[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
STRENGTHENING OUR COMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS:
LEGISLATION TO CONNECT AND PROTECT
=======================================================================
VIRTUAL HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATION AND
TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 24, 2022
__________
Serial No. 117-85
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
energycommerce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
61-455 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
ANNA G. ESHOO, California Ranking Member
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado FRED UPTON, Michigan
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
KATHY CASTOR, Florida DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
JERRY McNERNEY, California H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
PAUL TONKO, New York BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York BILLY LONG, Missouri
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
TONY CARDENAS, California MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RAUL RUIZ, California RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
SCOTT H. PETERS, California TIM WALBERG, Michigan
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois, Vice NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
Chair JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia GREG PENCE, Indiana
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware DAN CRENSHAW, Texas
DARREN SOTO, Florida JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
KIM SCHRIER, Washington
LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
------
Professional Staff
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Staff Director
WAVERLY GORDON, Deputy Staff Director
NATE HODSON, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania
Chairman
JERRY McNERNEY, California ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York Ranking Member
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
DARREN SOTO, Florida ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
ANNA G. ESHOO, California BILLY LONG, Missouri
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
DORIS O. MATSUI, California, Vice MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
Chair TIM WALBERG, Michigan
PETER WELCH, Vermont EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
TONY CARDENAS, California JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota (ex officio)
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the
California, opening statement.................................. 2
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Ohio, opening statement..................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Washington, opening statement..................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Hon. Anna C. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, prepared statement.............................. 92
Witnesses
Anna M. Gomez, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP........................... 18
Prepared Statement........................................... 21
Thomas E. Kadri, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, University of
Georgia School of Law.......................................... 27
Prepared Statement........................................... 29
H. Mark Gibson, Director, Business Development and Spectrum
Policy, Commscope and Regulatory Officer of the Ongo Alliance.. 38
Prepared Statement........................................... 40
Alisa Valentin, Ph.D., Senior Director of Technology and
Telecommunications Policy, National Urban League............... 51
Prepared Statement........................................... 53
Submitted Material
H.R. 4275, the Ensuring Phone and Internet Access for SNAP
Recipients Act of 2021\1\
H.R. 4990, the Institute for Telecommunication Sciences
Codification Act\1\
H.R. 5486, the Simplifying Management, Reallocation, and Transfer
of Spectrum Act\1\
H.R. 7132, the Safe Connections Act of 2022\1\
H.R. 7783, the Extending America's Spectrum Auction Leadership
Act of 2022\1\
Letter of May 24, 2022, from Steven K. Berry, President and CEO,
CCA, to Mr. Pallone, et al., submitted by Mr. Matsui........... 93
Letter of May 23, 2022, by Gre Guice. Director of Government
Affairs, et al., Public Knowledge, to Mr. Pallone, et al.,
submitted by Mr. Matsui........................................ 95
----------
\1\ The legislation has been retained in committee files and is
available at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=114824.
STRENGTHENING OUR COMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS:
LEGISLATION TO CONNECT AND PROTECT
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 24, 2022
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
the John D. Dingell Room, 2123 Rayburn House Office Building,
and remotely via Cisco Webex online video conferencing, Hon.
Doris O. Matsui, (member of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives McNerney, Clarke, Veasey,
McEachin, Soto, O'Halleran, Rice, Matsui, Welch, Schrader,
Cardenas, Kelly, Craig, Fletcher, Pallone (ex officio); Latta
(subcommittee ranking member), Guthrie, Bilirakis, Long,
Walberg, Carter, and Rodgers (ex officio).
Also present: Representatives Joyce and Kuster.
Staff present: Parul Desai, FCC Detailee; Jennifer
Epperson, Senior Counsel; Waverly Gordon, Deputy Staff Director
and General Counsel; Jessica Grandberry, Staff Assistant;
Tiffany Guarascio, Staff Director; Perry Hamilton, Clerk;
Mackenzie Kuhl, Digital Assistant; Jerry Leverich, Chief
Counsel, Communications and Technology; Dan Miller,
Professional Staff Member; Joe Orlando, Policy Analyst; Chloe
Rodriguez, Clerk; Johanna Thomas, Counsel; Kate Arey, Minority
Content Manager and Digital Assistant; Sarah Burke, Minority
Deputy Staff Director; Michael Cameron, Minority Policy
Analyst, Consumer Protection and Commerce, Energy, Environment;
William Clutterbuck, Minority Staff Assistant/Policy Analyst;
Theresa Gambo, Minority Financial and Office Administrator;
Jack Heretik, Minority Press Secretary; Nate Hodson, Minority
Staff Director; Sean Kelly, Minority Press Secretary; Peter
Kielty, Minority General Counsel; Emily King, Minority Member
Services Director; Bijan Koohmaraie, Minority Chief Counsel,
Oversight and Investigations, Chief Counsel; Tim Kurth,
Minority Chief Counsel, Consumer Protection and Commerce; Clare
Paoletta, Minority Policy Analyst, Health; Olivia Shields,
Minority Communications Director; Michael Taggart, Minority
Policy Director; Everett Winnick, Minority Director of
Information Technology; Evan Viau, Minority Professional Staff
Member, Communications and Technology; and Kate O'Connor,
Minority Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology.
Ms. Matsui. The Subcommittee on Communications and
Technology will now come to order.
Today the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology is
holding a hearing entitled, ``Strengthening Our Communications
Networks: Legislation to Connect and Protect.''
Due to the COVID-19 public health emergency, today's
hearing is being held remotely. All Members and witnesses will
be participating via video conferencing.
As part of our hearing, microphones will be set on mute for
the purpose of eliminating inadvertent background noise.
Members and witnesses, you will need to unmute your microphone
each time you wish to speak.
Documents for the record can be sent to Joe Orlando at the
email address we have provided to staff. All documents will be
entered into the record at the conclusion of the hearing.
The Chair now recognizes herself for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DORIS O. MATSUI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORINA
Back in March this committee met to execute one of the most
important functions: holding an FCC oversight hearing. At that
hearing one thing was abundantly clear: There is bipartisan
agreement that we cannot let the FCC's auction authority lapse
under any circumstances.
Congress has extended the FCC's spectrum auction authority
on a bipartisan basis several times over the last three
decades, and has never let it lapse. I am committed to keeping
that unbroken record intact.
It is no exaggeration to say that the FCC truly sets the
global benchmark for spectrum auctions. To date the Commission
has held 98 auctions, awarding more than 94,000 licenses and
permits, raised more than $233 billion in revenues, and
provided more than $1 trillion in benefits for the American
people.
But the stakes are even higher right now. In July the FCC
will be kicking off the 2.5 gigahertz auction, bringing more
needed mid-band spectrum to market. Even a brief lapse in FCC
auction authority could jeopardize licenses from being awarded,
and delay the carriers' ability to supercharge their networks
with this 5G-ready spectrum. That cannot happen.
The inclusion of Congresswoman Davids' Extending America's
Spectrum Auction Leadership Act on today's agenda can prevent
that. It would extend the FCC's general auction authority for
an additional 18 months to March 31st, 2024, providing the
needed time to complete the 2.5 gigahertz auction. I look
forward to working in a bipartisan, bicameral way to give the
FCC the authority it needs to maintain America's position as a
pace setter in wireless communications.
I am also excited to see Congressman Guthrie's SMART Act on
the agenda today. As my fellow co-chair of the congressional
Spectrum Caucus, we have worked together on more legislation
than I can count, and the SMART Act is no different. This
important bill would improve spectrum management in the United
States by establishing a standardized framework to facilitate
spectrum sharing between Federal and non-Federal users.
While I am interested in pursuing some clarifying edits
with Congressman Guthrie, I am confident that it can be done on
a bipartisan basis and set the path for a smooth markup and
quick consideration on the floor. This bill is smart public
policy and tackles an emerging but crucial issue in spectrum--
America's spectrum leadership.
Congressman Carter's ITS Codification Act would also
reinforce America's leadership in innovation by providing
statutory authority for NTIA's Institute of Telecommunications
Sciences. As a research and engineering arm of NTIA, ITS
advances innovation in communications technologies through
cutting-edge research.
The ITS Codification Act also established an initiative at
NTIA to develop emergency communication technologies for use in
locating individuals trapped in areas where mobile connectivity
may not be available.
We also have two bills on the agenda that will increase
broadband access and provide new protections to help survivors
of domestic violence and human trafficking. Representatives
Luria and Katko's Ensuring Phone and Internet Access for SNAP
Recipients Act establishes new reporting requirements to help
track and improve Lifeline enrollment among SNAP participants,
ensuring critical assistance programs are working together to
ensure participants will help deliver better services to those
who need them most, especially as we continue to recover from
the pandemic. I believe this bill will help provide information
to improve the Lifeline program.
Additionally, Representatives Kuster and Eshoo's Safe
Connections Act establishes new protections that will help
survivors of domestic violence and human trafficking gain
independence. Too often survivors of crimes like domestic
violence, dating violence, stalking, sexual assault, and human
trafficking remain stuck on a family or shared wireless phone
plan. This allows their abusers to limit their access to
family, social safety networks, employers, and support
services.
The Safe Connections Act empowers survivors by allowing
them to separate a mobile phone line from any shared plan
involving an abuser without penalty, including the lines of any
dependents in their care. And it requires the FCC to initiate
two rulemakings to connect survivors to the Lifeline program
and ensure calls or texts to hotlines do not appear on call
logs. Is smart policy, and I hope our committee will consider
it as a markup as soon as possible.
I want to thank the authors of these bills and the
witnesses for appearing today. I look forward to hearing your
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Matsui follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Doris O. Matsui
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Matsui. I now want to recognize my friend, Ranking
Member Latta, for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY LATTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much and, Madam Chair,
thanks very much for calling for today's hearing.
And also, thank you to our witnesses that are appearing
before us. I really appreciate it.
As our Nation's spectrum resources become more scarce, good
public policy plays an increasingly important role in ensuring
efficient use. I am encouraged that today this subcommittee is
considering legislation that will allow the United States to
better utilize these valuable airwaves for economic growth and
innovation.
Recently, Chairman Doyle and I introduced the Spectrum
Innovation Act to accelerate commercial access to the lower
three gigahertz band. Access to this mid-band spectrum is
needed to bring 5G to farms and households across rural
America, and I am proud to have worked with my colleague to
come to an agreement on this legislation, which should move
through Congress, and should be sent to the President's desk.
I am also pleased that we are considering the Extending
America's Spectrum Auction Leadership Act of 2022. This
legislation extends the FCC's authority to conduct spectrum
auctions and issue licenses for 18 months, which will allow the
FCC to continue its ongoing work to make more spectrum
available for commercial use. Without congressional action, the
FCC's authority will expire on September 30 of this year. And I
urge swift passage of this bipartisan legislation to avoid any
disruption to the FCC's planned auction activities, like
auctioning the 2.5 gigahertz band.
While these are great steps forward, our work is far from
over. The FCC, NTIA, and industry must continue to identify
opportunities to use spectrum more efficiently, which remains
difficult as the demand for wireless technology grows and
spectrum resources have become more congested.
Fortunately, we have engineers at NTIA's Institute for
Telecommunications Sciences, or ITS, who play a critical role
in advancing technologies that help NTIA better manage Federal
spectrum resources. ITS played a key role in developing the
solutions to spectrum sharing between Federal and commercial
users in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service Band. Spectrum
has been--previously been under-utilized by the Federal
Government. It is now able to be used commercially to promote
5G, while protecting Federal incumbents.
ITS's role will only continue to grow in its importance as
spectrum re-purposing decisions become more difficult, which is
why Mr. Carter's legislation, H.R. 4990, the ITS Codification
Act, is so important. This legislation takes an important step
forward by strengthening ITS authorities and recognizing the
contributions the lab makes to our wireless economy.
In order to identify areas where Federal spectrum use can
be more efficient, Congress must provide NTIA with necessary
tools to advance the spectrum management mission. To further
this effort, Mr. Guthrie's SMART Act requires NTIA to establish
an incumbent informing capability to take a holistic view of
how Federal users are using their spectrum resources across the
government to identify opportunities for new commercial uses,
while preserving Federal missions to keep our country safe.
As these spectrum management decisions become more
difficult, we must utilize every tool in the toolbox to
efficiently use these airwaves and provide certainty for
commercial investment and wireless developments. I am pleased
to see the legislation on today's hearing, and look forward to
discussing these important topics.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bob Latta
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Ms. Matsui. The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes
Mr. Pallone, chairman of the full committee, for 5 minutes for
his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairwoman Matsui, and it is good
to see you chairing the subcommittee today.
And let me point out to our members that this is what we
call a virtual committee week, as set by the Speaker. And there
are three committee days: today, tomorrow, and Thursday. And we
are having a subcommittee hearing each of those days, two of
which are legislative hearings. So we are always busy, even
when we are virtual.
We are continuing this committee's long-time work in this
subcommittee of ensuring that our Nation's communications
networks are stable, secure, and reliable. Communication
networks are essential infrastructure to help connect friends
and families, relay emergency communications to the public,
allow business operations to run more efficiently and
effectively, and deliver education and health services.
At today's legislative hearing we will discuss five bills,
most of which are bipartisan, on a broad range of proposals
aimed at ensuring that these invaluable networks continue to
deliver this critical service to consumers. I would like to
comment and give my own view on these bills.
First, I am pleased that we are considering H.R. 7783, the
Extending America's Spectrum Auction Leadership Act, introduced
by Representatives Davids, Joyce, Welch, and Johnson. This
committee has a long tradition of working together in a
bipartisan fashion to lay the groundwork for technological
innovation in this country. We are called the innovation
committee, and this legislation is no exception. It will extend
spectrum auction authority for the Federal Communications
Commission by 18 months from its expiration date later this
fall. And as a result, the FCC will be able to hold its planned
auction of the 2.5 gigahertz band in July without disruption,
and also fully close out auctions that have already occurred.
Congress has never let the FCC's spectrum authority lapse
since authorizing it in the early 1990's, so I am pleased we
are taking this important step forward today.
I also want to thank the FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel for her
leadership on this issue and emphasizing its importance. I
agree with the chairwoman. I am hopeful that Congress can come
together to use the funding from the upcoming auctions to fund
important priorities like next generation 911 and the
replacement of suspect communications equipment, among other
good ideas.
Next, we are considering H.R. 7132, the Safe Connections
Act, introduced by Representatives Kuster and Eshoo, and
cosponsored by Representatives Welch and Walberg. While there
is no question that wireless phone service can be an important
lifeline for survivors of domestic violence, human trafficking,
and other related crimes, it is also the case that shared
mobile service plans can subject these individuals to hidden
risks, such as digital abuse. So, this bill addresses this
abuse by requiring mobile service providers to separate the
survivor's phone line from an account shared with their abuser
without financial penalties or other potential challenges after
they receive a request from a survivor.
The FCC would also be required to establish emergency
communications support for these survivors. This is lifesaving
legislation that has already passed the Senate, and I welcome
the opportunity to discuss it here today.
