is no 
doubt that there is a need for support in the most challenging 
parts of the country.
    One of the things we love to talk to you all about is 
whether you could work to make a portion of the 6 gigahertz 
band available for licensed services and use a portion of those 
proceeds to fund the kind of rural dividend that you are 
talking about. We are certainly supportive of the efforts that 
the FCC announced yesterday and agree with you, we would like 
to see it move faster rather than slower.
    Senator Tester. Yes. Next, anybody else want to comment on 
that?
    Mr. Adelstein. Well, I spent a long time running the 
successor agency to the REA, the utility service and you know, 
I think you do need subsidies. I think the market breaks down 
when it comes to rural America and because of the interest in 
the broader economy of having rural America connected, we need 
to provide adequate resources to make up for that difference, 
but to do it efficiently.
    You know, the Broad Grant combination is a great example of 
what we did. In the New Yorker that just ran last night. I 
would to put that in the record, an article about what happened 
in Kentucky to a small town that was dying off but got a 
broadband grant loan from RUS and now the community is booming 
with all kinds of the jobs that Mayor TenHaken is talking 
about.
    So we do need that support. What the FCC is doing I think 
is great with the USF.
    Senator Tester. I just real quick and I know I'm overtime--
the point you just made about those rural communities, there 
are so many negatives that impact rural America right now. I 
think the positive one that is out there is broadband 
connectivity, high-speed Internet. And if you get that, that 
means you don't have to live in New York City. Not that New 
York City is a bad place, but I sure want to live in South 
Dakota or Montana before I would want to live in New York City. 
It gives you that ability to do business anywhere. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Here, here. And just to the Senator from 
Montana's point about the mapping, hopefully that bill that has 
been hotlined on the floor of the Senate and I hope that our 
colleagues will agree to let that go so we can at least get 
some decent maps out there that have some accuracy and 
validity. Next up is Senator Sinema.

               STATEMENT OF HON. KYRSTEN SINEMA, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA

    Senator Sinema. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 
all of our witnesses for being here today. Connectivity and 
broadband access are vital to Arizonans in urban, rural, and 
tribal areas. Broadband access provides opportunities for 
innovative solutions that address telehealth, education, and 
public safety issues in communities that lack access to these 
critical services. But while many Arizonans are looking forward 
to 5G networks, other Arizonans have been left on the wrong 
side of the digital divide.
    So I am looking forward to working with my colleagues in 
this Committee to improve access through smart policy and 
allocation of our resources, both spectrum and financial. My 
first question is for Mr. Bergmann. I have heard from Arizonans 
about wireless connectivity issues affecting cities and towns 
neighboring the U.S.-Mexico border. Arizonans near the border 
have had calls drop and experienced degraded service.
    And I understand the interference is related to a Mexican 
carrier operating the 700 megahertz spectrum band, which is the 
same band as U.S. carriers. This is more than just an 
inconvenience for Arizonans, it is a safety issue. So the 
harmful interference with U.S. networks creates a dangerous 
scenario where Arizonans can't access first responders, Federal 
and local law enforcement, and their hospitals.
    So has CTIA or its members looked into the issue of 
spectrum interference near the border? And how can Arizonans be 
sure that this interference will not continue?
    Mr. Bergmann. So thank you, Senator, for your attention to 
this issue. We appreciate it. We know that wireless consumers 
view their wireless services as a lifeline, exactly as you say. 
And we are familiar with this issue of Mexico recently turning 
up 700 megahertz service and its interference into Arizona. Our 
companies with 700 megahertz spectrum are working right now to 
try to resolve those questions with the State Department, and 
we certainly thank and appreciate the efforts of the State 
Department to work with their counterparts in Mexico.
    We would welcome the opportunity to come in and talk to you 
further about that and would welcome any support from you in 
trying to solve these issues quickly.
    Senator Sinema. Thank you. Well, we are here to help with 
that issue. My second question is for Mr. Adelstein. The 2.5 
gigahertz spectrum known as the educational broadband services 
is used to tackle the homework gap and digital divide by 
providing spectrum for broadband services.
    In Arizona, the Havasupai tribe uses EBS channels for 
wireless routers so their members can take online classes. The 
tribe was recently granted four new EBS channels that they 
intend to use for telemedicine. This past summer the FCC 
announced a tribal priority filing window for issuing new EBS 
licenses. This window allows tribes to apply for EBS licenses 
before the FCC auctions any remaining spectrum.
    So I encourage the FCC to create the tribal priority filing 
window and urge the FCC to make the window long enough for 
tribes to take advantage of the opportunity. Based on your 
previous work with tribal entities as FCC Commissioner and the 
Administrator of the USDA's rural utility service, what are 
your suggestions to ensure all tribal communities in the United 
States have the opportunity to build on EBS and other spectrum 
resources to help bridge the digital divide in Indian country?
    Mr. Adelstein. I have visited the Havasupai tribe actually 
in my time at RUS. I have been there, and they do have, you 
know, enormous challenges and they have I think tried to tackle 
them as you talked about. These efforts that they are 
undertaking to do, and I think these type of tribal set-asides 
and type of efforts that--you know, this Chairman and previous 
Chairmen have made a difference.
    The problem is that the tribe is of the hardest to serve 
and yet they need it the most. They are remote. Some of them 
like ours in South Dakota also are some of the most 
economically deprived areas. And they can immediately get their 
crafts to markets having to go through a middleman if they can 
get to the Internet, and yet many of them are deprived of that. 
So I think we need to re-examine how universal service is 
distributed as well to ensure that the tribes get what they 
need. There is no part of the country, I think, that needs 
attention more.
    Senator Sinema. Thank you. My final question is for Ms. 
Morris. In Arizona telehealth can provide veterans with 
healthcare that is accessible, flexible, and patient-centered, 
but veterans in underserved or unserved parts of Arizona face 
significant challenges accessing telehealth services due to the 
lack of access to broadband at home. So one of the tools to 
help veterans access affordable telephone and broadband 
services is the lifeline program.
    Nationwide, it helps over 1 million veterans get connected. 
Last year you wrote about your concerns that the FCC's proposed 
changes to the lifeline program could remove up to 70 percent 
of participants from the program. Could you discuss the 
importance of the lifeline program to help veterans in rural 
areas access these telehealth services and the impact of the 
changes to the program?
    Ms. Morris. Thank you so much, Senator, for this important 
question. We have indeed focused extensively on numerous 
attempts to weaken the lifeline program and to cap the 
universal service fund more broadly, which we believe would pit 
the various programs against one another. And you are right 
that veterans make up a critical component of the lifeline 
recipients.
    Thirteen percent of current users are veterans and 30 
percent of veterans live in rural areas. So your question 
reflects a large segment of the population that desperately 
needs access to affordable and robust Internet service. What we 
have seen with the different attempts by the current FCC to 
weaken the lifeline program is a high degree of uncertainty in 
the program. So wireless resellers are unsure of whether or not 
they will be able to continue to provide a lifeline supported 
service, and there is a looming threat to cutoff, to limit the 
amount of money that is available to this already underutilized 
portion of the Universal Service Fund.
    We have urged the Commission to walk back its efforts to 
weaken the fund and ensure that all lifeline recipients, and 
particularly our most vulnerable including tribal recipients 
and veterans, have continued access to the program.
    Senator Sinema. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Rosen.

