U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

27–651 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 115–90 

EXPLORING THE VALUE OF SPECTRUM 

TO THE U.S. ECONOMY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, 

TECHNOLOGY, INNOVATION, AND THE INTERNET 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 2, 2017 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts 

CORY BOOKER, New Jersey 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire 

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada 

NICK ROSSI, Staff Director 

ADRIAN ARNAKIS, Deputy Staff Director 

JASON VAN BEEK, General Counsel 

KIM LIPSKY, Democratic Staff Director 

CHRIS DAY, Democratic Deputy Staff Director 

RENAE BLACK, Senior Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, TECHNOLOGY, INNOVATION, 

AND THE INTERNET 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi, Chairman 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

SHELLEY CAPITO, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii, Ranking 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts 

CORY BOOKER, New Jersey 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire 

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on March 2, 2017 .............................................................................. 1 

Statement of Senator Wicker .................................................................................. 1 

Statement of Senator Schatz .................................................................................. 2 

Statement of Senator Nelson .................................................................................. 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11 

Statement of Senator Klobuchar ............................................................................ 31 

Statement of Senator Cortez Masto ....................................................................... 32 

Statement of Senator Fischer ................................................................................. 42 

Statement of Senator Hassan ................................................................................. 42 

Statement of Senator Thune ................................................................................... 43 

Statement of Senator Gardner ............................................................................... 45 

Statement of Senator Moran .................................................................................. 46 

Statement of Senator Udall .................................................................................... 48 

Statement of Senator Peters ................................................................................... 49 

Statement of Senator Inhofe ................................................................................... 52 

WITNESSES

Scott Bergmann, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, CTIA ................................ 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

Roger Entner, Founder, Recon Analytics LLC ...................................................... 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

Dave Heiner, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, Microsoft Corporation ........... 15 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 17 

Pat LaPlatney, President and Chief Executive Officer, Raycom Media on 

behalf of the National Association of Broadcasters ........................................... 22 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23 

Tom Stroup, President, Satellite Industry Association ........................................ 25 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 26 

APPENDIX

ViaSat, prepared statement .................................................................................... 55 

Response to written questions submitted to Scott Bergmann by: 

Hon. Deb Fischer .............................................................................................. 60 

Hon. Maria Cantwell ........................................................................................ 61 

Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto .......................................................................... 62 

Response to written questions submitted to Dave Heiner by: 

Hon. Deb Fischer .............................................................................................. 64 

Hon. Maria Cantwell ........................................................................................ 65 

Hon. Brian Schatz ............................................................................................ 66 

Hon. Tom Udall ................................................................................................ 68 

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Tom Udall to: 

Pat LaPlatney ................................................................................................... 69 

Tom Stroup ....................................................................................................... 71 

(1) 

EXPLORING THE VALUE OF SPECTRUM 

TO THE U.S. ECONOMY 

THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, TECHNOLOGY, INNOVATION, AND THE INTERNET, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room 

SD–G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Roger Wicker, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Wicker [presiding], Thune, Blunt, Fischer, 

Moran, Inhofe, Lee, Johnson, Capito, Gardner, Young, Schatz, Nelson, Cantwell, Klobuchar, Markey, Booker, Udall, Peters, Hassan, 

and Cortez Masto. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER F. WICKER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI 

Senator WICKER. Good morning. On behalf of my friend, Senator 

Schatz, I’m glad to convene the first hearing of the Subcommittee 

on Communications, Technology, Innovation, and the Internet for 

the 115th Congress. So welcome to you all. 

As we all know, in today’s connected world, the demand for spectrum increases with every new technology. Spectrum is the lifeblood of this connectivity, improving the lives of people around the 

globe. 

Our discussion of spectrum policy today comes on the heels of 

this committee’s approval of the MOBILE NOW Act. Under Chairman Thune’s leadership, we have taken a significant, bipartisan 

step toward freeing up spectrum for the next generation—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I thought it was in keeping with the Committee—— 

Senator WICKER.—and people should silence their devices, by the 

way. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WICKER. But right on key, for the next generation wireless services with the approval of this legislation. I hope to see Senate passage of the bill in the near future. Our discussion of spectrum policy should continue. With rapid growth in the use of mobile devices and the Internet of Things, demand for spectrum will 

only increase. 

Spectrum for mobile broadband is giving rural America the tools 

and resources it needs. Applications that utilize mobile broadband 

provide the means to deliver quality healthcare in the most remote 

2 

corners of our states and transmit real-time data for improved crop 

production on our farms. Satellite services are providing television, 

broadband, and Earth observation for a variety of applications. 

Next Gen TV has the potential to deliver better emergency services and ultimately save lives. This is particularly important to 

states like Mississippi that can be situated in the paths of hurricanes, tornados, and other natural disasters. Unlicensed spectrum 

offers opportunities for businesses of all sizes to innovate and continue to fuel the vast expansion of the Internet of Things. Although 

innovation demands more efficient spectrum use, innovation will 

also be what solves the problem of limited spectrum. 

We are here today to talk about the value of spectrum to the 

economy. We are here to talk about what we have learned from the 

FCC’s recent spectrum auctions and how unlicensed spectrum is a 

vital piece of the puzzle. I also hope our discussion will encourage 

a focus on the future of spectrum policy and set the stage for this 

committee to look at ways to address spectrum demand. 

I would like to welcome all of our witnesses, and I will introduce 

them in a moment after we have turned for an opening statement 

to our colleague, Mr. Schatz. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this 

hearing and to the witnesses for being here today. 

Spectrum is the invisible infrastructure that has become the onramp to access the Internet. Thanks to mobile and wireless technologies, people can read the news, transfer money, watch shows, 

video chat with a doctor, all from their mobile device. In a very 

short time, these technologies have transformed our lives. With 

new 5G wireless networks and the Internet of Things, demand for 

spectrum will continue to grow. 

The value that that spectrum delivers to the economy is hard to 

overstate. As we will hear from the witnesses today, spectrum generates new investments, facilitates innovation, and supports job 

growth across a range of industries. Advancements in mobile and 

wireless clearly benefit consumers and most industry sectors, but 

have also revolutionized citizen engagement in politics, transformed news, and enhanced public safety. 

Although the focus of today’s hearing is on the economic benefits 

of commercial spectrum, it is vital to point out that the Federal 

Government also has critical spectrum needs for national security, 

transportation, weather forecasting, and a wide range of other government services. So we must continue to work with the agencies 

to ensure that they have the spectrum resources they need now 

and in the future. But we should also build on the successes of the 

Spectrum Relocation Fund to make it more attractive for agencies 

to vacate or share bands with more commercial users where that 

is possible. 

Since we can’t create more spectrum, we need to be more creative 

in how we manage competing spectrum needs. I’m confident that 

industry will find innovative ways to make better use of the bands 

that they have, but we also need to find a balance between the 

competing public and private sector needs for more terrestrial and 

3 

satellite capacity and the need to have adequate spectrum available for both licensed and unlicensed uses. 

Spectrum policy has been a priority for this Congress and this 

committee, which has passed the MOBILE NOW Act which would 

make more licensed spectrum available and facilitate the deployment of supporting infrastructure for 5G. MOBILE NOW also includes a bill that Senator Moran and I introduced that will require 

the government to develop a national plan for unlicensed spectrum. 

