[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
STRENGTHENING AMERICAN LEADERSHIP IN
WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND
TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JANUARY 23, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-2
[GRAPHIC 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
58-876 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
Chairman
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia Ranking Member
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia DORIS O. MATSUI, California
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama KATHY CASTOR, Florida
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida PAUL TONKO, New York
DAN CRENSHAW, Texas YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania, Vice RAUL RUIZ, California
Chairman SCOTT H. PETERS, California
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
RUSS FULCHER, Idaho NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas DARREN SOTO, Florida
DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee KIM SCHRIER, Washington
MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
KAT CAMMACK, Florida LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
JAY OBERNOLTE, California ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, New York
JOHN JAMES, Michigan JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina KEVIN MULLIN, California
LAUREL M. LEE, Florida GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio
NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York JENNIFER L. McCLELLAN, Virginia
THOMAS H. KEAN, Jr., New Jersey
MICHAEL A. RULLI, Ohio
GABE EVANS, Colorado
CRAIG A. GOLDMAN, Texas
JULIE FEDORCHAK, North Dakota
------
Professional Staff
MEGAN JACKSON, Staff Director
SOPHIE KHANAHMADI, Deputy Staff Director
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
Chairman
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia, Vice DORIS O. MATSUI, California
Chairman Ranking Member
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio DARREN SOTO, Florida
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia RAUL RUIZ, California
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida SCOTT H. PETERS, California
JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
RUSS FULCHER, Idaho ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
KAT CAMMACK, Florida TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana
JAY OBERNOLTE, California ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina JENNIFER L. McCLELLAN, Virginia
THOMAS H. KEAN, Jr., New Jersey KATHY CASTOR, Florida
CRAIG A. GOLDMAN, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
JULIE FEDORCHAK, North Dakota officio)
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Richard Hudson, a Representative in Congress from the State
of North Carolina, opening statement........................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Hon. Brett Guthrie, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement.................... 15
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Hon. Rick W. Allen, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Georgia, opening statement.................................. 21
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 25
Prepared statement........................................... 27
Witnesses
Michael K. Powell, President and Chief Executive Officer, NCTA-
The Internet and Television Association........................ 29
Prepared statement........................................... 32
Answers to submitted questions............................... 155
Brian Gillen, Executive Vice President, CTIA..................... 42
Prepared statement........................................... 44
Answers to submitted questions............................... 159
Diane Rinaldo, Executive Director, Open RAN Policy Coalition..... 53
Prepared statement........................................... 55
Chris Lewis, President and Chief Executive Officer, Public
Knowledge...................................................... 62
Prepared statement........................................... 64
Answers to submitted questions............................... 163
Submitted Material
Inclusion of the following was approved by unanimous consent.
List of documents submitted for the record....................... 129
Slide presentation on spectrum, CTIA............................. 130
Letter of January 23, 2025, from Tim Donovan, President and Chief
Executive Officer, Competitive Carriers Association, to Mr.
Hudson, et al.................................................. 135
Letter of January 22, 2025, from Brian Fontes, Chief Executive
Officer, NENA, The 9-1-1 Association, to Mr. Guthrie, et al.... 138
Letter of January 22, 2025, from David A. Wright, Policy
Director, Spectrum for the Future, to Mr. Guthrie, et al....... 140
Letter of January 22, 2025, from Mary L. Brown, Executive
Director, WifiForward, to Mr. Guthrie, et al................... 143
Statement of WISPA............................................... 146
Report of the Satellite Industry Association, ``National Policy
Must Prioritize More Spectrum for the U.S. Commercial Space
Industry or the United States Will Lose the Space Race,''
September 2023 (Updated January 2025).......................... 150
STRENGTHENING AMERICAN LEADERSHIP IN WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY
----------
THURSDAY, JANUARY 23, 2025
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in
the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building,
Hon. Richard Hudson (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Hudson, Allen, Latta,
Bilirakis, Carter of Georgia, Dunn, Joyce, Fulcher, Pfluger,
Cammack, Obernolte, Houchin, Fry, Kean, Goldman, Fedorchak,
Guthrie (ex officio), Matsui (subcommittee ranking member),
Soto, Clarke, Ruiz, Peters, Kelly, Barragan, Carter of
Louisiana, Menendez, Landsman, McClellan, Castor, Pallone (ex
officio), and Hudson.
Staff present: Ansley Boylan, Professional Staff Member;
Jessica Donlon, General Counsel; Sydney Greene, Director of
Finance and Logistics; Calvin Huggins, Staff Assistant; Megan
Jackson, Staff Director; Noah Jackson, Clerk, Communications
and Technology; John Lin, Senior Counsel, Communications and
Technology; Joel Miller, Chief Counsel; Elaina Murphy,
Professional Staff Member, Communications and Technology; Kate
Harper, Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; Jackson
Rudden, Staff Assistant; Chris Sarley, Member Services/
Stakeholder Director; Hannah Anton, Minority Policy Analyst;
Rasheedah Blackwood, Minority Intern; Keegan Cardman, Minority
Staff Assistant; Jennifer Epperson, Minority Chief Counsel,
Communications and Technology; Waverly Gordon, Minority Deputy
Staff Director and General Counsel; Tiffany Guarascio, Minority
Staff Director; Perry Hamilton, Minority Member Services and
Outreach Manager; Mackenzie Kuhl, Digital Manager; Dan Miller,
Minority Professional Staff Member; Michael Scurato, Minority
FCC Detailee; Andrew Souvall, Minority Director of
Communications, Outreach and Member Services; Johanna Thomas,
Minority Counsel, Communications and Technology.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD HUDSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. Hudson. Good morning, and welcome to the first hearing
in the Communications and Technology Subcommittee of the 119th
Congress.
I am honored to serve as the chairman of this subcommittee,
where there is a rich history of identifying and addressing the
most pressing issues raised in the communications and
technology sectors. As technology continues to advance, this
subcommittee will be at the forefront of solving tough issues.
The subcommittee has historically worked in a bipartisan
manner to solve many of the issues before us, and I plan to
continue that tradition by working with my ranking member,
Representative Matsui, who I respect very much, and have
admired her work and accomplishments as a leader in this space.
And I look forward to working together and learning from Ms.
Matsui.
I am grateful for the work Chairman Latta brought to this
subcommittee, and I am looking forward to continuing it and
learning from him as well.
I am also excited to work with my vice chairman, Mr. Rick
Allen, and all of my colleagues on this subcommittee on both
sides of the aisle to advance important legislation in this
Congress.
Our Nation is the world's economic powerhouse, and we lead
the world in innovation. America is home to the best technology
companies, both large and small. These companies lead in
everything from next-generation wireless technology to all of
the emerging technologies that rely on connectivity, ranging
from artificial intelligence and the Internet of Things, to
Next Gen 9-1-1 and precision agriculture.
Our country's startup ecosystem is strong and should be
fostered. This committee must advance thoughtful policy that
continues to grow American innovation and productivity rather
than stifle it.
Next-generation wireless technology supports many of these
technological advancements. It impacts nearly every sector of
our economy, from powering everyday communications networks and
advancements in healthcare and manufacturing to being used for
our national defense. It is something heavily present in my
district at Fort Bragg. We call it the epicenter of the
universe, the home of our special forces, and the largest Army
base in the world.
But if our wireless networks are going to keep pace with
the speed of innovation, we need to make sure they have
additional spectrum resources. Spectrum is a crucial element
for wireless technology to operate. Americans depend on
connected devices in their everyday lives, and the congestion
on our networks has skyrocketed. Our wireless networks need to
keep up.
As our wireless networks advance from 5G to 6G technology
and beyond, the demand for spectrum will only continue to grow.
We must remember these important resources are finite. Managing
these limited resources is vital to maintaining our economic
dominance and protecting our national security.
We will take a balanced approach to making both licensed
and unlicensed spectrum available. This includes working with
our Federal partners, such as the Department of Defense, which
must have enough spectrum to defend the homeland but also be
held accountable to use their resources efficiently.
Last Congress, the Federal Communications Commission's
spectrum auction authority expired for the first time due to
disagreements about how spectrum resources should be allocated.
These auctions have historically brought in billions to our
national economy, with the highest spectrum auctions raising
over $80 billion from private companies.
It is simple economics. There is limited supply, unlimited
demand, and a willingness to pay. We need to reauthorize the
FCC's spectrum auction authority immediately.
We must also continue looking for ways to make unlicensed
spectrum available. Unlicensed spectrum unlocks the Internet of
Things and the smart-device economy on which Americans rely,
providing tremendous economic growth.
Under the first Trump administration, more than 1,200
megahertz of unlicensed spectrum was made available in the 6
gigahertz band, leading to massive opportunities for innovation
for our farmers, industrialists, and communities.
These successes are just the start. However, as we
progress, our adversaries are constantly trying to undermine
our leadership and international standard-setting bodies
through IP theft and through cyber attacks. The U.S. must
remain resolute in defending our leadership to safeguard
democratic values, and this happens by trusting in our private-
sector partners to address some of our Nation's most pressing
challenges.
We recently learned about Salt Typhoon, which may be the
largest Chinese-backed telecommunications hack in our Nation's
history. As we deploy advanced networks and connected devices
in an environment of great power competition, we have to
thoughtfully secure our networks every step of the way.
At the end of last year, I was glad to see Congress fund
the removal of the remaining Chinese equipment in our
communications networks. China is producing cheap
communications equipment at the cost of our national security,
and that needs to change. We need trusted alternatives.
Companies are working to develop and deploy Open RAN
technology, which is intended to promote an ecosystem of
trusted vendors for communication network equipment. And I look
forward to hearing an update on its progress today.
The key to our success is working together with our
stakeholders to deploy and secure our networks. As our
adversaries seek to undermine U.S. leadership, we will continue
to build a comprehensive spectrum policy in the United States
and a unified position on the international stage.
I look forward to discussing these issues more in depth
with our witnesses today and discussing the future spectrum
policy in the United States.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hudson follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Hudson. I will now recognize our ranking member of the
subcommittee, the gentlelady from California, Ms. Matsui.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DORIS O. MATSUI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I want
to congratulate you as serving as the new Communications and
Technology Subcommittee chair. I look forward to working with
you this Congress.
I am glad that we are starting with such a timely issue on
which we have a strong bipartisan track record. The last time
this subcommittee had a spectrum hearing, the FCC spectrum
auction authority had just lapsed for the first time in
history. Now nearly 2 years later, the FCC is still deprived of
this critical tool to unlock the full potential of the spectrum
airwaves, leaving U.S. economic and national security at risk.
Spectrum is a key engine of wireless innovation. It
supports a wide range of technologies from remote surgery to
autonomous vehicles and broadband. Our consumers, businesses,
and Federal agencies all stand to benefit when we maximize our
spectrum use. This requires a comprehensive approach that
strikes the right balance of licensed, unlicensed, and shared
spectrum.
We need a bipartisan solution that not only restores
auction authority but also promotes a healthy spectrum pipeline
and ensures our Federal Government speaks with one voice on
spectrum policy. And we need to be forward looking by promoting
technologies that will improve spectrum sharing and efficiency.
Equally critical is our obligation to be responsible stewards
of spectrum auction revenues.
As a long-time advocate for the FCC's Rip and Replace
program, I am proud of our role to use spectrum auction
proceeds to remove unsecured Chinese equipment from our
communications networks. Spectrum is a public good, and I am
dismayed to see prospects floated that would use auction
proceeds to provide tax cuts for the wealthy through
reconciliation.
Rather, we need to work as a subcommittee to use these
funds to close the digital divide, protect national security,
and support public safety communications. This includes
expanding access to lifesaving technologies such as Next
Generation 9-1-1 for faster and more accurate emergency
responses.
Last Congress, this committee unanimously passed the
Spectrum Auction Reauthorization Act, comprehensive spectrum
legislation that would have accomplished these very goals.
Disappointingly, the House Republican leadership never brought
this bipartisan proposal to the floor for a vote.
This Congress, we must build on our good work. I hope my
colleagues will continue our history of bipartisan cooperation
on spectrum.
Lastly, I would be remiss if I didn't highlight the
important work of the national spectrum strategy. Even amidst
an auction authority lapse, the Biden administration answered
my call for a unified spectrum plan by launching the first
comprehensive U.S. spectrum strategy in 6 years. This strategy
offers a roadmap for securing U.S. leadership and spectrum
innovation and ensuring that the Federal Government speaks with
one voice.
We can't afford to throw that progress away and return to
the disarray that preceded the national spectrum strategy. The
U.S. needs a unified spectrum position now more than ever to
fight for our interest in international negotiations and to
rally other countries to our vision. If we fail to maintain our
global leadership on spectrum, we create a vacuum that China
will happily fill.
The stakes are high. It is time for all stakeholders to
come to the table and for Congress to pass comprehensive
spectrum legislation that has substantial bipartisan buy-in.
Clearly, there is a lot of work ahead of us, but I am
hopeful. This subcommittee has a proven track record of
bipartisan cooperation that keeps America at the forefront of
global innovation. Now is not the time to throw that aside. We
have a chance to continue our tradition of working across the
aisle, and I am committed to advancing solutions that secure
economic growth, national security, and bipartisan funding
priorities benefiting the American public.
Thank you to our witnesses for appearing before us today,
and I look forward to the discussion.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of
my time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Matsui follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Hudson. I thank the ranking member for her remarks.
And I now recognize the chairman of the full committee, the
gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Guthrie, for 5 minutes for his
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRETT GUTHRIE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
bringing us together for this important hearing.
And I thank you, to the witnesses, for your participation.
I look forward to the work we will do this Congress to
close the digital divide, protect our critical infrastructure,
and ensure Americans are prepared to outcompete the Chinese
Communist Party.
I have long been an advocate for spectrum policy that
serves both our national security and American innovation. I
served for many years as the cochair with my good friend from
California, Ms. Matsui. I enjoyed, always enjoyed working with
you and look forward to continue working with you as we move
forward this Congress.
The United States needs a spectrum agenda that enables both
big and small American companies to innovate and remain
competitive globally. Ensuring that the U.S. continues to be a
leader in next-generation wireless communications technology
will create jobs and unlock new opportunities here at home, as
reliable high-speed connectivity supports a range of cutting-
edge applications like artificial intelligence and advanced
manufacturing.
We cannot--and we will not--allow our adversaries, like the
Chinese Communist Party, to dominate 21st century technological
battle. As a first step, we must reauthorize the FCC's spectrum
auction authority. Second, we must work together with Federal
agencies and stakeholders to reallocate unused spectrum. And
third, we need to look at innovative tools to better utilize
and manage spectrum resources.
I am looking forward to keeping our promises to Americans
across the country that America is open for business, and I
eagerly anticipate bold leadership across many industries,
ushering in the next great American century.
I will now yield to our vice subcommittee chair, my good
friend, Vice Chair Allen, for a few opening remarks. I will
yield my time to--the remainder of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Guthrie follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK W. ALLEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Chairman Guthrie, for yielding. And
Chairman Hudson, thank you for holding this important hearing,
and I look forward to working with you.
I am looking forward to working with this committee and
this Congress to tackle the issues, the critical issues, like
closing the digital divides, fighting robocalls, and
strengthening our telecommunications infrastructure.
Access to telecommunications isn't just a luxury. It is
something Americans depend on every single day. Students need
it to finish their homework; folks of all ages, especially in
rural communities, rely on it for telehealth visits with their
doctors; and small businesses use it to reach customers and
keep the doors open. And let's not forget, we all use it to
stay in touch with friends and loved ones.
Additionally, when natural disasters strike, access to
reliable communication becomes even more critical. Georgia's
12th District saw firsthand just how devastating this can be
when Hurricane Helene wreaked havoc in our communities last
September. That storm caused significant damage to our
communications infrastructure, leaving our residents unable to
call for help, check in with family to let them know where they
were and that they were safe, and in many cases made it
impossible to receive helpful updates about accessible
resources.
Thankfully, we had satellite and other resilient emergency
systems in place to help fill the gap with recovery efforts and
that got underway.
Spectrum is absolutely vital for the wireless services and
devices we use today and for the technologies of tomorrow. If
we want to maintain our leadership in the world and keep pace
with China's advancements, we need to free up more spectrum for
both licensed and unlicensed uses. Technology is like precision
agriculture. Advanced manufacturing and next-gen wireless
services all depend on it.
Again, I look forward to tackling these issues as vice
chairman of the C&T Subcommittee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Allen follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Guthrie. I yield back.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I now recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, the ranking
member of the full committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes of his
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And we are here today to discuss spectrum, one of our
Nation's most underrated and economically valuable natural
resources. Discussion of current spectrum policy debates is
important to better understand how our decisions impact
America's standing in the world.
But we can't ignore that this hearing comes at a time when
House Republicans are considering using spectrum auction
proceeds as a piggy bank to fund their costly tax breaks for
billionaires and large, wealthy corporations. And I hope they
reconsider going down that road because it would be a sharp
departure from the way spectrum policy and auction proceeds
have been handled by Congress in the past.
Spectrum is such a valuable natural resource because it is
an essential building block for connecting family and friends
as well as delivering critical services like education and
health to people across the country. It is also critical to
everyday safety for first responders.
Without spectrum, we would not have radio stations, smart
phones, the app economy, or drones. And many of these
technological advancements were developed by American
innovators pushing the limits on the way spectrum could be used
in new and exciting ways. But past performance does not
guarantee future results. So America must remain a leader in
spectrum policy.
For more than three decades, Congress has granted the FCC
the authority to make spectrum available using competitive
bidding or auctions, and granting the FCC this authority has
served both the public and the Nation well.
Today, the United States is a global leader in delivering
5G, advanced WiFi, Bluetooth, and other next-generation
wireless technologies to consumers across the country. At the
same time, spectrum auctions, which have raised over $230
billion to the Federal Government, have helped fund important
public communication priorities, including the Rip and Replace
reimbursement program, the construction of FirstNet, and
broadband infrastructure grants.
And that is why spectrum policy has long been an area of
bipartisan agreement. In fact, we have worked closely with the
Republicans on this committee for the past 3 years on bills to
extend the FCC's auction authority and use spectrum proceeds to
pay for bipartisan spending priorities.
And one of the areas of bipartisan agreement was the need
to fund Next Generation 9-1-1. This funding would modernize our
9-1-1 networks to allow the public to use modern-day
communication tools, like sending text images and videos to
first responders and emergency personnel. And this technology
will reduce response times and equip first responders with
lifesaving information before they arrive at the scene, which
will better assist people in their critical time of need.
The recent devastating wildfires in California are another
reminder of how vital seconds can be in an emergency. This
program clearly serves the public interest, and proceeds from
auction of our public airwaves are ideal to fund it.
Unfortunately, again, it seems that Republicans are now
going to abandon this bipartisan work in order to march ahead
to give tax breaks to the rich, and this is simply not the way
these funds should be used. The auction of public airwaves
should fund programs for the public good.
Republicans should keep that in mind and reject proposals
that would include spectrum in any reconciliation. Instead,
they should work with us to set good spectrum policy and to use
auction proceeds to fund vital programs that actually serve the
public and not the wealthy few.
And I don't think the stakes could be any higher. Failure
to replenish the commercial spectrum pipeline risks our Nation
falling behind our counterparts across the globe--of course,
particularly China--because we want to produce cutting-edge
consumer innovations and enhance our national security
capabilities. And we can't allow that to happen.
That is why--I mean, we can't allow to not have spectrum
use for these good policy and public purposes, and that is why
we should be working together.