                STATEMENT OF HON. JACKY ROSEN, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA

    Senator Rosen. Thank you. I really appreciate this hearing 
and I appreciate your hard work and your testimony here today. 
I want to talk a little bit about the spectrum needs and 
critical infrastructure. You know, I have heard from utilities 
in Nevada who are concerned about the idea of opening up the 6 
gigahertz band to allow for unlicensed use. With over 1200 
megahertz of spectrum, this band is attractive for a future 5G 
and connected devices need but with thousands of networks used 
by public safety, telecommunications networks, electric, gas, 
water utilities, I believe this Committee needs to take a very 
close look at the potential impact interference that we have on 
the latency and reliability of those wireless networks.
    The FCC is proposing the use of a database to coordinate 
spectrum sharing in this band. So I am going to kind of bundle 
a question together, so you have plenty of time to answer. So 
how do we go about prioritizing public safety because, of 
course, we have to balance the increasing needs for more 
wireless, with the importance of protecting and preserving our 
critical infrastructure and safety services?
    And is the 6 gigahertz band suitable for additional Wi-Fi? 
And if so, what benefits does this band provide over others 
does that help us deploy new technologies, next gen 
technologies going forward. So please.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you for that question. Utilities, public 
safety, telecommunications, other incumbent users of that band 
need the priority. Their systems have to be able to work. And 
from the very start of the unlicensed industries' examination 
of the band, it has been our fundamental goal to ensure that 
whatever conditions are placed on our equipment as we enter the 
band, that the incumbent networks will continue to be able to 
operate just as they are today to fulfill their important 
missions and continue to grow in the future.
    Senator Rosen. So you are building--and I think it is 
really important to build in a buffer, may be a parallel 
processing capability if you will for hacking attacks in those 
things on our critical infrastructure. Will you be doing that?
    Ms. Brown. We are in extensive discussions with the FCC and 
we have also met with the incumbent licensees many, many times 
to talk to them about what the technical requirements on the 
equipment would be, both for equipment that is subject to the 
database, which is the higher power outdoor equipment, as well 
as lower power indoor equipment, all with the goal of ensuring 
that the incumbents will be able to continue in their current--
--
    Senator Rosen. Would you load a buffer zone for future 
technology and growth? Because if you sell the rest at 
commercial, once it is gone, it is gone and if new 
technologies, they will emerge, we know this, we understand 
this. If you don't build in buffer zone, if you will, once it 
is sold, it is sold.
    Ms. Brown. Yes. So unlicensed simply shares spectrum. 
Unlicensed has no rights to spectrum. So the priority lies----
    Senator Rosen. But if they enter in a contract, they sure 
do.
    Ms. Brown. No. No, we have no rights to spectrum. The 
unlicensed community and unlicensed devices simply have to use 
what is available. The licensed users in the band, which 
include the utilities and public safety and others, have 
complete rights to that spectrum. They can grow and evolve 
their networks as they see fit and we have to stay away from 
them and not cause harmful interference to them. And the docket 
at the FCC is about the search for the right technical 
conditions to enable that to happen.
    Senator Rosen. Thank you. Anyone else want to respond about 
protecting our critical infrastructure and balancing those 
needs with our commercial endeavors?
    Mr. Bergmann. Senator, I would say, we thank you for your 
attention to that issue. From a CTIA perspective, we look at 
the 6 gigahertz band and have a little bit of sort of both 
sides of interest. We are very interested in having additional 
access to spectrum for unlicensed services.
    We are large users of unlicensed services, and we are also 
incumbents in that band along with utilities and public safety 
as you say. So it is absolutely critical that we have 
interference protections for the services that are in that 
band. We would certainly agree with my colleague. We think it 
is important that you develop the right kinds of database 
protections. For us, that really means having what is known as 
an automated frequency coordinator, making sure that that 
applies to all devices, all unlicensed devices in that band, 
and then I would just share a perspective on license services.
    Even when you license services, one of the things that we 
are big believers in, is the concept of flexible use so that as 
you say as technologies continue to evolve, we can repurpose 
that spectrum for different uses so that you build in some 
flexibility with that. We think there are opportunities for 
both of that in that band, but absolutely would agree with you. 
You have to protect those incoming services.
    Senator Rosen. Perfect. Thank you so much.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Rosen. Senator Blumenthal.

             STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT

    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 
all for being here. Thanks for your good work on these issues. 
As we all know, there are currently only four, about to be 
reduced to three nationwide facilities based mobile carriers, 
AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint. Unfortunately the FCC and 
the Department of Justice has approved a very misguided, in my 
view, disastrous merger that would reduce even that limited 
competition.
    We could soon find ourselves with only three nationwide 
mobile carriers and a fourth nascent competitor through Dish. 
That is bad for consumers in my view. And in terms of the topic 
that brings us here today, as the FCC rushes to open more 
spectrum for commercial use, there is little attention being 
paid to promoting competition. In fact, the reduction of 
competition in my view raises very serious antitrust concerns.
    Before the merger, we are already facing very dangerous 
levels of market concentration and unacceptable consolidation 
of wireless spectrum. For example the merge of T-Mobile and 
Sprint could exceed the FCC spectrum screen in a majority of 
counties around the country. Right now it appears to me the 
consolidation of spectrum holdings would foreclose competition 
nationwide and in regional markets. The threat of undermining 
regional carrier certainly ought to give us pause.
    My question for the panel is, what guarantees do we have 
that the spectrum that we reallocate for commercial purposes 
will be used to promote competition rather than increased 
consolidation among the soon-to-be three carriers in the 
country?
    Ms. Morris. I can jump in, Senator. Thank you for the 
question, and like you, the Open Technology Institute was 
staunchly opposed to the merger between Sprint and T-Mobile and 
fought it vigorously and see it as a loss for consumers, both 
in terms of the quality and sort of service that they may 
receive and the price that they may have to pay for that 
service. I think that that concern is exacerbated when we take 
into account the role of spectrum in that context. So we think 
that your concern is not misguided, and we share it.
    Senator Blumenthal. Anyone else have a comment?
    Ms. Brown. I will speak on behalf of the unlicensed 
industry. I think if the concern is concentration in the mobile 
sector, I think that leads you directly to want to support a 
robust unlicensed ecosystem because there we not only have 
tremendous runaway success story in terms of market 
competition, but this is a U.S. led industry.
    All the major players are here in the U.S. and we lead the 
world globally on unlicensed spectrum. And this gives consumers 
an opportunity to have unlicensed sitting at the end of their 
broadband connection and using that capacity to do all the 
things they love to do on the Internet. So just that thought.
    Senator Blumenthal. I think that is a good point. Thank 
you.
    Mr. Bergmann. And Senator, I would just say that one of the 
things that we think is really important is making sure that 
there is enough spectrum for a wide variety of different 
competitors. So as we look ahead to 5G, we think a lot about 
making sure that there are very large chunks of spectrum 
available. So as you all think about trying to tackle that mid-
band deficit where we have zero megahertz of 3 to 7 gigahertz 
spectrum, let's try to think about hundreds of megahertz of 
spectrum.
    Senator Blumenthal. And I guess my point is, what do we do 
to make sure that the spectrum is allocated in a way that 
promotes competition or their bands of wireless spectrum that 
are particularly important to focus on if we want to promote 
more competition? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. Next up is 
Senator Cruz.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS

    Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. 
Welcome. Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Bergmann, let me 
start with you. You mentioned in your written testimony that 
sound spectrum policy encourages Federal use of more modern and 
spectrally efficient communication systems. What happens to 
Federal use communication system and the spectral efficiency of 
those systems when bad or not forward-looking spectrum policy 
is dominant?
    Mr. Bergmann. So thank you, Senator, for your attention to 
that issue and the importance of making sure that we got the 
right policies in place. I think what we want to try to do is 
make sure there are incentives for Federal Government agencies 
to use their spectrum efficiently and that is essentially a 
win-win, right. It allows us to free up spectrum for commercial 
use and allows us to modernize those Government systems. If you 
don't have that, what you miss out on are more modernized DOD 
and other Federal systems, and you miss out on the 
opportunities for innovation that we hope to have here.
    We were talking a little bit about competition. And if you 
want to have competition, you need to make sure you have enough 
spectrum. And for us really right now is about getting mid band 
spectrum to market. And what is at stake here are jobs and 
economic growth and having a platform for innovation.
    Senator Cruz. What is the best way to maximize the 
incentive for Government holders of spectrum to redeploy that 
spectrum to the most efficient and most productive uses?
    Mr. Bergmann. Oversight by this Committee is where it 
starts. We talked a little bit earlier about the Government 
Spectrum Valuation Act to try to make sure that we are taking 
into account what Government actually uses today. This 
Committees focuses on the lower 3 gigahertz band. It is 
absolutely critical. That is allocated for Federal Government 
use today. MOBILE NOW required NTIA to take a look at that and 
this Committee's focus on bands like the lower 3 gigahertz 
band. It is really important.
    Senator Cruz. Focusing on a different topic, I was also 
glad to see you mentioned section 214 in the Senate passed 
National Defense Authorization Act in your written testimony.
    As you know, I filed an amendment to strike this section 
completely from the NDAA when the bill was on the floor and I 
have been vocal about why it is bad policy and sets bad 
precedence. The Department of Defense already holds enormous 
amounts of prime spectrum, and if anything needs to release 
more of that spectrum for private commercial use not force 
commercial entities to share their privately licensed spectrum 
with DOD.
    In your judgment, Mr. Bergmann, what specifically should 
Congress do with Section 214 and more broadly when it comes to 
the management of federally allocated spectrum?
    Mr. Bergmann. Thank you, Senator. I think you have got it 
exactly right. We need to be looking to create incentives for 
Federal Government users, not focusing on giving them control 
over commercial spectrum. We would support your efforts to 
remove section 214.
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Adelstein, last year the FCC released an 
order to streamline the regulatory obstacles facing the 
deployment of small cell infrastructure, technology necessary 
for the implementation of 5G networks. In your judgment, what 
steps do we need to take to ensure that small cells are 
deployed in an effective and timely manner, so the United 
States maintains a competitive advantage over other countries 
in the development of our telecommunications infrastructure?
    Mr. Adelstein. The FCC got it just right in those orders. 
As a matter of fact, Mayor TenHaken here had talked about a 
deal that he had made with Verizon. He is now the first small 
midsize community that has 5G in the country because he was 
proactive. And if every community did what he did, we wouldn't 
need the FCC to take these actions. We wouldn't need this 
Committee to do what it is doing to try to streamline 
infrastructure.
    But unfortunately, many communities aren't doing that. So 
the FCC set, I think appropriate guidelines to streamline the 
process for small cell deployment and they need to continue to 
build on that. We filed some petitions along with CTIA before 
the FCC to ask them to streamline the ability to attach to 
existing facilities, be it a tower or a small cell, without 
having to go through a whole new zoning process.
    It is only some communities that are holding us up and 
there is a handful that have abused the process that we have 
identified to the FCC, the issues that they are raising, Sioux 
Falls wouldn't dream of doing these kind of things. They are 
doing exactly the right thing. But yet there is a handful that 
don't follow the model. So let's take the model of those 
communities that are inviting infrastructure investment and 
have the FCC set the bar by approving this petition basically 
saying that you know, they have to comply with section 649 
which this Committee got enacted into law back in 2012 in order 
to allow the attachment to existing facilities.
    I mean, why are they holding up, you know wireless 
facilities when there is already something that has been zoned 
wireless? This is the kind of issue we are trying to deal with.
    Senator Cruz. Right. Let's shift a one final topic. In 
January, the FCC concluded its first 5G spectrum auction for 
the 28 gigahertz spectrum and map the auction closed with bids 
totaling over $700 million, a number many criticized for being 
lower than expected. In May, the FCC closed its second 
millimeter-wave auction, pulling in over $2 billion in 
proceeds. In 5 days, the FCC will begin its third auction. All 
of these auctions involve bids in high band spectrum.
    5G will supercharge existing services such as telehealth 
and precision agriculture, while also enabling services such as 
autonomous vehicles and virtual reality. Mr. Adelstein, in your 
judgment, how can we improve our current broadband mapping 
techniques to close the digital divide so that all Americans 
can benefit from 5G and from the advancement of the Internet of 
Things?
    Mr. Adelstein. Great question. First, I would like to say 
in terms of those auctions that they wouldn't be possible 
without the work of this Committee. The MOBILE NOW Act which we 
are talking about today enabled all those auctions because 
without the treasury provision, we wouldn't be able to move 
forward. So thank you for that. All those receipts to the 
treasury, all that new spectrum is because of MOBILE NOW.
    In terms of mapping, I think we do have a long way to go. 
There is amazing technology the private sector has developed to 
map. Some of our members can map it down to the building, to 
the floor. You know, where we have come in terms of technology 
where the maps are, I think there is a lot of room for 
improvement if we could draw on some of the private sector data 
bases that are out there.
    The question is, you know, is the Government willing to pay 
for them. If you put it out in a public space where people have 
basically spent a lot to develop this technology. There are 
negotiations undergoing right now with the Government to try to 
figure out how to use the technologies available because we 
have the maps out there, they are just that the Government 
hasn't yet been able to put them into action.
    Senator Cruz. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cruz. And just one follow-
up on that quickly, Mr. Adelstein, because we talked about and 
you have testified before this Committee previously too and 
highlighted many of the obstacles to deploying infrastructure 
on Federal property. But can we talk a little bit about some of 
the ways that MOBILE NOW help address these concerns and maybe 
what Congress could consider in terms of expanding some of 
these provisions that were included in MOBILE NOW to non-
Federal property?
    Mr. Adelstein. Even on Federal property there is more to be 
done. As I said, you need to put a deemed granted in there. I 
think you know in terms of non-Federal, the FCC is taking the 
right steps. I mean, there's right now a major court case going 
on in the Ninth Circuit and we got to see what happens there 
because that could undermine the good work that the Committee 
has done, as Senator Cruz pointed out.
    But based on the statutory authority they have done a very 
good job of dealing with you know, threading that needle making 
sure that localities have appropriate authority to deal with 
the issues they need to deal with while streamlining, 
particularly in the rights of way. I mean this is designed for 
public uses, designed for the benefit of the community, and the 
FCC said put in the rights of way almost you know, without 
having all these obstacles thrown in front of us. If that gets 
thrown out in the Ninth Circuit, it will be a very interesting 
problem, I think, that we will all face, and we will be back in 
front of you on that.
    The Chairman. So, and just as you mentioned this and Mayor, 
you mentioned this too in your testimony, most emphasized I 
think the need for a sort of a 5G workforce. It is called a 
program, but certainly an approach to how we deal with having a 
strong 5G workforce in place to help deploy these next 
generation networks, and I am wondering maybe if you could just 
elaborate on what steps you think are necessary to ensure that 
the United States has that sort of a trained work force.
    Mr. TenHaken. Yes, thank you for the question, Chairman 
Thune. What we have seen in Sioux Falls per my testimony was 
the fact that we are seeing tech schools, tech programs need to 
innovate and meet the demand for specifically for tower 
installers and tower techs because with the hundreds of 
thousands of small cells that are going to need to be deployed 
in the years ahead, we are short on workforce to complete that 
work. So having the spectrum is one thing, having the people to 
do the work to make sure the spectrum gets properly deployed is 
obviously very important as well.
    So we have been helping champion a program at our local 
tech school, a certificate program really to get some of these 
kids out in the field as soon as we can to help with that 
deployment. So that would be something for this body to 
continue to champion at a local level is working with higher 
education institutions, tech school institutions on creative 
programming for tech installers and wireless small cell 
installers because the need is quite great right now. We are 
short in Sioux Falls. We are short in our state. We can use 
more. Like many workforces and many industries, could use more.
    The other piece that comes from this which I know is a 
whole separate discussion is we talk about smart cities and the 
Internet of Things and soil detection technologies and all 
these things in our cities that are connected the increasing 
importance for a strong cyber security program is growing and 
continues to grow.
    Some of these technologies are great but we have to make 
sure they are not threats to security for municipalities and 
for wherever the technology is being deployed. I see that as 
another real big workforce need that we kind of keep the pedal 
to the metal on in terms of recruiting and training, software 
engineers, intelligence experts, computer science grads who are 
ready to keep our technology safe as we deploy them through 5G.
    Mr. Adelstein. I think what the Mayor is doing with 
Southeast Tech is exactly the model we need. As a matter of 
fact, WIA is partnered with another trade association called 
the Power and Communications Contractors Association.
    They had a similar problem when they couldn't get enough 
utility techs. So they have a program actually Senator Blunt is 
aware of in Missouri where they have done what was done in 
Sioux Falls. They said we are going to start a program at our 
local community college State Tech and through utility tech, 
and now we have partnered with them to put wireless on top of 
it because you are building fiber and will learn how to put the 
antenna at the end of it. But there is a lot of complexities 
when it comes to 5G.
    So the program like at Southeast Tech needs to be 
recreated. You know, State Tech in Missouri, we have got four 
other technical colleges across the country that we have gone 
to the Department of Labor and asked them for their support to 
try to build apprenticeship programs by building these 
programs, these colleges that start in high school. We need to 
get the kids out of high school to do this.
    You know, there is an interesting article in today's Wall 
Street Journal about the shortage of furniture workers. I don't 
know if you happen to see that, but they are having the same 
problem in North Carolina. Thank goodness, we are building 
furniture here in United States again, but they can't find 
enough people to do it. What is different about 5G and why 
should the Government support us? Well, there is great 
differential. We are sitting on these couple chairs now 
hopefully made here in the U.S., but what about 5G?
    If we don't get that bill, we are not going to have the 
next Uber, we are not going to the next Netflix. We are not 
going to dominate, you know, the world in terms of our exports 
of intellectual property that we have done all these businesses 
that are grown out of 4G that we needed at 5G. So these workers 
that are short of an artistry, I would argue, are little bit 
different than just furniture workers.
    There needs to be a special Government effort to make sure 
that we are ready for 5G because I worry what the Chinese could 
do. They have got 1.3 billion people and they can just on a 
dime change their educational system and say we need tower 
techs, we need small cell techs, and they can make it happen.
    And we are slogging away at trying to get it done at 
leadership like what you are doing in Sioux Falls is critical, 
like what they are doing in Missouri, but we need just a little 
bit of Government help to get over the top and get it done.
    The Chairman. Senator Schatz, anything? OK. Well, I 
appreciate that answer and I think that it is critical, and it 
really just bears on the education issue which of course is a 
partnership. We need local and State and Federal focus on this. 
We also have in South Dakota, University of Madison called 
Dakota State University, which has a specialty in cyber and 
they are doing a lot of training cyber professionals who are 
then going out and working in important Government agencies, 
but also in the private sector as well.
    And I think we need more of a focus on the skill sets 
because you are right. These kids come out. They have got the 
aptitude. I mean, they grow up with technology. It is just a 
matter of putting a focus on, there are great career fields 
here, but we have got to get you the specific training that you 
need to take that natural aptitude and skill set and put it to 
work in a way that addresses what are very critical needs if we 
are going to continue to lead the world.
    So we appreciate all the testimony and your responses. 
Thank you and we will keep the hearing record open for a couple 
of weeks. If members of this Committee have questions that they 
want to submit for the record, we will have them do that. And 
then if you all could get the responses back to us as quickly 
as possible, that would be great, and we will make that all a 
part of the permanent hearing record.
    But this is subject that we will continue to discuss and 
hopefully be an area of great focus for the Congress, for 
policymakers at all levels, because if you look at what 
happened with 4G and the fact that we had so much success in 
leading the world there, the economic dividends are going to be 
multiples of that, I think, for 5G.
    And we cannot afford to lose out. So I know the Senator 
from Hawaii and I are very focused on these issues and we are 
going to try and keep this Committee and the entire Congress 
ahead in that direction as well. So thank you all for being 
here. This hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                            A P P E N D I X