While a lot of attention focuses on how to make new frequencies 

available for the licensed side, we also need a clear plan to support 

continued innovation in the unlicensed bands. These shared bands 

have become an affordable way for people to get online. Consumers 

benefit, technology companies benefit, and ISPs benefit from unlicensed spectrum. I trust that the Committee will continue to work 

with the agencies and stakeholders to make more bands available 

to commercial users over the coming weeks and months. 

While we do that, though, we also have a responsibility to ensure 

that people from all walks of life, especially in rural, isolated, or 

hard to reach areas across the country, have access to wireless 

broadband services. I know that the Chairman and many of our 

colleagues on the Committee share this point of view. 

To pursue new spectrum opportunities, every stakeholder must 

be an effective partner in this conversation. A fully staffed FCC led 

by a chairman and four commissioners is, therefore, critical to accomplishing these goals. I am appalled that the White House withdrew all pending nominations for Federal commissions. That is an 

unnecessarily provocative act. The administration should defer to 

congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle on nominees for 

these commissions, as has been the norm. 

Of specific relevance to this committee is Commissioner 

Rosenworcel’s nomination. She has been a leader on spectrum policy and a strong advocate for consumers. I hope that the White 

House will re-nominate her and the Senate will keep its commitment to confirm her as we should have done a year ago. 

Thank you, Chairman Wicker, for initiating this important discussion, and I look forward to the witnesses’ testimony. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you very much, Senator Schatz. 

We have a distinguished panel that we are looking forward to 

hearing from at this point. Our witnesses include, from left to 

right: Mr. Scott Bergmann, Vice President of Regulatory Affairs 

CTIA—The Wireless Association; Mr. Roger Entner, Founder and 

Lead Analyst, Recon Analytics; Mr. Dave Heiner, Vice President 

and Deputy General Counsel, Microsoft Corporation; Mr. Pat 

LaPlatney, President and CEO, Raycom Media; and Mr. Tom 

Stroup, President, Satellite Industry Association. 

Now, a lot of people have prepared, come long distances, and put 

a lot of thought into this hearing. We have votes at the top of the 

hour, but we want to be respectful of the time and preparation of 

our witnesses. It is the Chair’s intention to proceed on with the testimony, and members will simply proceed in and out during the 

two votes, which will begin at the top of the hour, and we’ll be able 

to proceed in that fashion without having to recess and take the 

valuable time of these participants. 

4 

So we’ll begin to my left, and, Mr. Bergmann, you’re recognized 

for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT BERGMANN, VICE PRESIDENT, 

REGULATORY AFFAIRS, CTIA 

Mr. BERGMANN. Good morning, Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Schatz, and members of the Subcommittee. On behalf of CTIA, 

thank you for the opportunity to speak about the significant economic contributions of the U.S. wireless industry. 

The power of wireless is transforming how we live and work in 

every community across the country and in every sector of the 

economy, and we’re about to have a breakthrough with 5G, the 

next generation of wireless. 5G will add trillions of dollars to our 

economy and 3 million new jobs, from 333 in Tupelo to nearly 3,500 

in Honolulu. To deliver on this promise, the wireless industry 

needs this committee’s continued leadership to deliver more spectrum and modernize infrastructure siting policies. 

The wireless industry today is a powerful contributor to the U.S. 

economy. Our members have invested over $300 billion over the 

last 10 years and are responsible for more than 4.6 million jobs. 

Consumers and businesses continue to adopt mobile broadband, 

with data traffic increasing more than 25 times since 2010 and expected to increase another five times by 2021. 

America’s wireless industry stands ready to invest another $275 

billion to deliver 5G networks that will be faster, more responsive, 

and connect more devices. 5G will enable a new generation of 

smart communities and unlock the Internet of Things. It will unleash innovation and growth in industries across our economy, 

from energy, healthcare, public safety, and transportation. With 

mHealth, smart grids, and self-driving cars, 5G will unlock trillions 

of dollars of economic benefits and help save thousands of lives. 

The U.S. has been the global leader in 4G LTE deployment, and 

we’re poised to lead in 5G. But the global competition is fierce. 

China, Japan, South Korea, and the EU are all in the chase, making spectrum available, streamlining siting, and investing. The 

keys to U.S. leadership are sound spectrum and infrastructure policies. Licensed spectrum, in particular, is a key input in mobile networks and a powerful creator of economic growth and jobs. 

Fortunately, Congress and the FCC have taken bipartisan steps 

to make spectrum available for wireless. Now, more work remains 

to enable 5G leadership. Let me highlight a few steps that the 

Committee can take. 

First, we must ensure timely access to new spectrum made available through the 600 megahertz incentive auction. The auction will 

deliver 70 megahertz of spectrum for mobile broadband and 14 for 

unlicensed use. It raised $19.6 billion, making it the second largest 

FCC auction ever. We support a seamless repacking process and 

are committed to working collaboratively to achieve the FCC’s 39- 

month schedule so that 5G is not delayed. 

Second, the FCC’s decision to dedicate high-band spectrum to 

mobile services was also critical. The FCC can enhance those rules 

by making targeted reforms and by acting on the additional 18 

gigahertz of spectrum identified in the MOBILE NOW Act. 

5 

1 Annual Wireless Industry Survey, CTIA, http://www.ctia.org/industry-data/ctia-annualwireless-industry-survey (last visited Feb. 22, 2017). 2Michelle Di Ionno and Michael Mandel, PPI, Investment Heroes 2016: Ignoring ShortTermism (Oct. 2016) https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http://www.progressivepoli 

cy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/InvestHeroes_2016.pdf&hl=en_US 3See Roger Entner, The Wireless Industry: Revisiting Spectrum, the Essential Engine of U.S. 

Economic Growth, RECON ANALYTICS, at 18 (Apr. 2016), http://www.ctia.org/docs/defaultsource/default-document-library/entner-revisiting-spectrum-final.pdf. 4 Coleman Bazelon & Giulia McHenry, Mobile Broadband Spectrum: A Vital Resource for the 

American Economy, THE BRATTLE GROUP, at 2, 20 (May 11, 2015), http://www.ctia.org-/docs/ 

default-source/default-document-library/brattle_spectrum_-051115.pdf (‘‘Brattle Group Report’’). 

Third, we appreciate this committee’s continued attention to the 

spectrum pipeline. It takes, on average, 13 years to reallocate spectrum for wireless use. This underscores the need to start today. 

Policymakers should continue to review Federal use of spectrum 

and consider ways to incentivize agencies to use spectrum more efficiently. 

Finally, we must modernize our Nation’s infrastructure siting 

policies so that wireless networks can be deployed rapidly and efficiently. Current Federal, state, local, and tribal siting practices 

were designed to review large cell towers, not the small cells that 

will be essential for 5G. Small cells are far less intrusive, the size 

of a pizza box or a lunch box, and will be deployed by the hundreds 

of thousands. 

We can remove barriers to deployment by addressing burdensome local permitting, ensuring access to rights-of-way and poles 

with costs and fees that are reasonable and cost-based, modernizing our historic preservation and environmental review processes, 

and directing agencies to speed deployment on Federal lands and 

properties. With a continued focus on spectrum and infrastructure, 

we’ll be able to ensure that wireless providers can continue to invest, create jobs, and lead the world in 5G. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bergmann follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SCOTT BERGMANN, VICE PRESIDENT, REGULATORY AFFAIRS, 

CTIA 

Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Schatz, and members of the Subcommittee, 

on behalf of CTIA®, thank you for the opportunity to participate in today’s panel 

on ‘‘Exploring the Value of Spectrum to the U.S. Economy.’’ 