We should also work to ensure the advancements made
possible by spectrum are delivered to all Americans regardless
of their income or ZIP Code. Too often rural, Tribal, and low-
income areas are left behind as next-generation technologies
are deployed and have to continue to work on making these
services more affordable to everyone.
So finally, I want to say, if I could take a minute, Mr.
Chairman, I want to bid farewell to Jennifer Epperson, who is
our chief counsel on this subcommittee. She is leaving the
committee after 6 years of service, and during that time she
has played an instrumental role in the historic broadband
investments we made in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the
creation of the Affordable Connectivity Program, and our
bipartisan Rip and Replace legislation that I mentioned.
And we have accomplished a lot in this subcommittee, much
of it bipartisan and throughout her time. I want to thank
Jennifer for helping to make that happen. So I wish her nothing
but the best. Of course, I don't want her to leave, but that is
the way it goes. And, you know, I want to thank Jennifer for
all her contributions.
[Applause.]
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Hudson. I thank the ranking member, and I join him in
thanking Ms. Epperson for your service on the committee and
wish you all the best in the future.
We have now concluded our Member opening statements. The
Chair reminds Members that, pursuant to the committee rules,
all Members' opening statements will be made part of the
record.
We would like to thank our witnesses for being here today
to testify before the subcommittee. Our witnesses will have 5
minutes each to provide an opening statement, which will be
followed by a round of questions from Members.
The witnesses here before us today are the Honorable
Michael Powell, who is the president and CEO of NCTA, the
Internet and Television Association. Thank you for being here.
Mr. Brad Gillen, the executive vice president of CTIA.
Thank you for joining us.
Ms. Diane Rinaldo, executive director of Open RAN Policy
Coalition. Thank you for being here.
The Chair would also like to recognize Cole Peterman, a
special guest joining us in the audience, Ms. Rinaldo's son.
Welcome, Cole.
And finally, Mr. Chris Lewis, the president and CEO of
Public Knowledge. Thank you for being here today.
I would like to note for our witnesses that the timer light
on the table will turn yellow when you have 1 minute remaining
and will turn red when your time has expired, and then I will
start tapping up here and then eventually banging, but
hopefully we won't get to that point. Thank you.
Mr. Powell, you are recognized for 5 minutes for an opening
statement.
STATEMENTS OF MICHAEL K. POWELL, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, NCTA-THE INTERNET AND TELEVISION ASSOCIATION; BRAD
GILLEN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, CTIA; DIANE RINALDO,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OPEN RAN POLICY COALITION; AND CHRIS LEWIS,
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL K. POWELL
Mr. Powell. Thank you, sir.
Good morning, Chairman Hudson, Ranking Member Matsui,
Chairman Guthrie, and Mr. Pallone and other distinguished
members of this committee.
I am Michael Powell, president and CEO of NCTA, The
Internet and Television Association. I thank you for the
opportunity to testify today.
I am going to discuss two topics central to America's
leadership in wireless technology, WiFi and shared spectrum,
which is an innovative way to get more spectrum more quickly to
more users.
WiFi has become the backbone of America's internet
experience. It powers our homes, workplaces, schools, and
public spaces, enabling nearly all modern digital interactions.
WiFi allows multiple users to share a single connection and has
democratized access to the internet, making connectivity more
affordable and widely available.
WiFi also drives innovation. By offering open, unlicensed
access, it enables entrepreneurs to create smart devices and
technology, from thermostats to virtual reality. Today, the
average U.S. home has 17 connected devices and is projected to
have 24 by 2027. Moreover, WiFi supports critical technologies
like the Internet of Things, generating $2.4 trillion in annual
economic value.
The U.S. has led in WiFi innovation, creating systems that
enable universal access without heavy regulation. However, to
sustain this leadership, we must ensure enough spectrum for
WiFi's continued growth, particularly as demand surges with
emerging technologies like artificial intelligence and virtual
reality.
WiFi, effectively, is the internet. It carries nearly 60
percent of all the world's data traffic. It carries 10 times
more data than all other wireless networks combined, and when
using our smart phones, 80 to 90 percent of our data goes over
WiFi and not the cellular network.
And the best part is that WiFi is an American-led
innovation. WiFi allows innovators to make devices that connect
to the internet for free and without a license from the
government. We, in America, harness the power of our citizens
to publish, to produce, and to invent. This contrasts starkly
with China, who prefers to spy on its citizens rather than
empower them.
WiFi brought us the future, and it will carry us into the
AI intelligence age. America's spectrum policy should embrace
our leadership and continue to furnish WiFi with the spectrum
it needs to continue its explosive growth and meet consumers'
high expectations.
Now, it goes without saying America has a spectrum problem.
Put simply, demand for it is shooting up, and supply of it is
falling. Nearly all midband spectrum that we all want to use is
used by critical mission government systems, most of it in the
hands of our warfighters.
Traditional approaches clearing government health spectrum
for auctions are increasingly unsustainable. We can't
compromise our combat capability in the face of a dangerous
world. There are fewer places to move these critical systems,
and moving them is costly and time consuming.
For example, just clearing the lower 30 gigahertz band for
exclusive use would take 20 years and cost $120 billion. We
need a better way out of this problem. Shared spectrum is the
solution. Advances in dynamic spectrum management allow
government and commercial users to coexist, resolving conflicts
and reducing delays.
The success of Citizens Band Radio Service, CBRS, proves
this approach works. It supports a diverse range of users,
including schools, factories, and even disaster recovery
efforts, while fostering competition and innovation.
To maintain U.S. leadership, we must prioritize coexistence
in shared spectrum models. Congress should extend the FCC's
auction authority while embracing both shared licensed auctions
and unlicensed WiFi designations. This includes allocating more
spectrum for WiFi and exploring shared models in critical
midband ranges like the 3 gigahertz and 7 gigahertz bands.
By adopting forward-looking spectrum policies, we can
accelerate deployment of technologies like 5G, 6G, WiFi 7 and
8, strengthen national security, and sustain our global
wireless leadership and our innovation.
This committee has always embraced innovation, and we are
on the cusp of a great innovation revolution, and we need an
innovative spectrum policy to meet the moment.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Powell follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Hudson. Thank you.
Mr. Gillen, you are recognized for 5 minutes for an opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF BRAD GILLEN
Mr. Gillen. Good morning. Thank you and congratulations,
Mr. Chairman. Ranking Member Matsui, members of this
subcommittee, it is a privilege to be with you.
Mr. Hudson. Is your microphone on? I want to make sure.
Mr. Gillen. It is a privilege to be with you, a privilege
to be here on behalf of the wireless industry, 4.58 million
jobs strong across this country. We invest $30 billion a year
to make this and so much more better.
And I really want to echo your opening comments. This is a
conversation around spectrum, but it is a lot more than that.
It is about economic opportunity for all. It is about our
national security. It is about our global competitiveness. And
it really comes back to connectivity drives so much of this
conversation, particularly 5G connectivity. And spectrum, at
its core, is our oxygen.
I was here 2 years ago asking for more spectrum. I am back
today and that ask is more urgent because we have stood still
as a country the last 2 years. The rest of the world is moving
forward aggressively, and so too are our American consumers,
who use more and more of this each and every day, and we want
to make sure we continue to meet that demand.
Now, our screens today aren't 5G enabled, so we are going
old school with pictures, but it is easier to explain through
pictures. So if you think about how much traffic has been on
wireless networks the last few years, this is where we have
been.
[Shows chart.]
When I was here last time, we were in the orange. I
actually bragged about just how much traffic was being carried
on these 5G networks. We are now just 2 years later here, 100
trillion megabits of traffic on these networks, almost doubling
in only 2 years of time. I think the economists call that kind
of growth bananas.
We just don't see that kind of growth, and we were able to
do that only thanks to the leadership of this committee. It was
the auctions that you directed in 2020 and 2021 that gave us
the oxygen in spectrum to actually meet that moment.
So when you look forward to the next couple years, by the
end of the generation, by the end of the decade, we are going
to have almost three times more traffic on our networks than we
do today. And the challenge we face right now is we don't have
new auctions right now. The FCC doesn't have auction authority
to meet that moment.
So how do you actually meet that consumer demand? Part of
it is our responsibility. We need to invest, and we do, each
and every 20 or 30 billion dollars, to make our networks
denser, to have more facilities throughout the country. We have
40 percent more than we did a generation ago.
We also, all of us, need to be more efficient with this
finite resource. We are very proud of our record in doing that.
We are 42 times more efficient with the technology we use on a
per-megahertz basis than we were a generation ago. All of that
is necessary, but it is not sufficient.
If you plug that all in the traffic models, it reveals that
we need roughly 400 more megahertz of spectrum by 2027 and over
800 by 2029. Where does that spectrum come from? The Federal
Government today reserves roughly two-thirds of this asset, the
midband spectrum we are talking a lot about today, for their
own use.
So if you look at the slide in terms of who has midband
right today [shows chart], the Federal Government has 600
percent more than we do today. We are in the teal on the
bottom, 450 megahertz. Unlicensed WiFi has 300 percent more
than we do, thanks to the 6 gigahertz decision you alluded to.
What is happening in the rest of the world? They see this
same type of growth curve that we see, and they are building--
they are getting access to spectrum more quickly. Nowhere is
that more true than with respect to China. In 2023, we were
roughly even with China in terms of midband access. Looking
forward now to where we will be in 2027, they will be in a
position to have four times more than us. That is untenable
from a global-competitiveness standpoint.
So what do we need? We would love this committee's help.
Over the last 30 years, the committee, on a bipartisan basis,
has provided FCC auction authority, and each time you do that,
you provide a plan, a roadmap of what you expect them to do
with that authority, and that is critical.
And now, this conversation gets very jargony fast. I am
extremely guilty of that. But at its core, what this
conversation is about, why we really care about spectrum, why
we are excited about what wireless could be is because we have
a role to play in almost everything you came to Washington to
work on. Everyday household costs, we can help. Beating China,
creating jobs.
A new study just released this morning from NERA said for
every 100 megahertz of midband spectrum released for 5G creates
1.5 million jobs rippling throughout the economy, both those
building those networks all across the country but also those
innovating on top of that.
And we also just want to close with there is a huge role
here for the digital divide and the role of spectrum to play,
both connecting Americans on the mobile and the home broadband
side. This is too important technology for not everyone to be
involved. So we want to partner with you to make sure that this
resource is available to all Americans, that everyone has a
fair shot at this.
Greatly appreciate you including us, and I look forward to
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gillen follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Hudson. Thank you.
Ms. Rinaldo, you are recognized for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF DIANE RINALDO
Ms. Rinaldo. Thank you.
Chairman Hudson, Ranking Member Matsui, and esteemed
members of the committee, thank you very much for the
opportunity to testify on America's leadership in wireless
innovation. This hearing and topic are vital to the national
and economic security importance to the United States, and I
welcome the committee's interest on this subject.
And also, thank you for recognizing my 10-year-old son,
Cole. He is a budding telecom engineer. We take workforce
development very serious at the coalition.
So I have had the distinct pleasure of serving this body in
a couple of different capacities. I was the lead cybersecurity
and tech telecom staffer at the House Intelligence Committee. I
was also the Acting Administrator of NTIA in the Executive
branch.
Today, I serve as the executive director of the Open RAN
Policy Coalition, a coalition that promotes to drive the
adoption of open and interoperable solutions in the radio
access network. Our coalition represents a diverse group of
communication and technology companies unified under a common
goal: policy that can help dismantle technological and market
barriers to cultivate a competitive, secure, and resilient
marketplace.
Since the launch of the Open RAN Policy Coalition, ORAN has
experienced tremendous growth, with more than 100 global
deployments. From the world's largest right here in the United
States with 100 percent Open RAN 5G network that Dish's Boost
Mobile has deployed nationwide, Open RAN has achieved its
initial goal of providing additional vendor choice for mobile
operators.
This Congress and the new administration assume office at a
pivotal time in the wireless communication space. The next 2 to
4 years are critical to ensuring our country's continued
leadership and competitiveness in the global contest with the
People's Republic of China.
Beijing's efforts to dominate the wireless space are
simultaneously wide-ranging, prolific, and focused. The PRC
seeks to supplant the United States as the world's leader in
wireless innovation and market leadership. This is not about
free market competition, but about state-sponsored market
manipulation. Put simply, the PRC does not want to compete. It
wants to rig the game to win.
Throughout my testimony today, I will return to three
critical themes. First is the pivotal role of U.S. in
pioneering wireless innovation. The second is the necessity of
leadership in spectrum policy. And lastly is the importance of
public-private policies. We truly do need to work together.
The United States has had a proud legacy of leadership in
wireless technology, from the groundbreaking development of 4
and 5G networks to the creation of global positioning systems,
an innovation that transferred global navigation and timing.
Our country has consistently been at the forefront of wireless
advancements.
These technologies have driven economic growth and job
creation, contributing billions of dollars annually to our
economy. Industries such as healthcare, transportation, and
manufacturing have been revolutionized by wireless innovation,
enabling new applications for remote surgery, autonomous
vehicles, and smart factories. For example, estimates indicate
that 5G alone will create millions of jobs and contribute over
$1.5 trillion to global GDP by 2035.
Looking ahead, the opportunities are boundless. However,
achieving these advancements depend on one critical factor:
secure and efficient access to spectrum.
Now, the PRC's ascendancy is by no means destined for
success. The strengths of America remain and have the potential
to grow, provided they are carefully stewarded, encouraged,
and, indeed, unleashed. It is Silicon Valley, not Shenzhen, to
which innovators and industry flock.
How can Congress and the Federal Government help maintain
this edge? By fostering an environment conducive to innovation,
removing roadblocks for growth, and aligning policies to
facilitate the expansion. One fundamental element underpins all
our aims, and that is spectrum leadership. Spectrum is the
lifeblood of wireless communications driving innovation and
economic growth and national security.
In closing, the United States is at a pivotal moment. We
are the world's leader in wireless innovation, but maintaining
this position requires sustained effort, investment, and
collaboration. By prioritizing superiority in optimizing
spectrum, strengthening partnerships, and enhancing our
participation in global forums, we can ensure that American
innovation continues to define the future of connectivity.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Rinaldo follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Hudson. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis, you are recognized for 5 minutes for an opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS LEWIS
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ranking Member Matsui,
I appreciate you inviting me here today representing Public
Knowledge on a topic that I agree is jargony but wonderfully
nerdy, and in Public Knowledge, that is always a compliment, so
thank you.
Over the last 30 years, the United States has led the world
in wireless technology, and this leadership is no small measure
due to the innovative and bound spectrum policies that have
carried out a bipartisan basis--on a bipartisan basis over
these decades. I will highlight three key factors from my
written testimony that have led to this success, and then I
look forward to the discussion.
First, our system has managed spectrum, the public
airwaves, as a public asset and in the public interest all
while encouraging private investment and innovation. Other
governments effectively nationalize their spectrum. Only the
government could operate broadcast radio or authorize new uses
of spectrum. These governments acted through ministries under
the direct control of the country's chief executive.
The United States, we went a different way. We created an
independent agency to oversee spectrum use designed to strike
the right balance between the many users of spectrum, such as
public safety, local governments, broadcasters, to encourage
innovation and private investment. Most importantly, Congress
recognized that spectrum represents a unique, nonrenewable
public resource.
Congress enshrined the Communications Act, but the FCC
managed the public airwaves for the public interest. This means
that no one can own the public airwaves, policy on licensees
are balanced with public needs and come with public interest
obligations, and that spectrum policy, including auction design
and proceeds, should make efficient use of the spectrum
allocations and benefit the needs of the public under the FCC
mandate to connect all Americans.
Today's public needs to connect all Americans include
deploying Next Gen 9-1-1, supporting infrastructure needs, and
especially supporting digital inclusion funding needs in local
communities. Local digital inclusion efforts actually lower the
cost of deployment for broadband providers while giving
communities, large and small, the support to realize the full
potential of those infrastructure deployments.
Second, the FCC has, with congressional authority,
experimented with new regulatory models to create competitive
opportunities in the market and foster innovation. There is no
greater example of regulatory innovation than the success of
WiFi.
WiFi technology was invented in the 1980s, when the FCC
opened unlicensed spectrum for experimentation by engineers and
inventors. These unlicensed spectrum bands allow anyone to use
any device for any purpose under rules authorized by the FCC to
avoid interference with licensed services.
WiFi carries 53 percent of all internet traffic and almost
90 percent of wireless internet traffic. Without supporting
WiFi and unlicensed spectrum innovation, we would not have the
mobile communications revolution we now enjoy.
In this century, newer regulatory models for spectrum
access, like CBRS sharing models, are increasing access for
small community institutions, rural and Tribal communities, and
other private industry outside of the big wireless carriers.
Third and finally, Congress has carefully divided spectrum
between Federal and non-Federal users at NTIA and the FCC,
respectively, requiring cooperation between agencies and
between Federal and non-Federal users.
The public may not follow the day-to-day operation of NTIA
and the FCC, but they do put their trust in government to make
sure this resource and the technologies that use it work
efficiently. Thankfully, NTIA and FCC have worked to develop
more than one MOU to support cooperation between agencies and,
therefore, processes the balance Federal and commercial use
needs. Without this coordination, we would return to chaos and
governmental infighting.
If America is going to continue its leadership in wireless
technologies, we must continue to follow these proven
principles that led to our success to date. Congress can lead
in this direction by permanently restoring auction authority at
the FCC. This is critical for enabling effective coordination
between Federal and commercial users, driving efficient use of
the public airwaves, and delivering public-interest benefits
that connect all Americans to secure, reliable, and affordable
communications.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lewis follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Hudson. Thank you, Mr. Lewis.
We will now begin questioning, and I will recognize myself
for 5 minutes.
Listen, economic security is national security, and to lead
in technology as a nation, I believe we need a balanced
spectrum policy that benefits both licensed and unlicensed use
of spectrum. Making licensed spectrum available is more
difficult, but I don't think we should resort to making
everything unlicensed just because of the challenges associated
with it.
Mr. Powell, recognizing that your companies primarily
utilize unlicensed spectrum, would you talk a little bit about
what advancements in technology happening in your industry that
might increase a demand for unlicensed spectrum?
Mr. Powell. Thank you for the question.
It is interesting to note that the cable industry pursued
the convergence that we all dreamed of in the '96 Act. It uses
all forms of spectrum to compete. It uses WiFi, it uses shared
licensed spectrum, and we also use exclusive licensed spectrum,
which has allowed us to become the fifth--fourth most
significant mobile service provider in the country offering
competition.
So we believe that going forward, you have to be creative
in using all forms of spectrum allocation in order to be
effective. And we look forward--we see a continuing conflict
with what is available for the market to use quickly and the
processes we are using to allocate that spectrum, which is why
we are committed to advancing and advocating shared-spectrum
models.
Those models now use very sophisticated, dynamic spectrum
technology in order to coordinate and manage among uses and
competing uses, and it works quite effectively.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you.
Artificial intelligence has been a topic receiving a lot of
attention recently because it is revolutionizing so many of our
industries. As a result, it is also putting significant demand
on our Nation's resources.
Mr. Gillen, does artificial intelligence require more
bandwidth? And if so, will it need to be licensed spectrum?
Mr. Gillen. We are going to need more bandwidth, period.
When you think about what AI promises, it really is a good
frame for this entire conversation, the ability of AI to help
all sectors, much like 5G can help all sectors. But they really
need to work together.