                                        Privacy for America
                                                   December 3, 2019

Hon. Roger Wicker,
Chairman,
Senate Commerce Committee,
Washington, DC.

Hon. Maria Cantwell,
Ranking Member,
Senate Commerce Committee,
Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member Cantwell:

    Privacy for America \1\ applauds your leadership for holding this 
week's hearing and your ongoing interest in protecting consumer data 
privacy. We share your interest and want to bring to your attention 
that, today, Privacy for America released a comprehensive new framework 
for nationwide privacy legislation that would fundamentally change the 
way consumer privacy and security are protected in this country. We 
hope the framework, which expands and builds upon principles released 
in April, will advance policy discussions and help build the consensus 
necessary to enact bipartisan data privacy legislation this Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Privacy for America is a coalition representing industry, 
including the advertising industry, with members from virtually every 
sector of the economy. The steering committee includes leaders from the 
4A's (American Association of Advertising Agencies), ANA (Association 
of National Advertisers), Digital Advertising Alliance (DAA), IAB 
(Interactive Advertising Bureau), and NAI (Network Advertising 
Initiative).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The framework represents a new approach to data privacy that would 
not rely on the current 'notice and choice' model, which presents 
consumers with endless and complex privacy notices that they are 
essentially forced to accept if they want to participate in today's 
economy. Instead, this new approach clearly defines and would make 
illegal data practices that would harm consumers or otherwise make 
personal data vulnerable to breach or misuse, while preserving the 
benefits that come from the responsible use of data and ensuring the 
economy can grow and innovate. This new paradigm shifts the burden away 
from consumers and toward a common set of privacy norms, backed by 
strong enforcement to ensure accountability by the businesses and 
organizations that use data every day.
    This framework offers a detailed new approach with robust 
protections for consumers and clear penalties for companies that do not 
comply. In addition to enumerating prohibited data uses, Privacy for 
America's new paradigm includes several additional provisions that 
together constitute a comprehensive privacy framework. Among the 
framework's provisions are:

   Prohibitions against using consumer data to determine 
        eligibility for a job, health care, financial aid, insurance, 
        credit or housing outside of existing laws governing 
        eligibility for these important benefits;

   Prohibitions against discrimination by using consumer data 
        to set higher prices based on an individual's race, color, 
        religion, sexual orientation, and more;

   Prohibitions against using sensitive information like 
        health, financial, biometric, and geolocation data without 
        first obtaining users' express consent;

   Provisions protecting so-called ``tweens'': a vulnerable 
        group of consumers over age 12 and under age 16 that is 
        actively engaged online but not often subject to constant 
        parental oversight;

   A requirement that companies make privacy policies much 
        easier to read and understand;

   Provisions that give consumers the right to request access 
        to and deletion of the personal information that a company 
        holds about them, as well as the right to port certain data 
        from one platform to another;

   Individuals can choose to limit companies' use of personal 
        information to draw detailed inferences or make predictions 
        about them, with certain exceptions; and

   Significant new rulemaking authority, resources, and staff 
        that will allow the Federal Trade Commission to more 
        aggressively pursue and punish bad actors, bolstered by 
        enforcement by state attorneys general.

    Again, Privacy for America applauds your leadership, and we look 
forward to continuing our work with you and other leaders in Congress 
to see comprehensive Federal data privacy legislation enacted.
            Sincerely,
                                           Stuart P. Ingis,
                                                           Counsel,
                                                   Privacy for America.
cc: All Members of the Senate Commerce Committee
                                 ______
                                 
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                 
                                 
                                 ______
                                 
                           Aerospace Industries Association
                                                   December 5, 2019

Senator Roger Wicker,
Chairman,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.

Senator John Thune,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, Innovation, and the 
Internet,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.

Senator Maria Cantwell,
Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Washington, DC.