This is an important and timely hearing. The power of wireless is transforming 

how we live and work, in every community across the country and in every sector 

of the economy. The next generation of wireless, 5G, will add three million new jobs 

and half a trillion dollars to our economy. To deliver on this promise, the wireless 

industry needs more spectrum and streamlined siting rules to facilitate our deployment of that spectrum. 5G cannot happen without this Subcommittee’s continued 

leadership and focus on spectrum. 

Recent studies highlight the wireless industry’s significant impact on the U.S. 

economy today. By way of example: 

• We invest in America. U.S. wireless providers have invested more than $300 billion in their networks over the last 10 years, including more than $32 billion 

in 2015.1 Indeed, a 2016 study of companies that invest substantially in the 

U.S. listed wireless providers as the top two ‘‘investment heroes.’’ 2

• We are a job multiplier. More than 4.6 million Americans have jobs that depend 

directly or indirectly on the wireless industry.3 And employing one person in the 

wireless industry results in 6.5 more people finding employment, an employment multiplier that outperforms scores of other sectors, including manufacturing.4

6 

5 Brattle Group Report at 19. 

6 Roger Entner, The Wireless Industry: Revisiting Spectrum, the Essential Engine of U.S. Economic Growth, RECON ANALYTICS, at 18 (Apr. 2016), http://www.ctia.org/docs/default-source/ 

default-document-library/entner-revisiting-spectrum-final.pdf. 7GSMA Press Release, Mobile Industry to Add $1 Trillion in Value to North American Economy by 2020, Finds New GSMA Study (Nov. 1, 2016), http://www.gsma.com/newsroom/pressrelease/mobile-industry-add-1-trillion-value-north-american-economy-2020-finds-new-gsmastudy/. 8Press Release, Americans’ Data Usage More than Doubled in 2015, CTIA (May 23, 2016), 

http://www.ctia.org/industry-data/press-releases-details/press-releases/americans-data-usagemore-than-doubled-in-2015. 9 Cisco Visual Networking Index: Global Mobile Data Traffic Forecast Update, 2016–2021 

White Paper, Cisco (Feb. 7, 2017), http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/serviceprovider/visual-networking-index-vni/mobile-white-paper-c11-520862.html (‘‘Cisco VNI 2017’’). 

• We grow the economy. The wireless industry as a whole generates more than $400 billion in total U.S. spending,5 and the wireless industry’s value-add is 

larger than the agriculture and petroleum and coal production industries.6

• We are only getting started. The mobile industry is expected to make a value- added contribution of $1 trillion to the North American economy by 2020, representing 4.5 percent of GDP by the end of the decade.7

Spectrum is the key input in wireless, fueling our ‘‘mobile-first’’ life and future 

economic growth. We all know how wireless changes our daily lives; launching more 

licensed spectrum into the marketplace is also a powerful accelerant for economic 

growth and job creation. 

Fortunately, members of this Subcommittee and policymakers more generally 

have demonstrated a keen understanding of the critical role spectrum plays—and 

have worked together to free up more spectrum. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has taken several notable steps to help meet the need for more wireless broadband spectrum, including opening up more than 10 gigahertz of high-band 

spectrum to help realize the transition to 5G and launching the first-ever spectrum 

incentive auction, which will soon repurpose 84 megahertz of low-band spectrum to 

wireless broadband. Moreover, recognizing that we must continually focus on the 

spectrum pipeline, Congress required Federal agencies to relinquish 30 megahertz 

of spectrum over the next decade to support consumers’ ever-increasing need for mobile broadband services. 

From the FCC to Capitol Hill, CTIA believes there is widespread and bipartisan 

agreement on the profound impact of wireless—and spectrum is the key. Despite 

this strong foundation, more spectrum will be needed to fuel consumers’ continued 

demand for mobile broadband and the innovation that 5G will unlock for industries 

across our economy. 

Growing Demand for Data and the Next Driver of Demand, 5G 

The demand for mobile has skyrocketed in recent years, driving home the need 

to free up more spectrum for mobile broadband. The amount of data flowing over 

U.S. wireless networks more than doubled in 2015 8 to a level 25 times greater than 

in 2010.9


302BERGM1.eps
7 

10 Cisco VNI Forecast Highlights, 2016–2021 (United States—Mobile Applications), http:// 

www.cisco.com/assets/sol/sp/vni/forecast_highlights_mobile/#∼Country (last accessed Feb. 23, 

2017). 11See, e.g., Press Release, Americans’ Data Usage More than Doubled in 2015, CTIA (May 23, 

2016), http://www.ctia.org/industry-data/press-releases-details/press-releases/americans-datausage-more-than-doubled-in-2015. 12 Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993, Nineteenth 

Report, 31 FCC Rcd 10534, ¶ 39, Chart III.A.2 (2016). 13See, e.g., Aaron Smith, Record Shares of Americans Now Own Smartphones, Have Home 

Broadband, PEW RESEARCH CENTER (Jan. 12, 2017), http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/ 

2017/01/12/evolution-of-technology/ (noting that 77 percent of Americans now own a 

smartphone—up from 35 percent in 2011—and nearly three quarters have broadband service 

at home). 14 National Center for Health Statistics, Wireless Substitution: Early Release of Estimates 

from the National Health Interview Survey, January-June 2016 (December 2016) https:// 

www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless201612.pdf (last visited Feb. 23, 2017). 15 Cisco VNI Forecast Highlights, 2016–2021 (United States—2021 Forecast Highlights), 

http://www.cisco.com/assets/sol/sp/vni/forecast_highlights_mobile/#∼Country (last accessed 

Feb. 23, 2017). 

This is due to the advent of smartphones and tablets, massive growth in mobile 

video (64 percent of all U.S. mobile data traffic 10), and the nationwide deployment 

of 4G LTE networks. 

In just seven years, wireless providers have blanketed the country with $200 billion in network spending to deliver 4G LTE mobile broadband nationwide.11 Today, 

99.7 percent of Americans have access to 4G LTE service, and 95.9 percent can 

choose from three or more 4G LTE providers.12

Mobile broadband has unlocked opportunities for all Americans. Whether you are 

low-income, a person with disabilities, or live in a rural community, wireless has 

helped bring the United States closer to closing the digital divide.13 In fact, nearly 

half of all American homes are ‘‘wireless-only.’’ 14

And there is no end in sight when it comes to growth in mobile demand. Cisco 

projects that mobile data traffic in the U.S. will grow by a factor of five from 2016 

to 2021, or roughly 125 times mobile data levels in a decade’s time.15


302BERGM2.eps
8 

16David L. Sunding, Martha Rogers & Coleman D. Bazelon, The Farmer And The Data: How 

Wireless Technology Is Transforming Water Use In Agriculture (Apr. 27, 2016), http:// 

www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/487024/Telecommunications+Mobile+Cable+Communications 

/The+Farmer+And+The+Data+How+Wireless+Technology+Is+Transforming+Water+Use+In+Ag 

riculture. 17See Intel, Using Wearable Technology to Advance Parkinson’s Research (2015), http:// 

www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/white-papers/using-wearable-technology-mjff.pdf. 18 Cisco VNI Forecast Highlights, 2016–2021 (United States—Potential M2M Connections), 

http://www.cisco.com/assets/sol/sp/vni/forecast_highlights_mobile/#∼Country (last accessed 

Feb. 23, 2017). 19See How 5G Can Help Municipalities Become Vibrant Smart Cities, ACCENTURE STRATEGY, 

at 1 (Jan. 12, 2017), http://www.ctia.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/how-5gcan-help-municipalities-become-vibrant-smart-cities-accenture.pdf (‘‘CTIA Smart Cities Report’’). 20See Wireless Connectivity Fuels Industry Growth and Innovation in Energy, Health, Public 

Safety, and Transportation, DELOITTE, http://www.ctia.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/deloitte_20170119.pdf. 