When you think about--the Vodafone CEO of Europe talks
about the risk in Europe of AI bottleneck because there is not
enough cellular capacity to meet the data needs of AI.
So absolutely, when you talk about the growth curves we are
talking about, AI growth, we need to make sure our networks are
strong enough to carry that, to drive that innovation. We want
that innovation to happen here. And if that innovation is going
to happen globally, who has the best networks? That has always
been us, and we are in a great place on WiFi to continue to be
the best. We need to do the same in 5G as well.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you.
Congress and the White House need to take a leadership role
in repurposing Federal spectrum for commercial use. Access to
spectrum by Federal and commercial users is necessary to
protect our national security, but Federal agencies are not
actively looking for ways to be more efficient with their
spectrum.
Ms. Rinaldo, as a former Acting Administrator of NTIA and
in your current role, you were responsible for managing
spectrum used by Federal agencies while also looking for
opportunities to repurpose spectrum for commercial use.
What are the biggest challenges presented by agencies when
trying to make spectrum available?
Ms. Rinaldo. Thank you, sir.
Yes. So as an example, when I was at NTIA in August of
2019, I sent a memo to all of the Federal agencies asking them
to do an assessment of their spectrum needs. And just today in
2025 are those bands finally being studied. So I would say it
is just time. We need to make decisions a lot sooner in order
to deploy.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you.
I will pose this question to everybody. So we will go down
the line. But how does spectrum policy disputes domestically
affect America's leadership on the global stage? And let's go
in reverse order. Mr. Lewis, I will start with you.
Mr. Lewis. I am sorry. How does spectrum policy what?
Mr. Hudson. So disputes that we have here domestically, how
does that impact our leadership on the global stage?
Mr. Lewis. You know, I think history has proven that when
we chart a path, that promotes innovation and promotes meeting
a variety of needs with our spectrum policies that the world
follows us. And so, you know, debate might be good, but I think
disputes that frees us picking a direction that continues to
promote those values in our balanced spectrum policy can hold
up our opportunity for leadership as we look at the next
generation of wireless technologies like WiFi 7 and 6G.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you.
I am about to run out of time here.
Ms. Rinaldo. He is absolutely right. Debate has a type of
purpose, but we need to be decisive when we go into standards
bodies. We need to speak with one voice.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you.
Well, my time has expired. Mr. Gillen and Mr. Powell, if
you all want to submit something.
Mr. Gillen. I just think our adversaries are unified. Their
government, military, and industry are working together. We
need to be, too, to compete.
Mr. Hudson. Good point.
All right. Thank you all.
Mr. Powell. I just think it was delay.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you.
My time has expired, and I can't hold my committee members
accountable if I don't hold myself accountable. So I will stop.
At this point, I will recognize Ms. Matsui for 5 minutes of
questions.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before the Biden administration's national spectrum
strategy, the United States went 6 years without any
comprehensive spectrum strategy. During those 6 years, drawn-
out spectrum disputes compromised our ability to maximize our
use of this vital resource. If America is to remain the pace-
setter for global innovation, we need to maintain consistency
in our spectrum policy.
Mr. Lewis, how is the national spectrum strategy keeping
the U.S. on track to lead on their wireless technologies? And
why is it important, critical, to continue its work?
Mr. Lewis. Yes, Congresswoman. The spectrum strategy was an
important step forward. It laid a path for us to follow in
studying five spectrum bands that could create a pipeline in
the future. It talked about long-term planning and research
into technological developments like dynamic spectrum sharing
that could make the use of those bands more efficient and
hopefully also points in the direction of continued cooperation
between Federal and non-Federal users.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. So it is an important step forward. We need to
continue to move on.
Ms. Matsui. Continue it. Thank you.
Mr. Gillen and Mr. Powell, can the United States afford to
delay studies of spectrum bands and undo the national spectrum
strategy's progress in increasing spectrum access?
Mr. Gillen. Absolutely no.
Ms. Matsui. OK.
Mr. Powell. I agree with Mr. Gillen. It is important to
quickly study these bands and get them into the market.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Thank you.
I have been a strong advocate for modernizing our
telecommunications network through open interoperable solutions
that diversify our supply chains and create new opportunities
for American innovators to compete in the market.
Ms. Rinaldo, the DoD has partnered with members of the Open
RAN coalition to leverage commercial wireless technologies for
secure, resilient networks. What next steps should U.S.
spectrum policy take to ensure we can continue to enhance
national security through commercial innovation?
Ms. Rinaldo. Yes. Thank you. Absolutely.
The DoD has been incredibly bullish on Open RAN,
interactively working with my member companies to deploy 5G
around the world. Unfortunately, their budgets continue to get
cut. So in 2025, I think people would be shocked how little 5G
is deployed at our DoD bases around the world.
So I would say continued funding, continued partnership.
And it is great to see the two sides, the commercial side and
the public side, working together to deploy commercial
technologies.
Ms. Matsui. Certainly. Thank you.
Spectrum demands continue to grow, and there is no more
easy spectrum to access. We must have a unified Federal
spectrum policy to continue the work towards sustainable
spectrum pipeline that benefits the American people.
Mr. Lewis, how have American consumers and innovators been
harmed in the past when the Federal Government fails to speak
with a unified voice on spectrum policy?
Mr. Lewis. I think our innovators are looking for
reliability on where they can design, and so, the national
spectrum strategy that you mentioned and setting up a clear
path forward on what bands can be used in the future is
important for providing that certainty for innovators.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Gillen, I have worked collaboratively across the
government for years to advance America's spectrum policy. Can
you tell me why it matters that the government speaks with one
voice, and why it matters what other nations do with spectrum?
Mr. Gillen. For us to succeed, we need one voice. And I
really appreciate your leadership, really pushing NTIA to be at
the forefront. We need the experts making these calls and to
get rid of some of the turf wars we are fighting.
When you think about it, the U.S. is a big market, but we
are only 4 percent of all the global wireless connections in
the world. So in order to succeed, we need to amplify our
voice. We need to make sure other countries are using our
equipment, are using our spectrum, like Ms. Rinaldo said. So it
is critical that we lead and we lead first.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you.
Cutting-edge technologies like dynamic spectrum sharing
hold great promise in efficiently using our finite spectrum
resources. There are a number of possibilities to leverage
emerging technologies like artificial intelligence to better
manage spectrum, as published in the National Spectrum Research
and Development plan.
Mr. Powell and Ms. Rinaldo, how can--quickly answer--
investments in emerging technologies like AI improve spectrum
efficiency and management? Mr. Powell?
Mr. Powell. I think it is critical. I mean, you can bet on
technological innovation to resolve conflict, or you can rely
on political regulatory conflict to resolve conflict. We think
there's stunning advances in the ability to use spectrum more
efficiently and, more importantly, to allow multiple users to
use the same bands simultaneously without interference,
allowing greater competition and greater innovation.
Ms. Matsui. Ms. Rinaldo, you have got 7 minutes--7 seconds.
Ms. Rinaldo. Absolutely. I think with Open RAN, the use of
AI, you are going to see a lot of use cases, especially in
spectrum management.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hudson. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair will recognize the chairman of the full
committee, Mr. Guthrie, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
Mr. Guthrie. Thanks, Mr. Chair, for the recognition.
And Ms. Rinaldo, it is great to see Cole here. Not many of
us on this committee remember when you used to work for a
member of this committee, and it is hard to believe I have been
here that long, because he is 10 years old now. I remember when
you were having him.
So my question is--I know we have newer Members, and some
of us need a refresher as well. So NTIA, which you were leading
in the previous administration--well, now, I don't even know if
it is still previous--45--it manages the Federal spectrum, but
a lot of agencies try to manage their own Federal spectrum.
Can you explain how that is not supposed to work and the
problems of how it--what that causes when that happens?
Ms. Rinaldo. Absolutely.
So fragmentation is one of the worst things that we could
do to move things forward. You would lose everything from the
efficiencies that you gave through the IRAC, where all the
Federal agencies come together and discuss management of
spectrum, to national security concerns. Can you imagine if
each agency was responsible for cybersecurity of their
individual bands? It would be disastrous.
Mr. Guthrie. But some agencies try to do that, right?
Ms. Rinaldo. Some would like to use, yes.
Mr. Guthrie. OK. So all right.
So we heard Chair Hudson and Ranking Member Matsui talk
about disputes going into these international bodies. And just
kind of a refresher for some, and some are new to the
committee. So we were at the 2023 World of Radio Communication
Conference. There were disputes that went in that made us less
effective.
So if you would talk about what those--I know there were
several, but kind of highlight a couple of the disputes, why
that made us ineffective or less effective, and if we go into
those international groups less effective, how China will take
advantage of that.
Ms. Rinaldo. Absolutely.
So there is a lot of prep work that goes into these events
years ahead of time. We work with others around the world to
ensure that we can have a unified response, not just the U.S.
but our partners as well. And so, if we are still arguing over
policy decisions as we go into the standards bodies, then we
are not able to speak with a unified voice.
Mr. Guthrie. So what kind of policy discussions were
happening? What were we arguing over?
Ms. Rinaldo. Spectrum bands.
Mr. Guthrie. Spectrum bands?
Ms. Rinaldo. Yes. So the adversary wants the chaos because
if there is chaos internal amongst us, that means we are not
fighting them for our strongest hand and our position.
Mr. Guthrie. So these international standard-setting bodies
that the standard--because, obviously, spectrum knows no border
because it is physics, in the air only. I know Mr. Obernolte
can explain it. I can't.
But we do know that it crosses borders. And so, what
advantage does China have if they get the leverage? What could
they do with having the leverage? What kind of standards could
they influence that is negative to us and positive to them?
Ms. Rinaldo. So it does advantage their vendor community a
great deal. It is incredibly expensive to put together a radio.
And so, if you are walking in and if you are standards-
accepted, you are going to have the first movers advantage, and
that is what we want.
Mr. Guthrie. So like what kind of standards? I mean, just
kind of more details.
Ms. Rinaldo. Yes. So whatever bands. So you are going to
have transistors in all of your radios, and so that becomes
incredibly expensive. You are going to want to ensure that you
have--so other countries around the world are on the same bands
that China is, and so that is what their aim is, is just to
coalesce everyone together.
Mr. Guthrie. So it is kind of like if they become the
dominant player, then everybody else has to play. If you want
to be interoperable, most people want to be interoperable with
the dominant player.
Ms. Rinaldo. Correct. You want to be the leader.
Mr. Guthrie. And so, if they become the dominant player,
then we have to follow them instead of them follow us?
Ms. Rinaldo. Correct.
Mr. Guthrie. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate that.
I do have another minute if anybody wants the time. If not,
I will yield back.
I will yield back.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair will recognize the ranking member of the full
committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am concerned by reports suggesting that Republicans would
rather spend $70 billion in spectrum auction proceeds on tax
cuts for the rich instead of investing this money in bipartisan
public safety priorities, such as Next Generation 9-1-1, which
is going to save the lives of a lot of Americans, including
first responders.
But let me go to Mr. Lewis. To the best of your knowledge,
has Congress ever directed spectrum auction proceeds to pay for
tax cuts for billionaires?
Mr. Lewis. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Pallone. All right.
And why is using spectrum auction proceeds to deploy NG 9-
1-1 networks a worthwhile investment, if you would?
Mr. Lewis. I view NG 9-1-1 as an important public interest
need that makes all Americans benefit from secure networks,
faster emergency services, and it matches the mandate of the
Communications Act that says that we should push to have all
Americans connected to reliable, secure, affordable
communications.
Mr. Pallone. Well, thank you.
I mean, obviously, I am very proud of the fact that we have
used spectrum in the past for public purposes and don't want it
to be just used for tax cuts for, you know, corporate or
billionaires.
You know, we are debating spectrum policy, but--here in
this committee, but as far as the people in my district are
concerned, they just want to know what we are doing to make
their monthly bills more affordable. That is what they care
about, you know, the bottom line, You know, they can't afford
things. They want us to bring prices down.
So, Mr. Lewis, do you think that the FCC should require
through licensing or other means wireless service providers to
offer an affordable service option, that we should require
that, if you will?
Mr. Lewis. I think that would be OK. I don't think it would
be a substitute for restoring the low-income subsidy for
broadband that we lost last year. Even with a low-income
option, there is a cost to low-income people in every State and
every district. So, yes, but it is not all we would need.
Mr. Pallone. You think some of those other things are just
as important, certainly?
Mr. Lewis. I think the subsidies are very important. It was
proven. You know, over 20 million people signed up for it
before it went away, and folks are making difficult budgetary
choices without it.
Mr. Pallone. Yes. I certainly agree with you that that was
a major accomplishment, and we should try to continue or expand
it.
The last question I wanted to ask, and I could ask it to
both Mr. Lewis and Mr. Powell possibly too, if you would like.
The Biden administration made great strides in advancing the
U.S. spectrum policies by adopting the national spectrum
strategy, which got bipartisan support in this committee. And
this strategy requires the Federal Government to undertake
studies of certain spectrum bands before making any final
decisions on whether or how they should be made commercially
available.
So let me start with Mr. Lewis and then Mr. Powell. We have
got a couple minutes. Will completing these studies allow us to
more effectively compete against China and other countries, and
if so, how?
If you could take a minute and we will ask Mr. Powell.
Mr. Lewis. I would say yes, actually, for some of the
reasons that Ms. Rinaldo was talking about, to point in a
unified direction instead of the disputes we had between
different agencies in the past. The studies can really set what
the scientific facts are about how different bands will work
and the technologies using it and then, hopefully, coordination
can be built off of those scientific facts.
Mr. Pallone. OK.
Mr. Powell?
Mr. Powell. I would just quickly say that the bands that
were being evaluated are the very bands that all of us are
sitting here asking for the government to get into the market.
We all have acknowledged those bands are heavily encumbered,
and so there are complex questions associated with the current
users and potential commercial use.
So at some level, no matter what form it takes, there has
to be continued evaluation of the viability of doing that and
the appropriate approach to doing that.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you both.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you, Mr. Pallone.
The Chair now recognizes the vice chair of the
subcommittee, Mr. Allen. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Chairman Hudson, for yielding, and
now we will get back to the subject we came to talk about.
Mr. Powell, can you explain why it is important to our
strategic competition with China for your members to have more
spectrum made available for their use?
Mr. Powell. Yes, sir. You know, I think attacking China is
a multifront war, and I think, you know, to follow the advice
of Sun Tzu, don't attack where they are strong, attack where
they are weak. Our innovations in WiFi are unprecedented in the
world. China does not appreciate or embrace that technology or
approach, because it would empower their citizens in a way that
they are unwilling to do in their Communist system. And this
gives America an enormous competitive advantage because we
harness the innovation potential of every one of our citizens,
and they don't. They have a command-and-control, exclusive
license regime because they want to maintain control----
Mr. Allen. Right.
Mr. Powell [continuing]. Of that regime. And they want the
world to use their approach as well.
Mr. Allen. Good. Thank you. Ms. Rinaldo, what--can you give
me an answer to that question about why it is important for
your members to have more spectrum to compete with China?
Ms. Rinaldo. Absolutely. So if you want to get Open RAN,
deployed, we would need new spectrum to bring online. It is
updating networks. It is U.S. and our allied friends around the
world, innovation that is coming to bear.
Mr. Allen. OK. Today, I will be introducing the Spectrum
Pipeline Act, which was originally co-led last Congress by
Senators Cruz and Thune. This bill is designed to ensure the
efficient allocation of midband spectrum, a resource critical
for the advancement of 5G and next-generation technologies.
While this communications technology is a cornerstone of
our strategic competition with China, this bill lays out a path
for us to promote wireless innovation while protecting national
security interests.
Mr. Gillen, can you explain why the Spectrum Pipeline Act
is needed and how it would benefit the Nation's economic and
national security interests?
Mr. Gillen. Absolutely. And thank you for your leadership
and for the bill. It is a really important thing to address a
lot of the challenges we are talking about, that we--we need to
move quickly, we need to move decisively, and it is Congress'
role to set that direction.
And that structure you propose is flexible. It allows the
agencies to actually determine which bands are right, that we
need to do together. But ultimately, when we are trying to talk
about China, in our view, we need to be the best in the world
in our license, and we are today. We also need to be the best
in the world in 5G. We shouldn't be choosing. We need to do
both, and we need to have the innovation available on both of
those platforms.
And so your bill would help equalize that imbalance we have
right now on the 5G side to put us in a position. We lead the
world today in unlicensed spectrum. We can again in 5G with
this kind of bill. Thank you.
Mr. Allen. Thank you. Mr. Gillen, my rural district still
does not have consistent mobile phone service.
What assurances can you give me that your member companies
are making the necessary investments in upgrading their cell
towers and building new ones as necessary?
Mr. Gillen. Absolutely. It is a project every day that we
continue to build. It is one of the things why it is important
when we talk about what kind of spectrum is available, why
full-power spectrum matters. If you think about some of the
models, the sharing models we are using, you need seven times
more the facilities to cover this in geography.
So when we are trying to get out beyond Augusta, what are
we trying to do? How far that signal goes matters. There is
also a role for the government, the 5G fund at the SEC, to help
supplement and complement those places to help us push out
faster.
But absolutely, we need to get further than we are today.
Mr. Allen. Is there anything Congress can do to help us--
help companies build more towers in the rural areas of the
country?
Mr. Gillen. Certainly continued work on permitting reform
would help, to help cut down--modernize that process to let us
build faster and get to more places and more full-power
spectrum. It would be both.
Mr. Allen. And then finally--I have got about a minute--can
you explain the difference in the approach of a spectrum policy
between the first Trump administration and the recent Biden
administration, and what exactly needs to happen to get
spectrum policy out of the gutter and back on track, and how
long will it take?
Mr. Gillen. We saw great success. The first Trump
administration released more spectrum than any other
administration, particularly some of the midband spectrum we
are talking about under the Trump direction and Ms. Rinaldo's
leadership. We saw 380 megahertz of spectrum--midband spectrum
auction for over $100 billion.
The spectrum directly adjacent to both of those is prime
spectrum for that same opportunity again. So it came down to--
we had a lot of--we were speaking with one voice, and the White
House pushed us all forward with a good plan.
Mr. Allen. So it is important that this committee
understand that we have got to move quickly with this, and we
need to move in a bipartisan way and quit talking about
political issues, and let's get this done and so we can lead--
lead the world in communications technology.
And I want to thank each one of you for your being here
today and for your input on this important subject, and please
help us get this done. Thank you.
Mr. Hudson. I thank the gentleman for yielding back.
I will now recognize the Representative from Florida, Mr.
Soto, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Spectrum is one of our
most valuable commodities, our information superhighway. When I
think about all the uses from cell phones and getting to 6G to
AI and commercial rockets in Central Florida, by the way,
telehealth streaming, gaming, internet, e-commerce, one of the
greatest economic inefficiencies we have is buffering, the
dreaded spinning wheel. I even remember when it used to be an
hourglass. A lot of you may remember that.
And so, it is critical for us to ensure access to spectrum
for these commercial and technical uses. Unfortunately,
Congress allowed the SEC's auction authority to lapse back
nearly 2 years ago. And we saw, you know, the Department of
Defense, our military, they need to defend the Nation. But with
nearly 2 years of this lapsing authority, we need to work out
these differences.
There has been a history of using this funding for public
safety, for national security that is communications-related,
whether it is FirstNet, Rip and Replace broadband, and the new
infrastructure law. I could tell you, in rural places in my
district, like South Osceola and East Orange, where they have
ranches and farms and groves, using this funding in a related
way to communications not only makes sense, but it is the just
thing to do.