Senator Brian Schatz,
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, Innovation, and the 
Internet,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, Chairman Thune, and 
Ranking Member Schatz:

    The Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) is pleased to file this 
letter for the record in response to the Senate Committee on Science, 
Space and Technology's Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, 
Innovation, and the Internet hearing titled, ``The Evolution of Next-
Generation Technologies: Implementing MOBILE NOW.'' We thank the 
Subcommittee for holding this important hearing and its leadership on 
spectrum issues.
    AIA is the voice of the American aerospace and defense industry 
representing nearly 340 leading aerospace and defense manufacturers and 
suppliers, supporting over 2.5 million U.S. jobs and over $151 billion 
in annual exports. As stated in our regulatory comments and ex-parte 
filings to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), \1\ the 
aerospace and defense industry has a keen interest in today's hearing 
due to satellite interests as well as potential negative impacts on the 
adjacent 4.2-4.4 GHz spectrum band, which is allocated globally and 
exclusively for aeronautical radionavigation.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See, AIA and GAMA Comments to FCC: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/
file/1029597421299/FINAL%20AIA%20GAMA%20Comments-GN%20Docket%20No%2018-
122.pdf
    \2\ See, https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/2003-
allochrt.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Both radio altimeters and wireless avionics intra-communication 
(WAIC) systems operate exclusively in the 4.2-4.4 GHz spectrum band, 
directly adjacent to the 3.7-4.2 GHz spectrum band C-Band) under 
discussion today and are critical pieces of aviation safety equipment. 
Given that 4.2-4.4 GHz adjacency band aviation safety issues persist, 
the aerospace and defense industry encourage Congress and the FCC to 
ensure that there are no adverse impacts to the safe operations of 
commercial and military aircraft and their passengers as they 
investigate repurposing the C-Band.
    As you are aware, Section 5(b) of the MOBILE NOW Act asks relevant 
agencies to evaluate ``the feasibility of allowing commercial wireless 
services, licensed or unlicensed, to share use of the frequencies 
between 3700 megahertz [3.7 GHz] and 4200 megahertz [4.2 GHz].'' \3\ To 
that end, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai recently sent a letter to Chairman 
Wicker announcing his intent to reallocate 280 MHz of spectrum in the 
C-band band.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ See, https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/
19/text
    \4\ See, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-360855A8.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A preliminary report released on October 22, 2019 by the Aerospace 
Vehicle Systems Institute, titled ``Behavior of Radio Altimeters 
Subject to Out-Of-Band Interference,'' provides data showing that 
interference issues begin effecting the 4.2-4.4 GHz band starting as 
near as 3.95 GHz for commercial aircraft and at 3.75 GHz for 
helicopters. The report's testing data highlights the extreme safety 
issues stemming from out of band emissions into the 4.2-4.4 GHz 
spectrum band, highlighting the need for a proper guard band to prevent 
harmful interference with these pieces of equipment.
    The radio altimeter is an essential piece of aviation safety 
equipment and is critical to the safe operation of flight for many 
thousands of aircraft and the 900 million passengers that fly in the 
United States each year. It supports precision approach, landing, 
ground proximity, and collision avoidance systems.\5\ Every commercial 
aircraft and helicopter in use today, as well as a large percentage of 
general aviation aircraft, are equipped with radio altimeters that 
operate continually during flight, and larger aircraft utilize multiple 
radio altimeters.\6\ The FAA requires that commercial aircraft are 
certified at Safety Criticality Rating of Level A which means that a 
radio altimeter failure ``. . . could contribute to a catastrophic 
failure of the aircraft flight control systems.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ See Operational and technical characteristics and protection 
criteria of radio altimeters utilizing the band 4 200-4 400 MHz, 
Recommendation ITU-R M.2059-0, at 1, 3 & 5 (2014).
    \6\ ibid
    \7\ See https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7021340930.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Though other pieces of navigational equipment, like the Global 
Positioning System (``GPS''), may be able to provide a certain level of 
assistance to a pilot in understanding the aircraft's altitude and 
surroundings, the radio altimeter is the only piece of equipment that 
can provide the necessary accuracy and reliability for altitude 
readings and terrain avoidance to the pilot for operations at low 
altitudes above terrain, including landings. In order to perform their 
critical safety function, radio altimeters require access to the entire 
4.2-4.4 GHz band, as the accuracy of the resulting altitude data is 
directly linked to the total available bandwidth of the radio 
altimeter's signal.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ ibid
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Furthermore, the 2015 World Radiocommunications Conference (WRC-15) 
allocated the 4.2-4.4 GHz band on a global co-primary basis to the 
aeronautical mobile (route) service exclusively for WAIC systems.\9\ 
WAIC equipment is being deployed on newer aircrafts to increase the 
safety and efficiency of their operations by replacing portions of 
aircraft wiring by using onboard short-range wireless systems.\10\ One 
notable advantage identified in support of allocating the 4.2-4.4 GHz 
band for WAIC systems was that this spectrum is already allocated for 
aeronautical safety services and the spectrum has no adjacency 
issues.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ See ITU Radio Regulations No. 5.436 (indicating that use of the 
frequency band 4 200-4 400 MHz by stations in the aeronautical mobile 
(R) service is reserved exclusively for wireless avionics intra-
communication systems that operate in accordance with recognized 
international aeronautical standards).
    \10\ See, e.g., Presentation of the Aerospace Vehicle Systems 
Institute for Working Parties 5A, 5B, 5C, ``Agenda Item 17 Wireless 
Avionics Intra-Communication'' (May 23, 2012) (available at https://
www.itu.int/ITU-R/studygroups/docs/workshop-wp5abc-wrc15/WP5ABC-WRC15-
P2-5.pdf).
    \11\ WAIC systems will not interfere with radio telemetry 
operations in the same spectrum because the significant attenuation of 
aircraft ``skin'' protects radio altimeters from the relatively low 
power WAIC transmissions inside the aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    AIA and our members recognize that there are many factors and 
actors involved in today's hearing. We thank the Committee for 
recognizing our concerns and highlighting the importance of the 3.7-4.2 
GHz spectrum band. We look forward to continued discussions and 
hearings as you look to balance the finite nature of spectrum with the 
depth and breadth of Federal and non-federal spectrum user needs.
            Sincerely,
                                               Tim McClees,
                             Vice President of Legislative Affairs,
                                      Aerospace Industries Association.
                                 ______
                                 
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Shelley Moore Capito to 

                             Scott Bergmann
    Question 1. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai just announced yesterday that he 
intends to establish a 5G Fund to support deployment of 5G mobile 
wireless services in rural America. I commend the Chairman for his work 
towards closing the digital divide and this announcement is a major 
investment in rural America. I believe investments like these are 
imperative to ensure that those who may not even have access to 3G or 
4G--or any Gs for that matter--are not left behind as we transition 
into a 5G economy.
    As Congress continues to debate how best to free up additional 
spectrum for 5G use, how can we ensure rural broadband deployment 
remains a priority?
    ``Mid-band'' spectrum is particularly important component for 5G 
deployment because it fills in the gap between the existing ``low 
bands'' that provides broad coverage and the new ``high bands'' that 
provide high capacity. Could you expand on the importance of this 
portion of spectrum and what benefits it can provide for rural America?
    Answer. We share your interest and support for rural wireless 
broadband deployment--and for delivering 5G to rural America. 5G 
capabilities will have profound impact on American lives, for example, 
through the delivery of telehealth to rural Americans, and for the U.S. 
economy and jobs.
    Mid-band spectrum is particularly valuable for 5G--and for 5G in 
rural America--as its capabilities enable both coverage and capacity. 
The deployment of new mid-band spectrum will enable fiber-like speeds, 
driving transformational improvements in health care, education, 
transportation, and nearly every other industry. The FCC has scheduled 
an auction of the C-Band (3.7-3.98 GHz) for December of this year which 
is a strong move in the right direction, but even with this additional 
280 MHz, the U.S. must maintain its focus on expanding mid-band 
spectrum availability to extend 5G benefits across the Nation. Another 
mid-band auction, in the 3.5 GHz band, will commence in July, and while 
it too will promote innovation and investment in the U.S. wireless 
ecosystem, certain technical restrictions imposed in that band make it 
less suitable for 5G or for rural deployment.
    Unfortunately, according to a 2020 Analysys Mason report, on 
average, benchmark countries, including China, Japan, and the United 
Kingdom, are expected to make 382 megahertz of licensed mid-band 
spectrum available by the end of 2020, while the United States is 
expected to make 70 megahertz of licensed mid-band spectrum in that 
same timeline. Even factoring in the two planned U.S. mid-band 
auctions, the leading benchmark countries will make available an 
average of 660 megahertz of mid-band spectrum by 2022, with the U.S. 
making available only 350 megahertz.
    We thank you for your leadership on 5G issues and we welcome 
further Congressional efforts to identify additional mid-band spectrum 
for 5G.