Communities across the country, and industries including agriculture, automobiles, healthcare, appliance manufacturing, and energy, have already begun harnessing the power of wireless connectivity. For example, farmers have been using 

wireless technology to prevent the over- and under-watering of crops and to preserve 

resources during droughts, demonstrating the benefits of the Internet of Things 

(IoT) and next-generation technologies in rural areas.16 And medical researchers 

have been using wearables and movement sensors to monitor and improve the progression of diseases such as Parkinson’s.17

We are about to have a revolutionary breakthrough in the next generation of 

wireless—known as 5G. 5G networks will be 10 times faster and five times more 

responsive than today’s networks. They will be able to support 100 times more wireless devices from beacons to wearables. 

The deployment of 5G networks and increased competitiveness will create jobs for 

communities of all sizes. From 333 new jobs in Tupelo, Mississippi to more than 

1,500 in Sioux Falls to nearly 3,500 in Honolulu, and almost 8,000 in Jacksonville, 

cities and towns across the country will benefit from the rapid deployment of nextgeneration 5G services. 

America’s wireless industry is ready to make significant new investments to bring 

these benefits to communities all over the country. One recent study estimates that 

wireless operators will invest $275 billion over the next decade to deploy 5G. That 

investment is projected to create a new 5G job for every 100 Americans: three million total jobs. 

5G will unlock the Internet of Things. Machine-to-machine devices make up about 

23 percent of all wireless connections today but are expected to grow more than five 

times to reach 58 percent of all wireless device connections by the end of the decade.18

5G will also enable a new generation of Smart communities. 5G and Smart Cities 

will have dramatic impact and savings for municipalities and consumers. With 5G, 

integrated technologies that assist in the management of vehicle traffic and electrical grids will produce $160 billion in benefits and savings through reductions in 

energy usage, traffic congestion, and fuel costs.19

5G will unleash innovation and growth for industries across our economy.20 Sectors that are expected to leverage 5G’s speed, connectivity, and responsiveness, include: 

• Energy. Wireless-enabled smart grids could create $1.8 trillion for the U.S. 

economy, saving consumers hundreds of dollars per year. 

• Health. Wireless devices could create $305 billion in annual health system savings from decreased costs and mortality due to chronic illnesses. 

• Public Safety. Improvements made by wireless connectivity can save lives and 

reduce crime. A one-minute improvement in emergency response time translates to a reduction of eight percent in mortality. 

• Transportation. Wireless-powered self-driving cars could reduce emissions by 

40–90 percent, travel times by nearly 40 percent, and delays by 20 percent. 

That translates to $447 billion per year in savings and, more importantly, 

21,700 lives saved. 

Each of these industry sectors is leveraging the wireless platform today and 

stands to benefit from the increased speeds, connectivity, and responsiveness that 

5G is poised to deliver. 

9 

21The Impact of 10 MHz of Wireless Licensed Spectrum, RECON ANALYTICS, at 1 (Dec. 2015). 22 Brattle Group Report at 1. 23 CTIA Smart Cities Report at 1. 24 Brattle Group Report at 1. 25Tammy Parker, China, South Korea Commit to 5G Leadership, While Japan and U.S. Rely 

On Private Efforts, FIERCE WIRELESS (June 8, 2014), http://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/chinasouth-korea-commit-to-5g-leadership-while-japan-and-u-s-rely-private-efforts. 26Daniel Fuller, 2018 Winter Olympics To Have 5G Thanks To Samsung And KT, ANDROID

HEADLINES (Oct. 28, 2016), https://www.androidheadlines.com/2016/10/2018-winter-olympicsto-have-5g-thanks-to-samsung-and-kt.html. 27 Joseph Waring, Docomo’s 2020 5G launch ‘Not just for Olympics’, MOBILE WORLD LIVE

(Oct. 7, 2015), https://www.mobileworldlive.com/featured-content/home-banner/docomos-2020– 

5g-launch-not-just-for-olympics/. 28 Jorge Valero, Europe Hopes to Make 5G Networks a Reality by 2018, EURACTIV (Feb. 19, 

2016), https://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/european-industry-to-bring-5g-networkby-2018/. 29Press Release, 5G for Europe Action Plan, European Commission, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/5g-europe-action-plan (Sept. 14, 2016). 30Press Release, EU and Brazil Work Together on 5G Mobile Technology, European Commission (Feb. 23, 2016), http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-382_en.htm. 

The Economic Benefits of Spectrum 

To unleash 5G and these substantial economic benefits, the wireless industry depends on policymakers to make additional spectrum available for mobile wireless 

services. Indeed, there are few other actions the government can take to jumpstart 

such dramatic private-led job creation and economic growth. 

CTIA favors a policy that supports both licensed and unlicensed spectrum, recognizing that licensed spectrum is the foundation for our world-leading 4G LTE networks. Licensed spectrum provides exclusive access and clear interference protection 

rights, delivering the certainty necessary for carriers to invest billions of dollars in 

network deployment. This exclusivity is also critical to delivering the high-quality, 

secure, and reliable service that consumers have come to demand. 

Licensed spectrum is a proven difference maker for the economy. One recent 

study found that the introduction of 20 megahertz of AWS–1 spectrum increased 

U.S. GDP by $48.6 billion from 2011 to 2014.21 And the economic value of all licensed spectrum made available to date is estimated to be approximately $500 billion, with social benefits at least 20 to 30 times that amount.22 A 2017 Accenture 

report projected the future economic impact of 5G to be even more astounding: 

boosting the U.S. GDP by $500 billion.23

With the right policies in place, wireless will have a profound impact on U.S. economic growth. As one recent report concluded, ‘‘[m]obile broadband is, and will continue to be, an essential catalyst for the U.S. economy, spurring economic growth 

and innovation in existing industries while motivating entirely new industries.’’ 24

The other economic benefit of licensed spectrum is to our Nation’s debt. The U.S. 

wireless industry has now spent more than $100 billion at FCC spectrum auctions 

for licensed spectrum—with most of that money going straight to the U.S. Treasury, 

reducing the debt and funding other Congressional priorities. 

Global Leadership in Wireless 

The United States has been the global leader in 4G LTE deployment and we have 

the ability to lead in 5G as well. The wireless industry is conducting a number of 

5G trials across the country, building on years of research and development investment. And as I noted previously, the FCC opened up 10 gigahertz of high-band spectrum last year that serves as an important down payment on the spectrum needed 

to support 5G. We are well-positioned to lead, but this time around, global competition is fierce. 