Communications are only going to require more investment as
technology and competition advance, especially making our
telecom system more resilient to cybersecurity hacks, like Salt
Typhoon, which has been mentioned a bunch of times here.
So we need to make sure we are reinvesting these in the
telecom system and not seeing tax cuts for billionaires that
will siphon this off.
Most Americans and American small businesses will suffer
identity theft, ransomware, spying, if we don't continue to
reinvest.
So first, Mr. Gillen, I was shocked to see--we would see--
China, over the last 3 years nearly 4 times the amount of
midband spectrum for commercial use unleashed. And just so we
are clear, there has been a bipartisan opposition in the
Senate, through DoD, through Senator Rounds, I see Senator
Hirono, too, who helped slow this down.
How do we--what are the consequences if this continues to
happen?
Mr. Gillen. Thank you for the question. I thought the
consequences is where you started. It is the buffering
hourglass. And when we talk about what these networks can do,
it is inconvenient on a phone call when we want--with 5G, and
we want connectivity to do in manufacturing and healthcare and
transportation. We need these to be heavily reliable and
resilient networks. So it has to work.
And so, ultimately, at its core, that advantage in China is
giving them a leg's up in their ability to innovate. There are
14 times more 5G-connected factories in China than are in the
U.S. You can draw a direct line back to our spectrum policy.
They are continuing to move forward. There's forward global
bands for 5G right now. They support three. We support zero.
We need to get on the playing field. We need to start
competing again.
Mr. Soto. Ms. Rinaldo, you were head of NTIA. When you
worked with the DoD on these issues, What was their hesitancy?
I feel like there is--I get it. There is national security
implications to this.
But what are some of the things you can disclose of why
there is still that tension there that is blocking a lot of
this from coming forward?
Ms. Rinaldo. Yes. I feel that there is a lack of trust.
They, of course, have national security aims that they need to
protect, and the industry wants those protected too. But
there's so many efficiencies coming online. How can we ensure
all users, public and private, are taking advantage of these
efficiencies?
And so I think that is what we really need to get back into
this conversation, is how do we get the trust back? We are all
one country.
Mr. Soto. Thank you. Mr. Lewis, if you could have a top
three reinvestment in a telecom and in communications systems
with the proceeds of spectrum sales, what would it be?
Mr. Lewis. Top three. Definitely NG 9-1-1, which we have
talked about. Number 2 would be digital inclusion efforts on
the ground, Congress' investment in the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law. And digital inclusion efforts on the ground
was a first of its kind, but it is not permanent. Spectrum
auction authority could create a permanent fund.
And then other infrastructure needs: resiliency, there may
be others. But spectrum auction proceeds are hard to predict as
well. Those auctions, no greenfield space come with costs as
well, so it would--prioritizing would make sense.
Mr. Soto. Thanks. And I yield back.
Mr. Hudson. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Latta for 5 minutes to ask
your questions.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to our
witnesses for being with us today. This is really a great
conversation.
Our national security depends on the United States
maintaining an edge in advanced technologies. This committee
has acted decisively over the years to meet this goal. At
times, the legislation securing Americans' data from Communist
Chinese collection and advancing spectrum policies like the
Beat China for 5G Act of 2020.
The expiration of the FCC spectrum auction authority is not
something I take lightly. An auction authority remains crucial
for wireless technologies to have the ecosystem developed and
thrive in the United States.
If I could start my questioning with Mr. Powell. And there
has been a lot of discussion back and forth, but I am going to
get your--get your thoughts on this. In your testimony, you
speak to the American innovations that have come to--thanks to
unlicensed spectrum availability.
Do you expect that, as technology continues to develop,
coexistence of some sort of sharing in a band will be easier or
have less interference?
And before you answer--you really went in-depth in your
testimony on shared spectrum. And--but the question--we have
been going around and around on this for--oh, since I have been
on this committee, for almost 15 years, especially with DoD.
And we just heard from Ms. Rinaldo talking about, you know,
having some kind of working relationship back and forth and
having that trust. But how do we get there? Because we can do a
lot of talking, but how are we going to get that? Because we
are going to have to have this spectrum.
Mr. Powell. Yes. I think if you look at the examples of
WiFi and the CBRS spectrum, you will look at dramatic increases
in our ability to utilize advanced technologies to allow
conflicting uses to coexist cooperatively. That allows you to
get the spectrum out, have all users who need it have access to
it, and be able to provide services in new and innovative ways.
I think one of the trust problems is that the Defense
Department and others believe--I have worked with for them for
many years, including when I was Chair of the FCC. They lose
trust when they feel like people are hunting to take the
spectrum completely away from them and not offer them an
alternative. They are charged constitutionally with protecting
our borders, protecting United States national security.
And I can tell you, a cash--a flipping hourglass while you
are watching a video is one thing. A loss of 3 milliseconds on
a missile intercept means you miss. That is a very fundamental
loss of capability. So you can understand the conflict. It
takes talented leaders and policymakers to bring that trust
back.
But I would argue, looking more fully at shared spectrum
models would allow them to see a future which they can continue
to operate while coexisting with commercial users.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
Ms. Rinaldo, similar to conversations we have had in the
past related to the benefits of ORAN networks, how does having
a diverse spectrum ecosystem strengthen our national security
and protect against foreign cyber attacks?
Ms. Rinaldo. You never want an overreliance on a single
band. That is why it is important to diversify. I think all you
have to do is look to GPS, where it is incredibly vulnerable
because all of our eggs are in one basket. You don't want to
create a high-value target.
Mr. Latta. Thank you.
In your testimony, you mentioned that the United States
cannot and should not try to act more like China when it comes
to spectrum management. What are some of the areas we should be
looking at to encourage that innovation here while spreading
American wireless values abroad?
Ms. Rinaldo. So they operate by fiat. They have a handful
of companies as opposed to us. We have hundreds of companies in
this space, so it is important to bring them together to
collaborate, multistakeholder through government, public/
private partnerships. And so that is where we do have the
innovative edge.
Mr. Latta. Thank you.
Mr. Gillen, are there bands that have already been studied
by NTIA that should be part of the spectrum pipeline?
Mr. Gillen. Our studies have studies. Absolutely. When
you--the structure really--there's many different ways you can
structure the bill. You can direct--in the past, you have
directed, you must auction this particular band. Sometimes it
is a matter of spectrum within a range.
The clear priority for us is that--that you include a plan
with auction authority, and there's lots of different ways it
can do it. In terms of specific bands, absolutely. The 3
gigahertz band and the 7, 8 gigahertz band are two global bands
that are both identified by the national spectrum strategy. We
think those are key parts of the roadmap going forward.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. And in this Congress,
we have got to do, as I mentioned a little bit earlier, on our
spectrum auction authority, to get this done, you know. It is
just not for making sure that we have dollars coming in to
the--on the Federal side, but it is also absolutely essential
that we get the spectrum out there.
So, Mr. Chairman, I hope we can get this done this
Congress. And I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Hudson. I thank the gentleman.
I will now recognize the Representative from California,
Mr. Ruiz, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to serve
on this subcommittee. I represent California's 25th District,
the southeast corner of California, where far too many of my
constituents are dealing with persistent issues of limited
broadband access, inadequate cell coverage, and aging
infrastructure. It is one of the most underresourced rural
communities in the State of California.
And in communities like mine, the lack of reliable high-
speed internet creates obstacles. Students are unable to fully
engage in online education, small business struggles to remain
competitive, and families are disconnected from critical
services. The need to expand broadband access to Tribal Nations
is particularly pressing because they face some of the lowest
connectivity rates in the Nation.
And addressing this digital divide will not only ensure
equitable access to education and economic opportunity, it
would also provide essential services, like telehealth, to
communities that need it most. And especially our vulnerable
communities during the pandemic, we saw that the lack of access
made them even more vulnerable.
And we must prioritize modernizing our telecommunications
infrastructures to close this gap and build a stronger, more
connected future for all Americans.
Mr. Lewis, could you speak to how the absence of broadband
access affects the community and, in particular, what the
national security implications might be?
Mr. Lewis. I think you started with some great
explanations. I saw some of those examples firsthand. I served
on the school board in Alexandria for 6 years and saw students
who did not have connectivity and how it impacted their ability
to--to compete and to get a full education.
Broadband connectivity promotes economic development and
the opportunities to reach a global marketplace for adults as
well, and is incredibly important for communities.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. And, you know, we are here talking about
spectrum policies. There are so many different ways to serve
rural communities like yours. And certainly the investments in
the BEAD program that get fiber hopefully out to as many
communities as possible is important for wireless because you
can't have wireless connectivity and towers without the fiber
backbone that those towers connect to.
And then finding other ways to use different sort of
spectrum deployments, whether it is licensed spectrum, whether
it is shared spectrum, whether it is WiFi, like unlicensed
spectrum, like TV white spaces, the spaces between the
channels--the TV channels is used for broadband performance. So
there is so many different ways to----
Mr. Ruiz. And we need those during disasters for----
Mr. Lewis. Yes.
Mr. Ruiz [continuing]. One of the critical things that we
need them for.
So these connectivity gaps also pose critical risks during
emergencies, where reliable communication networks are
essential for delivering timely information, ensuring the
safety of all Americans.
Last week, on January 10, 2025, due to various reasons, 9-
1-1 outages were reported in the Coachella Valley where I
represent, particularly in Cathedral City and Indio. Residents
who relied on AT&T and Frontier Services were unable to reach
9-1-1 for several hours.
First responders directed people to call alternate numbers
or text 9-1-1, which are not always available or reliable
options. And this is not the first time people in my district
have experienced this.
As an emergency physician, I have witnessed firsthand how
every second counts during an emergency. Not being able to
reach first responders is simply unacceptable.
In the 118th Congress, this subcommittee, on a bipartisan
basis, made significant strides towards providing Federal and
State governments with the resources necessary to transition to
nationwide, IP-based Next Generation 9-1-1 systems. This
technology will modernize our outdated 9-1-1 infrastructure and
will allow texts, photos, and videos to be sent to 9-1-1,
improving communication during emergencies, and location
tracking, and ensuring better coordination during natural
disasters like the ones we experienced, Tropical Storm Hilary
and then also the L.A. wildfires.
So could you elaborate, Mr. Lewis, on the specific
benefits, investments NG 9-1-1 will bring to our communities?
Mr. Lewis. I think it starts with the idea that when an
emergency happens, what do a lot of us do? We grab our phone,
we take it with us. It is our--it is our lifeline to emergency
services and our families.
Mr. Ruiz. People are more likely to die when they are
having a cardiac arrest and they can't get the paramedics to
their home to help them because of lack of N11.
So I think when we are looking at spectrum option, we
should be using the funds to expand NG 9-1-1 and help save
everyday American lives rather than trying to use those funds
to give millionaires and billionaires more tax breaks, people
that need it the least. We should be serving the American
people who need it the most: everyday, middle-class, hard-
working Americans who rely on 9-1-1 systems to save lives.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Hudson. Thank the gentleman for yielding back.
I now recognize the Representative from Florida, Mr.
Bilirakis, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it
very much, and congratulations. You are going to make a great
chairman.
I have to admit, though, I was surprised that Congress let
spectrum auction authority lapse, let alone for 2 years. At
least we can say that the House did its job in trying to
reauthorize spectrum auctions last Congress.
But this clearly remains a top priority for members of this
committee on both sides. As we move forward, we shouldn't just
be simply thinking about reinstating auctions but also consider
process reforms. In the past, Federal agencies have attempted
to stymie auctions, sometimes even after an auction is held and
bidders have won provisional licenses.
Mr. Gillen, how does the uncertainty of post-auction agency
meddling impact the value of a spectrum license, and what can
Congress do to address these problems in the future?
Mr. Gillen. Thank you for the question. You are exactly
right. Bidders hate uncertainty. Capital hates uncertainty. And
therefore, asking companies to spend tens of billions of
dollars on an asset, there is expectation that they are going
to be able to quickly then use that to deliver service to
consumers. Unfortunately, that has not always been the case
recently.
I think it comes back to some of what Ms. Rinaldo said
about the need for one voice at NTIA to make those calls. And
ultimately, agencies and industry and everyone needs to live by
that decision, and we need to get back to that place that you
can help empower the spectrum experts at the FCC, at NTIA to be
the ones that have to make the hard choices, how all of us want
spectrum to be used.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Powell, in the aftermath of the historic double
hurricanes that slammed Florida and North Carolina and other
parts of the south and the wildfires that destroyed cities in
California, these communities need to rebuild from scratch. How
will permitting policies impact rebuilding efforts, and what
can Congress do to more quickly and cost-effectively rebuild
robust networks in these areas, potentially allowing them to
achieve a citywide network like Charter has done in Charlotte,
North Carolina? If you could answer that, I would appreciate
it.
Mr. Powell. Yes. I think you mentioned most importantly
that efficient receipt of permitting is essential. Our members
often, in communities, run into situations which they are ready
to lay fiber across an enormous expanse of rural and you have
been waiting for a permit for 2 years. This happens at both the
Federal and the State level.
I think there are other things about recovering
infrastructure in disasters, like in Florida and North
Carolina. For example, how do we get poles back up, and what
quality poles do we put? Are we just going to put the same
poles that blew down and broke, or are we going to improve
those? Not only for withstanding the elements, but also being
able to handle the expansion of broadband that we are all
looking for in the BEAD program.
We have had companies like Charter who have been on the
ground in--both in L.A. and North Carolina who have learned a
lot about how we improve coordination with power companies and
utilities to avoid infrastructure being cut after it has been
restored, which is something we run into a lot in these
situations.
So I think Congress and local governments can play a major
role in improving the way we recover from these disasters.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much.
During his first term, President Trump signed an Executive
order that streamlined environmental permitting processes for
infrastructure projects, particularly highlighting projects
that increase public safety. Due to this Executive order, Pasco
County, Florida, which is in my congressional district, was
able to finally get a project shovel-ready after nearly 25
years of bureaucratic red tape, if you can believe it.
This streamlining was eventually rolled back by President
Biden. On Tuesday, President Trump once again signed an
Executive order significantly streamlining the environmental
permitting process for infrastructure projects. Some experts
are even suggesting this order could cut down permitting
timelines from the better part of a decade down to 1 year, or
under 1 year.
Mr. Gillen, historically, about how much time and money is
spent on the environmental review process as opposed to
physically building the networks to reach new customers and/or
improve service for existing customers?
Mr. Gillen. According to the Commerce Department stats, it
can take well over 2 years, which an often case is a decision
of whether or not we are going to build or not. Particularly
when we have the conversation, you dovetail spectrum policy, we
are not getting spectrum out quickly and then how quickly can
we actually deploy it on the permitting side to get sites built
to build networks further out. And then oftentimes the cost is
considerable, but the time is really what hurts and our ability
to actually build out those facilities as quickly as we want
to.
So I think any steps to modernize those permitting programs
to allow us to do that more quickly with more certainty,
transparency, can be a game changer in terms of how quickly we
can amplify what you do on spectrum.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hudson. Thank the gentleman for yielding back.
I now recognize the Representative from California, Mr.
Peters, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am looking forward
to working with you on this subcommittee.
It is the first time I have been on this subcommittee. One
of the benefits of seniority--besides creaky knees--is, when
the third committee comes around, you can choose--choose a new
one. So I am happy to be here.
And throughout my time in Congress, I have prioritized some
of the main pillars of our economy in San Diego, two of which I
think are directly implicated here, just science and
innovation, and also our military presence.
In San Diego we take pride that our industries are at the
forefront of innovation. Qualcomm is headquartered at my
district. It plays a pivotal role in the progress of 5G and 6G
technologies and what we can achieve with a balanced spectrum
policy.
Common complaint I hear from innovators like Qualcomm is
that more spectrum is needed to meet demand from an
increasingly online population and to be able to compete with
competitors abroad, and we have already talked extensively
about that in some ways.
Mr. Gillen, can you describe a little bit about the
increasing demand for low cost--low-cost, high-quality
broadband services and how that relates to the need to make
spectrum more commercially available?
Mr. Gillen. Absolutely. One of the exciting things 5G has
created is our ability to compete in the home broadband market.
So we can now provide an option in both rural areas and areas
where we have not had as much competition as you have,
traditional mobile space. But we have seen that to be a greatly
attractive product. Ten million households have signed up to
that product.
But ultimately, at the end of the day, the ability to
deliver that service, the promise of $8 billion by one study is
savings to households if we could roll that out. We don't have
enough spectrum to actually keep delivering that everywhere. We
already have a company with a million-person waiting list. More
spectrum means that person has broadband.
Mr. Peters. Right. How efficient would you say the wireless
industry is with the current spectrum holdings and what
opportunities are there for the Federal Government to be more
efficient with the spectrum that it uses?
Mr. Gillen. It is a critical question. We all need to be
more efficient. I think, if you think about it from our
perspective, 20 years ago, this was cutting-edge wireless
technology. We reinvent every 10 years. Our network gets
created. We get more efficient. We are 42 times more efficient.
We have government systems from the 1970s still out there.
So it really is a matter for all of us to be in a position
to make sure that those equipment--that we get the government
better resources, better tools to be as efficient as we can be
as well.
Mr. Peters. I used to carry around a slide rule. That is
really going back.
The IIJA, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act,
directed the Department of Defense to study and plan for making
specific segments of spectrum available for shared Federal and
non-Federal use to potentially identify frequencies for
auction.
Mr. Powell, given your service in the military and as a
former Chairman of the FCC, can you tell me why it is important
for the Federal Government to take a comprehensive approach,
including national security implications, when studying
spectrum currently used by DoD for potential commercial use?
Mr. Powell. Yes. I think we have all celebrated the value
of spectrum, but we need to understand it is valuable for
multiple important public uses. Not only commercial uses for
consumers and businesses, but critical systems this Nation
relies on, everything from NASA to OSHA to--the Oceanographic
isn't what I meant--and our national security.
I was a soldier in the field. I was a cavalry scout, and
you know what I was trained to do when the Russians come
through the gap? Find the antennas. I mean, it is critical to
shut down command-and-control systems in the military because
that spectrum is essential to their ability to operate.
Similarly, that spectrum is essential to intercepting
intercontinental ballistic missiles like the dome over Israel,
for example. You imagine if they didn't have the effective
spectrum for that system, things would be very, very different
in that community.
So it is essential with the military, and we have to work
it out. There is no ``just take it from them and we will be
fine,'' right? We have to have a public answer to how we
replicate anything we compromise.
And so the EMBRSS process in which--the EMBRSS report, in
which the DoD studied the feasibility of sharing, came to the
conclusion that it was possible to share.
And, frankly, if we had accepted that recommendation then,
we would be well on our way to providing a spectrum to market
under a shared-spectrum model. But for whatever reason,
including opposition by the wireless industry, it got restudied
by the NTIA because somehow people didn't like the answer. But
if we really wanted the spectrum, we could have moved off of
that report.
Mr. Peters. Well, I am looking forward to talking more
about this with you. I have the military in my ear and Qualcomm
in my ear----
Mr. Powell. Yes.
Mr. Peters [continuing]. And I think the people do send us
here to work things out. And so that is what I like to do, and
look forward to working with you all.
I yield back.
Mr. Hudson. Thank the gentleman for yielding back.
I will now recognize the Representative from Florida, Mr.
Dunn, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
Mr. Dunn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As a returning
member of the subcommittee, I want to remind my colleagues,
what we map out for national spectrum usage sets the stage for
all telecommunications nationally and, importantly, for the
entire world.