We are also considering H.R. 4275, the Ensuring Phone and
Internet Access for SNAP Recipients Act, introduced by
Representatives Luria and Katko. Since 1985 the FCC's Lifeline
program has provided a discount on phone service to qualifying
Americans. But the data demonstrates that only a fraction of
Lifeline-eligible individuals enroll in the program. So this
bill would require the FCC to annually submit a report to
Congress on the Lifeline program's enrollment of individuals
participating in SNAP.
It would also require the FCC to report to Congress on the
enrollment of new broadband consumers in the Lifeline program,
and the effectiveness of advertising on these numbers.
Now, finally, we will consider two bills directed at the
work of the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration: specifically, H.R. 4990, the ITS Codification
Act, introduced by Representative Carter and cosponsored by
Representative O'Halleran; and then, separately, H.R. 5486, the
SMART Act, introduced by Representative Guthrie.
And collectively, these bills provide NTIA with access to
innovative spectrum management solutions, led in part by NTIA's
Institute for Telecommunications Scientists [sic], ITS. As the
engineering laboratory for NTIA, ITS helps drive innovation,
enables the robust development of telecommunications
infrastructure, and helps protect an open, global internet.
So finally, I did want to also recognize, if I could today,
a departing member of the Energy and Commerce Committee team.
Parul Desai is a native New Jerseyan and has done terrific work
for the committee over the past five years since she joined us
as a detail from the FCC. She is now headed to a new role at
the NTIA. We all know the incredible amount of work that agency
has before it, and I just want to wish her nothing for the best
in her future pursuits.
So thank you, Parul.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Pallone. And with that, I yield back the balance of my
time, Madam Chair.
Ms. Matsui. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mrs. Rodgers, ranking member of the full committee,
for 5 minutes for her opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning,
everyone.
The success of our Nation's wireless future depends on
smart management of our spectrum resources. Earlier this year
we had a hearing on spectrum issues, where we heard
overwhelming support from witnesses to extend the Federal
Communications Commission's spectrum auction authority to
ensure the successful competition of the FCC's upcoming
spectrum auction of the 2.5 gigahertz band. This will allow
carriers to expand 5G across the United States.
I am pleased to announce that this committee responded.
Today we are considering bipartisan legislation to extend the
FCC's auction authority for 18 months through March 2024. This
bill will ensure the agency completes their ongoing spectrum
activities, and it provides certainty to bidders in the
upcoming 2.5 gigahertz auction that the FCC will be able to use
their licenses if they bid.
I want to thank Chairman Pallone and Chairman Doyle for
working with us to reach this bipartisan agreement. And I look
forward to advancing this legislation.
As demand for wireless technology grows, we need to adapt
to make sure our spectrum resources are used efficiently. While
it is critical to re-purpose spectrum from Federal to
commercial use, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find
prime spectrum bands that are unencumbered. I am pleased that
we are considering my colleague Representative Guthrie's SMART
Act today, which requires NTIA to establish an incumbent
informing capability. This will allow NTIA to see spectrum
usage by agency across the Federal Government, and help them
improve spectrum use efficiently, while also protecting
national security.
Representative Carter's bill, the ITS Codification Act,
will codify the important duties of NTIA's Institute for
Telecommunications Sciences, the government's premier radio-
frequency laboratory; clarify the agency's responsibilities;
and direct them to advance spectrum re-purposing opportunities;
and certify new technologies as we continue to advance American
wireless leadership.
U.S. leadership and next generation technology depends on
our ability to develop innovative solutions to re-purpose
spectrum for commercial use. This will ensure spectrum
resources are available for future uses not yet known and
maintain the United States' reputation as the number-one place
for businesses to invest in innovation and grow the economy.
This committee is leading on solutions to make spectrum
resources available. But to unleash the full potential of
today's spectrum legislation, we also need to address barriers
to deploying wireless infrastructure. Energy and Commerce
Republicans are leading on a package of bills, the Boosting
Broadband Connectivity Agenda, which roll back duplicative,
burdensome regulations and permitting requirements to speed up
deployment of broadband infrastructure. Without permitting
reform, it will be difficult for the United States to compete
and beat China. If we fail to address these reforms, this
committee will miss an opportunity to strengthen American
leadership in next-gen communication technology.
We are also considering legislation that would allow
survivors of domestic violence and human trafficking to
separate from any shared mobile contracts with their abuser.
Republicans have several changes we would like to see made to
this bill, if it advances. But we stand ready to work with our
colleagues to find a solution. Survivors of domestic violence
must have the freedom to have a new start, to be safe and
secure, and able to separate from their abuser quickly.
This hearing is a great first step to discuss these bills
and hear from witnesses about how they will impact the
marketplace. I look forward to hearing from all of you.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Rodgers. And I yield back the remainder of my time.
Ms. Matsui. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair would like to remind Members that, pursuant to
committee rules, all Members' written opening statements shall
be made part of the record.
I now would like to introduce our witnesses for today's
hearing: Ms. Anna M. Gomez, partner, Wiley Rein LLP; Dr. Thomas
E. Kadri, assistant professor, University of Georgia School of
Law; Mr. Mark Gibson, director, business development and
spectrum policy, CommScope, and regulatory officer of the OnGo
Alliance; and Dr. Alisa Valentin, senior director of technology
and telecommunications policy, National Urban League.
At this time the Chair would recognize each witness for 5
minutes to provide their opening statement.
Ms. Gomez, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ANNA M. GOMEZ, PARTNER, WILEY REIN LLP; THOMAS E.
KADRI, PH.D., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA SCHOOL
OF LAW; MARK GIBSON, DIRECTOR, BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT & SPECTRUM
POLICY, COMMSCOPE AND REGULATORY OFFICER OF THE ONGO ALLIANCE;
AND ALISA VALENTIN, PH.D., SENIOR DIRECTOR OF TECHNOLOGY AND
TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY, NATIONAL URBAN LEAGUE
STATEMENT OF ANNA M. GOMEZ
Ms. Gomez. Thank you, Chairwoman Matsui, Ranking Member
Latta, Chairman Pallone, Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers, and
the distinguished members of the subcommittee, for the
opportunity to appear before you today.
My background, from working at the FCC and NTIA, as well as
my experience in the private sector, give you a unique view of
spectrum challenges. However, my testimony today reflects my
own views, and are not necessarily those of my clients.
The task that NTIA and the FCC share in managing our
Nation's airwaves can be daunting, given the diverse array of
stakeholders and interests, as well as our continuing need to
identify additional spectrum for new and innovative uses. It is
important to bolster and respect the agency's shared
responsibilities.
I, therefore, want to first commend and thank the Committee
for its bipartisan attention and commitment to exploring ways
to strengthen U.S. spectrum management. The Simplifying
Management Reallocation and Transfer of Spectrum Act would
authorize NTIA's proposed incumbent informing capability, which
would provide a common platform for sharing.
I want to applaud Congressman Guthrie for introducing this
thoughtful legislation.
NTIA's missions are critical and complex. The tools
Congress has provided ultimately allow NTIA to draw on its
experience to ensure continued U.S. leadership in facilitating
the development and deployment of new and innovative services
which spur economic growth, investment, and job creation, while
ensuring that the Federal agencies have the spectrum they need
to meet their missions.
The Institute of Telecommunications Sciences, or ITS,
Codification Act is another important step in ensuring that
NTIA has the tools necessary to effectively manage the
country's spectrum. ITS is an integral arm of spectrum
management efforts by providing research, testing, and analysis
both to NTIA, as well as to entities with which it has
contracted, like commercial providers and other government
agencies. By providing the statutory authority for ITS, the Act
will further support spectrum management initiatives. And I
want to commend Congressman Carter for introducing this
legislation.
In recent years, the NTIA and FCC coordination process has
been increasingly challenging. However, the two agencies
recently announced their new Joint Spectrum Coordination
Initiative. Of the commitments they announced, developing a
national spectrum strategy is particularly essential, and any
strategy should include identifying additional spectrum for new
uses, while continuing to ensure that Federal agencies can meet
their missions.
Of course, identifying additional spectrum would be of
little use if the FCC does not have the authority to conduct
auctions to license that spectrum. In addition to encouraging
the best and highest use of spectrum, spectrum auctions have
raised over $200 billion in Federal revenue. Congress has, in
turn, used that revenue to significantly reduce our national
debt and to pay for key national priorities, such as the first
responder network authority and 911 grants.
Revenue from spectrum auctions also helps facilitate the
re-purposing of Federal to non-Federal spectrum through the
Spectrum Relocation Fund. Accordingly, Congress's extension of
the FCC's spectrum auction authority is of paramount
importance.
I want to thank the bipartisan leadership of this
subcommittee for reaching a compromise to extend the FCC's
auction authority. Once extended, this subcommittee has an
important role to play in overseeing the work and producing a
national spectrum strategy that identifies additional spectrum
bands for re-purposing.
I want to conclude by urging the subcommittee to continue
to look for ways to improve the existing spectrum management
framework. In that regard I refer to FCC Chairwoman
Rosenworcel's recent letter to the House and Senate Commerce
Committee leaders regarding improvements Congress can make to
existing spectrum processes, which includes recommendations for
updating the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act, or CSEA, to
make it even more effective for re-purposing spectrum.
While the CSEA is an effective tool, there is room for
improvement. For example, Congress can further incentivize
Federal agencies by removing the comparable capability
limitation, which then would allow Federal spectrum users to
modernize their outdated equipment as part of the spectrum
reallocation process, generating greater incentives to
relinquish under-utilized or duplicative spectrum bands.
In addition, reforming CSEA to cover costs to evaluate
impacts to non-Federal bands where there are strong Federal
equities would allow NTIA to examine thorny issues affecting
commercial providers.
Thank you again for allowing me to share my thoughts with
you on my perspective on pending legislation to improve our
Nation's spectrum management activities. I look forward to
answering any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gomez follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Matsui. Thank you.
Dr. Kadri, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS E. KADRI
Dr. Kadri. Thank you, Chair Matsui, Ranking Member Latta,
and distinguished members of the subcommittee. I greatly
appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today.
By way of background, I am a law professor at the
University of Georgia, where I am also affiliated with the
Institute for Women's Studies and the Institute for
Cybersecurity and Privacy. I obtained my Ph.D. from Yale Law
School, and my research focuses on the legal and technological
regulation of privacy, speech, and abuse. And as an affiliated
researcher with Cornell's Clinic to End Tech Abuse, CETA, I
work directly with victims of digital abuse, and advise
lawmakers on how to address it.
Now, I use the term ``digital abuse'` to refer broadly to
how people exploit technology to harm others. More
specifically, digital abuse involves using technology to
control, harass, stalk, surveil, or threaten someone in a way
that invades their privacy or autonomy, or harms them
emotionally, physically, reputationally, or financially.
Now, digital abuse is on the rise. Domestic Violence
Charity Refuge estimates that 95 percent of its cases involve
technology, while the National Domestic Violence Hotline has
seen a 155 percent increase in reports of digital abuse between
2015 and 2018, and those numbers have surely grown during the
pandemic. These statistics might initially seem shocking, but
one in three women and one in six men have experienced abusive
relationships. And so, given how central digital technologies
have become in our lives, their growing role in interpersonal
abuse is predictable.
Why is digital abuse so harmful? Well, this is, obviously,
a complex question. But one common theme is that abusers use
technology to become ever-present in a victim's life, or at
least to create that impression.
Now, though it might be tempting to focus on more
sensational topics like stalkerware apps, the work of Dr. Karen
Levy and others has shown that digital abuse is often mundane
in that it requires little to no sophistication, and relies on
everyday devices and services. And a classic example of this is
family phone plans.
Information that an abuser can gather from these plans
might exacerbate abuse, and even thwart a victim's attempts to
escape. And these serious yet under-appreciated risks make
family phone plans the snake in the grass of domestic violence.
These plans let an abuser monitor a victim's calls, texts, and
even their precise location of their device. An abuser may, for
example, discover where a victim is currently hiding, or
planning to go, as well as any contact they have had with
family members, domestic violence hotlines, or crisis response
centers.
As Diana Freed, a lead researcher at CETA, has observed,
``People would come into our clinic and report that the abuser
knows where they are. They have left the abuser. They have
moved on to a new relationship, new friends, and suddenly all
of their contacts have been contacted by the abuser. And there
was no idea how this person got the numbers.'`
So though a victim could always abandon their device
entirely, this might actually worsen matters if their phone and
its number connect them to friends, family, work, and crucial
services that can help keep them safe.
And if a victim does try to leave a family plan, phone
companies often charge high fees of up to $350 per line, in
addition to demanding upfront payment for any devices being
financed in installments. Now, for many victims, paying these
sums all at once will exceed their financial means, especially
when their abuser controls their economic resources, as is
common with domestic violence.
And currently, no Federal law allows victims to leave
family plans. Existing State laws, meanwhile, provide
inadequate protections. And people in states without any legal
right to get out of a family plan, especially people with low
incomes, could effectively be trapped in a contract that allows
their abuser to control them.
A strong Federal law empowering victims to leave family
plans would help vulnerable people in all states to cut this
dangerous tie with their abusers.
The legislation before your subcommittee, the Safe
Connections Act, represents significant progress by making it
easier to leave family plans quickly, remotely, and for free.
Victims rely on phones as a lifeline, but that same technology
can simultaneously expose them to abuse. And the Act represents
a careful effort to respond to how phones play this essential
but complicated role in victims' lives.
It is encouraging to see the bipartisan consensus that has
emerged as the Act has passed through Congress, or progressed
through Congress. And even the telecommunications industry has
now signaled its support.
Federal law should allow victims to make a clean break from
their abusers with minimal barriers and risks. And the Safe
Connections Act would be a step in the right direction.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Kadri follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Matsui. Thank you.
Mr. Gibson, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MARK GIBSON
Mr. Gibson. Thank you, Chairwoman Matsui and Chairman
Doyle, Ranking Member Latta, and members of the subcommittee.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. It is truly an
honor and a pleasure to be here today, if only virtually.
I am here today in my capacity as regulatory officer and
board member of the OnGo Alliance. The mission of the OnGo
Alliance is to support the common interests of members,
implementers, and operators for the development,
commercialization, and adoption of LTE and 5G solutions for the
U.S. 3.5 gigahertz Citizens Broadband Radio Service. This is a
very important band for the 5G deployment in our country, as it
is one of the first 5G bands available. And I would like to
discuss how the legislation that is the focus of today's
hearing will enhance the importance of the band, and allow for
greater deployment of broadband.
Deployment in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service, or
CBRS, launched in January 2020. In the nearly two-and-a-half
years since CBRS service launched, there have been well over
200,000 base stations deployed across the country. These
deployments support all regions of telecommunications,
including support for distance learning during COVID, enabling
hospital COVID triage centers, helping otherwise poorly
connected farmers achieve 5G connectivity, support for critical
manufacturing automation, and helping to connect disparate
corners of our supply chain.
CBRS literally saves lives.