    Question 2. I joined my colleague Senator Risch on a letter to 
Chairman Pai concerning the FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 
allowing unlicensed operations in the 6 GHz spectrum band. This band is 
used by all kinds of electric, water, and natural gas utilities. Along 
with public safety entities, broadcasters, and broadband providers. I 
believe that any rules the FCC adopts must ensure the protection and 
continued reliability of critical infrastructure industries and other 
incumbents in the band.
    In your testimonies, you both speak to the importance of protecting 
incumbents in this band, what should the FCC consider in order to not 
impair the operations of these incumbents?
    What is needed to protect these critical industries from any 
harmful interference?
    Answer. Throughout the FCC's 6 GHz proceeding, CTIA has supported 
the introduction of unlicensed services in the 6 GHz band, provided 
that the FCC adopt a robust interference protection regime to protect 
incumbent licensees, such as the critical infrastructure industries, 
public safety, and wireless providers operating in the band.
    Specifically, CTIA supported the adoption of an Automated Frequency 
Coordination (``AFC'') system for all unlicensed operations in the 
band, a database-driven solution that would identify non-interfering 
frequencies where unlicensed devices seek to operate in the vicinity of 
incumbent licensees in the band.
    On April 23, 2020, the FCC adopted a Report and Order in the 6 GHz 
proceeding and applied the AFC to outdoor unlicensed devices but 
allowed unlicensed devices intended for indoor use to operate without 
AFC oversight and without regard to proximity to incumbent licensees in 
the band. CTIA remains concerned about this approach and believes it is 
incumbent on the FCC to take swift action to cease interference and 
modify its framework should evidence of interference to existing 
services materialize.
    Given the significant size of the 6 GHz band--1200 megahertz of 
mid-band spectrum--and the need for additional mid-band spectrum to 
support U.S. 5G deployments, CTIA also urged the FCC to take a balanced 
approach to the band by providing access for both unlicensed and 
licensed mobile services. With the FCC's decision to make the entire 
band available for unlicensed use, it will be critical for policymakers 
to move forward decisively to free up additional mid-band resources for 
licensed mobile uses, like 5G. CTIA urges the Committee to examine 
opportunities to clear spectrum currently held by the Federal 
government, including the lower 3 GHz band, in order to address 
America's growing mid-band spectrum deficit.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to 
                             Scott Bergmann
    Question. Small and rural carriers face challenges in obtaining 
needed spectrum, which is mostly held by large wireless carriers. A 
provision based on my bill with Senator Fischer to require the Federal 
Communications Commission to explore ways to incentivize wireless 
carriers to lease unused spectrum to rural or smaller carriers was 
signed into law as part of the MOBILE NOW Act.
    As the need for spectrum grows, can you explain why it is important 
for small and rural carriers to have access to spectrum and why this is 
important for consumers in rural areas?
    Answer. CTIA appreciates that you and Senator Fischer introduced 
the Rural Spectrum Accessibility Act in February, 2015 and is pleased 
that its key provisions were included in Section 616 of MOBILE NOW. 
Section 616 recognizes the importance of ensuring that wireless service 
is available to consumers across the country, including in rural areas, 
and is available by nationwide, regional, and rural carriers alike. 
Wireless providers today continue to expand their coverage footprints, 
including in rural and remote areas. This not only improves the scope 
and speed of wireless service across the U.S., but also creates 
additional opportunities for those carriers to engage in secondary 
market transactions within their expanded footprints. Driven by 
marketplace forces, nationwide and regional carriers remain committed 
to partnering with small and rural providers, who oftentimes are well 
positioned to provide service in these hard-to-reach areas. Section 616 
of MOBILE NOW can further help facilitate access to spectrum for these 
small and rural carriers by encouraging a fresh look at reducing 
barriers to partitioning, disaggregation, and spectrum leasing 
processes and incentivizing secondary market transactions. As more 
providers have access to spectrum, consumers will benefit by having 
additional wireless choices.
                                 ______
                                 
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Shelley Moore Capito to 

                               Mary Brown
    Question 1. I joined my colleague Senator Risch on a letter to 
Chairman Pai concerning the FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 
allowing unlicensed operations in the 6 GHz spectrum band. This band is 
used by all kinds of electric, water, and natural gas utilities. Along 
with public safety entities, broadcasters, and broadband providers. I 
believe that any rules the FCC adopts must ensure the protection and 
continued reliability of critical infrastructure industries and other 
incumbents in the band.
    In your testimonies, you both speak to the importance of protecting 
incumbents in this band, what should the FCC consider in order to not 
impair the operations of these incumbents?
    What is needed to protect these critical industries from any 
harmful interference?
    Answer. In Cisco's view, the core question presented in this FCC 
docket is whether unlicensed devices can be allowed in the band without 
causing harmful interference to incumbent licensees, such as utilities, 
public safety, broadcasters, and broadband providers. It has been 
Cisco's position from the very beginning that if engineering analysis 
demonstrated that unlicensed use would produce harmful interference, 
then the band was not suitable for sharing.
    The engineering studies filed in this record (and these were 
introduced from a variety of parties) all evaluated the impact of 
unlicensed device transmission on incumbent links. Studies looked at 
what would happen if the Commission simply imported its existing 5 GHz 
technical rules and power levels into the 6 GHz band. Other studies 
looked at the impact on licensees if additional constraints on 
unlicensed technical operations were introduced. Also, various types of 
engineering analyses were conducted--such as computer simulation 
modeling and various forms of link analysis. Many ``geometries'' of 
unlicensed device deployment were considered--from use of Wi-Fi in high 
rise buildings in urban areas to Wi-Fi in rural settings.
    The Commission's role is to evaluate the body of engineering work 
and to determine if unlicensed could enter the band and under what 
conditions. As we now are aware, the Commission found that 
unconstrained unlicensed devices could not utilize the band--rules such 
as those available in the 2.4 GHz band or portions of the 5 GHz band 
could not simply be imported into 6 GHz without creating risk of 
harmful interference. The Commission found that if unlicensed devices 
were to enter the band, they would have to do so under a set of 
entirely new constraints.
    The first set of new constraints applies to the most typical 
unlicensed use case--use of unlicensed devices indoors, within a home 
or business. Most fundamentally, the Commission not only constrained 
power relative to its Notice proposal, but it changed the way it will 
measure power. Where in other bands, manufacturers are constrained by a 
simple maximum power rule, in 6 GHz the Commission found that the 
density of the radio signal in the air is a more conservative approach 
to protect incumbents, ensuring that the energy of radio signals cannot 
be concentrated.
    The Commission also imposed a series of rules to ensure indoor 
devices would remain indoors. Having a device indoors is important 
because radio signals lose strength when they travel through walls and 
windows. Chief among the indoor requirements is an integrated antenna 
rule, meaning that antennas are built with the devices and cannot be 
changed. This is important because indoor equipment antennas are 
specifically designed for indoor coverage, whereas outdoor antennas can 
be designed, for example, to shape a signal in a particular direction, 
which could be a problem if the signal were pointed at an incumbent 
receiver. Indoor equipment must also be plugged into a power source (no 
battery operation allowed), must not use weatherized enclosures, and 
must be labelled for indoor use only.
    Finally, the Commission found that the use of ``listen before 
talk'' protocols built into unlicensed devices would help ensure that 
mobile use of the band, such as by broadcasters, would not be subject 
to harmful interference. It required the presence of such protocols. 
This is important because when an unlicensed device hears that a 
channel is occupied by another transmission, the unlicensed device will 
defer until the channel becomes available.
    The choices that the Commission made in developing these 
constraints, and the values it chose based on the engineering record in 
front of it, evidence the Commission's careful consideration of 
conditions under which low power unlicensed devices could be deployed 
without causing harmful interference. Cisco agrees that these 
conditions will support continued use of the band by incumbents, both 
for existing links and future uses as well.
    The second set of constraints applies to unlicensed devices that 
will be used at standard power, including standard power outdoor use. 
In these cases, the unlicensed community requested, and the Commission 
agreed, to utilize a database approach to protecting licensees. 
Unlicensed devices are required to know where they are. The database 
(known as an Automated Frequency Control system or AFC) will be 
required to download incumbent license records each day. The AFC 
software will then communicate with the unlicensed devices to give 
those devices a list of channels that are useable in the device's 
location. The calculations will ensure that each link will be 
surrounded by a virtual protection zone defined by a level of radio 
energy that is the same level of protection that licensees use today to 
coordinate among themselves. In that way, the links will be protected 
from unlicensed standard power indoor and outdoor use. It is expected 
to take a year or two to make AFCs operational in the marketplace, with 
further input from interested stakeholders.
    The technical problems to be solved for AFC development are less 
complex than in the Citizens Band Radio Systems database context and 
are in some respects similar to the TV White Spaces database. It may be 
that AFCs can draw on technology and practices already developed for 
these other bands. As the Commission continues to move toward a more 
concentrated utilization of radio spectrum based on consumer demand and 
new radio technologies, it is important to craft policy choices that 
allow our country to utilize spectrum to the greatest extent possible, 
including sharing it when feasible. Databases have already been able to 
do that in other bands and Cisco is confident that they can do so here.
                                 ______
                                 