I would like to emphasize the advantages that we enjoy in
this particular Congress. We not only have Republican control
of the House, Senate, and the administration, but we have a
President who actually understands spectrum policy and was very
successful in spearheading some innovative and competitive
policies in his first term.
I am going to read a statement from Brendan Carr, Chairman
Carr, that highlights the successes. From '17 through '20, the
FCC freed up roughly 6,000 megahertz of spectrum for licensed
use alone, plus thousands of additional megahertz for spectrum
for unlicensed use. The Trump administration put four times as
much spectrum into the commercial marketplace for consumer use
in one term than the last administration studied to put into
use.
Two years ago, Congress allowed spectrum auction authority
to lapse for the first time in three decades. This is while
China edges into the lead on spectrum occupation and the
offerings of its associated technologies. It is on the members
of this committee in this room to lead on spectrum policy, to
direct or authorize the FCC to enact authorization to auction
these critical and finite resources.
And it starts by asking one general question: How much
spectrum does the--America need for commercial use, and how
much do we need for government use, and can they share the
resource? And next: What are our licensed versus unlicensed
needs for the commercial sector to innovate and grow? Can we
strengthen sustained U.S. leadership in the field, or will we
continue to lose ground in China?
Three years ago--several years ago, the U.S. lagged as a
country in adopting 3G technology. Europe got ahead of us. The
tables turned when we switched from 3G to 4G, and America was
ahead. So now as we get to 5G and 6G, we are competing with a
cutthroat adversary, China.
And I want to caution us that, as Americans, we may feel
entitled to win every big tech race and advancement, but that
is by no means guaranteed unless we protect the
telecommunications infrastructure wireless ecosystem. And that
includes working with the ITU and the World Radio Conference.
It also includes addressing priorities like diversifying
spectrum uses for streamlining, for satellites, space, AI, et
cetera.
All of this, you know, to keep foreign adversaries out of
our telecom. And I believe, by the way, our adversaries have
proven their hostile intentions by disrupting at least six
submarine cables in the last few months alone.
With my esteemed colleagues on this subcommittee enjoying
bipartisan, pro-American approach to technological innovation,
which is fundamental in finding solutions to inner-agency
debates and political disputes standing in the way of America's
global competitiveness, and I look forward to finding
solutions. And I trust this panel to help us.
Ms. Rinaldo, I was fascinated by your testimony. In your
opinion, what is the safest and most secure path for the
expansion of commercial use of spectrum bands, and given your
expertise in Open RAN space, can you tell us what you see in
the future for that technology, how we're expanding the usage
of Open RAN, and where we go from here?
Ms. Rinaldo. Well, if I could give you one little quick
vignette to really get your mind wrapped around it. Canada in
2022 banned Huawei. They are going to be replaced just like we
are. One of the executives at Telus has publicly said by 2029,
they are going to be 100 percent Open RAN because he never
wants to be in this position ever again.
Vendor lock is such a big part of this. So we talk about
vendor diversity, but it is also about the vendor lock. It is
going to allow you to be nimble, make updates as needed. So it
really does have the power of national security concerns, as
well as commercial connectivity.
Mr. Dunn. Thank you very much for that. You know, I am
looking at a list of questions here. I know I am going to run
out of time before I get there, but I am going to submit
questions to everyone on the panel. And all too often, we do
not get responses--I will say that--when we ask for written
responses.
This is not a gotcha moment. This is a chance for you to
educate Congress, improve your government, and I am sure you
recognize the need for that. So please think of us as a
receiving antenna and not a--not a nosey, imposing government.
And so with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
Mr. Hudson. Thank the gentleman for yielding back.
I will now recognize the Representative from Illinois, Ms.
Kelly, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Chair Hudson--and thank you for the
peanuts--and Ranking Member Matsui for holding this morning's
hearing, and thanks to all of our witnesses for participating.
You have heard some concerns already about how spectrum
auction proceeds will be spent. I think Congress should invest
its money in ways that benefit local communities and public
interest objectives. For instance, last Congress in our
bipartisan spectrum bill, some auction revenues were directed
towards HBCUs and other MSIs to help them increase broadband
adoption in their local communities.
As one of the cochairs of the Predominantly Black
Institution or PBI Caucus, I know such funding would have
enormous benefits, as these communities are too often
underresourced and lack affordable, reliable internet
connectivity.
Mr. Lewis, do you agree that directing revenues towards
expanding broadband adoption in communities served by HBCUs and
MSIs is a worthwhile investment, and if so, why?
Mr. Lewis. I would say yes. When I talked about digital
inclusion efforts on the ground, many of them are being led by
folks in and of specific communities, whether it is the Black
community or Hispanic community, at HBCUs or MSIs. And so, yes,
I think those dollars are incredibly important to--to support
folks who know the local community well in getting people
connected.
Ms. Kelly. And my district is urban, suburban, and rural,
and I have 4,500 farms in my district. So I can relate to what
my colleagues on both sides have been saying about their
constituents.
The expiration of the Affordable Connectivity Program, or
the ACP, poses a significant challenge for low-income
households that depended on it to afford internet services.
Unlicensed spectrum technology such as WiFi has provided
connectivity across all income levels due to its wide
distribution and deployment. We have seen schools and libraries
utilize WiFi to help connect their students and patrons.
Mr. Lewis, can you talk about the role WiFi can play in
connecting the unconnected, particularly with the expiration of
ACP?
Mr. Lewis. It is a powerful tool. You see libraries and
schools loaning out WiFi hotspots for students who don't have
connectivity at home. I know we did that years ago in
Alexandria when I was on the school board.
The unlicensed is also important for continuing to support
the next generation of diverse scientists and engineers. You
talk about HBCUs. They are generating the vast majority of
Black scientists and engineers in this country. If those
schools don't have access to unlicensed spectrum to--to study
new innovations and develop new devices and new innovations,
then they miss out on those opportunities.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you. Mr. Powell, your written testimony
notes that shared spectrum models are the key to meeting our
growing wireless needs, and you go on to list some of the
advantages of shared spectrum.
What is it about these shared spectrum bands that make them
attractive to a wide range of different entities, including
ISPs, schools, libraries, and manufacturers?
Mr. Powell. I think the important thing to emphasize is
when you do shared spectrum like we did in CBRS, you attract a
whole bunch of bidders who win licenses, not just a single
company or couple of companies.
So, for example, in CBRS, 228 companies or entities won
licenses. And when you use those licenses, they are lower-
power, smaller geography, so it allows innovation in
communities to set up their own wireless networks.
For example, you referenced HBCUs. Howard University is
using shared CBRS spectrum on its campus today as a consequence
of the shared-spectrum policy and the CBRS option. You
mentioned agriculture. There are places all over the country
that are using CBRS to manage moisture control, automatic
temperatures.
These are bands that they would have never had access to
but for the shared model.
Ms. Kelly. You kind of--my next question was, How has the
development of CBR service or CBRS advanced precision
agriculture--you know, how has that been affected?
Mr. Powell. Yes. As I mentioned, you know, there is a
company called Hurst Greenery in Missouri that has 600 acres of
greenhouses, and they use CBRS shared spectrum in order to
control fertilizer feeds in order to check moisture of--
moisture in the soil as well as to automatically control
temperature control. And they were able to access that as a
consequence of that FCC auction.
Ms. Kelly. My increase in farms join me to join my
colleague, Rep Latta, in leading the House-passed Precision
Agriculture Satellite Connectivity Act, which asks the FCC to
review its rules for certain satellite services to see if there
are rule changes that can be made to promote precision
agriculture.
So thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.
Mr. Hudson. Thank the gentlelady for yielding back.
The Chair now recognizes the Representative from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Joyce, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Chairman Hudson and Ranking Member
Matsui, for holding this hearing and to our witnesses for
testifying.
I appreciate that this subcommittee is starting with a
topic that is clearly at the top of everyone's mind, and that
is spectrum. The Energy and Commerce Committee has a long-
standing commitment to smart, bipartisan policies that both
modernize and govern spectrum use. Our jurisdiction is on the
issue, and it has a storied history. And I am looking forward
to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on
this issue.
Spectrum is a finite resource, and we must ensure that we
are being innovative and thoughtful when forming any spectrum
legislation moving forward. Solving this spectrum auction
authority lapse and generating new spectrum policy is my top
priority on this subcommittee, and I look forward to working
with Chairman Hudson on getting this across the finish line.
Mr. Powell, speaking of innovation, your members have
leveraged spectrum and its high-speed broadband networks in
many groundbreaking ways and are becoming fast-growing mobile
providers. Can you describe this incredible growth and
competition and the role that unlicensed and shared spectrum
have been playing?
Mr. Powell. Yes. You can look at how we innovatively use
the spectrum that was available to enter the mobile telephone
market as the fourth major player. So we use WiFi where 80 to
90 percent of our traffic goes over that infrastructure. We
should remember, 90 percent of the time human beings are
indoors, and so they have access to that spectrum.
And then we use shared spectrum and we use exclusive
license spectrum. And by doing that, we have been able to
create a service that is dramatically cheaper than other
wireless plans. Plans from the cable companies on mobile
services, on average, save consumers up to $700 a year on their
mobile wireless services being offered by cable companies.
Mr. Joyce. Mr. Gillen, can you speak to the ways in which
your members have utilized licensed spectrum to innovate in the
wireless space, and to what extent that--has the lapse in
auction authority affected your ability to innovate?
Mr. Gillen. It is a great question. I think we talked a
little bit about 5G home, an example of providing the second or
third choice in home broadband right now, thanks to the power
of 5G home. The 20 percent of those subscribers are new to
broadband altogether as an ability of wireless to get deeper in
those communities makes a big difference, and the differences
can be stark. It is up to $8 billion in savings to consumers
thanks to that competition.
As a practical matter, we already have companies out there
that have waiting lists because there is not enough spectrum to
continue to feed that competitive spirit. And so across the
board, the more spectrum we have, the better we can compete
both in the mobile space and in the fixed space.
Mr. Joyce. And continuing, Mr. Gillen, during the first
Trump administration, 100 megahertz of prime midband spectrum
was auctioned in the 3.45-into-3.55 gigahertz band for $22
billion. Estimated relocation costs by DoD were over $13
billion, but according to NTIA, less than $300 million have
been spent.
Is that band currently operational by commercial users, and
if so, are they currently operating with incumbent DoD
operations?
Mr. Gillen. Absolutely. I think when we talk about shared
spectrum, there's different types of shared spectrum. There is
dynamic sharing, where it is actually real time and
preemptible. That makes it hard for us to be used reliably.
There is other spectrum like you are alluding to. Some
systems are moving out their government system, some stay. And
the best thing we can do is get engineer to engineer together
as to which systems belong here, which systems can be used more
smartly elsewhere.
I think one of the auctions you just referred to is one of
those places that the money that is left over right now is
earmarked for the Navy to design a better radar that could help
in the drone environment. And so, part of the magic of auctions
is the Spectrum Relocation Fund Congress created creates win-
win opportunities that we can actually help the government get
the tools they need for the modern warfare environment that we
have now.
So how do we get smarter? How do we share better? And we
have a lot of tools available that we actually know can work,
both the military radars can work, and we can coexist with 5G.
Mr. Joyce. Do you think, Mr. Gillen, that the innovation
that can occur with the United States Navy and other military
is a byproduct of the additional funds that occur through
spectrum auction?
Mr. Gillen. Absolutely. This is a key piece of the puzzle
to help them continue to advance and improve what they need
us--what we all need them to do: keep us safe.
Mr. Joyce. Ms. Rinaldo, what policy priorities should
Congress have when addressing development spectrum policies in
this Congress? Are there issues in spectrum--with your
experience, what you bring to the table--that have not been
addressed and you want to be seeing in this Congress occurring?
Ms. Rinaldo. So I would say, first and foremost, good
oversight. We need a plan, we need to implement that plan, and
we need to make sure that we have oversight to hold everyone's
feet to the fire.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for holding this important
spectrum hearing today.
Mr. Allen [presiding]. Thank you, Dr. Joyce.
And now I recognize Representative Barragan from California
for 5 minutes for questioning.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing on American Leadership in Wireless Technology. I would
love to hear about the bipartisanship, and there is bipartisan
agreement on the importance of extending spectrum auction
authority to support our wireless networks and further
innovation.
However, I think it is critical the American people know
how we plan to use tens of billions of dollars that will be
raised from the spectrum auction, and I also have concerns
about reports that Republicans may propose to use the revenue
from spectrum auctions to give out tax cuts to billionaires and
corporations. Instead, I believe that we should be using those
dollars, investing in things to benefit all Americans such as
through broadband and through public safety initiatives.
Mr. Lewis, I am going to start with you. After witnessing
firsthand the devastating impacts of the recent wildfires in
the Los Angeles area, it is clear how important it is to have a
strong emergency communication when disasters strike. We often
hear about people on the wrong side of the digital divide and
how they miss out on essential education, health, and commerce
opportunities, and you touched upon this topic briefly, but you
kind of ran out of time. So I want to follow up.
If you could talk more about what it means when entire
communities still have old, out-of-date 9-1-1 systems.
Mr. Lewis. I think without NG 9-1-1 you have less--you have
slower responses. You have missed opportunities to get location
information from people's mobile devices, other communication
beyond phones, like texting, that help people reach emergency
services faster.
And so it is incredibly important that we continue to
deploy NG 9-1-1 everywhere.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you. I think that is one of the reasons
we should invest money from things like spectrum auctions and
important communications priority like the Next Gen 9-1-1.
Mr. Gillen, I want to follow up with you. How do wireless
networks support public safety communications and emergency
alerts, and are there any additional measures we should
consider to ensure people in emergencies receive timely, life-
saving information to improve response efforts?
Mr. Gillen. Thank you for the question. And I think the
last few weeks have reinforced the importance of that program.
The wireless emergency alerts, we have sent over 84,000
during that program. And one of the things we have learned
recently is we have continued to add more functionality to that
program. So before it went out through a broad area, we
increasingly allow smaller geographic areas to go out, we give
options as to how often a message is broadcast in your
community in case your phone is off or other things.
I think some of the challenges we saw the last few weeks
underscores that we need to partner with those public safety
originators who actually start the alert process as to how the
tools work and what actually happens. But I think at its core,
it is a critical functionality that we are proud to be able to
help.
We need to always continue to work to make that program
stronger both in terms of how the originators add to it and the
functionality we create both for consumers and for the public
safety.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you.
Mr. Powell, there is a significant workforce shortage
across the telecommunications sector, with tens of thousands of
skilled workers needed to meet current and future demands. What
steps are the companies you represent taking to address the
shortage, and particularly through workforce development and
engagement with underrepresented communities?
Mr. Powell. Yes. This actually is a very serious problem.
It is one of the big problems with the BEAD infrastructure
program. Our expectations of what we are going to be able to
build falls short of the amount of workforce available to build
it.
Consequently, our companies have focused on a number of
significant workforce training programs. Some of them include
particularly programs targeted at veterans. We have some
programs targeted at young people to help them learn the skills
and develop engineering talents that allow them to move into
the cable industry. And we have very ongoing efforts daily in
order to bring people into a company and train them.
This is not simple cut-and-paste work. It is important,
high-quality work, and we are committed to continuing to build
a workforce that can allow us to bring broadband to every
corner of the country.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you.
Mr. Gillen, is there anything you want to add about what--
the companies you represent, what they may be doing, any policy
recommendations, how Congress can help fill the gaps?
Mr. Gillen. I echo everything that Chairman Powell said. We
need to be in a position to have the workforce ready. I think
the Wireless Industry Association is a great apprenticeship
program. I think we are all working together to get people into
this. These are good-paying jobs. These are good opportunities.
I think one of the things Congress can do is if we know
over the next 5 to 10 years when spectrum is coming--those
tower companies know when the work is coming. So right now when
you talk about gaps in time between auctions and everything
else, we don't know when the next one is coming. And so I think
when you are looking at companies with tower builders across
this ecosystem, the more certainty we can provide is a roadmap
to, like, I can hire because I know the work is going to be
there.
So I think the more certainty you can provide, but we would
welcome your support because the workforce is critical to
achieving everything we are doing.
Ms. Barragan. Great. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Representative Barragan.
Now, I recognize Representative Fulcher from Idaho for 5
minutes for questioning.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To the panel, thank
you for being here today. We always learn something, and every
time I listen to you all talk, I realize that I know about a
fraction of what I need to know about some of these things. And
so thank you for being here.
A couple of questions just for clarification. Mr. Gillen, I
come from a State with a lot of space. There is a lot of rural
area in Idaho, but it is growing. And the needs are growing
rapidly. It is a fast-growing State, a lot of open space, a lot
of Federal land, all that.
We have touched on some of this, but just for clarification
purposes, would you just share, what is the cost of us doing
nothing? What if we do nothing in regard to licensed spectrum
shortage, identifying that? What is the cost of that?
Mr. Gillen. The cost of it is, at its core, at some point
this is going to stop working the way that you expect it to
work. A lot of the innovation and expectations we want to talk
about, whether it is AI or anything else, isn't going to have
that platform to ride on. So that we are going to need to make
sure from a licensed perspective and an unlicensed perspective,
we have enough spectrum to actually meet our daily needs.
The first thing you notice in high-traffic areas, you are
going to see slowing down. And that is going to get
progressively worse. But what it really is, we are accustomed
to our wireless service getting better each and every year.
Without more spectrum, that can't happen.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you for that. So that just shows the
urgency that we are under here. I wanted to clarify that.
Mr. Powell, good to see you again. Thanks for joining us
here today. On a similar topic, let's go to WiFi just for a
moment. I would like to get your input. WiFi handles, as we
have talked about, a lot more traffic than any other wireless
technology. WiFi 7 is coming. Can you touch on that and just
tell us what--what from your vantage point, what is that going
to bring, and what does this mean for spectrum policies as we
advance WiFi?
Mr. Powell. Yes. If you had walked the floor of the
Consumer Electronics Show this past January, you would have
seen a ton of emphasis on WiFi 7. WiFi 7 is a next-generation
technology that, in short, allows faster--faster use, faster
data rates and wider channels.
One of the things we are having to manage in the home is an
explosion of devices that need to be utilized on the same
network. So when you get wider channels, you are able to get
applications that require lower latency. So, for example, 4K or
8K video, or another example would be virtual reality systems
of any type, and gaming.
So WiFi 7 is essentially critical to the kind of devices
that are coming into the home and coming into the market as we
continue to innovate.
Mr. Fulcher. And also important for research, research
development, being unlicensed spectrum?
Mr. Powell. Oh, 100 percent. You know, we continue to use
WiFi in research environments, medical environments,
environments that have heavy reliance on it. And the more we
have these advanced systems, the better we will be.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you for that.
Ms. Rinaldo, I would like to steer a question to you. The
Open RAN situation is an exciting one. Personally, as I hear
you talk and as I just think through some of the things we have
been through, I am concerned about equipment made by some of
our adversaries. You mentioned the Huawei and some of that,
some of those things that, quite frankly, at least some of us
don't think can be trusted.
What steps, if any, do you think that we should be taking
in a leadership role to encourage trusted equipment, American
equipment--whether it is American or anybody else, but trusted
equipment? What steps should we be taking?
Ms. Rinaldo. So the two biggest things that we face right
now is lack of the deployable spectrum here in the United
States--how do we get spectrum authority back up and going, how
can we make more spectrum available?
