[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]