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Shelley Moore Capito to 
                           Jonathan Adelstein
    Question. The benefits of broadband access are numerous. My home 
state of West Virginia has been making significant strides to diversify 
our economy in order for us to stay competitive in the emerging 
technology economy. A apart of that diversification includes ensuring 
that we have the workforce needed to design, install, and monitor 
future 5G networks.
    In your testimony, you mention the need for the development of a 5G 
workforce in order to deploy and maintain the next generation of 
wireless networks. What is the current need for skilled labor in this 
area and what should Congress consider to help close the workforce 
shortage?
    Answer. The current need for skilled labor in this area is large 
and growing. 5G buildout is more complex and involved than previous 
wireless generations and, as such, will require new skills. 5G will 
involve greater competencies in engineering, real estate, zoning, fiber 
construction, and node constructions. And it will require a larger 
workforce with the skills in these areas to meet the demand. The U.S. 
does not currently have a large enough nor properly trained workforce 
with the skills to meet the demand for future broadband deployments.
    WIA has led efforts to expand wireless workforce training and 
development. WIA is the national sponsor of the Telecommunications 
Industry Registered Apprenticeship Program (TIRAP), a multi-employer, 
nationwide apprenticeship program credentialed by the Department of 
Labor to support wireless workforce development. TIRAP brought 
apprenticeships into the wireless industry for the first time. It is 
helping telecommunications workers create sustainable careers and 
supporting 5G infrastructure build-out and deployment needs.
    Congress and the Administration, especially the Department of 
Labor, have recognized this growing need. Congress can help the 
wireless infrastructure industry expand on public-private partnerships 
to develop the 5G workforce. Several bills have been introduced in 
Congress to create new grant programs or highlight the need for 5G 
workforce training and apprenticeships, including Sen. Thune's 
Telecommunications Skilled Workforce Act. In addition, as Congress 
discusses new spending on broadband deployment, it can look expand 
employers' and industry intermediaries' telecommunications workforce 
development programs. These funds could support employers' innovative 
efforts to develop the workforce, including apprenticeships, retraining 
workers dislocated by the coronavirus pandemic with the needed skills 
employers need to utilize the broadband deployment funding provided in 
any Federal infrastructure initiatives quickly and efficiently.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jon Tester to 
                           Jonathan Adelstein
    Question 1. What specific jobs are needed to build out our 5G 
infrastructure?
    Answer. The buildout for 5G buildout is different from previous 
wireless generations, as I noted in my testimony. 5G will involve 
competencies in engineering, real estate, zoning, fiber construction, 
and node constructions. It will require dozens of specific jobs, some 
of which are listed below:

    WLAN Engineer
    NFV Engineer
    RF/DAS Engineer
    Performance Engineer
    OSP (Out Side Plant) Engineer
    Auto CAD Tech
    DAS Tech
    Field Tech
    Switch Tech
    Equipment Engineer
    Antenna Installer
    Line Installer and Repairer
    Construction Manager
    Project Manager
    Real Estate Specialist/Manager
    Project Coordinator
    Program Manager
    Facility Manager
    IT Director
    IB (In Building) Installer
    IB (In Building) System Integrator
    IB Program Manager
    DAS Equipment Manufacturer
    Survey Equipment Manufacturer
    Commercial Real Estate Personnel
    Telecommunications Tower Technician
    Telecommunications Tower Antenna & Line Foreman
    Telecommunications Tower Construction Foreman
    Maintenance & Condition Assessment Forman
    Telecommunications Tower Antenna & Line Lead
    Telecommunications Tower Construction Lead
    Maintenance & Condition Assessment Lead
    Wireless Technician
    Utility Communications Technician
    Fiber Optic Technician
    Systems Engineer Cell Site
    Network Microwave Engineer
    Network Engineering Manager
    Network Field Engineer
    Small Cell Technician

    Question 2. 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?
    Answer. There is absolutely significant overlap in experience in 
transferring skill from military service to the wireless industry. 
Veterans not only in some cases have specific radio engineering skills, 
but in general work well in teams, are task and safety-oriented, and 
have leadership and management competency and other important skills. 
Three of TIRAP's pre-apprenticeship program providers specifically 
recruit veterans. We have heard very positive results from TIRAP 
employers who have hired veterans and we are always looking to expand 
veteran hiring practices.