Also, as we look internationally, I would say how we use
our investments, our international assistance programs. For
instance, EXIM Bank, they have risk caps associated with, and
telecom is such an infrastructure-heavy industry, we always
bump up against those caps, and so no telecom projects are able
to get funded.
So we are currently working with Congress on legislation
that would allow EXIM to waive risk if we are going up against
a Huawei or a ZTE. So those are a handful of items that could
really help make a difference in getting Open RAN deployed
around the world.
Mr. Fulcher. Great. Thank you for that.
Mr. Chairman, I do have more questions but not enough time
to ask them, so I am going to put those in written form. With
that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Representative Fulcher, for yielding.
Next is Representative Menendez from New Jersey.
You have 5 minutes for questioning, sir.
Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Spectrum is one of our most valuable public resources. It
has become a cornerstone of modern life for American families,
enabling smartphones, navigation systems, telehealth services,
emergency alerts, aviation systems like air traffic control,
and the list goes on.
How we manage our radio airwaves has a propound impact on
access to and affordability of essential services,
technological innovation, and digital inclusion, so it is vital
that Federal spectrum policy is designed to support and benefit
all Americans. This requires a range of spectrum access regimes
that include both exclusive and shared-use licenses for
reliable networks and access to unlicensed spectrum that
supports innovation. Achieving the right balance is critical.
Mr. Lewis, would you agree that if we use auction proceeds
to invest in our digital infrastructure and programs that serve
the public interest, we can further unlock the next generation
of American innovation and close the digital divide?
Mr. Lewis. Yes. I think it meets the mission of the
Communications Act to do so and fills the gaps that we have in
making sure that everyone is connected.
Mr. Menendez. Great. And I agree. That is why I join
Ranking Member Pallone in his concern of reports that our
Republican colleagues are instead preparing to use
reconciliation to put spectrum auction proceeds towards funding
tax breaks for corporations and wealthy Americans.
This is while we have heard a lot of talk from Republicans
about affordability and putting America first. And here we are
with a clear opportunity to invest in the public good in a way
that will have a real impact on our constituents' access to
affordable wireless services and on our Nation's ability to
lead the world in wireless innovation.
So this is a moment of truth, and I invite my colleagues
across the aisle to make good on their promises and join us in
making life more affordable for American families, to make our
communities safer by improving FirstNet, and to maintain
America's leadership in technological innovation.
Mr. Lewis, I believe Federal spectrum policies must serve
the public interest first and foremost. As we discuss extending
the FCC's auction authority, we must be intentional about how
licenses can provide the maximum benefit to our constituents.
How should the FCC design spectrum licenses to ensure that
wireless services are more accessible and affordable for our
constituents?
Mr. Lewis. I think it starts by using the new spectrum
access models that have been studied to get the greatest
benefit and the greatest efficiency of the use. We have heard
at this hearing just how different bands can be used for
multiple uses at the same time, including the military, while
the mobile license carriers are using it, as well as unlicensed
smaller power uses, all at the same time and managed through
dynamic spectrum sharing.
So finding the most efficient uses, I think, is incredibly
important and then, after that, running auctions with the
authority from Congress, hopefully, that produce additional
public-interest benefits like NG 9-1-1.
Mr. Menendez. That is great.
And, building on that, how can licenses be structured to
ensure that communities that tend to be underserved by
commercial licenses are not deprived of digital opportunity?
Mr. Lewis. I think the opportunity comes from those sharing
examples. We have already seen some of this happen. You know,
in the CBRS band, there are great opportunities for some of the
most unconnected communities in rural areas--Tribal areas,
especially, are our most unconnected--to use spectrum that is
not being used, that may have licenses, but--prioritized, but
creates opportunities for them to have community-owned built
networks. And I think that is in the spirit of some of the
relationships we have with our Tribal communities.
So that is one example. There are many others.
Mr. Menendez. Yes. That is great. And I would love to
continue the conversation, but I am down to the last minute.
In your past testimony, you noted that auctions, if
designed correctly, have the potential to reshape the
workforce. How can licenses be structured to promote a robust
and diverse spectrum workforce and increase supplier diversity?
Mr. Lewis. We have seen the FCC meet their statutory
mandate to promote vendor diversity.
They have the Office of Communications Business
Opportunities that helps connect women and minority vendors to
opportunities to work with larger carriers and big providers.
They have created the ECIP program, which promotes taking
licensed spectrum but creating a secondary market so that, if
it is not being used by the large carriers, other groups can
come and get access to that spectrum.
So there are great opportunities if we design it and
continue those programs.
Mr. Menendez. That is great.
I appreciate you all so much for being here.
And I yield back.
Mr. Hudson [presiding]. I thank the gentleman for yielding
back.
I now recognize the Representative from Texas, Mr. Pfluger,
for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
Mr. Pfluger. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate
the opportunity to have this hearing.
I will start with Mr. Gillen.
I would like to talk about the EMBRSS report. And,
basically, DoD, NTIA concluded that the 3 gigahertz band
couldn't be cleared for exclusive use. So I kind of want to
talk through a sharing model or a segment model.
And, really, what I want to hear is what needs to happen,
especially from DoD. What do we need DoD to come back with? How
do we need to work together? What settings are we expecting
that to happen in?
I am familiar with this band, I have used it in my
professional career, and kind of want to get to the bottom of
where we need to go processwise.
Mr. Gillen. Absolutely. And I think there has just been a
misunderstanding amongst everybody as to what our goal here is.
You think about the lower 3 gigahertz spectrum. It is 350
megahertz. That is almost as much spectrum as 5G has available
for it. No one thinks all those radars should go away. That is
a bad idea. And too much of this conversation is, ``Oh, we need
$200 billion and 20 years'' to do something that no one is
asking them to do. Ultimately, we need to get to a place that
we have engineer-to-engineer.
We think segmentation makes the most sense around what is
happening globally. So, if you look at just the top 150, and
then in that top 150, what are those systems? There are
systems--there is a missile defense facility in Alaska. No one
should move that. There is no need to move that. There is
AWACS, there is the airborne system out there that is going to
get replaced by Wedgetail in 2032. So let's talk about what is
available in 2032.
There are other systems--let's say it is using Channel 5.
It is like an old TV. Can it work on Channel 3? Other systems,
can we talk about--can we use it, smaller channels, if we
actually invest? Some of the money from the last auction is
going to the Navy to move S radars to X radars that are
actually better in a drone environment.
So we think that we have to get away from a binary choice,
it is either the military or wireless. We need both. We just
need to be smarter and more efficient.
Mr. Pfluger. Yes.
Mr. Gillen. And we need to start with getting engineers
talking on a system-by-system basis, understanding your needs,
understanding our needs, and making everybody stronger.
Mr. Pfluger. Well, I couldn't agree more. And I think,
working together--and I used those AI radars. I flew those
aircraft. I used the services of aircraft like AWACS. And I
think the time and geographic--the ability to bifurcate those
and to separate--so I want to explore more on the segmentation
process.
Mr. Powell, I will let you answer there, and I have a
question for Ms. Rinaldo after that.
Mr. Powell. Well, I think I can only incrementally add
that, I mean, the answer we just heard sounded a little bit
like finding ways to share. And that is exactly what we are
supporting.
I think the big conflict is, are we going to move
forcefully in that direction, following the examples and
precedents we have had in the past to do so, or are we going to
continue to fight over how much we can actually take away for
full power and exclusive use by the commercial industry?
I mean, I appreciate that you could go through system by
system, but I think we also have to respect the military
experts' judgments on what they need and how they need it.
Those of us in industry, engineers or otherwise, aren't
necessarily the best people to make those national security
decisions.
Mr. Pfluger. Do you feel like that we have been together in
the right rooms at the right classification level to understand
each other?
Mr. Powell. I probably don't have enough direct experience
to answer that question, but I would say, look, there is a
component of what happens on the military side that stays
behind the confidential curtain. You have to trust that people
are protecting things that must be protected. But, typically,
we learn enough about what they are doing to have a pretty good
appreciation of what the sort of range of possibilities is.
Mr. Pfluger. I am convinced that we can share. I am
convinced that there is a plan that we can make work. And,
actually, the benefit will be innovation, and that will benefit
DoD as well. It is a finite band.
Ms. Rinaldo, I will come to you. In your testimony, you
talk about the role of standard-setting bodies, such as the
World Radio Conference--Radio Communications Conference, and
what that plays in shaping technology.
I think there are some concerns about that process and
concerns about getting to that conference and having the U.S.
take a leadership role. What needs to change in that process?
And how do we affect it better beforehand?
Ms. Rinaldo. So I think there has been a lot of chaos going
into the WRC. And it is so incredibly important that we go in
and we have debate, right, we have the fight in the room. That
is where great ideas happen.
But then when we leave that room, we need to have a
decisive decision, and people need to stick to that decision.
And that has been the breakdown. So, if we are at WRC and we
are still fighting, then our adversary is winning.
Mr. Pfluger. Mr. Chairman, great hearing today. Our
national security depends on this. I am convinced that
innovation will result from moving forward with an auction.
I yield back.
Mr. Hudson. I appreciate the gentleman yielding back. And I
appreciate your perspective on this. I think your experience in
the military uniquely qualifies you to help us figure this out.
And I think this committee is determined, on both sides of the
aisle, to figure this out. So thank you.
The Chair now recognizes the Representative from Virginia,
Ms. McClellan, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
Ms. McClellan. Thank you, Chairman Hudson and Ranking
Member Matsui, for convening today's hearing.
As many of you know, I began my legal career a little over
a year after the Telecommunications Act of 1996 passed. That is
how I started as a lawyer. I ended as a lawyer, right before
coming here 2 years ago, figuring out how to implement the BEAD
program and to expand broadband.
I have witnessed first--I had a front-row seat at the
table, witnessing the transition of the telecom industry from
regulated monopoly, where mainly landline was the form of
communication, to now a WiFi-based, wireless-based, data-based
industry. And I have seen firsthand the explosion in the use of
and the demand for more bandwidth, for more and more data,
growing at an explosive rate.
So I am very excited that my first hearing as a member of
this committee has brought me back home, dealing with issues
that I have dealt with since I was a baby lawyer.
And, with that, I would like to first focus on the
discussion we have had about spectrum being a finite natural
resource that does form the foundation for technical innovation
in our dramatically increasing digital world. Its allocation
and utilization carries significant potential to either bridge
or widen the digital divide, particularly for our rural,
underrepresented, and marginalized communities.
And so, for Mr. Powell and Mr. Lewis, could you elaborate
on the benefits of unlicensed spectrum, including how it has
historically driven innovation and expanded connectivity,
especially in underserved, rural, and Tribal communities?
Mr. Powell. Thanks. I am happy to go first.
I would say a couple things real quickly.
First of all, it is important to understand how much value
WiFi brought to the typical American family over the way the
internet first unfolded. When I was first at the FCC, you paid
$60, you got a single connection, and you got one computer to
operate on that connection. Today, that price is about the same
and every single person in the house can use it. So you have
dramatically increased the value and the affordability of the
service for all communities.
Secondly, the thing that we are learning is WiFi is very
effective as a public resource. Anybody can get on it--in the
airport, in the public park, in the library, in the famed
McDonald's parking lots where students have studied at times.
During the pandemic, we wouldn't have survived without WiFi
being able to allow us to operate at home.
The other thing is, as we move to share models, we are
learning that people can take matters into their own hands. I
have a great respect for the wireless industry. They are great,
but they have challenges in building out infrastructure. But
we, with CBRS, we empower local communities to set up their own
wireless networks. We have small utilities who are able to use
CBRS and provide services to their communities. We have small
wireless internet service providers who use these bands that
they are able to get at low cost to provide services to rural
communities.
So one thing to remember in the models that we are
championing is that you allow anybody to take delivering
wireless service into their own hands and use it privately--in
manufacturing facilities, in stadiums, in football fields. The
NFL is going to use it for all of their 24 stadiums. So it is a
democratizing approach. And I think we think we see a lot of
benefits that come from that.
Mr. Lewis. Just to add on, it is democratizing in how it
impacts folks who then get to innovate on unlicensed spectrum.
We talked earlier about, you know, the important research that
can be done to build new devices, and we want to see that
happen everywhere, whether it is, you know, on HBCU campuses or
in high schools around the country.
It is benefiting in both rural and urban areas. You see
WiFi create local networks in urban areas, like Harlem, and the
most remote rural areas. Tribal communities are building on
multiple bands. There is, in California, the EnerTribe, serving
the Yurok and Karuk and Hoopa Tribes--``Hopa'' Tribes, I might
have mispronounced it--where they have built their own networks
using the shared CBRS structure but on the unlicensed level.
Ms. McClellan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In my last 10 seconds, I would just like to ask, for Mr.
Powell and Mr. Gillen, if you could share in written response
back what steps Congress can take to ensure that vital programs
like the now-expired Affordable Connectivity Program can foster
greater competition in the wireless market and to drive down
prices, while also ensuring providers have the resources
necessary to deploy and maintain the networks that are
necessary to provide those services.
And, with that, I yield back.
Mr. Gillen. We will do that. Thank you.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you.
The gentlewoman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the Representative from Georgia,
Mr. Carter, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And congratulations to you, Mr. Chair, on your chairmanship
of this subcommittee. It is a great subcommittee, and I served
as vice chair for a while last session. I will tell you, they
have a great team too. So you have surrounded--they have
surrounded yourself with good people. And we appreciate it,
because it is extremely important. This area, as we all know,
is extremely important.
Mr. Gillen, I want to start with you. You said today that
we, as the U.S., are watching other countries, whether it is
allies or rivals, make more 5G spectrum available for their 5G
networks than it is in the U.S.
Can you talk more about that and why other countries are
doing--what they are doing with spectrum, why it matters? And
specifically about China.
Mr. Gillen. Absolutely. Thank you for the question,
Congressman.
You go around the world: England has twice as much of the
spectrum that we do, Japan has three times as much. There has
just been a recognition when you look at these demand curves,
what are we going to need to actually meet that moment and also
to create innovation?
If you think about all the innovation in the sharing
economy, all those apps, they happened in the United States
because 4G was the best in the world in the United States. And
we need to get back to that place in 5G.
What we see in China is, both domestically they want to be
able to deliver innovation, manufacturing--their pushing
forward of the smart manufacturing--leveraging that spectrum.
They also want to--as Ms. Rinaldo has talked about, they want
to export their values, their equipment through spectrum
policy.
So, right now, globally, there are four 5G spectrum bands
out there for the globe to use. China supports three of them.
We support zero of them for 5G. We are not in the game right
now to be able to help shape where our allies--where we go,
which impacts our manufacturing base to have someone to sell
equipment to. It impacts our ability to innovate. So----
Mr. Carter of Georgia. OK.
Mr. Gillen [continuing]. The faster we get back to more
spectrum, the better off we will be.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. Great. Thank you for that
explanation.
Mr. Powell, how will the unlicensed and the shared
community help us address the China threat as it was just
explained?
Mr. Powell. Thank you for the question.
One example I would like to share, which is Georgia-based,
is the United States Marine Corps at the Logistics Base in
Albany, Georgia, is using CBRS shared spectrum right now to
advance our warfighters' abilities to use robotics on the
battlefield.
I think it is important to remember that, you know, China
is a threat on multiple fronts, and if they invade Taiwan, we
are going to find out the most important one is whether we are
able to meet that threat. So CBRS shared spectrum has been a
solution on a number of military bases to allow them to set up
their own private networks in order to train and operate
equipment.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. Good. Thank you for that.
Mr. Gillen, I want to go back to you. As you know, I
introduced the American Broadband Deployment Act that takes
steps to eliminate the bureaucracy and the red tape.
And I will tell you, that is one thing we are--the Trump
administration is going to address, is just all the permitting,
all the regulations that go throughout all of our economy. I
don't care if you are talking about healthcare, if you are
talking about technology or energy--everywhere I go, everybody
is telling me permitting, regulation is crushing us, crushing
us.
So, obviously, in the previous Trump FCC, they made great
strides in this area, and Chairman Carr's leadership has been
needed. I am wondering, do you think it is important to codify
those changes, and should we go even further?
Mr. Gillen. Yes. I think your bill is a key companion to
this conversation around spectrum, that in order--particularly
as we are waiting years to get spectrum access, we need to hit
the ground running. And I think what Chairman Carr did
previously on permitting reform, we need to do more. We need to
go beyond small cells to macro cells, how do we get to Federal
land.
So I think your legislation is a key piece of how do we
actually codify that commonsense modernization that we need to
actually get people out building again.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. Do you think spectrum would be more
valuable if broadband permitting was faster and more
transparent at the local and the State level?
Mr. Gillen. Yes. It gives us a roadmap to how quickly we
can build; if you buy that asset, how quickly can you put it on
the towers across the country, actually delivering service to
consumers.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. I think that is very important, and
I hear it all the time as well, about problems not only at the
Federal level but at the State and local level as well, and we
need to be assisting them in that as well.
Mr. Gillen. Absolutely.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
And thank all of you for being here. Again, this is
extremely important. We all know that, and we recognize that.
So your input is very valuable, and we appreciate you taking
time out to spend with us.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Hudson. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the Representative from New York,
Ms. Clarke, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you.
Good afternoon, everyone.
And thank you, Chairman Hudson, and thank you, Ranking
Member Matsui, for convening this important hearing.
Let me also thank our panel of experts for joining us this
afternoon.
Finally, my warmest regards and welcome to all of my new
colleagues on the subcommittee and the Energy and Commerce
Committee.
Spectrum policy is such an important part of this
committee's jurisdiction and a fitting topic for our first
subcommittee hearing of the 119th Congress, particularly given
the continued lapse in the FCC's spectrum auction authority.
While I am disappointed the Senate was unable to follow our
lead in the 118th Congress on auction authority, I am proud of
the work this committee has done in recent years on spectrum
policy.
The need to advance and enact legislation that reinstates
auction authority and thoughtful spectrum policy is more
important than ever, given the multiyear lapse, but it is
equally important that we get it right.
Spectrum is a public resource and must be treated as such.
Our spectrum policies must carefully balance the needs of both
Federal and non-Federal users while fostering new innovations
that maintain our global leadership. Spectrum auction proceeds
must also be reinvested for the public good and not as a pay-
for for additional tax cuts for billionaires.
This committee has historically shown an ability to work in
a bipartisan manner to establish a creative regulatory
framework that fosters the kind of innovation and competition
that made us global leaders in the first place. CBRS is a prime
example of the kind of creativity that we can achieve when we
work together. And I believe that, together, we can break this
logjam and advance innovative spectrum policies that serve the
public interest.
At the heart of this impasse is the fundamental tension
between critical national security needs and the priorities of
wireless carriers. Reauthorizing spectrum auction authority
requires addressing this tension head-on. And a successful
framework must enable technologies to coexist, ensuring that
neither side feels the need to obstruct future attempts to
reauthorize the authority.
Having said that, Chairman Powell, in light of your
response to Rep. Pfluger, what are your thoughts on spectrum-
sharing frameworks like CBRS? And how can this help us chart a
path forward?
Mr. Powell. Yes. Thank you.
Think about just the number of top-line benefits when you
pursue spectrum in this way. Number 1, you help resolve the
conflicts we have all been talking about. Rather than having a
tug of war between two different important interests, we find a
way to have them share.
Secondly, it tracks a lot more investment. So, you know,
when you had CBRS, you had 228 winners, not 1 or 2. They are
all able, then, to provide a whole range of diverse services.