Many nations are vying to seize the 5G leadership mantle. South Korea, for example, has committed $1.5 billion to its ‘‘5G Creative Mobile Strategy,’’ 25 and expects 

to launch a 5G trial network for the Winter Olympic Games in 2018.26 Japan plans 

to follow suit with its own 5G trial network for the 2020 Summer Olympics.27 The 

European Commission has committed 700 million Euros ($759 million) of public 

funds to support 5G activities as part of its Horizon 2020 Programme.28 And this 

past September, the European Union released ‘‘5G for Europe: An Action Plan’’ that 

calls for making provisional spectrum bands available for 5G ahead of the 2019 

World Radio Communication Conference.29 The EU and Brazil have an agreement 

to develop 5G, along with similar key cooperation initiatives with South Korea, 

Japan, and China.30 And the Chinese government has an ongoing 5G technology 

10 

31 5G Spectrum in Europe, Global Mobile Suppliers Association (Dec. 23, 2016), http:// 

www.slideshare.net/soksitha/5g-spectrum-in-europe. 32Lilian Rogers, What’s at Stake in China’s 5G Push?, APCOFORUM (Dec. 14, 2016), http:// 

apcoworldwide.com/blog/detail/apcoforum/2016/12/14/whats-at-stake-in-chinas-5g-push. 

trial in the 3400–3600 MHz band 31 and it has set ambitious goals for domestic 5G 

as part of its Made in China 2025 project.32

The U.S. wireless industry will continue to invest, deploy, and innovate, but our 

continued global leadership depends on a committed and comprehensive spectrum 

and infrastructure policy. 

Policies to Advance the Economic Impact of Spectrum 

CTIA encourages policymakers to take several actions to preserve continued U.S. 

leadership in wireless, ensure the availability of 4G LTE and 5G services for American consumers, and foster continued U.S. economic growth. Moreover, as policymakers consider proposals to devote hundreds of billions of, or even a trillion, government dollars to infrastructure investment, we note that the wireless industry 

stands ready to invest billions of its own dollars, if policymakers update national 

and local siting and zoning rules to reflect the wireless networks of today and tomorrow. These steps will expedite the wireless industry’s investment of over $275 

billion, and will not cost taxpayers a dime. 

Incentive Auction. The successful 600 MHz incentive auction will deliver 70 megahertz of new mobile broadband spectrum, and an additional 14 megahertz of spectrum for unlicensed uses like Wi-Fi and LTE–U/Licensed Assisted Access services. 

It has already raised $19.6 billion, making it the second largest FCC auction ever— 

by spectrum allocated or by revenue. CTIA is keenly interested in ensuring timely 

access to this spectrum, which is critical to our leadership in 5G services. We support a seamless repacking process for remaining broadcasters, and we are committed to working collaboratively to achieve the 39-month transition. Three years 

and three months is significantly longer than the wireless industry has had to wait 

to begin deploying new services to consumers in recent auctions, and any delay 

would put at risk 5G development, rural buildout, and be inequitable to those companies investing nearly $20 billion in new spectrum. 

High-Band Spectrum. The FCC’s decision last year to repurpose high-band spectrum for mobile services was an important step for U.S. leadership in 5G. The FCC 

should enhance those rules with targeted reforms, and promptly move forward with 

the 18 gigahertz of high-band spectrum previously identified by the FCC and this 

Committee through the MOBILE NOW Act. In making additional high-band spectrum available, the FCC should emphasize large contiguous blocks of exclusive, licensed spectrum. 

Spectrum Pipeline. We appreciate this Committee’s continued attention to the 

spectrum pipeline and the need to identify additional spectrum bands that can meet 

the ever-increasing demands for mobile broadband services. The process of bringing 

spectrum to market is time consuming—it takes on average 13 years to reallocate 

spectrum for wireless use. The AWS–3 band, for example, was a 13-year journey to 

free up 65 megahertz of spectrum that culminated in a 2015 auction resulting in 

more than $40 billion in revenues to the U.S. Treasury. This underscores the urgency of beginning this process today, as the ability of the United States to remain 

a global leader in wireless depends on the ability of policymakers to identify sufficient licensed spectrum. 

We need a clear plan for additional licensed spectrum across a wide and diverse 

range of frequencies to meet tomorrow’s needs. As part of this process, government 

should continue to review spectrum currently allocated for Federal use and consider 

ways to incentivize Federal agencies to use their spectrum resources more efficiently 

and effectively. The direct impact of new spectrum cannot be underestimated. For 

every 10 megahertz of licensed spectrum made available, the U.S. GDP increases 

by more than $3.1 billion and U.S. employment increases by at least 105,000 jobs. 

Modernizing Infrastructure Siting Policies. Lastly, we must move forward with 

modernizing infrastructure siting policies so that spectrum can be fully utilized and 

wireless networks can be rapidly and efficiently deployed. Wireless carriers invest 

billions of dollars building cell sites to provide faster broadband wireless networks 

that will enable new products and services. Unfortunately, current federal, state, 

local, and tribal siting laws and policies were designed to review large cell towers 

one by one, but not to process small cells that are far less intrusive, more numerous, 

and leverage existing structures. As a nation, we need to update those laws and 

policies to remove barriers to efficient deployment of small cells and 5G services. 

These outdated policies are slowing wireless providers’ significant investment and 

must be addressed. 

11 

To speed deployment of broadband services, Congress and the FCC should address 

burdensome local permitting processes; modernize right-of-way access and pole attachment policies; and streamline and clarify the historic preservation and environmental review processes. We would suggest reasonable shot clocks for new site and 

collocation permit applications and broader application of existing deemed granted 

remedies. Additionally, permit fees and other charges for wireless siting should be 

reduced to reflect small cells’ minimal impact and be limited to the actual, incremental costs to localities for processing these applications. 

Federal agencies should also adopt streamlined policies to enable small cell deployment on Federal lands, properties, and buildings. In particular, streamlined 

processes for siting on Federal lands in rural and remote areas would greatly improve the ability of the wireless industry to serve these hard to reach customers. 

By promoting sound infrastructure policies at the federal, state, local, and tribal 

levels, we will enable wireless providers to invest resources more quickly—expediting connectivity, adding jobs, and advancing 5G leadership. 

* * * 

CTIA appreciates the opportunity to work with the Subcommittee, Congress, and 

other interested parties to ensure that we have spectrum policies that allow the 

wireless industry to meet growing consumer demands and support U.S. economic 

growth to its fullest extent. We look forward to engaging with you to accomplish 

these objectives. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. If CTIA can provide any additional 

information you would find helpful, please let us know. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you very much. 

At this point, our Ranking Member of the Full Committee has a 

unanimous consent request. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA 

Senator NELSON. To insert my comments into the record on this 

extremely important subject, and thank you, Mr. Chairman and 

Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, for holding this hearing. 

Senator WICKER. Without objection, the remarks will be inserted 

at the appropriate place in the record. 

Thank you, Senator. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Nelson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA

I want to welcome all of our witnesses for joining us and thank Subcommittee 

Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member Schatz for holding this hearing on the 

value of spectrum to the U.S. economy. 

The wireless sector contributes billions of dollars yearly to the U.S. economy. 

Frankly, very few of us today can imagine a world without our smartphones and 

tablets, and even fewer businesses could imagine running their operations efficiently 

and effectively without robust wireless technologies. 

And the integration of wireless connectivity into every facet of the U.S. economy 

increases every day. In fact, according to some, the day is not far away where the 

total number of wireless devices and equipment will double or triple the number of 

humans living on the globe. 

Similarly, our Nation’s broadcasters serve as pillars of the local communities in 

which they serve. Free over-the-air broadcasting remains an important and valuable 

use of spectrum. And the satellite industry uses its spectrum to provide service and 

support to important Federal Government customers. Satellite services can also 

reach customers in even the most rural areas and provide important connectivity 

to so many other spectrum-based services. 