    Question 3. Has there been any outreach by your organization to 
trade schools or community colleges in Montana about job training?
    Answer. While there are no direct conversations as of yet in 
Montana, we would welcome any interest. As TIRAP continues to grow, it 
will form additional partnerships with trade schools and community 
colleges across the country.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to 
                              Sarah Morris
    Question. A recent study found that the Federal government could 
save $126 billion by requiring states and Federal agencies to ``dig 
once''--or coordinate highway construction projects with broadband 
providers so that broadband infrastructure can be installed at the same 
time. A provision based on my bill with Senator Daines to encourage 
states to ``dig once'' was signed into law last year as part of the 
MOBILE NOW Act, and in May, I led a bipartisan letter asking the 
Department of Transportation about its progress in implementing ``dig 
once'' policies.
    Can you speak to the importance of reducing the costs of deployment 
in expanding broadband access in rural areas?
    Answer. ``Dig Once'' is a common-sense policy that should have been 
enacted long ago. OTI applauds the work of Sens. Klobuchar and Daines 
in finally getting this passed into law. OTI has supported dig once 
legislation for nearly a decade,\1\ and enacting dig once policies was 
a recommendation of the Broadband Opportunity Council in 2015.\2\ A 
2012 Goldman Sachs report suggested that building out high-speed 
broadband service to all Americans could cost more than $140 
billion.\3\ Much of this cost involves pushing fiber backhaul closer to 
the consumer. The costs of building out fiber and high-capacity 
wireless service to rural areas are much higher, of course, and 
broadband providers have largely ignored rural areas due to these high 
costs when it comes to advanced telecommunications services as the FCC 
defines it (25 Megabits per second download/3 Megabits per second 
upload speeds). This is reflected by a lack of deployment in rural and 
Tribal areas. The Federal Communications Commission's most recent 
Broadband Deployment Report found that more than 26 percent of 
Americans in rural areas and 32 percent of Americans in Tribal lands do 
not have access to high-speed broadband, while that figure is only 1.7 
percent for urban areas.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Chiehyu Li and James Losey, ``Price of the Pipe,'' New America 
(April 15, 2010), https://www.newamerica.org/oti/policy-papers/price-
of-the-pipe/.
    \2\ Broadband Opportunity Council, ``Report and Recommendations'' 
(Aug. 20, 2015), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/
files/broadband_opportunity_council_report_final
.pdf.
    \3\ Jay Yarow, ``How Much It Would Cost Google To Become A National 
Cable Company Like Comcast,'' Business Insider (Dec. 7, 2012), https://
www.businessinsider.com/how-much-it-would-cost-google-to-build-a-cable-
network-2012-12.
    \4\ 2019 Broadband Deployment Report, GN Docket No. 18-238 (Rel. 
May 29, 2019), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-19-44A1.pdf 
 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    And even those data are likely to overstate broadband deployment in 
less-densely populated areas, resulting in a potentially higher the 
percentage of Americans in rural and Tribal areas lacking access to 
broadband. The fact that Internet service providers (ISPs) are not 
deploying high-speed broadband to over a quarter of Americans in rural 
areas--and an even higher percentage of those in Tribal areas--reflects 
a major problem in how these companies view the costs of buildout in 
sparsely populated regions of the country.
    The first method of improving rural broadband deployment is to 
empower localities to build their own broadband networks in areas that 
have been ignored by ISPs, either on their own or in partnership with 
private entities. This approach allows states, cities, and localities 
to invest in the infrastructure necessary to bring their community 
high-speed services when incumbent ISPs have failed to deliver 
sufficient service to their area. Although this solution can work in 
cities of varying population densities, it can be particularly helpful 
for rural areas where ISPs have not recognized a business case for 
deployment. Residents may choose to fund their own city-run municipal 
network. This does not necessarily reduce the cost of building out 
high-speed broadband, but it allows communities to be in control of 
that cost rather than entrusting ISPs to take on the expenses when they 
seemingly have no will to do so. The cost of building out the network 
is as essential as any infrastructure project, and could be paid back 
in economic growth, as it did in Chattanooga, Tennessee.\5\ Where a 
municipality cannot invest in running their own network, which is the 
case for many municipalities restricted by state legislation, a 
community may turn to their local electric cooperative to provide 
broadband services. Many rural electric cooperatives have already 
invested in fiber optic infrastructure and can offer Internet service 
in addition to the electric and telephone services they already 
provide. According to the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 334 
communities nationwide are served by rural electric cooperatives.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ P.E. Moskowitz, ``Chattanooga Was a Typical Postindustrial 
City. Then It Began Offering Municipal Broadband.,'' The Nation (June 
3, 2016), https://www.thenation.com/article/chattanooga-was-a-typical-
post-industrial-city-then-it-began-offering-municipal-broadband/ (``EPB 
spent about $220 million developing its fiber-optic system, and that's 
translated into more than $865 million in economic growth for the city. 
The network also allows EPB to distribute its electricity more cheaply 
by monitoring and shutting off areas that are causing problems during 
storms, finding where repairs need to be made, and routing power more 
efficiently.'').
    \6\ Institute for Local Self-Reliance, ``Community Network Map'' 
(updated Jan. 2019), https://muninetworks.org/communitymap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The second option, as discussed at length during the hearing,\7\ is 
opening up more spectrum for fixed wireless Internet service providers 
to offer point-to-multipoint high-speed broadband in rural, Tribal, and 
other sparsely-populated areas. The current C-Band proceeding at the 
FCC is the perfect opportunity to do this. The FCC (or Congress) has 
the power to authorize coordinated and shared access to unused spectrum 
in the C-band as long as it does not cause harmful interference with 
ground-based satellite receivers or future licensed mobile services. 
Studies have shown that fixed wireless networks cost a fraction of 
building out fiber networks.\8\ Providing wireless Internet service 
providers this spectrum to use as infrastructure to deploy high-speed 
broadband would offer another method of reducing cost of deployment in 
rural areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Statement of Sarah Morris Before the U.S. Senate Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation Subcommittee on Communications, 
Technology, Innovation, and the Internet, Hearing on The Evolution of 
Next-Generation Technologies: Implementing MOBILE NOW (Dec. 5, 2019), 
https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/35A04BE5-CF49-404F-98D7-
7017DAFAAE8C at 6-7.
    \8\ Ready for Takeoff: Broadband Wireless Access Providers Prepare 
to Soar with Fixed Wireless, The Carmel Group (2017), https://
carmelgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/
TCG_2017_BWA_Full_Report.pdf; ``OVUM White Paper Reveals Growth in 
Fixed Wireless as an Alternative to Fiber for Enterprise-Class 
Services,'' Business Wire (March 15, 2018), https://
www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180315005732/en/OVUM-White-Paper-
Reveals-Growth
Fixed-Wireless; Sarah Barry James, ``Fixed wireless to shine in 2018 
thanks to 5G, cost savings,'' S&P Global Market Intelligence (April 6, 
2018), https://platform.mi.spglobal.com/web/client?auth=inherit#news/
article?id=44144018&cdid=A-44144018-13616.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to 
                              Sarah Morris
    Question. What is network slicing and why should we be worried 
about it?
    Answer. Network slicing is a method that allows network operators--
generally 5G mobile carriers--to divide up network capacity to offer 
different functionality, prioritization and levels of service for 
different use cases and customers. Each ``slice'' of the network can be 
customized to a separate, discrete service. Some carriers see network 
slicing as particularly suited to industrial IoT (e.g., factory 
automation), health-care monitoring services, as well as interactive 
video conferencing services.\9\ The mobile industry views network 
slicing as both an important potential benefit of 5G and as a source of 
new revenue streams from discrete ``verticals'' to augment what may be 
rather marginal increases in revenue from individual 5G subscribers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Peter Rysavy, Declaration Regarding Restoring Internet Freedom 
 42 (July 14, 2017), https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10717020224587/
Exhibit%20A%20Rysavy%20Declaration.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While network slicing has the potential to enable specialized 
services that could be customized to meet the needs of certain 
industries and service providers, it is critical that it does not 
become a rationale for undermining the principles and benefits of 
network neutrality. The FCC's 2015 Open Internet Order made a 
distinction between BIAS and ``specialized services,'' or services that 
are purpose-built for discrete industry or individual needs.\10\ 
Examples could include real-time auto safety communication, factory 
automation, and health care monitoring. Even under Title II principles 
of non-discrimination, 5G networks could potentially address these 
specialized needs through subscription or contractual services (e.g., 
customized industrial IoT networks) so long as they do not cross over 
into BIAS or undermine the neutrality of BIAS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order, GN 
Docket No. 14-28 (Rel. March 12, 2015)  35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Thus, it may be the case that some applications of ``network 
slicing'' would fall under the definition of ``specialized services'' 
and represent services that would have been outside the scope of the 
2015 rules. However, in practice today, we have no agency empowered to 
make that determination and, indeed, no Federal net neutrality rules at 
all, which puts consumers at risk of having their traffic prioritized 
or throttled under the guise of network slicing. This is one of many 
reasons that the Commission or Congress should restore the 2015 rules, 
including particularly the General Conduct Rule, which would allow for 
a transparent scrutiny that protects the general public while enabling 
new services.

                                [all]