The CBRS band is shared with several types of incumbent
operations, including fixed satellite service, legacy
broadband, and the DoD. Sharing happens through a Spectrum
Access System, or SAS. The role of the SAS is to tell CBRS base
stations what frequencies they can operate on at their
locations without causing interference to incumbent operations.
For fixed satellite and broadband incumbents, SASes know
where these operations are, and can easily perform frequency
availability analyses. However, for DoD operations, which are
generally a specific type of naval radar onboard aircraft
carriers, it is not possible for the SAS to know exactly where
they are located for national security reasons.
Therefore, these operations are identified through coastal
sensor networks called Environmental Sensing Capability, or
ESC. Each ESC network is comprised of scores of coastal sensors
that sense radar operation and alert SASes, which then tell
CBRS base stations to avoid the radar frequencies in use.
ESC Sensors must quickly sense radar operations that occur
over 150 miles off the coast, which means that ESC sensors are
extremely sensitive to very weak signals, and this also means
that ESC sensors can be susceptible to interference from CBRS
base stations.
To avoid interfering with ESC sensors, CBRS devices as far
as 25 to 50 miles from an ESC sensor must operate at reduced
power, or avoid operating altogether. This creates a de facto
protection area around each sensor where a CBRS device
operation is either curtailed or extremely limited. ESC
operators have tried to minimize these protection zones through
sensor design and location by placing sensors as close to the
coast as possible.
But sometimes avoiding populated areas is inescapable.
Because of reduced availability of CBRS, ESC sensor protection
affects millions of Americans in coastal regions, as well as
CBRS licensees who paid over $4.5 billion for their spectrum in
an FCC auction.
However, there is a remedy to this problem in the form of a
portal-based incumbent informing capability. The NTIA has
proposed creating a portal they are calling the incumbent
informing capability, or IIC. The IIC would allow for any
Federal spectrum user to notify about their operation with at
least a few minutes notice. This would then be communicated to
SASes. Federal spectrum users could specify a time, duration,
location--which could be an area--and operating frequencies,
and this information could be provided to SASes, which would
then perfect--protect the areas if--as if an ESC sensor had
sensed the radar.
The only drawback to the IIC is authorization and funding.
There is currently no firm timeline for the construction of the
IIC, and no authorization or specified funding source. The IIC
would greatly enhance 5G operations in CBRS, including allowing
our operators to increase power levels and fully realize the
value of the band, allowing, potentially, millions of Americans
along the coast to benefit.
This is why the OnGo Alliance fully supports H.R. 5486, or
Simplifying Management Relocation and Transfer of Spectrum Act,
the SMART Act, and we are--we honor Congressman Guthrie's work
on this. The SMART Act will provide the NTIA with a timeline
and funding authorization to build a capability that will allow
for sharing in all bands, not just CBRS.
Thank you again, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gibson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Matsui. Thank you.
Dr. Valentin, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ALISA VALENTIN
Dr. Valentin. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Matsui, Ranking
Member Latta, Chairman Pallone, Ranking Member McMorris
Rodgers, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. Thank
you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is
Alisa Valentin, and I am the senior director of technology and
telecommunications policy at the National Urban League. I bring
you greetings on behalf of our president and CEO, Marc Morial.
In my prior role I was a special advisor to FCC
Commissioner Geoffrey Starks, where I advised the commissioner
on broadband policies that impacts communities of color and
low-income communities. And in this capacity I made policy
recommendations regarding the FCC's Lifeline program.
I was also the person watching the livestream, or sitting
behind my former boss as he answered from the committee. But my
virtual seating arrangement has changed a bit today.
The National Urban League and our 92 local affiliates have
long recognized that access to high-speed internet is a civil
right. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that everyone needs
broadband to learn, work, receive healthcare, and access
critical government services, no matter their income, no matter
their race, and no matter their geographic location.
Last year the National Urban League published the Lewis
Latimer Plan for Digital Equity and Inclusion, where we
presented four goals, which included deploying networks
everywhere; getting everyone connected; creating new economic
opportunities to participate in the growth of the digital
economy; and using networks to improve how we deliver essential
services. We recognize that, in order to achieve these goals,
we must erase pertinent connectivity gaps, including
availability, adoption, and affordability.
Today, I will focus on affordability. Nearly 47 million
people in the United States are left offline because they are
unable to afford broadband, and this disproportionately impacts
Black and Latinx households. In fact, 29 percent of Black
adults and 35 percent of Latinx adults do not have a home
broadband connection.
Prior to the pandemic, low-income families were dependent
on the FCC's Lifeline program, which was the only Federal
program focused on providing affordable communications services
to low-income households. This program must be modernized to
reach households who need it most because it is very under-
utilized, with a participation rate that hovers at around 19
percent.
We need a whole-of-government approach to get households
enrolled in what is already a literal lifeline for millions of
families. That is why the National Urban League supports the
goals of the Ensuring Phone and Internet Access for SNAP
Recipients Act of 2021, which requires the FCC and USDA to
submit an annual report to Congress on enrollment in Lifeline
by SNAP recipients. It also requires the Commission to report
on projected Lifeline consumers through Federal assistance
programs and the efficacy of various efforts to advertise the
program.
The requirements of this bill should be extended beyond
Lifeline to include the Affordable Connectivity Program, which
was established with the passage of the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law. Almost 12 million households have enrolled
in ACP, and estimates show that approximately 48 million
households are eligible.
Congress, the FCC, and NTIA have recognized that outreach
efforts must include the funding of trusted organizations
working on the ground. The National Urban League could not
agree more. We believe the burden of advertising these programs
should not fall solely on the shoulders of advocates seeking to
serve the under-served. There needs to be more resources
provided.
We also think about solutions for the future that can
extend the life of the program. Although the National Urban
League has not taken a formal position on the spectrum bills
being discussed today, we do believe that Congress should
consider a number of ways to provide permanent, sustainable
funding for ACP, such as using proceeds from spectrum auctions
to fund digital equity and affordability efforts.
In an era of rising income inequality and increasing
dependency on the digital ecosystem, we must recognize that
there is a moral imperative and an economic benefit to
connecting everyone to high-speed internet, including both
workers and small business owners. The National Urban League
believes that spectrum auction winners should also be
encouraged or incentivized to hire from under-represented
communities beyond entry level positions; establish diversity
hiring goals; and increase supplier diversity. Our organization
has taken up efforts to increase equity in companies because we
know that Black and Latinx workers and entrepreneurs deserve to
experience the economic benefits of this sector.
We have reached a critical juncture in history, and it is
time to move forward in creating an inclusive technology
ecosystem that centers the needs of communities of color and
low-income communities. Thank you for the opportunity to
provide testimony today, and I look forward to answering your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Valentin follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Matsui. Thank you.
We have concluded openings. We will now move to member
questions. Each member will have 5 minutes to ask questions of
our witnesses. I will start by recognizing myself for 5
minutes.
The FCC's 2023 budget estimate to Congress earlier this
week expressed confidence that the 2.5 gigahertz auction will
likely conclude before the end of Fiscal Year 2022, when
current auction authority is set to expire. But it also notes
that certain post-auction activities requiring FCC staff
resources may continue into Fiscal Year 2023.
Ms. Gomez, yes or no, do you believe extending the FCC's
auction authority will help ensure that 2.5 gigahertz spectrum
gets to winning bidders without issue?
Ms. Gomez. Yes, Chairwoman.
Ms. Matsui. OK. I have long been interested in supporting
agencies to find innovative ways to share under-utilized
spectrum for commercial use. The SMART Act, introduced by
Congressman Guthrie, would provide new resources to NTIA to
support the development of a new spectrum sharing system to
enable more Federal and non-Federal coordination.
Mr. Gibson, why is it important to have a standardized
framework for sharing spectrum across Federal agencies?
And could you describe the potential for the system to
support commercial applications?
Mr. Gibson. Yes, Congresswoman and Chairwoman Matsui, thank
you very much. That is an excellent question.
The IIC is a project that the NTIA has conceived to
facilitate a job that they are already doing sort of in the
background, which is supporting the sharing of spectrum.
What the IIC would do, as I noted in my testimony, is allow
a more robust capability, thereby doing away with these sensing
networks that have been deployed, which sense Federal operation
in situations where there may be issues of classification.
So the concept of the IIC is to move that responsibility
over to the NTIA by allowing them to build an informing portal
that Federal spectrum users would then put that information
into the portal, and then that information would be made
available to commercial users with the appropriate protections
for classification domains.
And so we believe that this is probably one of the best
ways to effectuate commercial Federal sharing. And, as the NTIA
have noted, that can operate across all spectrum domains where
there is Federal commercial sharing.
Ms. Matsui. OK, thank you.
While we have made strong progress over the years freeing
up spectrum for commercial use, we need to keep looking for new
opportunities to replace the spectrum pipeline to support 6G,
WiFi 6, and satellite broadband.
Ms. Gomez, what role does Federal equipment like receivers
and other technology play in supporting or limiting our ability
to free up spectrum?
Ms. Gomez. Thank you for that question. Federal agencies
have equipment that at times is aging. And unfortunately, the
Spectrum Relocation Fund does not permit the agencies to use
those funds to do anything but replace their equipment with
that that has a comparable capability.
The comparable capability thus serves as a disincentive to
the extent the agency's equipment is close to the end of life,
or is decades old. So permitting agencies to expand their
systems' capabilities would serve as powerful incentives to
agencies to plan for re-purposing their spectrum.
Ms. Matsui. OK, thank you.
The FCC's Lifeline program has helped ensure Americans
experiencing economic hardship can maintain broadband and voice
services.
At the onset of the pandemic I wrote to then-Chairman Pai,
urging him to take immediate steps to grant provisional
approvals for Lifeline subscribers as they become eligible
directly or via qualifying support programs. It is important
that we continue to reduce barriers to and expand the awareness
of the Lifeline program.
Dr. Valentin, do you see additional opportunities to
streamline the Lifeline enrollment process and increase
coordination between the FCC and other Federal agencies to
increase awareness of the program?
Dr. Valentin. Yes, definitely. You know, the bill before us
today at its core is about understanding where we are,
understanding where we are hoping to go, and identifying any
gaps that may persist in the road to get there.
I think that it will also help us to understand, you know,
who is eligible for the Lifeline program. Is it folks who are
struggling with housing insecurity? Is it folks who are
struggling with food insecurity? And that can then help
organizations like the National Urban League figure out where
we need to focus our efforts to raise awareness about the
Lifeline program and the Affordable Connectivity Program.
Ms. Matsui. OK, thank you. My time is expiring, so I yield
back, and I recognize Mr. Latta, subcommittee ranking member,
for 5 minutes to ask questions.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair. And
again, thanks to our witnesses for being with us today. I
greatly appreciate it.
Mr. Gibson, if I could start my questions with you, and
again, the new wireless use cases demand Federal agencies to
identify new and innovative tools to make more efficient use of
spectrum use. And incumbent informing capability systems seem
to show great promise for enhancing NTIA's ability to manage
Federal spectrum and increase opportunities for commercial use.
This tool would give NTIA a greater understanding of how and
when Federal spectrum users are occupying the airwaves.
How would this tool help promote better interagency
coordination of spectrum resources?
Mr. Gibson. Well, thank you, Chairman Latta. That is an
excellent question.
The--as you--as we all know, the NTIA is sort--is the
spectrum manager for the Federal Government. And in that role
the NTIA is ultimately responsible for interfacing with
commercial users in that regard.
The informant incumbent capability will allow other Federal
spectrum users, the agencies, to interface with the portal that
the NTIA can then use to make that information aware to
commercial spectrum users. This could be made aware through
this thing I talked about called a spectrum access system, or
otherwise. NTIA has constructed a very broad concept for this.
So this, the concept of the IIC, should facilitate sharing
across all Federal spectrum domains just by being there and
allowing the Federal spectrum users to put their spectrum usage
capabilities or spectrum usage information into this that would
thereby be made available to commercial users.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you.
Ms. Valentin, H.R. 4275, the Ensuring Phone and Internet
Access for SNAP Recipients Act would require the FCC to report
on the enrollment of the Lifeline program that also
participates in the SNAP program. What benefit, if any, would
this provide?
Dr. Valentin. I believe that it will help the FCC better
coordinate with USDA. I think it can be extended, obviously, to
other Federal agencies. As I just stated, it is important for
us to know where we are, where the gaps in participation are.
And I think it is also really important to help us
understand what effective kind of advertising efforts there are
out there, so we can better focus those efforts, as well.
Mr. Latta. Let me followup. Does the FCC currently have the
SNAP enrollment data, or would this be new data collection?
Dr. Valentin. There is some data that--with USAC. I know
that there is data about kind of like the SNAP data bases, and
the folks are kind of like directly enrolled through the
states, which--I believe that enrollment rate is at about 13
percent.
But then there is also folks who get into the program on,
like, kind of a multitude of data bases. And I don't have
clarity--I don't--I am not sure the FCC has clarity on how
folks are entering when they are eligible through kind of like
multiple programs. So this would just better help us kind of
pinpoint that information.
Mr. Latta. OK, thank you.
You know, I am also going to note that there is currently
an ongoing discussion required by the infrastructure law as to
what the future of the Universal Service Fund should look like
in light of all the funding appropriated for the purpose of
keeping Americans connected. So I am not really sure right now
if this legislation is necessary at this time.
Mr. Gibson, if I could go back to you--a question. The ITS
Codification Act would provide additional tools and authority
for NTIA's Institute of Telecommunications Sciences. As a
significant user of the CBRS spectrum, which ITS helped make
available for commercial users, you have benefited from their
work. What role did ITS play in the CBRS framework, and how can
its expertise be utilized to address our future spectrum
management challenges?
Mr. Gibson. What an excellent question. ITS started off
initially by doing a series of interference measurements,
bench-type, lab-type interference measurements, radar systems
into commercial systems. That report was huge, and was made
available initially so that the commercial world could better
understand what role the radars play in causing or mitigating
interference. So that was the first work they did.
As we moved through, ITS actually were the agency that did
testing for the ESCs and the SASes. On behalf of the FCC they
did all of the testing for all of the ESCs to test us against
commercial availability.
And then, as we have been working through this, they have
conceived--I am not sure if they have actually been able to do
it--propagation modeling efforts to help better inform the
propagation models that we have been using.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much.
And Madam Chair, before I yield back, I am going to have to
turn my spot over to my good friend from Florida, Mr.
Bilirakis, because I am going to have to be at a fentanyl
roundtable. But I really appreciate today's hearing, and thank
the witnesses. And thank you very--Madam Chair. And I yield
back.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
now recognizes Mr. Pallone, full committee chairman, for 5
minutes to ask questions.
Mr. Pallone Thank you, Chairwoman Matsui. I am going to try
to get three questions. And so I would ask each of you to only
take a minute or so.
Ms. Gomez, can you talk to us about how access to spectrum
enhances our mobile broadband networks, and what consumers and
the public will lose if auction authority isn't extended? In 1-
minute.
Ms. Gomez. Yes, that is a very good question, thank you.