You could provide wireless high-speed service, precision
agriculture----
Ms. Clarke. Uh-huh.
Mr. Powell [continuing]. New networks for your school. And
you allow people to do that without further permission from the
government. These are enormous benefits.
So, you know, I think, when you add that all up, it is a
very important tool in the quiver of Congress and the United
States Government as it tries to think about a forward-looking
spectrum policy.
Because, no matter what, when we resolve this band, we are
going to be here next year and the year after talking about
wanting more, and it is going to get harder and harder. The
more we squeeze, the more we try to get more juice out of the
lemon, you know, we are going to get to the pit. And we are
going to have to find some new, creative way to continue to
have spectrum roll off the assembly line and into the market.
Ms. Clarke. Very well. Thank you very much.
As we all know, different communities have different needs
when it comes to connectivity.
Mr. Lewis, can you discuss whether and how different
spectrum access models affect the ability of people from
different backgrounds, regardless of socioeconomic status, to
access the latest wireless technology?
Mr. Lewis. Each community can use unlicensed spectrum in
different ways. And we are seeing some of those different
access models allow for that flexibility.
In rural areas, we have seen the use of TV white spaces to
get broadband deployment out to communities that don't have it.
We have seen--I have talked about the Tribal communities, but
also we have seen in urban areas folks build co-ops using
unlicensed spectrum because of both sharing models as well as
broad unlicensed bands that the FCC has reserved. We need to
continue to do that.
I can't overexaggerate, I think, the importance of WiFi 7
that was talked about earlier, the broad channels that are
needed to make that happen so that, when we get 6G, when we
get, you know, gigabit broadband to a lot of places, you don't
want to have that slowdown when you get to the modem inside the
building. WiFi 7 allows for that.
So all these different sorts of access models are just
critically important to keep everyone connected, whether you
live in urban areas, densely populated areas with co-ops and
mesh networks, or rural areas with white spaces and community-
built networks.
Ms. Clarke. Very well.
I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hudson. Thanks.
Ms. Clarke yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the Representative from Florida,
Mrs. Cammack, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
Mrs. Cammack. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And
congratulations on the new role. It is so great to be back at
work on so many important issues with our colleagues.
And, of course, spectrum, as we know, is critical to our
economic and national security. And it has never been a
partisan issue, which is honestly why I was so disappointed to
hear the ranking member and several of my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle attempt to assert that spectrum auction
authority will be used as a means, in his words, to quote/
unquote ``give tax cuts to billionaires'' by extending the tax
cuts from the Trump tax cut plan.
Now, that is clearly a hyperpartisan and false attack, and
I highly doubt that the constituents of the ranking member's
district in New Jersey 6 would appreciate the 19 percent annual
tax increase across the board on working-class families, nor
would the 98,800 families in his district appreciate their
family's Child Tax Credit getting cut in half if we do not, in
fact, extend the Trump tax cuts.
A similar comment was echoed by my Democratic colleague
from California, Ms. Barragan--which, again, I don't think that
her constituents in California's 44th District would appreciate
a tax increase, on average, of $1,621 annually.
So, Mr. Chairman, I felt it appropriate to set the record
straight, seeing as how we are only a few hours into the first
hearing of the 119th, and attempts are already being made to
turn this vital issue of both economic and national importance
into a political wedge.
So I am sure their constituents, just like mine, care
deeply about the national and economic security and would
appreciate folks staying focused on the primary mission here
rather than partisan attacks.
So, Ms. Rinaldo, you had started down a line of answering
Representative Joyce's questions, and you had mentioned
oversight, talking about what you would like to see Congress do
more of in this space. Please elaborate on the oversight
elements that you were alluding to.
Ms. Rinaldo. Yes. So sometimes through--we have seen in the
past, through an interagency process, the failure to come to a
decision, and then you just get to a stalemate. I think when
you are talking about these issues, it is so incredibly
important to continue to move the ball forward. You, as Members
of Congress, can provide that oversight to hold feet to the
fire to make sure that we are able to move forward.
Mrs. Cammack. Can you give any examples of a particular
stalemate where a decision has kind of lingered?
Ms. Rinaldo. Yes. So I think somebody else asked about--oh,
actually, it was Chairman Guthrie--asked about other agencies
looking to separate out of the IRAC system, which is the
management of all spectrum management. That is so incredibly
important, to keep that group together. You lose all
efficiencies--and it does have national security implications--
if agencies are protecting on their own terms and not through
the collective good of the entire ecosystem.
Mrs. Cammack. So, a little bit in that same vein, you
started discussing--I think it was Representative Fulcher who
started talking about this--you started talking about the risk
caps and how telecommunications infrastructure typically gets
excluded, because it is so capital intensive, from funding
opportunities.
Obviously, that hinders our ability to compete with China,
as you started talking about. Can you continue down that line
for me?
Ms. Rinaldo. Sure. So EXIM Bank--we have the tools. They
already exist. We don't need to recreate the wheel. We just
need to retool them to ensure that we are able to get capital
out.
So, again, the legislation would just allow--it doesn't
require--would allow them to waive the risk caps if a company
was up against Huawei.
Mrs. Cammack. Now, let's say beyond EXIM, I mean, is the
Development Finance Corporation also an area where this is a
problem?
Ms. Rinaldo. Correct. Absolutely.
Mrs. Cammack. OK.
Now, talking a little bit more in the Department of Defense
realm, how can we--I know, obviously, you talked about the risk
caps. What other ways can DoD and others--can we be competitive
and support operations abroad?
Ms. Rinaldo. Yes. So, again, I would say that DoD needs to
be fully funded at their 5G department. The Open RAN Coalition,
we have an excellent relationship with the 5G office and the
FutureG office, but their budgets continue to be cut in half so
they are unable to deploy 5G around the world.
Mrs. Cammack. Do you feel that in the previous radio
conference the United States was adequately represented?
Ms. Rinaldo. I think there are lots of leadership changes
that led to disorganization.
Mrs. Cammack. And how would we address that disorganization
going forward?
Ms. Rinaldo. Again, it is ensuring that we get people
identified and in position earlier.
China has an advantage. They rule by fiat. But we go in
through a multistakeholder process. Our process, at the end of
the day, is going to create a broader, more impactful decision,
but it does mean that we have to start earlier and we have to
work harder.
Mrs. Cammack. Excellent.
My time has almost expired. I will submit the rest of my
questions in writing.
Thank you to all our witnesses for appearing before us.
And I am so sorry, it is freaking freezing in here.
Mr. Landsman. It really is. Amen.
Mrs. Cammack. Can we do something about that?
Mr. Landsman. So cold.
Mrs. Cammack. It is freezing.
Mr. Hudson. Well, the gentlelady has----
Mrs. Cammack. I yield.
Mr. Hudson [continuing]. Yielded back.
I will assure you, it is colder outside than it is inside.
The Chair now recognizes the Representative from Florida,
Ms. Castor, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am so looking
forward to working with you and Ranking Member Matsui on this
important subcommittee. It is really critical to innovation,
keeping WiFi and the internet affordable for our families and
small businesses, and to our national security.
And I know this subcommittee did a lot of good bipartisan
work last year, and you passed a spectrum auction bill
unanimously out of committee.
Why didn't it--why wasn't it brought to the floor? I would
ask--I am just curious. What is your view on that, Mr. Powell?
Mr. Powell [to Mr. Gillen]. What is your view of that?
Ms. Castor. Mr. Gillen?
Just quickly.
Mr. Powell. You know, I think I would stand with our--we
have been--we have all so forcefully seen the value of the FCC
spectrum auction. I stewarded that responsibility at the FCC. I
think it was a tragedy that we lost it.
It is important to remember, when the FCC has auction
authority, it is not just that they can move forward with an
auction. They are empowered to find bands and spectrum to bring
to auction. So they are stalemated in playing the leading role
that they have always played.
I think, unfortunately, we get back to this issue: There is
a lot of conflict about how these bands should be used and who
should be using them. And if people believe it is a political
opportunity to bias the outcome of that study in a way that
they might want or to protect constituencies, even those
protecting the Defense Department, it can lead to political
stalemate.
Which is why we continue to believe that we have to start
looking toward technological solutions like CBRS and shared
spectrum to try to resolve those conflicts, as opposed to have
them always thrown at your doorstep and ask lobbying and
advocacy to produce spectrum policy.
Ms. Castor. And you all have talked about it before, on the
lack of trust. Is there something else that I was missing on
all that, why it didn't--broadly bipartisan.
Just quickly. Just quickly.
Mr. Gillen. No, I think Chairman Powell covered it.
Ms. Castor. OK.
Mr. Gillen. A lot of the conversation right now is--we are
having conversations around winners or losers, and we need to
get to a place that these are win-win opportunities.
Ms. Castor. Yes. I agree with that.
Mr. Gillen. And so I----
Ms. Castor. And that is one reason why we are concerned
that spectrum proceeds could be used to fund tax cuts,
whereas--Mr. Lewis started off, this is in the public interest.
You use those proceeds in the public interest.
And why we are bringing it up is, now, the chairman of the
Budget Committee--there is a list and a paper out on the street
that has it pegged, spectrum proceeds, as a possible pay-for.
And that is why we are very concerned. It shouldn't go to fund
tax cuts for big corporations and millionaires and
billionaires. It needs to stay in the public realm.
And I can tell you, back home in the Tampa Bay area, as we
recover from the most damaging and costly hurricane season and
we look out at the other damage across North Carolina, to our
neighbors across--fellow Americans in southern California, no
place has been immune to these extreme climate catastrophes.
But, you know, we are learning a lot in the aftermath. In the
aftermath, we learn how to better prepare and respond.
And the Florida Department of Emergency Management and the
University of Florida piloted a new tool to provide emergency
responders and local governments with a dependable means to
share alerts. I mean, information is critical during
emergencies. They have the new Broadcast Emergency Alerting and
Communication Operational Network, BEACON, that uses AI to
quickly convert text into speech for AM radio broadcast, and it
has the ability to translate into different languages.
Automating these kind of critical safety broadcasts before,
during, and after a disaster, they really help the first
responders. They help get critical information to neighbors at
a time of need. Cell phones go down, you lose the internet. And
this is the kind of critical infrastructure that spectrum
supports and that Congress should be encouraging.
Mr. Lewis, in your written testimony, you say that spectrum
policy is about innovation and connectivity and that revenue
raised should serve the public interest. Is this the kind of
thing you were talking about?
Mr. Lewis. It is.
You know, just with the public safety and emergency alert
systems, when I was growing up--I am 45 years old. When I was
growing up, emergency alerts came over the television. Now they
come over your phone. And so, whether you are in your home or
you are on the move, receiving those is critical, and so we
want to support those and continue to build them.
NG 9-1-1 is a part of that----
Ms. Castor. Right.
Mr. Lewis [continuing]. As well as other resiliency and
infrastructure supports that we have talked about as public-
interest needs.
Ms. Castor. Good. And I hope that is the tack we can take.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Hudson. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the Representative from South
Carolina, Mr. Fry, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
Mr. Fry. Thank you, Chairman. And congratulations on your
chairmanship.
I will note just for the record that I appreciate North
Carolina peanuts, and they are good, but South Carolina peanuts
might just be a little bit better.
But thank you.
This is a crash course, as a new Member, into spectrum and
what that means for the country, and I really appreciate the
discussion today. I am glad that this is a largely bipartisan
affair.
Mr. Gillen, earlier you talked about China a little bit and
the risks that they pose in this space of spectrum. What are
the consequences of China taking a lead in making 5G spectrum
available to their carriers?
Mr. Gillen. Thank you for the question.
As someone with teenagers, I spend my weekend talking about
TikTok. And, ultimately, at the core, that is China exporting
technology. You know, if you go back to 4G, 3G, that was the
U.S. in that position. That is TikTok.
Now, imagine, extrapolate from that impacts on
manufacturing, on ports, on how we are doing so many other
different things. It is that innovation runs to connectivity,
it runs to capacity. And so, really, it is, all the things we
want to lead in going forward is going to go where the capacity
and the connectivity are.
Mr. Fry. Thank you for that.
Chairman Powell, obviously, the internet economy has
drastically changed over the last 12 years. Everything is
different. The way we communicate is different. The amount of
video content that we absorb is different. The way consumers
use wireless technology is vastly different.
How might our--other than--I think we have talked about
auctions a lot. How might our policies change as well, given
how the world is changing?
Mr. Powell. Yes, I think one of the things that I would
recommend to the committee is to keep the consumer at the
center of the focus of the policy. How do Americans really use
spectrum? What do they most depend on?
I think one of the reasons we celebrate the WiFi story is
that the vast majority of Americans' interaction with the
internet goes over that infrastructure. We spend 90 percent of
our days indoors, and when we are indoors, we are utilizing
those services. If you are watching Netflix tonight, you are on
WiFi. Frankly, if you are using your cell phone, 80 to 90
percent of the time you are also using WiFi, not even the
cellular network. It is the sort of workhorse of the entire
internet economy.
So, as you focus and align your spectrum policies, I think
just keeping in mind the rapid innovation, the way consumers
are evolving. You mentioned 12 years ago. The stuff in my house
today, as opposed to 12 years ago, that expects to find and
utilize my network is stunning compared to 12 years ago.
Mr. Fry. Thank you for that.
Ms. Rinaldo, how does access to spectrum allow innovative
companies like those in the Open RAN Policy Coalition to
continue to lead on the design of the next-generation networks?
And, as a followup, as the spectrum environment gets more
congested, could new technologies like AI-driven network
management help manage the spectrum issues and lead us to more
commercial spectrum on the market?
Ms. Rinaldo. So I would say that Open RAN is a nascent
concept, really first rolled out by Rakuten and Japan in 2017.
So we kind of missed the 5G wave. And so, as new spectrum bands
come on line, we are able to build out using Open RAN. I would
say, other than Dish, who has deployed 20-plus-thousand--AT&T
has made an investment of $14 billion in Open RAN--we are
really focused internationally at this point. So more bands,
more Open RAN.
And, as far as AI, it has been a great story for the
telecommunications industry. We can use it for everything from
management of spectrum, energy efficiency. And there is a lot
of talk these days, as you can imagine, with concerns around
drones, can we do detection using AI.
Mr. Fry. Thank you for that.
And this is a broader question, I think, for the panel, but
we will just go down.
What specific actions would you recommend for us, as
Congress, to take? I mean, obviously, we talked about some of
the legal problems, some of the regulatory hurdles, some of the
outdated regulations that may exist. What would you share with
Congress about ways that we can modernize our system?
We will start with you, sir.
Mr. Lewis. I think we all agree, I hope auction authority
is where you start.
Mr. Fry. Correct.
Mr. Lewis. And I would say, make it permanent. Provide the
reliability that the FCC has the power to do it. And then how
that then impacts band planning in the future.
Mr. Fry. OK.
Ms. Rinaldo. Auction authority, RNG, and then just working
with our allies around the world to deploy safe and secure
networks globally.
Mr. Fry. OK.
Mr. Gillen. Same. Auction authority with a plan associated
with it, and permitting reform.
Mr. Fry. Permitting reform. OK.
Mr. Gillen. Yes.
Mr. Powell. I would agree with that. I think auction
authority, improvement in the interagency coordination process
with appropriate congressional oversight, and assistance to the
administration on developing uniform and single-voice policies
when we appear at the next WRC in 2027.
Mr. Fry. Thank you for that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Hudson. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the Representative from Ohio, Mr.
Landsman, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
Mr. Landsman. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member, for
this incredibly important hearing.
The broadband/WiFi work that we do, probably one of the
most important things we have to get right nationally. And,
obviously, Congress has to play a big leadership role in that.
And this has been, as one of my colleagues said, largely a
bipartisan discussion, because it is a bipartisan issue.
I mean, there are two pieces that are really important,
that stand out for me.
One is just the relevancy, the impact it has on our
economy. I mean, growing economies are economies where there
are massive investments in infrastructure and education. And
broadband is obviously a huge, huge piece of the
infrastructure, and it is core to our global competitiveness.
The second is just the impact it has on our daily lives,
which, Chairman Powell, you have talked a lot about. I
represent southwest Ohio. It is a city, suburbs, rural Ohio.
And it is one of the most important things that we do, to make
sure that everyone has access, because of how important it is
to their healthcare, to their education, to their connection to
the world and to each other.
Two big questions have emerged here for me. One has to do
with reauthorization and, you know, how we divvy up the
spectrum capacity. And the second has to do with what we do
with that revenue, right? Those are two big questions that I
think we will sort out in a bipartisan way.
Let me start on the reauthorization question. Maybe each
one of you could just talk a little bit about--give one big--I
have heard a little bit from each of you about priorities, but
one big priority. You know, I am new. So, if there is one thing
you want us to really nail as we work on reauthorization, what
would it be?
Mr. Gillen. For us, it is key, when you go back, each time
Congress has done this--1997, 2005, 2012--it has always been
authority-plus.
Sometimes you direct specific auctions. Sometimes you say,
``You need to auction a certain amount.'' But particularly
because the government controls so much of this, if you give
the FCC, an independent agency, authority to auction without
something to sell, it can be an empty tool.
Mr. Landsman. Got it.
Mr. Gillen. And so, for us, it really is that connection.
Mr. Powell. I think the authority is important, but I would
slightly disagree with Mr. Gillen. You know, the FCC, when it
has plenary auction authority, it has the authority to find an
auction spectrum without further direction from Congress. So I
wouldn't want to leave you with the impression that you have to
tell them what spectrum to authorize. They have been doing that
for the better part of this century. So I think that is
important.
And I also think that if you entertain the idea of
assigning specific spectrum bands, then you have to wrestle
with the conflict we have spent all morning talking about. You
have to figure out how you are going to resolve the complexity
of the Defense Department systems. That needs to be done by
experts down at the agency----
Mr. Landsman. Yes.
Ms. Rinaldo. So I would say that the NTIA Administrator
needs to be an Under Secretary. And government titles matter,
and it makes a huge difference. If you are the NTIA
Administrator, you are having to brief the Deputy Secretary to
talk to----
Mr. Landsman. Yes.
Ms. Rinaldo [continuing]. You know, an agency about an
issue that they know nothing about.
Mr. Landsman. Mr. Lewis?
Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. I would agree with that.
Mr. Landsman. Yes.
Mr. Lewis. And with auction authority, I would say--I would
agree with the former Chairman. You don't have to be
prescriptive, because there is not a lot of new spectrum bands
out there. Letting Ms. Rinaldo's old agency, the NTIA, and the
FCC do the studies that point in the right direction is
important. And preserving the balance of licensed, unlicensed,
and sharing, WiFi 7, is a great opportunity but requires 360
megahertz of spectrum band. Yes.
Mr. Landsman. And then the second piece is on the revenue.
Obviously, there is some consternation, some worry, because of
a document that came out that maybe these dollars could be used
for pay-fors.
And on the tax piece, you know, I think there is broad
support for tax relief for working folks, middle class, small
businesses. It is the top 1 percent that I think folks like me
struggle with.
The revenue, assuming it stays here--and anyone, but, Mr.
Lewis, start with you. Just--you mentioned a few big things. I
mean, again, if you had to pick one major investment, I am
assuming it is the expansion and then the inclusion, but I am
curious what piece--where do those dollars need to go?
Mr. Lewis. I usually highlight two. Definitely digital
inclusion work on the ground needs long-term funding, as do
other broadband--other----
Mr. Landsman. That is really just making sure that more
people have it.
Mr. Lewis. Yes, addressing all three drivers of the digital
divide--not just infrastructure, not just affordability, but
adoption and helping people get it.