As I have said before, the Nation must have a balanced spectrum policy to continue to support wireless technologies as an engine of innovation for the Nation. 

That means we need additional licensed spectrum, but also we have to make more 

spectrum available for unlicensed services. The reality of spectrum utilization today 

is that both licensed and unlicensed commercial wireless services will need to share 

12 

spectrum with other operators. As I have said before, we should relocate spectrum 

when we can, and fully embrace spectrum sharing when we cannot. 

But in all of this talk of the value of spectrum to the economy, we cannot forget 

the need to make sure that the Federal Government, and in particular our national 

security and homeland security agencies, have enough spectrum today and into the 

future for their mission-critical operations. That’s not to say that we should not 

have cooperative conversations with those agencies to determine where there are opportunities to make available additional spectrum to commercial services. But those 

efforts should not hamper mission critical Federal operations. 

But this is not just a public safety and national security concern. These same Federal spectrum operations make their own contribution to the economic success of the 

Nation. The weather monitoring performed by NOAA and NASA, along with the use 

of spectrum for satellites and other sensors, provides essential information for transportation, shipping, and environmental protection. 

NASA’s use of spectrum for near-Earth and deep space exploration may lead the 

Nation into its next wave of technological innovation, just as the lunar program did 

many years ago. And the spectrum that powers the defense and intelligence community’s wireless operations translates into thousands of private-sector jobs in terms 

of the government contractors upon whom those agencies rely. 

Spectrum is a finite resource, and it is essential for Congress to collaborate with 

the private sector and the public sector to make sure adequate spectrum is available 

for all of these services. And as I am sure we will hear from the witnesses today, 

the 5G revolution that is coming quickly will need more spectrum and more infrastructure to reach its full economic potential. I am glad this committee came together to pass the MOBILE NOW bill earlier this year to help foster this 5G revolution—a bill developed through that collaborative process. And I know we will continue to work together to address additional spectrum issues, including those being 

raised by our witnesses today. 

Senator WICKER. Our next witness is Mr. Roger Entner. 

Sir, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF ROGER ENTNER, FOUNDER, 

RECON ANALYTICS LLC 

Mr. ENTNER. Good morning, Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member 

Schatz, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for giving 

me the opportunity to testify this morning. My name is Roger 

Entner. I am the founder of Recon Analytics, a telecom research 

and consulting firm with a focus on wireless. Today, I’m here to 

discuss my research into the effect that the U.S. mobile industry 

has on the U.S. economy and to highlight the importance of Federal Government continuing to free up additional spectrum to support 5G and future network evolutions. 

First, a quick overview of the U.S. mobile industry. In 2015, 

Americans spent 2.9 trillion minutes talking on their mobile 

phones, sent 1.9 trillion text messages, 218 billion pictures, and 

used 9.6 trillion megabytes of data. U.S. wireless network operators 

have constructed over 307,000 cell sites. From 2000 to 2015, U.S. 

network operators have spent $77.8 billion to buy spectrum and 

have invested $423 billion to build out and expand the capacity and 

speed of the networks. 

Competition in the U.S. mobile industry is intense. Two weeks 

ago, Verizon re-introduced its unlimited plan with HD video. In 

less than 4 days, competitors matched and tried to beat the offer. 

Just today, AT&T launched another new pricing plan. Ninety-seven 

point nine percent of Americans can choose from three networkbased operators, and 93.4 percent can choose from four operators 

plus more than a dozen virtual operators. The mobile industry is 

equivalent of over-the-top competitors. 

13 

How does this relate into jobs? The mobile industry directly and 

indirectly supports 7 million jobs in the United States. These jobs 

are a function of the amount of investment the companies spend 

to build the networks, operate the networks, advertise their networks and services, and otherwise work with a wide variety of vendors and others to create and sustain what we know as the American mobile consumer experience and the U.S. wireless industry. As 

a result, the mobile industry contributed $194.8 billion in GDP in 

2014. 

The app and mobile content market is a $36 billion industry 

whose very existence is dependent on the ubiquitous vast mobile 

broadband network American companies have built. Companies 

like Uber, Lyft, and Airbnb would be unthinkable without the direct and immediate connections and data flows mobile networks 

give them and their customers. Together, these three companies 

alone are valued at $98 billion. To say that the U.S. mobile industry is one of the driving factors to create new jobs and businesses 

in a digital economy is an understatement. But there is no guarantee the industry will be able to support the kind of exponential 

demand for mobile networking that a fully connected network economy is expected to need. 

From 2008 to 2015, mobile data usage increased 643-fold and 

growth is expected to continue unabated. And today, the Internet 

of Things is the newest frontier for wireless, and it has implications for improvements in manufacturing, healthcare, transportation. There is not a sector in our U.S. economy that won’t be improved by access to fast mobile broadband networks. 

Deploying new spectrum is the most effective and quickest way 

to provide more capacity ahead of this tsunami of demand and ensure the industry can continue to drive economic growth and new 

job creation. Consider every 10 megahertz of deployed licensed 

spectrum creates $3.1 billion in GDP and 100,000 new jobs. The 

MOBILE NOW Act is a great next step in the journey to clear more 

spectrum. But as demand for mobile services is increasing, the 

need for spectrum is increasing as well. 

My suggestions for policymakers are few but specific. First, licenses should be allocated in larger channel sizes. 5G deployments 

need at least 20 by 20 megahertz channels, ideally in low, medium, 

and high frequencies. Second, 5G deployments having access to 

cleared spectrum for which providers have exclusive use. Third is 

to help streamline the approval process for new and existing cell 

sites further. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify at this important 

hearing. I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Entner follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROGER ENTNER, FOUNDER, RECON ANALYTICS LLC 

Introduction 

Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Schatz, and Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify this morning. My name is Roger 

Entner and I am the Founder of Recon Analytics, a boutique research and consulting firm focused on the telecom industry, and, in particular, the wireless sector. 

For more than 20 years, I have been tracking and reporting on the business and 

technology evolutions occurring in the U.S. wireless industry. 

14 

For more than a decade, I have been analyzing the impact that the mobile industry has had and can have across the U.S. economy, especially with regard to promoting job creation. Today, I am here to discuss this research and to highlight the 

importance of the Federal Government continuing to free up additional spectrum to 

support 5G and future network evolutions. 

State of the U.S. Mobile Wireless Industry 

I’d like to begin with an overview of the U.S. mobile wireless industry: 

• There are more than 370 million mobile connections in the U.S., of which 329 

million are smartphones and regular phones. 

• In 2015, Americans spent 2.9 trillion minutes talking on their mobile phones, 

sent 1.9 trillion text messages, 218 billion pictures and used 9.6 trillion MB of 

data. This compares to 2.2 trillion minutes talking on their mobile phones, 2 

trillion text messages, 57 billion pictures and 388 billion MB only 5 years ago. 

• We have 307,626 cell sites in this country, compared to 183,689 ten years ago. 

Competition in the U.S. wireless industry remains intense. When Verizon reintroduced its unlimited plans with HD video it took its three nationwide competitors 

only four days to match its offer. 99.9 percent of Americans have access to at least 

one wireless operator, 99.7 percent have the choice between two operators, 97.9 percent between three operators, and 93.4 percent between four operators. In addition, 

Americans can choose from a variety of plans that fit their best needs with different 

amounts of data attached to them. Even the smallest service plans now include unlimited voice calling and texting. 