So access to spectrum allows mobile networks to meet
broader capacity, speed, and low latency needs of our next
generation technologies. And it would be bad for consumers if
we lost the ability to auction the licenses, because it would
delay disproportionately the rollout of services to consumers.
Mr. Pallone Well, thank you so much.
I wanted to ask a little bit about survivors of domestic
violence. We know that domestic violence, human trafficking,
and other related crimes are a serious concern. And studies
indicated that at least one in four women and one in ten men
have experienced sexual violence, physical violence, and/or
stalking by an intimate partner during their lifetime. So--and
too often, these abusers use technology and the internet to
bully, intimidate, or control a partner.
So the question for Dr. Kadri is how could family mobile
service plans place survivors of domestic violence and other
related crimes in harm's way?
And would providing survivors with the ability to separate
their phone service from their abusers help?
Dr. Kadri. Thank you, Chair Pallone. I--absolutely. The
family plans allow abusers to monitor a victim's calls, texts,
and even their locations sometimes. And so all of this
information from family plans can enable further escalation by
the abuser.
And safety planning is so essential when a victim is trying
to leave an abusive relationship, but that same planning can
also create immense danger if an abuser discovers an imminent
departure. And so, as things stand, there are just too many
obstacles and risks involved.
And we hear these stories all the time in our work at CETA.
I will just mention one briefly. It was a client who was on a
family phone plan, and then the abuser left the country
permanently. And so this client couldn't, you know, get
released from the family phone plan because the abuser couldn't
even be contacted. And we have all sorts of other stories where
people have struggled to get out of these family phone plans.
And the Safe Connections Act could really change these
conditions by giving victims a right to leave their phone plans
quickly, remotely, and for free.
Mr. Pallone Well, thank you. And then last I wanted to ask
about the Lifeline program, which you know provides eligible
families with phone service, so no one would be without a phone
line in case of an emergency, or keep in touch with friends or
loved ones.
It has been proven to be an essential program for many
people, though we know that just a fraction of the eligible
population--just about 19 percent, believe it or not--is
enrolled. So my question is, Ms. Valentin, in your opinion,
could the data reporting requirements in H.R. 4275 help
policymakers and community organizations raise awareness of the
Lifeline program, and ultimately help those who need this help?
I mean, obviously, we want more people to sign up, if you
would.
Dr. Valentin. Yes. Thank you for the question. Yes, the
data reporting requirements in this bill can absolutely help
community organizations raise awareness about the Lifeline
program and figure out where we need to target our efforts.
And it is also about accountability as it relates to
government agencies fulfilling their obligations to help people
most in need. You know, at the National Urban League we
understand that access to critical communication services such
as the Lifeline program directly correlates to economic
opportunity for both workers and entrepreneurs. And we want to
be able to close those opportunity gaps.
Mr. Pallone Well, thank you so much.
Thank you, Chairwoman Matsui.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mrs.
Rodgers, full committee ranking member, for 5 minutes to ask
questions.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning again. I
am really pleased that we have come together with bipartisan
legislation to extend the FCC's auction authority for 18
months.
Ms. Gomez, this 18-month extension will allow the FCC to
complete the auction of the 2.5 gigahertz band and avoid
disruption to the FCC's spectrum operations. However, some
people think that the FCC's authority should be extended for a
longer term, such as ten years. What are the benefits of
extending the FCC's auction authority for 18 months versus a
longer-term extension?
Ms. Gomez. Yes, thank you, Congresswoman, for your
question.
I do think a lengthy extension can be very beneficial, but
at this point the 18-month extension is the most practical path
at this point in time. We only have a short time left before
September 30. We don't have any current spectrum identified, so
there wouldn't be any spectrum in the extension of the
authority. We don't have a national spectrum strategy, either.
So it is probably best at this point to extend, but if
Congress provide the oversight as the FCC and NTIA develop
their national spectrum strategy.
Mrs. Rodgers. Ms. Gomez, as the former deputy assistant
secretary of NTIA, you have firsthand experience about the role
that NTIA plays in spectrum management. NTIA's Federal lab, the
Institute for Telecommunications Sciences, ITS, does important
work to understand radio frequency propagation and develop
technologies to improve spectrum efficiency.
What role does ITS play in the Federal Government?
Ms. Gomez. Apologies for the delay in unmuting.
ITS plays a very important role in spectrum management
supporting NTIA as it makes its decisions, as well as--with
regard to Federal spectrum use, as well as it coordinates with
the FCC on spectrum decisions that might affect Federal
agencies. It conducts research and development. It conducts
testing. It also enters into agreements with other Federal
agencies to conduct tests for them, as well as with commercial
providers.
So there is a variety of ways that ITS is important in the
spectrum management ecosystem.
Mrs. Rodgers. And as we look to the future of wireless
technologies, we know that effective spectrum management is
critical to our success. How can we better leverage ITS to
promote innovation, and continue to compete with China in
deploying wireless technology?
Ms. Gomez. I am so glad you raised this question, because
ITS is a very important component of spectrum management, as I
mentioned. It is also largely funded through these agreements.
And so being able to pass the Act that is being proposed, being
able to draw attention to the importance of its resources, and
being able to bolster the ITS functionality all will help
support our efforts, both domestically and internationally.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Mr. Kadri, earlier this year the Senate passed the Safe
Connections Act to ensure survivors of domestic abuse can
separate from a shared phone plan with an abuser. This is
important legislation to bring survivors one step closer to a
more hopeful, safe, and secure future. However, it is also
important that we get the details right in this legislation, so
that both survivors and wireless carriers have a smooth process
for providing relief.
Would you speak to the challenges survivors of domestic
violence face when they are trying to separate from the shared
aspects such as a shared phone contract?
Dr. Kadri. Absolutely. Thank you, Congresswoman. So the
obstacles are many and varied, but I will just focus on a
couple, since I know time is short.
For one thing, it can be quite difficult to even detect
this level of surveillance that goes on through family phone
plans. And so some victims are just, frankly, unaware of it.
But then, when they do become aware, trying to actually protect
themselves can be a real challenge. Often times, phone
companies won't allow for changes to the accounts unless they
have the primary account holder's permission, which, in many
cases, will be the abuser themselves. At other times there are
considerable fees and upfront costs that really make this kind
of barrier to separating the line too daunting for survivors to
go through.
I would be happy to mention other obstacles, but those are
a couple that I think are of particular concern to survivors
when they are trying to protect themselves and get out of these
plans.
Mrs. Rodgers. Well, thank you. And do you think including a
remote option to request a line separation might be part of the
answer?
Dr. Kadri. Absolutely. And I am pleased that the Act, at
least as I read it, does include such a protection,
particularly given the fact that so many survivors may have
real concerns about going into a physical store, particularly
in smaller communities, where the people working in the stores
may know them, they may know the person of concern. So I think
providing that remote option is crucial.
Mrs. Rodgers. Super. I appreciate your insights and your
work.
I yield back.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. The
Chair recognizes Mr. McNerney for 5 minutes to ask questions.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the Chair for holding this
hearing, and I thank the committee staff for putting it
together, and the witnesses for bringing your expertise here
this morning for us.
Ms. Gomez, how would greater spectrum sharing between the
Federal and non-Federal entities impact the current deployment
of our 5G networks?
Ms. Gomez. Thank you, Congressman, for that question.
Sharing is certainly a tool in the toolbox for 5G deployment.
As it becomes more and more challenging to identify additional
spectrum, sharing enables us to find new ways to obtain
spectrum.
But of course, it continues to be preferable to provide
cleared spectrum for auction, to enable infrastructure
providers and manufacturers the certainty they need to make the
necessary investments to establish U.S. leadership in 5G and
beyond.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I mean, do you think moving toward a
more agile spectrum sharing environment will blur the lines
between licensed and unlicensed spectrum, Ms. Gomez?
Ms. Gomez. Thank you, Congressman. I don't think we have
the technology or the systems in place today to get to an
environment that would blur the lines between licensed and
unlicensed spectrum. But I can imagine some time in the pretty
far future when that could happen. It would require, of course,
investments in technology, changes in our allocation processes,
and how our regulatory agencies approach spectrum management.
But in the meantime, unlicensed spectrum has been hugely
successful, with a tremendous impact on the economy. But there
is also an important place for licensed spectrum. So, as I
mentioned, for auctions to succeed, the participants must have
the certainty necessary that makes them willing to invest in
the auction, as well as to invest in deploying the network.
Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you again.
The spectrum sharing framework outlined in the SMART Act
includes a system to enable time-based spectrum sharing. So,
Ms. Gomez, what degree of automation would be required to
ensure successful implementation?
And do you see a role for artificial intelligence and
machine learning in time sharing and distribution of the
spectrum?
Ms. Gomez. Yes. So I have to admit I am not an expert in
this exact area. But I will point out that NTIA wrote a report
on the IIC a while ago, in which it mentioned that eventually
the system should lead to a point where AI and machine-based
learning is utilized as a method of implementing these sharing
mechanisms.
Mr. McNerney. Good. Thank you for that response.
Mr. Gibson, in your written testimony you explain the
concept of incumbent informing capability as a mechanism to
manage interference more effectively between Federal and non-
Federal users, specifically in the Citizens Band Radio Service.
Could the IIC be expanded to other parts of the spectrum?
Mr. Gibson. Thank you, Congressman, for that question, and
that is a very good question. And to clarify, I don't know that
I think the IIC manages interference. It manages spectrum
availability, thereby reducing the capability for interference.
But absolutely, it could be applied to other parts of
spectrum. In fact, the NTIA's vision for the IIC is to be used
across all spectrum domains where there will be Federal
commercial sharing, and it could also be extensible to Federal-
Federal sharing, to the extent that that is a thing.
Mr. McNerney. Yes.
Mr. Gibson. But it--their vision on it is very broad, and
it could really easily very--effectuate Federal commercial
sharing in any spectrum band.
Mr. McNerney. Is artificial intelligence used in that
process, or planned to be used in that process?
Mr. Gibson. It is not planned to be used in that process,
but artificial intelligence, machine learning absolutely lend
themselves to spectrum management, and that is my area of
expertise. And full disclosure, we were a SAS provider, we are
an ESC provider, and we have been using bits and pieces of
artificial intelligence to improve the fidelity of responses to
spectrum queries, thereby mitigating or eliminating
interference using those types. It is a little nascent, but it
is beginning.
Mr. McNerney. Excellent. Well, what implications would an
IIC have for unlicensed 5G and deployment of broadband?
Mr. Gibson. Well, they could--the--to the extent that any
sort of deployment will be in shared spectrum, the IIC would--
it wouldn't matter what spectrum is being managed. So it could
handle licensed, it could handle the auction spectrum, it could
handle unlicensed.
For example, in the six gigahertz band in the United States
there is this concept being called an automatic frequency
coordinating system that is coordinating much like a SAS for
commercial six gigahertz licensed and--around microwave
systems. The same thing could be applied in, say, the 7 and 8
gigahertz band, sharing with Federal and--Federal systems up
there. So it would absolutely lend itself to that.
Mr. McNerney. Very good. Thank you. It looks like my time
is about expired, so I am going to yield back. Thank you for
your responses.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Guthrie
for 5 minutes to ask questions.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Madam Chair. You said in your
opening statement that we worked on more spectrum bills than we
can count. And I agree. And each time it has been a pleasure to
work with you. And our staff it has been a pleasure to work
with your staff. So, I appreciate that very much.
My first question today is for Ms. Gomez, and I want to
thank you for your support of my legislation. Spectrum is,
obviously, a valuable and increasingly scarce resource, and I
believe we need to do all we can do to ensure that every
spectrum user is as efficient as possible, including the
Federal Government. So, my question is, how would an incumbent
informing capability help NTIA work with Federal agencies to
resolve technical barriers to make more Federal spectrum
available for commercial users?
Ms. Gomez. Thank you, Congressman Guthrie.
So, while there is a preference for clearing bands for
exclusive use, it is getting harder to fully clear bands. And
sharing has some benefits that I see will provide needed
transparency and certainty during sharing scenarios.
It would also replace some of the current dynamic sharing
methods that are proving to be technically challenging.
I would note that the capability will not enable the use of
fully cleared spectrum, but to the extent there are geographic
sharing opportunities, it would permit broader uses of spectrum
in areas where the Federal agencies may not be operating.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. I keep muting in between so it
doesn't have feedback, so sorry.
The SMART Act--Ms. Gomez again--the SMART Act directs NTIA
to establish a standardized framework for Federal spectrum
users to share more real-time usage information. As NTIA seeks
to identify new bands to clear for commercial use, how would
this tool help preserve and enhance Federal missions that are
key to protecting our national defense, such as those carried
out by the Department of Defense?
We all want access and better spectrum, but we also want to
make sure our agencies, our--particularly the Department of
Defense and others, can accomplish their core mission. So how
does this balance that?
Ms. Gomez. Thank you, Congressman. That is right. And, I
mean, NTIA's mission is to support the other agencies' ability
to fulfill their missions through the use of spectrum, while
balancing, of course, the need to support innovation for the
economy.
The IIC would enable Federal missions to continue using
their spectrum, but on a shared basis. So it gives a broadening
opportunity to access more spectrum, while permitting the
agencies to continue to utilize them.
Mr. Guthrie. OK, thank you.
And one of the bills we are discussing is focused on
sharing. I want to reiterate my continued support for making
additional spectrum available through auctions or licensed
commercial use. So Ms. Gomez, again, can you talk about the
role of NTIA in finding ways to incentivize Federal agencies to
be more efficient with their spectrum, so that we can make more
spectrum available for non-Federal use?
And does this bill strike the right balance between
prioritizing auctions where possible, and sharing where
auctions are infeasible?
Ms. Gomez. Thank you, Congressman Guthrie. I am really glad
you asked me that question, because it is something I feel very
passionate about.
In NTIA's role as spectrum manager, NTIA must work with all
agencies to make sure they are making efficient use of their
spectrum. It is challenging, however, for NTIA to motivate
other agencies to work on either identifying spectrum or to
make more efficient spectrum use if the sole purpose is to re-
purpose their spectrum for other uses. They are understandably
focused on fulfilling their missions, while NTIA's is the
efficient use of spectrum while supporting the innovation
economy. So the CSEA has provided tools for NTIA in its efforts
to re-purpose spectrum. But I noted in my testimony it could be
broadened to provide additional incentives.
In addition, it is helpful when Congress or the White House
includes spectrum bands to be studied or auctioned in its
legislation, or in executive orders or memoranda. Such actions
bolster the work that NTIA is doing, and gets the Federal
agencies' attention, and helps provide that motivation.
Mr. Guthrie. OK, thank you. I appreciate that. That
completes the questions that I have.
So I will yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
now recognizes Mr. O'Halleran for 5 minutes to ask questions.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member,
for holding this meeting today. We need more hearings like
this, where we are working together to solve a problem, where
we are more focused on finding a solution than partisan
bickering. And I appreciate the bipartisan emphasis on this
meeting.
I want to voice my support for the Safe Connections Act,
introduced by my friend, Congresswoman Kuster, which would take
necessary steps to protect victims of domestic abuse and other
crimes.