But if I picked a second, NG 9-1-1. I mean, kudos to the
chairman and former Congresswoman Eshoo for leading on the NG
9-1-1 bill last year.
Mr. Landsman. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Hudson. I thank the gentleman for yielding back.
The Chair now recognizes the Representative from New
Jersey, Mr. Kean.
You are recognized for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
Mr. Kean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to all of our witnesses for being here today.
Mr. Powell and Mr. Gillen, my district boasts some of the
most capable innovators in the world. It also has areas that
still face gaps in connectivity.
How can technologies using licensed and unlicensed spectrum
both supercharge our existing industries and generate growth in
more rural areas?
Whichever one of you would like to go first.
Mr. Gillen. Thank you for the question.
The power of wireless, particularly full-power 5G wireless,
gives you the opportunity to push out broadband to other
places.
Rappahannock County, Virginia, rural Virginia, there is no
terrestrial fiber cable services. Right now, because of
broadband auctions you made possible, there is now 5G home
service available. So roughly 20 percent of those new customers
had never had broadband before, because that is an ability to
scale and move quickly.
So I would offer, it is one of the places that you can push
out beyond where we are today.
Mr. Kean. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Powell?
Mr. Powell. I think one of the challenges in rural is
always infrastructure. One of the challenges the wireless
companies have is, in order to serve those communities
effectively, you have to densify the network. You have to go
out there and spend the money to put up towers to concentrate.
That is expensive. That is a big capital expense for them. And
so that has been slow.
If you look at shared spectrum on CBRS, it covers 70
percent of all unserved rural areas. That is why you are seeing
projects that allow communities to take matters into their own
hands. And in your own State, CBRS spectrum is being used at
Newark International Airport without having to await the use
from a commercial service.
Mr. Kean. Thank you.
Ms. Rinaldo, can you speak to the effect that adoption of
Open RAN technologies could have on our supply chain and
strengthening American wireless competitiveness globally? And
can you also provide an update on where the development and
deployment of these technologies now stand?
Ms. Rinaldo. Absolutely.
I think one of the biggest concerns is that we wake up one
day and there is only one vendor for the entire world. So the
concept of Open RAN, I believe, has been so successful because
we have gone from a handful of vendors now to hundreds--a lot
here in the United States, but also Japan, Taiwan, and Europe.
So, since we launched this coalition, there are now over
100 global deployments. I mentioned Tellis earlier. Tellis,
they are going to deploy 100 percent by 2029. Viettel in
Vietnam is deploying using Qualcomm and DeepSig to ORPC
members.
Palau, a small island in the South Pacific, they just put
out an RFP, and the number of proposals they received were
astonishing, because the competitiveness of Open RAN does allow
more vendors to participate in the market. So it is really a
win-win.
Mr. Kean. Thank you.
And then, Mr. Powell and Mr. Gillen, can you both speak to
how licensed and unlicensed spectrum are used in emergency
response in cooperation with first responders? And what needs
to be done to make sure that spectrum is used as effectively as
possible to keep Americans safe in the event of an emergency or
a disaster?
Mr. Powell. I think both are critical. I want to say that.
I have been involved in these situations. I will give you
an example just in the L.A. wildfire situation. Charter was
able to open 35,000 WiFi hotspots immediately to try to improve
communications when other infrastructure had been devastated.
You know, that is really important, to be able to use every
technological resource to get a network up quickly in these
communities, often ones that are suffering without power as
well as communications infrastructure.
Mr. Kean. Thank you.
Mr. Gillen?
Mr. Gillen. I agree with the chairman. This is a disaster.
We all need to be working together, and all these technologies
can complement each other.
In terms of wireless, we are proud that 80 percent of 9-1-1
calls are made on a smartphone today. The amount that we have
invested to make sure that first responders can find you when
you make that call with location accuracy. And the power of
wireless emergency alerts to be an amplifier to voice--and Mr.
Lewis talked about how far we have come in that program.
And then in terms of the disaster recovery themselves, the
technologies that we are leveraging now, there are COWs and
COLTs--we put cell phones on wheels, we put cell phones on
trucks--to go into an area to immediately have coverage.
Because it is so critical. You have lost everything. You need
that connectivity.
And so we take that responsibility very seriously. And that
situation--you know, we can disagree on a lot of things. When
it comes to disaster relief, we all come together to serve
customers.
Mr. Kean. Thank you to all of our witnesses.
And I will yield back.
Mr. Hudson. I thank the gentleman for yielding back.
The Chair now recognizes the Representative from Indiana,
Mrs. Houchin, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
Mrs. Houchin. Thank you, Chairman Hudson and Ranking Member
Matsui.
And thanks to the witnesses for your testimony and for
speaking with us today.
I want to start my remarks first by saying how excited I am
to be here as a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
This is my first hearing as a member of E&C, and I look forward
to working on the issues under this committee's jurisdiction.
Back home, as a State senator, I worked on expanding
broadband access, particularly in rural areas. I was proud to
lead that fight, and it is a fight that I am excited to
continue at the Federal level.
I look forward to certainly working with each member of the
committee, Mr. Chairman, on our shared priorities and hope that
we can find some common ground to bring real and positive
results for the American people.
And I am glad we are starting this work this Congress on
this issue of importance of both national security and global
competitiveness, and that is spectrum.
While we may not realize it, spectrum directly impacts the
ways in which millions of Americans go about their daily lives,
both at home and at work. From listening to the radio to
watching television, to using cell phones and browsing the
internet, spectrum determines how these devices carry data.
That said, it is a limited resource. And I recognize that
the United States must play a leading role in innovation
relative to spectrum to maintain our position as the world's
leader in new technology.
So my first question is for Mr. Gillen.
My district in southern Indiana is largely rural, made up
of small towns and cities. And I am certainly proud of the work
that we did in the State senate to level the playing field for
rural parts of the State, but the truth is, we continue to lag
behind the coasts and urban areas in access to the internet and
the tools that spectrum can provide.
How can your company's use of spectrum help with closing
the digital divide for rural America?
Mr. Gillen. Thank you for the question.
NERA, earlier today, released a report that said, for every
100 megahertz of new spectrum available, it can help create
access for 275,000 households that don't have it today. And so
the opportunity, particularly with the 5G home product, to get
to places that home broadband hasn't gotten to yet--that the
benefit of that opportunity, we can see that happen in real
time.
Accenture says that we can get to roughly 40 percent of
houses without any help. And then the question is, Where does
the help come, whether it is the 5G fund at the FCC or the BEAD
fund at NTIA? We are going to need the government's help. But
with spectrum, we can continually provide more and more
coverage throughout the area.
Mrs. Houchin. Great.
Mr. Powell, do you have anything in addition to that to add
about how the company's use of spectrum can help close the
digital divide?
Mr. Powell. Yes. As we talked about earlier, when you use
some of the CBRS shared spectrum, you are allowed to let
communities take matters into their own hands and build
networks while they are awaiting commercial systems to come and
densify their network.
I also want to put a plug in--because it is equally in this
committee's jurisdiction--it is getting the fixed
infrastructure out there too. A lot of wireless needs fixed
infrastructure in order to put those signals into the ground
pretty quickly.
So, with the BEAD investments that we are making, and the
companies that I represent are deepening their penetration into
rural America, these things have to be seen as complements. One
will not survive without the other.
Mrs. Houchin. Thank you.
We have talked a little bit--my colleague from New Jersey
talked about Open RAN. So I want to ask a few questions about
that.
I am excited by the prospects there to potentially increase
vendor diversity, both in the United States and with our
trusted partners around the globe, to open the door for new
entrants into radio access and to the network marketplace.
So, Ms. Rinaldo, how can ORAN technology help us stay
competitive with China?
Ms. Rinaldo. So, for so long, especially--so I used to work
for the House Intelligence Committee when they wrote the Huawei
report and then at NTIA. And it was the policy of the United
States to go around the world and say, ``Don't use Huawei. It
is a security concern.''
Open RAN is the ``If not them, then who?'' We give people
something to run to, as opposed to run away from. And I believe
that is why it has been so incredibly successful.
So, as we have 5G and as we look to 6G, it is software-
defined networks and virtualization.
I will use an example about Tellis. Tellis is ripping and
replacing right now, and an executive said they are going to
move to Open RAN because he never wants to be in a position of
vendor lock ever again. So we are bringing that national
security, supplier diversity, as well as the opportunity that
Open RAN can bring.
Mrs. Houchin. Well, that lends particularly to my next
question. Does the deployment of 5-to-6G help with deployment
of Open RAN? I think the answer to that is yes.
Are there any barriers that do stand in the way of
deploying the networks currently? And when do you believe we
might expect more widespread development?
Ms. Rinaldo. Yes, so the inability to auction new spectrum
and make new spectrum bands available, that is going to impact
deployment.
As well as, as we look internationally. I think it is
important that we use diplomacy as much as possible to ensure
that we are getting a supplied telecommunications chain out
there.
Mrs. Houchin. Thank you.
Thank you for your testimony.
I yield back.
Mr. Hudson. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the Representatives from Texas,
Mr. Goldman.
You are recognized for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.
I had about 100 questions that have all been asked already.
But I do appreciate you all's time today and for being here
today. I will ask a couple of quick questions, and we will move
on to my colleague from North Dakota.
This is both for Ms. Rinaldo and Mr. Powell.
Ms. Rinaldo, if you will go first.
How can we protect important national security missions
while also fostering innovation? And how do shared spectrum
approaches help us avoid those national security risks while
still helping us find new spectrum for commercial use?
Ms. Rinaldo. Yes. So there is currently an ongoing
multistakeholder process that I am participating in that brings
the private sector as well as the public sector together. They
are going to start classified sessions soon.
And so I think, as has been mentioned, you bring the
engineers in the room, and then we can get things moving a
little faster. So it is, how do we take the emotion, take the
policy out of it, and get the engineers to, you know, pave the
path forward?
Mr. Goldman. Understood. Thank you.
Mr. Powell?
Mr. Powell. I think the quick answer is coexistence. How do
you allow people to live together and both be able to do and
operate and provide the services that are critical, whether
they are military/national security services or commercial
services?
Many of the bands we have had in the past have pioneered
approaches to sharing. There are a lot of bands. Even in the
CBRS band, we have protection of incumbent military systems,
particularly naval, coastal systems. And it allows them to
operate effectively while we are able to offer a commercial
service.
Mr. Goldman. Great. Thank you very much.
And, Mr. Gillen, your testimony notes that significant
demand for wireless networks and more commercial licensed
spectrum is necessary to keep pace with that demand.
Can you explain how the various types of spectrum auctions
the FCC has used over the last decade work and how those
address the American consumer needs?
Mr. Gillen. Absolutely.
The FCC has auctioned both commercial spectrum and
government spectrum over the last 10 years, particularly in the
3 gigahertz range. A lot of the spectrum we are talking about
is midband spectrum today. We were able to work through a
process with the military to auction 100 megahertz for $22
billion in 3.45. And then C-band was satellite spectrum that we
were able to repurpose for 5G.
And that is the--you know, we have had 87 percent growth at
our networks over the last 2 years. It was those spectrum bands
that made it possible for us to have the capacity to meet that
demand. And so, when we look at what is coming next, it is: How
do we replicate the successes of those, and where do we find
that spectrum? And we think both of those bands adjacent to it,
we can run that same playbook in an effective way.
Mr. Goldman. Interesting.
Thank you all again very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the rest of my time.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you.
The Representative yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the Representative from North
Dakota, Mrs. Fedorchak.
You are recognized for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
Mrs. Fedorchak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
organizing this great hearing today.
As a Representative from North Dakota, I am big into
natural resources and resources. And spectrum is a very
important national resource. So I appreciate the opportunity
this hearing has to talk about how to best manage this resource
for the benefit of American citizens.
I will have to say that, you know, to the extent that
managing this resource results in additional funding for the
Federal Government, I am really confident that my host
colleagues, especially in this committee and on the Republican
side of things, are committed to putting any additional
revenues that might be generated from the sale of those to the
benefit of everyday Americans--the farmers, the ranchers, the
coal miners, the oil field workers, teachers, nurses, those
folks from North Dakota and throughout the country who are hard
at work. I know that we will be very diligent to use those
resources appropriately.
So, for all of you, thank you for your time. You have been
sitting here a long time now. You probably are thinking about
lunch and bathrooms and other things, so I promise I will be--I
just have two questions. But your expertise is really vital to
helping us make the best decision on how to use these
resources.
So, quickly, I wanted to ask Mr. Gillen: Help me understand
the need for the dedicated spectrum and what sort of uses you
use in that space that can't be done in the open, the
unlicensed spectrum, and what the interference is that is
created in the unlicensed that causes problems for you.
Mr. Gillen. Yes. Thank you for the question.
I think, when we pick up our phones, we want that
reliability. And what interference protection gives you is the
security that you know that when we are going to build out that
spectrum--$30 billion last year--we know that we control that
spectrum and that our neighbors or others can't use that same
spectrum. And so the certainty or reliability that you rely on
every day comes from that licensed spectrum.
And I think a lot of the conversation today--all spectrum
is shared at some core. There is no cleared spectrum, really.
It is just a matter of what different tools of shared spectrum
you are using and whether or not government has preemptable
rights, whether or not you have full-power ability to do it.
So, for a lot of these conversations, it is, how do we work
around the government, how do we work with systems to make sure
that it is something that works for us to be able to compete
against China but also safeguard incumbent users as well.
Mrs. Fedorchak. OK. Thank you. That is helpful.
And then the second question is to both you and Mr. Powell:
If you were designing the proper mix between licensed and
unlicensed, how would you do that? How would you separate it
out?
Mr. Powell. For my mind, as a former policymaker, I would
evaluate the demand uses that American citizens make of the
spectrum.
It is not a simple matter of comparing who has how many
megahertz versus who else has how many megahertz. You have to
assign weights to that. You know, if 60 percent of all data is
going over unlicensed networks and WiFi, if 80 to 90 percent of
that cell phone data is going over WiFi, then it is a false
equivalency to say they have exactly the same amount. You need
to allocate more toward the highest and greatest demands.
Now, I think there is a--just so I am not misunderstood--
there is a place for exclusive licensing and high-powered
spectrum. It is about getting that right. But I think that we
have underappreciated the significant uses that Americans make,
and I would focus more on how to find shared solutions.
Mrs. Fedorchak. OK.
Mr. Gillen. You will be surprised to know I have a slightly
different take.
So, for our perspective----
Mr. Powell. Really?
Mr. Gillen [continuing]. We absolutely need both. And we
lead the world today in WiFi access, and I think we need to get
back to there on 5G.
And so I think, in our minds, you look at where the data
growth is on our networks, what the congestion is. I think the
congestion and how much actual capacity challenges should
dictate a lot of this conversation.
And I think, absolutely, we use WiFi a lot on this device.
Because when we are at home, we love these devices. You are not
plugging into a desktop. So a lot of these statistics, no
matter--you know, when you are out of your house, it is not on
WiFi; you are on this. And we need both of them to work.
So I think we need to work towards a policy that we are the
best at both of these things.
Mrs. Fedorchak. Awesome. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield.
Mr. Hudson I thank the gentlelady for yielding back.
And I want to welcome Representative Miller-Meeks from Iowa
to the subcommittee.
And you are going to bring us home here. I recognize you
for 5 minutes for your questions.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Chairman Hudson. It is wonderful to be back on this committee--
and Ranking Member Matsui, as well, for allowing me to waive on
to this critically important hearing today--critically
important because, as the chairman said, I am from Iowa, and I
also happen to be a military veteran. So, both from the
national security and the connectivity viewpoint, this is an
important hearing today.
And I also want to thank our witnesses for testifying
before the subcommittee. You have been here a long time, so I
will try to be brief.
I am just going to make a mention of something Mr. Gillen
just said. We don't want you to work around the government.
That has a different context, when we say that. We want you to
work with the government. Because we know that the DoD needs
access to this spectrum and they may need to preempt other
uses.
In Iowa, our farmers depend on the latest technology to
make their operations more efficient. Think precision ag, and I
think you mentioned that, Mr. Powell. Our schools, our
healthcare facilities rely on strong connectivity for
educational tools and telemedicine. And businesses across the
State need access to cutting-edge communication systems to
remain competitive in the global market.
When as a State senator in Iowa I passed broadband bills, I
lovingly named these ``Please get Dr. Miller-Meeks better
internet connection so her children will come home for more
than a day.'' That is how bad it was. And I cannot tell you how
many WiFi providers I switched, so--or satellite providers.
Spectrum, which makes all of this possible, is a finite
resource that must be responsibly managed.
Mr. Powell, in your testimony you point out that the U.S.
could potentially fall behind in 5G and 6G deployment. And when
I have traveled overseas, I would echo that sentiment.
Without embracing shared spectrum policies, what safeguards
do you propose to ensure that critical national security
infrastructure and government operations are not jeopardized in
the process?
Mr. Powell. Yes, I think the whole predicate, why we are
champions of this spectrum policy approach, is that it
fundamentally presumes that we will work together and share
with those systems, as opposed to displace them or to minimize
them.
That doesn't mean that is always possible, but we think
that is the going and effective approach when we know both have
equally compelling uses. You should try to figure out if there
is a way for them to coexist first.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Mr. Gillen, you noted that 5G is helping
to create high-paying jobs and economic opportunities in
manufacturing and agriculture.
And as an advocate for U.S. industry, as we both are, can
you explain how 5G is specifically contributing to the growth
of these sectors--you might have in your posters----
Mr. Gillen. Yes.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks [continuing]. Particularly in the context
of rural economies like Iowa's, and what additional spectrum
could do to accelerate these benefits?
Mr. Gillen. So, on the first piece, I think manufacturing
is one of the places that we really feel opportunity. How do
you bring manufacturing back? And you look at--Ericsson has a
plant in Texas that has 120 percent employee productivity
improvement. So it is one of those opportunities that is a
roadmap for how we can do this.
In terms of a rural, it really is a matter of the 5G home
product is beginning to make a dent to the challenges that you
faced in the State legislature. And the more spectrum gives us
the ability--it is a capacity-starved service, and so you need
to have--like, more capacity lets us do it for more people. So
one provider has a million people on the waiting list right
now. We could make those subscribers with more spectrum.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Ms. Rinaldo, in your testimony, you
mention the PRC's aggressive efforts to dominate wireless
technologies and markets through state-sponsored corporate
theft and market manipulation.
How do you propose the U.S. respond to these efforts? And
what role can American companies and policymakers play in
countering this state-driven competition?
Ms. Rinaldo. Help support vendor diversity, and work with
our partners around the world to do the same.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. And given the ongoing cybersecurity
threats from adversaries such as the PRC, what specific
policies or investments would you recommend to enhance the
security and resilience of the U.S. wireless network,
particularly in protecting our vital communications
infrastructure?
Ms. Rinaldo. So Congress needs to reauthorize the
Cybersecurity Act of 2015, which allows information sharing. It
needs teeth.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. I was plugging that for you.
Ms. Rinaldo. Thank you.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I yield
back.
Mr. Hudson. I thank the Representative for yielding back.
Seeing that there are no further Members wishing to be
recognized, I would like to thank our witnesses for being here
today and staying for over 3 hours.
I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the
documents included on the staff hearing document list.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Hudson. I will remind Members that they have 10
business days to submit questions for the record, and I ask the
witnesses to respond to the questions promptly. Members should
submit their questions by the close of business on Wednesday,
February 6th.
Without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]