Other aspects of the industry also remain very competitive. Americans can choose 

from dozens of devices from their mobile operator or bring their own devices to use 

with their operator’s service. Americans also have a wide variety of choices how they 

pay for mobile services. 

U.S. Wireless Industry and Job Creation/Economic Growth 

The mobile industry, directly and indirectly, supports 7 million jobs in the United 

States. In 2014, wireless carriers spent more than $21 billion on network equipment 

and another $27.1 billion on professional services. The wireless industry contributed 

$194.8 billion in GDP in 2014, up from $146.2 billion three years’ prior. As of 2014, 

mobile wireless services created a consumer surplus of $640.9 billion. 

The carriers themselves are not the only source of job creation and economic 

growth. The App and Mobile Content market—such as movies and TV shows consumed on wireless devices—is a $36 billion industry. New business models such as 

Uber, Lyft, and Airbnb that rely on fast, mobile broadband networks would be unthinkable without mobile connectivity. Together, these three companies alone are 

valued at $98 billion. 

Keeping the Pump Primed with Additional Allocations of Spectrum is the 

Single Most Important Factor to Keeping the U.S. Mobile Industry an 

Engine of Economic Growth for the U.S. Economy 

Over the last four decades, Congress and the FCC have provided the wireless industry with increasing amounts of spectrum to expand network reach and capacity. 

However, the allocations have consistently proven to be stop-gap measures because 

more capacity begets demand for more capacity. Initially, exploding demand for 

voice services was the big driver for spectrum, but by 2008, data took over as the 

big driver. From 2008 to 2015, data usage increased from 15 million MB to 9.6 trillion MB, a 643x increase. 

Cisco and Ericsson are forecasting a 5-fold increase in data usage in the United 

States over the next six years. In order to increase capacity and download speeds 

to satisfy the demand for unlimited data, especially video, the United States needs 

at least ten times more spectrum allocated for commercial mobile use. While there 

are certainly tremendous innovations happening in the world of spectrum efficiency 

such as carrier aggregation technologies, increases in the efficiency of wireless networks can only do so much. Deploying new spectrum is the most effective and 

quickest way to provide more capacity and drive economic growth and new job creation. 

Deploying new spectrum has a direct impact on U.S. economic growth. Every 10 

MHz of deployed spectrum creates $3.1 billion in GDP and 200,000 new jobs. 

The Internet of Things—The Next Frontier 

The Internet of Things (IoT) is the next frontier of wireless. Virtually every device 

benefits from being connected. Connected cars are rapidly becoming the industry 

standard. Trucking companies are tracking all their vehicles and the goods they 

15 

transport at all times. The medical community is undergoing massive change by remotely connecting patients with doctors for tracking vitals and diagnosing illnesses. 

Video is also coming to IoT. Consumers and municipalities alike are placing more 

cameras in their homes and cities and connecting them to the web. Some are connected through unlicensed spectrum; some are connected through licensed spectrum. 

Smart cities in particular will rely on licensed spectrum to connect disparate assets. 

Suggestions for Spectrum Policy in the 21st Century 

The Mobile Now Act is a great next step in the journey to clear more spectrum. 

But, as demand for mobile services is increasing, the need for spectrum is increasing 

as well. In addition to dedicating more spectrum for commercial mobile use, Congress and the FCC need to take additional steps to facilitate continued growth in 

wireless use, including for IoT. 

For example, licenses should be allocated in larger channel sizes. In the past 

channel sizes did not matter; now, they do. Fully realized 5G deployment needs at 

least 20x20 MHz channels. 

Such deployments also need cleared spectrum for which providers have exclusive 

use. Such use is preferable to sharing, which creates a whole new set of challenges 

for licensees which could undermine 5G deployments. In addition, all spectrum 

users—commercial and governmental—need to use spectrum as efficiently as possible, which will make surplus spectrum available for new uses. 

While increasing the overall quantity of available spectrum is important, it is also 

now critical to ensure that spectrum with different propagation characteristics is 

made available for commerce mobile use. We need more spectrum in low, medium 

and high bands for specific usages. Low frequency spectrum is particularly useful 

to cover large swaths of land and to provide service inside buildings. Medium frequency spectrum provides coverage and capacity in many places. High frequency 

spectrum is ideal for small areas of high usage to deliver maximum capacity while 

minimizing interference with other cell sites. 

Further, regulatory actions impede the deployment of new networks and services. 

Local zoning regulations are often a roadblock to deployment, slowing down, if not 

preventing, the deployment of new equipment or even making modest changes to 

existing equipment. At a minimum, the Federal Government could accelerate the 

deployment of mobile services by streamlining the approval process for small cells, 

DAS and other equipment that do not require the construction of a new tower. In 

addition, Congress can provide regulatory certainty that establishes a reliable planning framework to deploy more wireless facilities by clarifying that broadband providers are not subject to Title II of the Communications Act. 

Conclusion 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify at this important hearing. The 

wireless industry has helped drive economic growth and job creation, even during 

the Great Recession, and can continue to do so as long as Congress and the FCC 

implement sound spectrum and regulatory policies. I look forward to answering your 

questions. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Heiner, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF DAVE HEINER, VICE PRESIDENT, 

REGULATORY AFFAIRS, MICROSOFT CORPORATION 

Mr. HEINER. Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Schatz, and 

members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify. 

My name is Dave Heiner, and I am Microsoft’s Vice President of 

Regulatory Affairs. I’m pleased to have the opportunity to speak 

with you today about the critical importance of unlicensed spectrum to the U.S. economy. 

We all use unlicensed spectrum every day without giving it much 

thought. If you unlocked your car with a key fob or opened your 

garage door with a remote this morning, if you make a hands-free 

call in your car, you’re using unlicensed spectrum. If you have a 

fitness tracker, you’re connecting to your phone with unlicensed 

spectrum. And, of course, we all use Wi-Fi every day. PCs, laptops, 

tablets, mobile phones, game consoles, smart TVs, thermostats, 

16 

web cams, lighting systems, and countless other devices connect to 

the Internet and one another with unlicensed Wi-Fi spectrum. 

This success story is no accident. Congress and the FCC had 

great foresight decades ago in opening up spectrum to unlicensed 

use. Today, unlicensed spectrum is powering the nation’s Internet 

economy. We can see it all around us. For example, most U.S. 

homes have a Wi-Fi connection. Away from home, there are 94 million public Wi-Fi hotspots around the world, and that is projected 

to grow to more than 500 million by 2021. People want Wi-Fi wherever they go, and they want it for all of their many devices. As of 

2015, the industry had shipped more than 10 billion Wi-Fi enabled 

devices. 

All of this means, of course, that the unlicensed spectrum is very 

heavily utilized. In fact, according to a report from Cisco, in the 

United States, 55 percent of total Internet traffic is carried over a 

Wi-Fi network. By comparison, just 3.4 percent of Internet traffic 

is carried by licensed mobile networks. This flood of traffic has 

translated into enormous economic growth. As detailed in my written testimony, a recent study estimated that by this year, unlicensed spectrum would contribute nearly $50 billion to the GDP 

and $547 billion in economic surplus annually. 

The public availability of unlicensed spectrum is important to 

Microsoft because our customers depend on connectivity to reach 

our services. Our business strategy is mobile first, cloud first. What 

that means is enabling customers to use any connected device to 

access Internet services running in massive data centers, which we 

call the cloud. Our products like Windows and Office used to be 

standalone programs, but no more. Today, they are always connected, enabling new features and being continuously updated with 

security and other improvements. 