I thank you for your leadership on this, and I am glad to
see this committee consider the bill, and hope to make it move
through the House quickly.
Another bill we are considering today addresses a problem I
see far too often in my district and in under-resourced
communities in general. Congress passes legislation often times
aimed at helping struggling communities, working families, or
seniors. But the people it is supposed to help don't know the
program exists or that they are eligible at all. Far too often,
people don't know how to navigate bureaucratic systems. We
should be doing everything we can to make it easier for them to
get the help they need.
Ms. Valentin, what does a whole-of-government approach look
like when reaching under-served and under-resourced
communities?
Dr. Valentin. Thank you so much for the question. You know,
I would say a whole-of-government approach means that Federal
agencies across the board are using their existing authorities,
using their existing resources to reach under-served
communities in a coordinated fashion. Eligibility for programs
like Lifeline and the Affordable Connectivity Program, you
know, are based on eligibility for other Federal assistance
programs. But far too often, Federal agencies are working
independently to administer their respective assistance
programs.
So agencies can, you know, work on creating coordinated,
you know, educational materials. They can share information
across agencies, and just work on effective outreach efforts.
Mr. O'Halleran. I was just out in the field yesterday in my
district. It is three different communities. And each one of
those communities brought up a lack of knowledge on what was
going on with the different programs within our whole-of-
government approach. So somewhere along the line we are missing
the opportunity to get the information out there. I know that
my staff does a consistent job on that, but we have to find a
way to--I don't care where it is at and what agency it is, we
have to find a way to get--to allow our citizens to know what
is going on out there.
Another question, Ms. Valentin. Beyond this bill, are there
other approaches Congress should consider to ensure eligible
households access programs like Lifeline and the Affordable
Connectivity Program?
For example, certain tribal programs administered by the
Bureau of Indian Affairs qualifies households for the ACP.
Should Congress consider requiring BIA to provide information
to eligible households about the ACP, or should other agencies
be working together in that whole-of-government approach to get
this information out to people?
Dr. Valentin. Yes, thank you for the question. Well, as you
know, tribal communities are disproportionately disconnected,
and they are dealing with both access issues, as well as
affordability issues. And with the Lifeline program, as well as
the ACP program, you know, that is recognized. And that is why
tribal communities receive those enhanced benefits for
broadband services.
But those benefits can only be effective, as you said, if
the households actually know that these programs exist. So I
think that Congress should definitely explore all options that
encourage and incentivize Federal agencies to work together in
reaching these households. And I think cross-collaboration
between the FCC and the BIA can certainly help increase
enrollment, and we would certainly welcome legislation that
supports those goals.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you very much.
I am also glad to see this committee consider bills giving
the NTIA and the FCC the necessary tools to manage spectrum in
an efficient and innovative way. Spectrum is a public resource.
It belongs to all of us. But it is also a finite public
resource. Our approach to spectrum policy must reflect that
reality.
Ms. Gomez, what actions can and should the FCC and the NTIA
take to ensure that spectrum bands are used as efficiently as
possible?
Ms. Gomez. Thank you, Congressman, for your question. The
FCC and NTIA are constantly trying to evolve what they do to
ensure spectrum bands are used as efficiently as possible. But
from a high level, I would say, No. 1, increasing transparency
as much as possible. Sometimes this can be difficult with
sensitive or classified systems, but the more knowledge that we
have about how spectrum is being used, the more creative ways
we can come up with using spectrum more efficiently.
I see we are out of time. Planning as far ahead as possible
and participating in research and development.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I yield.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you. The gentleman yields. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Bilirakis for 5 minutes to ask questions.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it very
much.
Like many of my colleagues, I am pleased to see a
bipartisan bill to extend the spectrum auction authority for an
additional 18 months. The benefits that auctions have brought
through increased revenue, technological innovation, and
consumer choice have been immeasurable.
Ms. Gomez, if this legislation is not signed into law, and
the FCC's auction authority is severely restricted, what
implications does that have on the international stage?
And would we be allowing our international competitors--
unfortunately, like China--to have a leg up on leading the
future of technology?
Ms. Gomez. Yes, Congressman, that is a very important
point. I do think it would have a significant effect on our
international standing, largely because it would make--it would
put us back to the old-fashioned way of licensing spectrum,
which is very lengthy and inefficient. And so, we would be
significantly delayed vis a vis other countries, who are
actually quite advanced in providing spectrum for new and
advanced services.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. Next question--it has been some
time since I have brought up natural disasters in this
subcommittee. And with June 1st being the beginning of
Florida's hurricane season, the time is right to remind people
of the dangers, but also the promise that technology brings
to--again, we need to save lives.
Congressman Carter's ITS Codification Act includes the
creation of an emergency communications and tracking
technologies initiative that would help locate trapped
individuals during events when communication lines are down,
helping save lives when seconds count.
Again, Ms. Gomez, what can Congress do to continue
advancing ITS leadership in technological innovation?
Ms. Gomez. Thank you for that question. ITS does core
research for public safety to better understand the components
of a communication signal need to prioritize--to see through
smoke in a video, to have resolution, the necessary resolution
for public safety responses.
So the work that they are doing is very important.
Adequately funding ITS to conduct this research is critically
important for us to be prepared as a nation to meet the
challenging of--the changing environment, and what that poses
to communications systems.
So, you know, Congress supporting the Act is terrific, and
continuing to find ways to utilize ITS and to bolster its
funding would be terrific.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
As a followup, Mr. Gibson, what role can ITS play in
developing technologies to more efficiently use spectrum
resources?
Mr. Gibson. Well, thank you for the question. That is very
insightful. And I would say that, you know, I wanted to make
sure that I did say this, that I think, in my opinion, ITS is
probably the best at what they do.
And so I think that some of the collaboration that ITS has
done with industry and also with the Federal Government in
terms of innovation, what we can do in industry--and also
Federal Government has come up with ideas, and then NTIA ITS
can then instantiate those ideas in whatever--they can build
models, they can build tools, and--which is some of what they
are doing now. In fact, they had built a tool to support
spectrum sharing in other spectrum bands in the AWS band.
So I think allowing--as Ms. Gomez said, allowing them the
funding they need to get going, allowing a collaboration with
other experts in the industry, I think that will help bring
about what we are looking for.
Mr. Bilirakis. It sounds good. Thank you, Mr. Gibson.
And I yield back the balance of my time, Madam Chair.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
now recognizes Mr. Soto for 5 minutes to ask questions.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The internet is integral to our daily lives. From online
education to e-commerce, telehealth to smart agriculture,
access to high-speed internet is essential for all central
Floridians.
We made a big promise and put our money where our mouth was
with the infrastructure law, $65 billion for high-speed
internet, for rural broadband. It is going to be key for rural
areas of Florida, as well as low-income areas of Florida that
right now don't have equal access to internet.
Extending Federal auction for an additional 18 months makes
sense. We must carefully make spectrum available to the private
sector, balanced against defense and aviation concerns. And
this is going to help us with that right balance. And I applaud
the SMART Act, which is going to standardize a spectrum sharing
framework.
We also see more specific legislation on the agenda today
to help victims of domestic violence and human trafficking by
requiring providers to prove separate lines. Can you imagine?
And I have heard horror stories in our district of victims
being----
[Audio malfunction.]
Mr. Soto [continuing]. And how that can put folks into
danger.
There are many isolated areas of the Sunshine State also.
So this is going to be key in emergency response.
Ms. Gomez, it would be great to hear a little more about
some examples of how there is interagency hang-ups, barriers,
and conflicts as we are trying to deploy new spectrum. What
actually happens on the day-to-day to slow this stuff down, and
how does the SMART Act address that?
Ms. Gomez. Thank you, Congressman, for that question.
So, you know, on a day-to-day basis, I actually think the
coordination between the agencies is quite good. There is a
good relationship at the staff level between the agencies. What
becomes difficult is when we are asking agencies to put away
their attention from their day-to-day missions and to focus on
finding ways to free up spectrum for other uses.
So, as I mentioned before, what we need is incentives to--
for the Federal agencies to focus and to provide the
engineering that is necessary in order to determine how we can
utilize spectrum, either more efficiently or re-purpose it for
other uses.
Mr. Soto. Can you--oh, please continue.
Ms. Gomez. Sorry, go ahead.
Mr. Soto. And you believe the SMART Act would help address
those incentives?
Ms. Gomez. I think, to a certain extent, it helps address
those incentives. It is important that NTIA have that
capability, and that NTIA's authority be bolstered and
recognized as the manager of Federal spectrum.
So to--for purposes of sharing, it would definitely help
NTIA fulfill its mission and work with the FCC to find more
ways to share spectrum.
Mr. Soto. OK. So it helps, but we have more work to do.
Dr. Kadri, my constituents would be shocked to know that
domestic violence and human trafficking victims can't even
separate a shared line from their attackers. And I was looking
in your testimony about roughly only a dozen states provide
protections. So 38 states across the United States have nothing
to help victims of domestic violence get away from something as
essential as having their own cell phone.
And you also mention in your testimony requiring a court
order.
So does this legislation--will it help those other 38
states, and will it need a court order, or will we be able to
really fast track this going forward?
Dr. Kadri. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. It
certainly would help all of those people in states where there
are just no existing protections.
And no, thankfully, the bill, as currently drafted, would
not require the burden of trying to seek a court order to force
a phone company to do this. The survivor would have to provide
certain documentation from a third party in order to get the
line separation, but they wouldn't have to go to court in order
to be able to do it. And that would be a big change, even for
those folks in many of the other states, where there are some
limited protections for them.
But as you point out, for those folks in other states who
currently lack any legal recourse to do this, it would make a
big difference.
Mr. Soto. Thanks, Dr. Kadri, and I am proud of this
legislation to make sure we are empowering victims, and I yield
back.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
now recognizes Mr. Long for 5 minutes to ask questions.
Mr. Long. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
And Ms. Gomez, you can probably see on the wall behind me
my 42-year-old auctioneer license plate from here in Missouri.
And so I have got a long, long history auctioneering before I
went to Congress 12 years ago. And the FCC spectrum auctions
have helped create the wireless services that we all enjoy
today. Congress can take a little bit of credit for this
success story also.
With one exception, every time Congress extended the FCC
auction authority, we told the FCC to auction spectrum. It
seems to me that this short-term extension will give Congress
the time we need to find the right bands in which to auction.
Ms. Gomez, isn't that why short-term extension of FCC's
auction authority, as included in H.R. 7783, makes the most
sense?
Ms. Gomez. Yes, Congressman, I agree. It makes the most
sense for the reasons you articulate.
Mr. Long. Thank you. And also sticking with you, Ms. Gomez,
the National Telecommunications and Information Administration,
NTIA, of course, is statutorily--easy for me to say--
statutorily responsible for representing Federal views on
spectrum matters before the FCC, and FCC actions may affect a
Federal user spectrum use.
In recent years, this process has gained public attention.
How would standardized framework contemplated in the SMART Act
improve NTIA's ability to represent Federal views?
Ms. Gomez. Thank you, Congressman, for that question. So
the SMART Act will both provide NTIA with a more transparent
and efficient tool to permit it to enable the sharing of
Federal spectrum. It also recognizes that NTIA is the manager
of Federal spectrum, and bolsters its status by that
recognition.
Mr. Long. OK. And why is it important that NTIA retains its
role as the spectrum manager across all Federal agencies,
rather than have each agency manage their own spectrum use?
Ms. Gomez. Thank you, Congressman. This is a very important
issue.
NTIA must retain its role as the spectrum manager across
all Federal agencies. There is an important distinction between
the agencies, which are spectrum users, and NTIA, which manages
spectrum used by Federal agencies. Placing the responsibility
for managing spectrum within the spectrum user, whether it is a
Federal agency or a commercial user, would present an inherent
conflict of interest.
Even the FCC doesn't manage its own spectrum. Rather,
because the FCC is a Federal user, NTIA manages its spectrum.
So the Federal agencies each have their own missions to
accomplish, and managing spectrum efficiently is not among
those missions. NTIA has to balance its duty to ensure that
Federal agencies can perform their missions with its duty of
working with the FCC to enable new and innovative uses to
enhance the U.S. economy. To perform this mission well, NTIA
must remain the regulator, and be charged and bolstered as the
agency that makes these difficult decisions.
Mr. Long. OK, thank you.
And I told you I was a fast talker, so Madam Chairwoman, I
yield back 1-minute and 45 seconds.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Long. The Chair now recognizes
Miss Rice for 5 minutes to ask questions.
Miss Rice. Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
And Ms. Gomez, I would like to continue along with Billy--I
am sorry, Representative Long's--questions.
I hear you on NTIA remaining the manager of all the
spectrum. And what I have heard a lot about is ways that we can
make that management more efficient. I would just like to go
back a step. Can you tell us the ways that spectrum is being
inefficiently used?
You know, in order for us to make sure that we come up with
ways to make sure that the management is as efficient as
possible. And maybe give examples of either specific bands that
have historically been under-used or that are ripest for re-
purposing.
Ms. Gomez. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman.
So NTIA actually has an interestingly efficient way of
managing spectrum, in that it actually facilitates more sharing
between Federal agencies than what you see in the FCC's
licensing process, which tends to be more exclusive licensing.
That can also create certain inefficiencies.
For example, when NTIA approves systems that have similar
product but they are utilizing different bands for those
products for different reasons. This happens in, for example,
the 1.0 gigahertz band, where you have FAA sensors, you have
DoD, you have--I believe it is NOAA that has--have similar
uses, similar products that they utilize, but they are
utilizing them in ways that really could be consolidated and,
therefore, there could be more spectrum freed up. So that is
one example of inefficiencies that could be addressed.
Miss Rice. And are we addressing them? Or how do we address
them so that we make sure that these--that this limited, finite
universe that we have is managed most efficiently?
Ms. Gomez. Well, honestly, I think one of--yes, of course,
NTIA is constantly studying ways to make the uses more
efficient. Giving them the tools to be able to upgrade their
spectrum management systems, which are quite antiquated at this
point, would be really helpful, increasing the transparency of
Federal uses and, as I mentioned, increasing the incentives for
Federal agencies to study their own systems and to find ways to
move or re-purpose the ones that they have, so that we can free
up additional spectrum for new uses.
Miss Rice. Well, that is--thank you so much, Ms. Gomez,
that is very helpful. I would like to turn to Dr. Valentin, if
I can, for a second.
Legislation like H.R. 4275 is important because it is going
to help Congress understand why eligible--and we have talked
about this all morning--but why eligible individuals end up
enrolling, and more often why they don't enroll in Lifeline.
While this bill is focused on Lifeline enrollment in SNAP-
eligible individuals, it should offer important lessons for
every agency and program that qualify a consumer for Lifeline.
So, for instance, more than ten percent of Lifeline
beneficiaries are veterans, even though just 0.08 percent of
participants--that is one out of every 1,000--qualify for the
program through their veteran's pension or survivor pension.
So, Dr. Valentin, are there ways for the Department of
Veterans Affairs and other relevant agencies to improve
coordination and outreach around the Lifeline and ACP program
so that more qualifying veterans are able to take full
advantage of the program?
Dr. Valentin. Thank you so much for the question. You know,
as the daughter of two veterans, the sibling of a veteran, I am
really glad that you raised this because I think that veterans
are often a group that is left out of these conversations when
we are talking about the digital divide. And they make so many
sacrifices for our country.
And there is also folks who deal with kind of multiple
levels of marginalization--for example, you know, Black
veterans. One-third of all veterans experiencing homelessness
are Black veterans. And I do think that we need a whole-of-
government approach to getting households enrolled in the
Lifeline program, in the Affordability--Affordable Connectivity
Program, as well.
And we need to make sure that, if someone signs up for a
program, you know, at the VA, they sign up for a program at
USDA, they are immediately notified about all the other
programs that they are eligible for, including the Lifeline
program, including the Affordable Connectivity Program.
Miss Rice. All right, that is good to know. Thank you.
I just want to thank the witnesses so much, and thank Madam
Chairwoman and the ranking member for bringing this hearing
today. Thank you, and I yield back.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. The
Chair now recognizes Mr. Walberg for 5 minutes to ask
questions.
[Pause.]
Ms. Matsui. Mr. Walberg? Can you--Mr. Walberg, are you
hearing us? We can't hear you.
[Pause.]
Ms. Matsui. OK, let's go on to somebody else.
Schrader?
Voice. Long. Long, sorry, Long.
Ms. Matsui. No, Long is already done. OK, the--is Mr.
Carter----
Mr. Walberg. Can you hear me now, Madam Chairwoman?
Ms. Matsui. Yes, I can.
Mr. Walberg. Sorry about that.
Ms. Matsui. OK.
Mr. Walberg. Sometimes technology doesn't work in a tech
committee, I guess.
Ms. Matsui. I understand.
Mr. Walberg. I thank the witnesses for being here today,
and today's hearing touches on a number of extremely important
bills for both consumers and businesses.
But first I want to highlight the importance of H.R. 7132,
the Safe Connections Act. I join my colleagues, Representatives
Eshoo and Kuster, as the lead Republican on this legislation
because no one should ever have to make the choice between
staying connected and staying safe.
This partisan--bipartisan bill allows survivors of domestic
violence, stalking, and other harms to separate their phone
line from any cell phone plan shared with their abuser without
having to worry about financial penalties or other
requirements. It also directs the FCC to examine further ways
to support and protect survivors after they disconnect.
Shared plans can be used by abusers to continue stalking or
controlling their victims, and fees and arduous paperwork
should not be another impediment to survivors getting to
safety.
I am extremely heartened by the broad support this
legislation has had. The wire industry worked closely with
domestic violence groups to come to an agreement that passed
the Senate by unanimous consent. And I know that we, here in
the House, can do the same.
Dr. Kadri, your testimony outlines the patchwork of State
laws that currently exist to address digital abuse and shared
mobile service contracts. In what ways does the Safe
Connections Act strengthen current laws to make gaining digital
freedom easier for survivors?
And also, what gaps still remain?
Dr. Kadri. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. The
Safe Connections Act, I think, really sets a really solid
foundation from which we can kind of expand protections for
survivors. So it sets a really good base in making it easier,
cheaper, and more accessible for survivors to be able to get
out of family phone plans that do pose them the risks that I
have discussed this morning.
And then it also empowers the FCC, I think, to engage in
some really wise and innovative rulemaking to try and provide
further protection. So I think, for example, the provision in
the bill that is before you that would have the FCC look into
removing or concealing communications with domestic violence
hotlines from phone bills would be of crucial importance to
survivors as they try and safety plan, and get out of an
abusive relationship.
And similarly, the efforts to expand access to the Lifeline
plan, as my fellow expert today, Dr. Valentin, has, I think, so
compellingly told us, is just so essential in trying to close
that digital divide.
So I really commend those aspects of the bill.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you. Also, Dr. Kadri, the legislation
tasks the Federal Communications Commission with determining
which program, the Lifeline program or the Affordable
Connectivity Program, is best suited to provide emergency
communications support to survivors.
Which of these programs, if I could ask, do you recommend
for this purpose?
Dr. Kadri. Congressman, I can't say that I have a firm view
either way on that one. I would sort of defer to the expertise
somewhat of those, you know, within the FCC who really engage
with those programs and, I think actually, some of the other
legislation that is before your subcommittee today to try and
gain a better understanding of how these programs are used or,
unfortunately, more often not used by people, could be really
important in trying to figure out which of the plans make the
most sense.
But I do think that providing that kind of support through
one plan or the other would be of great importance to
survivors.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you.
While all of my questions have been asked about H.R. 7783,
I do want to applaud that legislation, the Extending America's
Spectrum Auction Leadership Act. This short-term extension will
ensure that we have an uninterrupted and well-coordinated
spectrum pipeline. And it is key to the United States remaining
leader in 5G deployment and beyond. And for that reason the
continued efforts in this legislation need to be done, need to
be carried out, and I certainly stand in strong support.
With that, I yield back my remaining 38 seconds.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
now recognizes Mr. Schrader for 5 minutes to ask questions.
Mr. Schrader. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I
appreciate the hearing we are having here today.
Mr. Gibson, interference is a potentially huge hazard to
the aviation industry, both military and civilian. I want to
know what--if you could speak to the issues about wireless
interference, and what is the State of testing going on to make
sure, with the spectrum availability auctions that are going
on, that that would be minimized or, if at all possible,
potentially eliminated.
We have had discussions in this committee about
interference for quite some time. And what are the standards,
and how are they being allocated at this point in time?
Mr. Gibson. Well, that is an excellent question. And there
is a lot of areas where that is pertinent.
One of--you may be thinking about is the interference
situations with radar altimeters. I am not in the middle of
that, and probably am not qualified to comment on that, other
than knowing the issues as a pilot. And what I do know is there
is a lot of work being done with key leadership and key
engineers from the FAA, from the FCC, and with wireless
carriers. And they are doing their level best to mitigate that.
The new band that is being considered where there may be
some aviation interests is the 3100 to 3450 megahertz band. In
that band is AWACS operations.
Mr. Schrader. Yes.
Mr. Gibson. And so there is no--at least from what we know
about it--and this information is--some of this information is
classified, and some of it is coming to us piecemeal--the
interference issues there are with respect to the onboard
radars. So there is no safety of flight interference issues
there in that band.
And then there is just generally potentially interference
issues with aviation in general. For example, like, potential
for interference with navigation conditions. Like, for example,
we are familiar with the issue that occurred years ago with
potential interference with GPS. A lot of that stuff is being
dealt with now in the context of studies that are being taken
care of, both in the NTIA and the FCC.
And for the most part, the only major issue that we are
still facing right now with that is the one that is going on in
the C-Band. And as far as I can tell, that is on the path to
being resolved in time.
Mr. Schrader. A related question is, is there a timeframe
within which--it seems like, if we are doing all the spectrum
auctions, it would be extremely important to have this issue
resolved, at least for the near term, until we learn
differently, based on the best knowledge at hand about, well,
what interference potential there is.
You know, Federal and non-Federal agencies, as well as
military and civilian aviation, it seems like we ought to have
this figured out before we go too far down the line going
forward and, you know, realizing that our best efforts and
knowledge at this point might change, but at least have a
standard protocol that everyone should count on.
Mr. Gibson. That is an excellent point, Congressman, and
with respect to the C-Band, that effort is ongoing. The auction
happened.
What I can tell you that is going on in the 3100 to 3450
meg band, as you well know by the Acts and the legislation,
that ban won't be auctioned before, I think, early--no earlier
than November 2024. And there is study going on as we speak. In
fact, I was in a daylong meeting yesterday trying to better
understand how the equities that are owned by the DoD in that
band can better share with commercial operations.
And our goal in that work is to establish better
understanding of use cases, both from Federal, mostly DoD, and
commercial use, and then try to effectuate solutions for
sharing. And we all understand that the primary goal is to not
have interference, especially with some of the DoD systems that
are being dealt with, but also with commercial systems.
Mr. Schrader. Yes, obviously, important for our committee
to have a hearing on this, bringing the FCC and NTIA in, and
have a discussion about timeframes and working with civilian
and other Federal agencies, and come up with a game plan.
Otherwise, we may be ending up still studying things as these
auctions transpire.
I guess the last question regarding the--and it was hinted
at before, which is, you know, why extend the authority for
only a short period of time. I understood the answer to be,
well, we don't have any auctions coming up at this point in
time.
But I mean, it seems to me--why are we not just extending
the authority for the FCC to do these auctions indefinitely?
They will take time, they are--a great deal of work goes
into studying the effects, and who is interested, who is not,
what the potential problems might be. So why are we not at this
point in time just giving this authority to the FCC so we don't
have to revisit it every so many months and put it at danger?
Mr. Gibson. Well, I think Ms. Gomez made a very good point
about that early on, but mostly it is related to, among other
things, the fact that we don't have any spectrum auctions teed
up in the near future--certainly beyond the horizon for the 18
months.
And also, I would note that the Commission is down a
commissioner, and that some of the folks at some of the key
bureaus there are acting. And so 18 months seems to be an
appropriate timeframe, all those things considered.
Mr. Schrader. Very good, very good, and I yield back. Thank
you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you. The gentleman has yielded back. The
Chair now recognizes Mr. Carter for 5 minutes to ask his
questions.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank all of the
witnesses for being here, a very important hearing. Very, very
important, as you know.
And I will start with you, Ms. Gomez. But as you know, I
have introduced House Resolution 4990, which is simply to
codify the Institute for Telecommunication Services. It also
directs the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications
and Information to establish an initiative that will support
the development of emergency communications and tracking
technologies.
But the main impetus of it is really for the Institute for
Telecommunication Sciences, or ITS. As you know, it is NTIA's
lab, and it is important for tests and research to solve the
challenges that we have, the--of the technical issues.
Can you just--Ms. Gomez, can you just please speak to the
importance of ITS, and how this bill will strengthen it and the
lab's important work?
Ms. Gomez. Yes, Congressman, thank you for that very good
question.
So NTIA has a very technical mission between spectrum
management, supporting technical decisionmaking, and supporting
spectrum being transitioned for commercial uses.
ITS conducts the studies to enable sharing, for example.
What they are doing day to day is supporting NTIA's efforts to
make decisions about how to manage spectrum more efficiently,
and how to avoid interference while supporting agency missions.
This includes conducting interference studies for FCC actions
that affects Federal users.
So their work is very important in both supporting existing
spectrum uses and ensuring that they are in an interference--or
a harmful interference-free environment, but also for finding
new and innovative ways to use spectrum and enabling
decisionmaking that allows that.
Mr. Carter. Great, great. Well, I had asked Secretary
Davidson earlier this year, and I will ask you the same thing:
What role do you think ITS will play in improving NTIA's
interagency spectrum coordination mission?
Ms. Gomez. Thank you for that question. ITS plays such an
important role, because what ITS gives us is the engineering
basis for these discussions and their decisions. They are the
ones that provide the proof of how things are going to work.
So it is very important for these discussions so we don't
just rely on, you know, generalized discussions or hyperbole;
we actually have what we would call a science-based
conversation about how to utilize spectrum.
Mr. Carter. Well, let me ask you this. It is obviously
critical to ensure that the FCC continues to have the ability
to auction spectrum. We all agree on that.
But you note in your testimony that there is a need for
better spectrum coordination. What--based on your experience at
NTIA, I am curious, what do we need to be doing to ensure the
longstanding interagency spectrum process works?
Ms. Gomez. Thank you for that question. I think the most
important thing that we need to be doing is recognizing NTIA's
statutory role as the manager of Federal spectrum.
What we have seen is, if Federal agencies or also private
parties are unhappy with a decision that has been made, then
utilize outside of the NTIA and the FCC coordination process in
order to continue to litigate some of the issues. And that is
just not healthy to have a strong spectrum management process.
So bolstering NTIA's position is important. The White House
needs to strongly support NTIA, and to reinforce its role as
the Federal spectrum manager.
If I can also put in a plug, if Congress would see fit to
elevating the assistant secretary to an under secretary at the
Department of Commerce, it would greatly help with his
position--his or her in the future--in its negotiations with
high-level representatives from other agencies.
Mr. Carter. How do you think it--why would it help if he--
to be elevated?
Ms. Gomez. You know, it is amazing how protocol sometimes
falls into play with these types of negotiations. If you have
an assistant secretary sitting in a room with the deputy
secretary of DoD, there are times when perhaps the staff may be
unwilling to allow that kind of negotiation to happen. And yet
it has happened in the past. Past NTIA heads have sat down with
the deputy secretary of defense in order to talk about re-
purposing spectrum and management of spectrum, generally.
So it is just a protocol issue, but it definitely helps.
Much like having an ambassador status helps in the
international negotiation process, having an under secretary
status helps in the domestic negotiation process.
Mr. Carter. OK, OK. Well, thank you.
And I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much. Now the Chair recognizes--
let's see--Mr. Cardenas for 5 minutes to ask questions.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman and
Ranking Member, for holding this hearing, and to all the
witnesses for your testimony and your expertise and your
opinions on the matters today.
We know more than ever that broadband must be more
accessible for all Americans to succeed. About 38 million
people in the United States benefited from the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as SNAP, in 2019. This
is about 12 percent of our total U.S. population.
We also know that too many eligible people don't know that
the FCC's Lifeline program exists. SNAP recipients, for
example, automatically qualify for the Lifeline program, which
offers discounted phone and internet service. More than 33
million households are eligible to receive Lifeline support,
yet only 1 in 4 of those households in the United States
actually takes advantage of it.
This question is to Dr. Valentin. How does the FCC's
Lifeline program, among other Federal programs, help close the
digital divide?
And what can the Federal Government do to improve outreach
efforts for programs like this one that promote access to low-
cost broadband service, and to help increase participation
rates and public awareness in all communities, including under-
served communities and rural America?
Dr. Valentin. Thank you so much for the question. You know,
affordability is often cited as the biggest barrier that is
preventing communities from adopting broadband. And both the
Lifeline program, as well as the Affordable Connectivity
Program, are the strongest tools that we have to help bridge
that affordability gap by lowering the cost of monthly
broadband services for millions of households.
As you stated, both of these programs are very, very under-
subscribed. I think that public-private partnerships are really
important. As we saw a few weeks ago at the White House, their
recent event where they announced industry commitments to ACP,
it helped increase dramatically the awareness around that
program.
And also, we have to make sure that we are prioritizing the
funding of trusted organizations that are working on the ground
to reach communities where they are.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you. And also thank you for earlier
reminding us how important it is that we try to reach out and
support our veterans because of the disproportionality of
veterans who aren't connected to the internet, and also the
disproportionality of veterans who actually are homeless.
The Lifeline program has helped millions of people connect
to vital tools and stay digitally connected. The bill
introduced by my colleagues, Representatives Luria and Katko,
H.R. 4275, Ensuring Phone and Internet Access for SNAP
Recipients Act of 2021, would help lower the cost of phone and
internet access for families that benefit from the SNAP
program. I commend my colleagues who are working on this issue,
and I look forward to working with them and the chairman to
ensure that all American families have the vital resources that
they deserve to be at--to have access, and afford phone and
internet services, and stay digitally connected.
When it comes to WiFi and extending spectrum auction
authority, I am glad that today's legislative hearing also
includes the discussion of H.R. 7783, the Extending America's
Spectrum Auction Leadership of 2022, introduced by my fellow
colleagues, Representatives Davids, Welch, Joyce, and Johnson.
Congress must act now to ensure wireless operators have a
continuing supply of the spectrum they need to keep the United
States at the forefront of global 5G investment and innovation.
Ms. Gomez, never has the value of WiFi been more apparent
than during the COVID-19 pandemic. And even though spectrum
auctions raised funds directly for the U.S. Treasury, how can
Congress better account for the vast economic and societal
benefits offered by unlicensed spectrum when identifying
spectrum bands for commercial use?
Ms. Gomez. Hi, Congressman, thank you so much for that
question. It is a very good question.
You know, I would refer you to the letter that Chairwoman
Rosenworcel wrote to the leaders of the Commerce Committees,
both in the Senate and the House, where she talks about how to
value unlicensed spectrum, which is used for WiFi, in order to
demonstrate or to take into account the tremendous economic
value that unlicensed has given to our economy as it conducts
its analyses of spectrum bills. It only does so for auction
spectrum. But the fact is the downstream effects of unlicensed
spectrum are tremendous for our economy. So looking at ways to
do that would be very helpful.
Mr. Cardenas. Yes, thank you very much.
And once again, we have some incredibly talented
commissioners. And Chairwoman Rosenworcel I have known for many
years, and has been working really hard on this issue, and
trying to be as innovative as possible, and is incredibly
accessible to constituents like mine across the country.
So with that, Madam Chairwoman, I want to--I will yield
back. Thank you so much.
Ms. Matsui. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Ms. Kelly for 5 minutes to ask questions.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Dr. Kadri, you mentioned in your testimony how corporate
programs meant to help abuse victims are often so poorly
advertised that victims are highly unlikely to even know they
exist. Other times, the process of leaving a family plan can be
complex, burdensome, and risky.
Beyond what is required in the Safe Connection Act, are
there are other things wireless service providers can do to
help make it easier for victims to leave a family plan?
Dr. Kadri. Thank you, Congressman, for the question.
Certainly, there are.
One thing that springs to mind is that the phone providers
could allow survivors to leave family plans based solely on a
survivor's own sworn attestation of abuse. Now, although,
right, the Safe Communications--sorry, Safe Connections Act
requires third-party documentation, there is no reason why
companies couldn't allow people to leave family plans based on
their own affidavit. And so I think that is one thing that they
could do.
They could also certainly do more to warn account holders
about the potential risks from family phone plans. And indeed,
I think an earlier version of this bill had a provision in
there that required adults of 18 years or older to sort of opt
in to any of these monitoring features on a family plan, such
as the location information that could be shared. And although
that is no longer in the bill, I see no reason why phone
companies couldn't do that, and why they shouldn't do that. I
firmly believe that they should.
So those are just a couple of ideas of what they could do
on their own sort of volition.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you so much.
As many of my colleagues are aware, representation of Big
Tech for women and minorities is abysmal. There is only one
woman to every 3.76 men employed at the Big Five tech
companies: Amazon, Facebook, Apple, Google, and Microsoft.
Racial diversity is also a major concern, with an estimated
77.1 percent of venture-backed startup founders being White,
and only 1.8 percent Black. Those numbers do not bode well for
creating teams equipped to empathize with victims of digital
abuse who are overwhelmingly women, racial minorities, and
sexual minorities.
Dr. Kadri, can you discuss how lack of representation in
the tech industry can further harm survivors, and what steps
companies can take to do more to protect women, racial
minorities, and sexual minorities?
Dr. Kadri. Certainly, Congresswoman. It is an excellent
question and a really important issue.
I think, you know, not only must these companies engage
actively with questions of diversity in hiring, as one of the
other experts earlier mentioned----
[Audio malfunction.]
Dr. Kadri [continuing]. Actually kind of listening to
survivors' stories and experiences, and stopping treating them
as kind of aberrant or rare or unusual is crucial. Even the
language that gets used in the tech industry of kind of these
situations being treated as ``edge `cases''' is really
problematic, I think. They aren't edge cases. They should be
seen as stress cases. And here I am drawing on work by Sara
Wachter-Boettcher, who has talked about this in her work.
And so I think even that kind of terminology is important.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you.
The Lifeline program is very under-utilized, with a
participation rate that hovers at about 19 percent, or 6.5
million households, despite estimates that more than 34 million
households are eligible. Dr. Valentin, can you discuss the
disproportional effects this has on low-income individuals,
women, and people of color, and how we can work to reach those
who will benefit most from the program?
Dr. Valentin. Yes. Thank you so much for the question.
So, yes, when we are talking about folks who aren't
connected, we are talking about our most vulnerable
populations, which includes domestic violence survivors, it
includes people who are experiencing homelessness, people of
color who are disproportionately in lower-wage jobs. And so the
lack of connectivity impacts one's ability to have access to
healthcare, impacts one's ability to have access to government
services that are online, and even impacts one's ability to
stay connected to family and friends.
But it can't be underscored enough that this is also about
an economic opportunity gap. We are leaving these groups behind
and--within the tech ecosystem and--when we are not connecting
them to broadband and all the opportunities that are associated
with broadband.
So, we have to be able to lean on groups that have
connections in the communities, fund these groups so that they
can fund their outreach efforts, and there also needs to be
more outreach efforts going on on the Federal level, as well.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you so very much.
I am out of time, so I yield back. Thank you.
Ms. Matsui. The gentlelady's time has expired. Thank you,
yield back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Veasey for 5 minutes to ask
questions.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it is great
that we are holding this hearing, and for the witnesses being
here today. I think today's hearing reflects the deliberate and
bipartisan work that the committee has been able to accomplish
to help connect millions in urban and rural America, and ensure
we maintain a robust telecommunications infrastructure, and
especially in areas like that I represent here in the Dallas-
Fort Worth area, and every part of the country. It is just--it
is good that we are having this discussion.
Dr. Valentin, first of all, I want to say congratulations
on your recent transition to the National Urban League. And my
first question deals with the FCC's Lifeline program and H.R.
4275, the Ensuring Phone and Internet Access for SNAP
Recipients that was introduced by my colleagues Luria and
Katko.
As you know, the legislation will require the FCC to submit
reports on enrollment in the Lifeline program by those
participating in SNAP. According to the USAC in Texas, there
are approximately 2.7 million Lifeline-eligible households, yet
only about 280,000 are subscribed, which is a ten percent
participation rate in the program. That is also much lower than
the national average participation rate, which is around that
20 percent, 19 percent or so.
In your written questions you suggested that the
requirements of H.R. 4275 should also be extended beyond
Lifeline to include the ACP, which is the long-term version of
the emergency broadband benefit program that I helped introduce
at the beginning of the pandemic.
Can you explain the benefits of extending the requirements
of this bill to go beyond the Lifeline program to also include
a report on enrollment in the Affordable Connectivity Program
by SNAP recipients?
Dr. Valentin. Yes, thank you so much for the question, and
thank you for your leadership on the Affordable Connectivity
Program, as well.
So, I would kind of answer this question by saying that,
you know, we need both the Lifeline program, as well as the
Affordable Connectivity Program. As you know, when you are
applying these benefits, you can only apply it to either mobile
services or your wireline services. And there are households
across the country that need both.
Therefore, we need to understand the data from both of
those programs. And hopefully, it will also help us understand
if, for example, the Lifeline subsidy needs to increase, and
how we can better coordinate the programs, as well.
Mr. Veasey. Dr. Valentin, you also talked in your opening
statement about the National Urban League's support for
spectrum auction winners to hire from under-represented
communities beyond entry level positions, and to increase
supplier diversity.
And as you know, many of these auction winners have also
made commitments to incorporate racial equity initiatives into
their businesses. Do you think these winners are delivering on
their promises?
Dr. Valentin. I think that we can always do better,
honestly. And I think that it is--this is something that
National Urban League has been working on for years. But the
more that we can integrate equity and inclusion into companies,
the better. And it goes across the board, from the workers who
are entering the field, to the C-suite, to what--the community
investments are of these companies.
Mr. Veasey. And I know that sometimes, you know, people
will say, well, it is better for Congress to stay on the
sidelines and let the private sector work all this out, or,
``We need some help from Congress.'` Do you think that there is
anything that Congress can do to incentivize auction winners to
hire, retain, and promote under-represented groups?
Dr. Valentin. Yes. You know, I think, you know, any
legislation that you all introduce in this space would
definitely be welcomed because, again, we need to make sure
that all communities are benefiting from this booming
ecosystem.
Mr. Veasey. Yes, yes. No, absolutely.
And with that, Madam Chairman, I will yield back. But thank
you to the panelists. I thought that this was a very useful
topic today. Thank you, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Matsui. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Ms. Clarke for 5 minutes to ask questions.
Ms. Clarke. And thank you very much, Madam Chair, for
convening this very important hearing. And thank you to our
panelist
[sic] of witnesses for your expert testimony.
Increased and targeted outreach efforts are necessary for
all eligible families to take advantage of programs like the
Lifeline program. H.R. 4275, the Ensuring Phone and Internet
Access for SNAP Recipients Act of 2021, requires the FCC to
submit reports on the effectiveness of various Lifeline program
advertising efforts.
Dr. Valentin, could you elaborate on how these reports
could assist in increasing the utilization of the Lifeline
program among SNAP recipients?
Dr. Valentin. Yes. You know, we really just need to know,
like, where the gaps persist.
And I would say that something--as it relates to, you know,
outreach efforts that we can sort of lean on, and something
National Urban League talked about in recent comments to the
FCC, you know, the CDC had a program, the Partnering for
Vaccine Equity Grant Program, and that is a model that the FCC
could use.
As a CDC grantee, National Urban League, in conjunction
with our amazing affiliates, about 35 of our affiliates, we
were able to train 76,000 trusted messengers. We were able to
establish 400 partnerships, open 270 non-traditional
vaccination sites, and do about 1,000 events. And we were able
to then reach about 32 million people with our efforts. If we
are able to kind of, like, copy those efforts for the
Affordable Connectivity Program, that would be amazing.
But again, in order to do these things, we have to have
funding to do so.
Ms. Clarke. Got it, got it.
Ms. Gomez, the FCC's spectrum auction authority is set to
expire in September of this year. Proceeds from the spectrum
auctions have been used to fund key initiatives like the first
responder network authority. By extending the FCC's spectrum
auction authority to March 31st, 2024, as stipulated in H.R.
7783, the Extending America's Spectrum Auction Leadership Act
of 2022, would you opine a bit on other essential programs that
could be funded through auction proceeds?
Ms. Gomez. Thank you, Congresswoman. So I don't advocate
for any particular programs, but I will list the ones that I
have heard advocated that I--that all sound terrific.
So in no order of priority, you know, Chairwoman
Rosenworcel has supported utilizing spectrum auction proceeds
to fund next generation 911, which is largely overdue, and I
think would be a great use of the program.
I have also heard that support for funding digital equity
programs, such as what Dr. Valentin was talking about, to
continue our desire to get as much uptake as possible of
broadband so everyone can benefit from the information economy.
I have also heard that perhaps it could be utilized to
continue the rip and replace efforts to replace Chinese-
manufactured equipment with non-Chinese, something more secure.
Those are the three that I have heard. And so let's just
call those illustrative.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you, I appreciate it. H.R. 7132, the Safe
Connections Act of 2022, requires service providers to provide
information for survivors seeking to separate from a shared
mobile service contract on their website, in physical
locations, and other forms of consumer communication.
Dr. Kadri, in your testimony you indicated that some
providers are voluntarily offering similar programs to help
survivors of digital abuse, but the programs are not well
advertised, so the survivors are not aware of these resources.
Would it--wouldn't it be unlikely for a survivor to find this
information via a provider's website or physical store, if they
are not the primary account holder, especially if the
information is not prominently displayed?
And if so, in that case, what would additional outreach
efforts look like to reach as many survivors as possible
through this legislation?
Dr. Kadri. Thank you, Congresswoman. It is an excellent
point, and that is certainly part of the concern, although I
will note it is usually possible even for secondary account
holders to engage with phone companies, whether that is in
person or online.
And so I think the main concern driving the legislation is
the sort of type of monitoring that these plans enable. But
that said, having conspicuous information available is--you
know, it is only going to be one part of it. It is not a
panacea. And so I agree that many people will be in conditions
where they, frankly, won't be able to even make use of some of
the protections in this bill unless it is supplemented with
other efforts.
And so, in terms of additional outreach, I think it is
important to educate folks on the front lines, kind of, of
intimate partner violence about the dangers posed by
technology. That is an important start. And we do some of that
work at CETA, and there are other great groups doing this. But
I think, if people don't know about the legal protections that
exist that are designed to help them, then they simply won't
use them.
Ms. Clarke. I thank you.
And Madam Chair, I yield back. Thank you.
[Pause.]
Ms. Clarke. Madam Chair, unmute yourself.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. The
Chair now recognizes Mr. McEachin for 5 minutes to ask
questions.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Dr. Valentin, you know, one of the accomplishments that we
have made during this Congress--and I was proud to be part of
it--was to establish the Affordable Connectivity Program as
part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Plan. And as you know,
that helps qualifying households pay for internet service and
buy devices that can access the internet.
How can we, as Members of Congress, help our constituents
know more about programs like this one?
Dr. Valentin. Thank you so much for the question. You know,
the first piece of advice I guess I would give Members of
Congress is to partner with the National Urban League and our
local affiliates to get the word out about ACP, also partnering
with small businesses, particularly those that are owned by
people of color, because they are trusted in local communities.
And also, we can't underestimate the power of paid media,
particularly through media organizations that are owned by
people of color.
And what I would also add, again, to Members of Congress,
an ask is to make sure that you are allocating funds for
outreach organizations that are known and trusted in the
communities.
And also, you know, lean on the resources at the Federal
Communications Commission. They are doing a great job with
outreach, and they have had hundreds of events at this point in
time, and know that they are always accepting speaker requests.
Mr. McEachin. And I thank you for that answer. You
mentioned in your testimony that proceeds from spectrum
auctions could be used to fund digital equity efforts. What
kind of digital equity efforts could be funded, in your
judgment?
Dr. Valentin. Yes. So I think that, when we are thinking
about digital equity, it must be thought of broadly, and it
must include affordability. We have to find a way to sustain a
meaningful affordability program for low-income consumers.
And one idea that has been out there is the use of spectrum
funds.
But we are also going to need funds for devices. You know,
through the Affordable Connectivity Program you get a one-time
discount on a device. But what happens when your device breaks,
or what happens when it is outdated and it can no longer run,
you know, new software?
And also, I would say we can use these funds to help
upskill and reskill workers, particularly workers of color, for
the jobs of tomorrow, so that they can reap the benefits of the
digital economy.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you very much.
Dr. Kadri, I would like to turn to you. And, of course, in
your testimony, sir, you left us with some very interesting
thoughts about--that family phone plans can pose, actually,
challenges to victims of abuse.
We don't have a lot of time left, so let me just ask you
this question. Once a victim is able to leave a family phone
plan, and that victim doesn't really have control of their own
financial resources, how will affordability programs like
Lifeline help victims who do not have, again, control of their
own finances?
Dr. Kadri. Thank you, Congressman. It is a very important
issue, as well.
You know, as I said in my testimony, victims really rely on
communications technologies as a lifeline. Right? I think that
is why the Lifeline program is called what it is. And so, you
know, interpersonal abuse doesn't have this fixed expiration
date. There is no neat line in the sand after a victim leaves
and the violence, you know, just suddenly ends.
And so I think kind of thinking about ways that these
programs can help support in a more enduring way is just
crucially important. You know, especially now, given our
increasing reliance on technology in the wake of the pandemic,
this is something that is only going to become more important,
I think.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you for that. In the very long minute
and six seconds that we have left, can you sort of summarize
some of the ways that family plans are challenging and can pose
dangers to victims of abuse?
Dr. Kadri. Absolutely. If I may, maybe I will just use that
time to share a very quick story from our work at CETA, which I
think is illustrative, and brings the point home.
You know, we had one client who became concerned that their
partner was able to kind of routinely find out where they were,
and know who they were communicating with. And they were on a
family phone plan together. And she eventually tried to leave
the phone--you know, the phone plan by calling the phone
company. And the company told her that there was another
account holder who they needed to contact, and then suddenly,
without informing the client, dialed the abuser in to a three-
way conference line. And not only did the abuser refuse
permission to allow her to leave the plan, this was obviously a
deeply traumatic incident.
And so, even later, when the client was informed about a
State law that could have allowed them to leave the family plan
even without his permission, she just declined to move forward
because she was so scarred by that experience. And so
experiences like that are--you know, are what I think we should
be trying to avoid through this law.
Mr. McEachin. I thank you. I thank the witnesses.
And Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Matsui. The gentleman yields back. And let me see. The
Chair now recognizes Mrs. Fletcher for 5 minutes to ask
questions.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Matsui and
Ranking Member Latta, for having this hearing today on
strengthening our communications networks. It has been a very
important and interesting hearing, and I want to thank all of
our witnesses for testifying before us today.
As many of our colleagues and our witnesses have noted
today, broadband networks and digital technologies are
essential parts of our daily lives. At the same time, because
these technologies are so connected to our lives, they can also
be used as methods of surveillance and control for those in
unsafe situations. And like many of my colleagues, I am deeply
concerned about what we have seen, especially recently, about
the use of technology to track individuals, and even the
ability for others to buy that data.
That issue, some of the app tracking issues that we are
talking about so much lately, are not really before us in this
hearing. But I do think that they are connected to the larger
issues of privacy and safety in the legislation that we are
discussing today, especially in the Safe Connections Act.
And I see Representative Kuster has joined us, who is, of
course, the sponsor of that bill, as well as Chairwoman Eshoo.
This is a really important bill for supporting survivors of
domestic abuse and assisting them in cutting these digital and
physical ties with their abusers, as so many of my colleagues
have mentioned, as our witnesses have mentioned, and Dr. Kadri,
as the story that you just shared really illustrates.
And I know in my home State of Texas, 40 percent of women
and 35 percent of men experience intimate partner violence,
rape, or stalking in their lifetimes. And as we have heard,
this bill will help them disentangle their lives from abusers
by allowing them to separate their phone lines without
penalties or burdensome requirements as they try to get off of
these family plans.
So I want to followup on some of these questions. In
particular, Dr. Kadri, you mentioned in your testimony that the
National Domestic Violence Hotline saw a 155 percent increase
in digital abuse in a 3-year period, even as rates of other
forms of abuse remained fairly constant. So I want to ask a
couple of things. Based on your research, are there any
explanations or theories that are available as to why that may
be the case?
And connected to that, do you anticipate that the rise in
digital abuse will continue as digital technologies become even
more interwoven in our daily lives?
Dr. Kadri. Thank you, Congressman. Absolutely.
I mean, I think, you know, part of it is a story about how
we are relying on technology more. But it really does go beyond
that. And I think this really gets to your point earlier, that
it is the type of technology that we are using that matters.
And so many of the digital technologies that are so
prevalent these days fundamentally prioritize extracting as
much data as possible from us. And this alone can create all
sorts of risks, as we see with family phone plans and many
other forms of technology that are used to perpetrate abuse
nowadays. And so I think that, you know, that is certainly one
part of the story.
Another is that this technology often allows people to
perpetrate harm from afar, often with relative anonymity and
secrecy. And so proving who is behind it can be really
difficult.
And the other thing I would say is I think the
trivialization of digital abuse is really an important part of
this story. It is less likely to be taken seriously. It is less
likely to--people will identify it as abuse, less likely they
may speak up. And of course, that can cut both ways. It might
mean that the statistics are misleadingly low because people
are actually under-reporting. But maybe also part of the rise
is being fueled by people feeling like they can get away with
this, and that it is not so serious.
And so, I mean, I don't want to paint too pessimistic a
picture, but you asked whether I think it is sort of inevitable
that it will keep rising because of how interwoven tech is with
our lives, and in some ways I do, but, you know, with the
important caveat that that doesn't mean that I think that kind
of pragmatism or realism means that we should just give up. And
to the contrary, I think we need to be thinking creatively and
empathetically to try and come up with ways to mitigate and
address this kind of abuse.
Mrs. Fletcher. Well, thank you so much. That is incredibly
helpful. And I have a limited amount of time left. So what I
would love to ask you as a followup--and maybe all of our
witnesses to weigh in in writing following the hearing--is what
kind of other issues of privacy and safety that you have
identified in your work that our committee and the Congress
should be looking at to ensure the safety and protection for
users.
Obviously, we have got some great bills in front of us
today, but this is one of many steps. And as you mentioned,
there are a lot of things that we can and should be looking at.
I would love it if you and any of our other witnesses who have
joined us today want to share those thoughts for the record,
and submit that testimony in writing.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
**********COMMITTEE INSERT**********
Mrs. Fletcher. I only have a few seconds left, so I just
want to thank you all for your time and your work.
And thank you, Chairwoman Matsui, again, for convening the
hearing, and I will yield back.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. The
Chair now recognizes Mr. Joyce for 5 minutes to ask questions.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Chair Matsui and Ranking Member
Latta, for allowing me to waive on to today's Communications
and Technology Subcommittee hearing, and thank you to all the
witnesses for testifying.
Spectrum is vital for bridging the digital divide in my
district, as well as across the entirety of the United States.
Last week I helped introduce with my colleagues H.R. 7783,
Extending America's Spectrum Auction Leadership Act of 2022, to
extend the FCC's general spectrum auction authority by 18
months. By extending the FCC's authority, it allows for more
opportunity to help rural Americans seek the connectivity that
right now they so desperately need.
As we have seen during this pandemic, more and more people
are working, learning, and healing from home. And that requires
additional broadband support. Congress must continue to show
leadership on spectrum policy, and I implore my colleagues for
the swift passage of H.R. 7783.
My first question is for you, Ms. Gomez. Assuming auction
authority is extended, what additional policy reforms can be
made to spectrum auction rules to promote international
competitiveness, maximize spectrum use efficiency, and foster
the rapid deployment of next generation technologies?
Ms. Gomez. Thank you very much for that question. And I
certainly agree with you that the spectrum auctions are
important to ensure the rapid deployment of services to all
areas, including rural areas.
In terms of other changes, statutory changes that could be
made to advance spectrum management, there are a few things
that I would recommend. One is kind of practical.
Right now the FCC and NTIA have fantastic engineering--
engineers, but it is a very difficult field to hire in because,
honestly, the private sector keeps stealing all their good
engineers, and can lure them away with much better benefits
and--not benefits, but much better salaries. So one thing that
could be done is to give authority to NTIA and to the FCC to
actually hire at higher market rates, similar to what the SEC
was able to do back in the 2000's. It is just practical, like I
said, but it would help a lot to be able to have those
engineering resources on staff, to be able to quickly act to
conduct the engineering studies.
Continuing to support ITS is important, as well, and
continuing to support research and development to continue both
the FCC--sorry, the U.S. Government participation and policy
standards bodies, as well as to support industry representation
in the engineering standards bodies would also be important.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you for that insight.
Mr. Gibson, again, assuming that the auction authority is
extended, what specific policy reforms would you recommend to
promote the competitiveness, the maximizing spectrum use
efficiency, and to foster rapid employment?
Mr. Gibson. Well, thank you for the question. That is
excellent.
And in addition to what Ms. Gomez has said, I--one thing I
would suggest is promote stronger collaboration between Federal
and commercial users. Right now what happens--and actually, we
have begun down that path a little bit even now. I mentioned--
you may have missed this, but I mentioned meetings I have been
in to deal with sharing issues and the 3100 to 3450 megahertz
band.
What seems to be happening is we have moved more toward
allowing some collaboration. But I think officializing it, and
taking advantage--what Ms. Gomez said is absolutely true, and
we have seen that across the Federal space. Obviously, you
know, better compensation for Federal experts, but also taking
advantage of experts in commercial, and collaborating more, and
trying to provide a collaboration framework that allows
collaboration without possible conflicts of interest. That
might be threading the needle a little bit complexly. But we
think that that can be done. It is being done now. It just
needs to maybe be more officialized.
Mr. Joyce. And in my brief time left, Ms. Gomez, do you
agree that we in Congress should make it a priority to work on
a long-term spectrum pipeline bill?
Ms. Gomez. Thank you so much for that question. And if I
may just add to my prior answer, of course, reforming the CSEA
to use the Spectrum Relocation Fund for additional incentives
for both Federal and commercial users.
Second, yes, I do think it is important for Congress to
work on the Federal spectrum, the pipeline bill.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Madam Chair. I see my time is
expiring, and I yield back.
Ms. Matsui. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Ms. Kuster for her 5 minutes to ask questions.
Ms. Kuster. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for
allowing me to waive on to your subcommittee. I am grateful for
the opportunity.
Many Americans have benefited from technological advances,
including high-speed broadband, the internet, mobile phones,
which many of us take advantage daily
[sic]. However, we also know, by some accounts, 95 percent
of domestic abuse cases involve technology, and countless
others have suffered or perpetrated abuse online.
Dr. Kadri, I am so grateful for your expertise and your
experience. In your testimony you define digital abuse as
people exploiting technology to harm others, specifically
involving the use of technology to control, harass, stalk,
survey, or threaten someone in a way that invades their privacy
or autonomy, or harms them emotionally, physically,
reputationally, or financially. Can you describe for us how
family plans, which you refer to as a snake in the grass, can
be a tool of such abuse?
Dr. Kadri. Absolutely. Thank you, Congresswoman, and thank
you for your leadership on this bill.
You know, one source of common information is just the
phone bill, or other account records, right, which reveal, you
know, details about a victim's communications, and can also
provide clues about their location, you know, such as the area
codes that they are calling, or call patterns that they are
making.
Some family plans also allow an abuser to kind of listen to
a victim's voicemails, and sometimes even see their text
messages. And so, you know, these kinds of surveillance, this
level of surveillance and the type of surveillance, just
creates this justified, I think, anxiety, as much as anything
else. And I think that is what is at stake here.
Ms. Kuster. Well, thank you for your good work.
And I am proud to have introduced the Safe Connection Act.
It is a bipartisan bill with the Health Subcommittee Chair,
Representative Anna Eshoo, and Republican Representative Mr.
Walberg, which provides a clear template for survivors to work
with their phone carriers to exit from a family or shared
account that they share with their abusers.
Again, Dr. Kadri, can you explain how the Safe Connection
Act will help these survivors?
Dr. Kadri. Certainly. So I think, you know, although a
victim could simply abandon their phone, you know,
theoretically, and maybe avoid some of the risks that I have
talked about during my testimony today, of course, there are
many reasons why that might actually do them more harm than
good, because phones are so often a lifeline amid abuse.
And so, even if--you know, then there are the high fees
that come associated currently with kind of leaving a family
phone plan. And so, even if they have the funds to be able to
leave, they can still encounter resistance from a phone company
that has no legal obligation to honor line separation requests.
And so a bill like the Safe Connections Act that would, you
know, give them the right to leave safely and quickly would be
hugely important.
Ms. Kuster. Thank you for that. And I think you may have
addressed this question, but I will just add it--ask it
quickly.
Survivors of digital abuse with limited resources and
income are often unaware that they may qualify for
participation in Federal programs that provide a discount on
phone and broadband services, such as the Lifeline and
Affordable Connectivity Programs. But the Safe Connection Act
requires the FCC to adopt rules to allow survivors facing
financial hardship to enroll in one of these programs as
quickly as possible, whether or not they otherwise meet the
qualifications of the programs, so they can receive a discount
off of service for short period of time while they are getting
back up on their feet.
Why--again, Dr. Kadri--is it important to ensure that these
abuse survivors are able to maintain consistent communications
services after they are allowed to separate from the shared
account with their abuser?
Dr. Kadri. Absolutely. I am happy to reiterate on this
point, because it is so important, I think, and it is just that
people remain in deeply precarious positions long after they
attempt to leave a relationship in one form or another. And so,
being connected through their phones is just crucial in
regaining their independence and in guarding against future
abuse.
And this, again, was always true, but it feels important to
stress that these last two years, of course, our reliance on
technology increasingly, and the way that our--you know, many
of our interactions have been filtered through technology more
and more, has increased this risk of digital abuse. But it also
means it is more important than ever for us to be able to use
our devices safely, whether that is for social connections,
work, ordering food, testifying before Congress, you know, all
of these different ways. It just shows how important it is. And
so a survivor should be entitled to do that safely.
Ms. Kuster. Well, thank you.
And thank you, Dr. Valentin, as well, for your work.
And on behalf of the many members of the bipartisan task
force to end sexual violence, I am pleased to see the Safe
Connections Act come forward today at this hearing.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
Ms. Matsui. The gentlelady yields back.
At this time I request unanimous consent to enter the
following documents into the record: a letter from the
Competitive Carriers Association in support of congressional
efforts to extend the Federal Communication Commissions general
spectrum authority; and a letter from Public Knowledge and Open
Technology Institute.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Ms. Matsui. I would like to thank today's witnesses and the
committee members for participating in this hearing today. It
has been informative and educational in the sense that everyone
here were--was agreed upon the importance of these bills in a
very bipartisan manner. So I want to thank you all very much
for participating.
Now I remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules,
they have TEN business days to submit additional questions for
the record to be answered by the witnesses who have appeared. I
ask the witnesses to respond promptly to any such questions
that you may receive.
So at this time the committee is adjourned, and thank you
so much for your participation.
[Whereupon, at 1:35 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Anna C. Eshoo
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]