In recent years, we have developed a new platform called Azure 

to enable anyone to build and deploy cloud services accessible via 

the Internet. Cloud computing is taking off because it offers tremendous economic efficiencies. But the cloud is wholly dependent 

upon connectivity, and the unlicensed bands are the workhorse 

that enable it. For example, our telemetry shows that 98 percent 

of Windows 10 devices are connected to Wi-Fi, and nearly half of 

all the data that comes onto and off those devices flows over the 

Wi-Fi connection. 

Of course, unlicensed spectrum is more than just Wi-Fi. The 

Bluetooth connections that we’re all familiar with operate in unlicensed spectrum as well. The Internet of Things depends upon unlicensed spectrum, and TV white spaces technology, which carries 

the promise of bringing broadband to rural communities, depends 

upon unlicensed as well. The unlicensed bands have spurred these 

and so many other innovations because they provide immediate access to shared spectrum resources with low barriers to entry and 

light regulation. 

In closing, I would offer two suggestions to promote optimal use 

of spectrum. First, Congress should advance a balanced spectrum 

policy that includes both licensed and unlicensed spectrum as is 

done in the MOBILE NOW Act, which we support. Second, through 

this Act and others, policymakers should look for additional opporVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:10 Dec 06, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\27651.TXT JACKIE
17 

tunities in the low, mid, and high-frequency unlicensed bands to 

help satisfy ever-growing demand. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. At Microsoft, we 

look forward to working with you to promote optimal spectrum policy. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Heiner follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVE HEINER, VICE PRESIDENT, REGULATORY AFFAIRS, 

MICROSOFT CORPORATION

Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Schatz, and members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for inviting me to testify. My name is Dave Heiner, and I am Microsoft’s 

Vice President for Regulatory Affairs. I am pleased to speak with you today about 

the value of unlicensed spectrum to the U.S. economy. 

We all use unlicensed spectrum every day without giving it much thought. If you 

unlock your car with a key fob, open your garage door with a remote, make a handsfree call in the car, or buy a coffee with an Apple Pay tap, you are using unlicensed 

spectrum. If you are tracking your steps with a Fitbit, you are using unlicensed 

spectrum to communicate with your phone. And, of course, nearly everyone uses WiFi. In fact, more than half of all Internet traffic transits over a Wi-Fi connection. 

PCs, laptops, tablets, game consoles, smart TVs, mobile phones, and other devices 

all routinely connect to the Internet via unlicensed Wi-Fi spectrum. Together, these 

technologies combine to create billions of dollars in economic value to the U.S. economy every year. 

Licensed spectrum is important too, and Microsoft is very much in favor of a balanced policy that aims to promote the availability and efficient use of both unlicensed and licensed spectrum. In developing optimal spectrum policy, we think it 

is important to bear in mind that unlicensed spectrum is carrying 16 times more 

Internet traffic than licensed spectrum. That is remarkable considering there is substantially more commercially viable licensed spectrum than unlicensed spectrum 

below 6 GHz, where the vast majority of broadband traffic resides. Wi-Fi traffic to 

the Internet is growing very rapidly—by 2015, Wi-Fi handled more than half of all 

global Internet traffic, wireless or wireline. That share of overall traffic continues 

to rise. And Wi-Fi is ubiquitous: most U.S. households have Wi-Fi and there are 

nearly 100 million public Wi-Fi access points around the world. Looking forward, 

forecasters expect the number of Wi-Fi access points to grow to well over 500 million 

by 2021. 

Wi-Fi is only one of many uses of unlicensed spectrum. The low barriers to entry 

and permission-less innovation enabled by easy access to this shared resource has 

enabled large companies and small companies alike to innovate in a wide range of 

wireless technologies and even enabled the emerging category of the ‘‘Internet of 

Things’’ (devices communicating with one another, and with users, via the internet). 

Unlicensed spectrum is critical to innovation at Microsoft and the 

technology sector 

All of this is very important for Microsoft and, of course, for the technology sector 

as a whole. Wireless connectivity is very much at the center of the ‘‘mobile first, 

cloud first’’ business strategy that Microsoft’s CEO Satya Nadella is pursuing. From 

cloud computing to the Xbox platform to the Internet of Things, Microsoft’s ability 

to invest and innovate depends on the availability of broadband spectrum governed 

by commercially reasonable rules—so our individual and enterprise customers have 

a great experience at home, at work, and on the go. 

When I started at Microsoft in 1994, our software was primarily delivered to customers via floppy disks or CD–ROMs. The software typically had little interaction 

with the internet. Those days are gone. All of Microsoft’s major business lines are 

now dependent on continuous and reliable Internet connectivity for key features and 

continuous updating. Those businesses—Windows, Office, and our relatively new 

Azure ‘‘cloud’’ platform—make Microsoft the third most valuable company in the 

world. (The first two are Apple and Alphabet, and they are dependent on Internet 

connectivity too.) Microsoft is employing more than 70,000 people in the United 

States and investing close to $13 billion in R&D annually (88 percent of which is 

spent in the United States) to grow those businesses. The Microsoft cloud serves 

over 1 billion customers, generating over 1 trillion data points every day managed 

through more than 100 data centers around the world connected to the internet. 

18 

1Telecom Advisory Services, LLC, Assessment of the Future Economic Value of Unlicensed 

Spectrum in the United States at 4 (Aug. 2014), http://www.wififorward.org/wp-content/ 

uploads/2014/01/Katz-Future-Value-Unlicensed-Spectrum-final-version-1.pdf. 2 Ibid. 

Cloud is critical to consumers, enterprises of all sizes, and even governments—stimulating innovation and enabling economic growth. 

Our cloud services include Windows, Office 365, MSN, OneDrive, Skype, Azure, 

Outlook.com, and more. And all of these services depend upon consistent and ubiquitous Internet access for key features. For example, Windows enables customers to 

synchronize their files to the cloud and other devices and to ‘‘roam’’ settings and 

preferences from one device to another. Windows includes Cortana, the personal digital assistant that relies upon cloud processing to help people stay organized and 

get things done. Our Office 365 customers are continually getting new features, 

without having to wait years as in the past for major new versions to be released. 

For all of these efforts, last-mile connectivity is critical—and unlicensed spectrum 

is meeting that need for us and our customers. 

Microsoft’s Azure cloud platform enables software developers to quickly and inexpensively build new cloud services. More than 90 percent of Fortune 500 companies 

are using Azure today to efficiently deliver enterprise solutions. GE Healthcare is 

an example. Microsoft Azure powers mission-critical patient care applications for GE 

Healthcare, including solutions that streamline communication between clinicians, 

patients, and hospital administrators with secure, centralized, real-time access to 

the diagnostic scans and reports that physicians need to make decisions. And it is 

unlicensed spectrum—which links the data to tablets, smartphones, and a wide variety of connected devices—that makes all of this possible. 

Microsoft’s cloud also supports our new ‘‘mixed reality’’ platform, HoloLens. Unlike virtual reality, ‘‘mixed reality’’ merges people, places, and objects from the physical and virtual worlds together, allowing users to interact with content and information in far more accessible and intuitive ways. Developers have created apps for 

HoloLens that range from games to art museum tours to simulated lab experiments. 

Enterprise users can benefit from HoloLens too, with architecture tools, power plant 

monitoring, and aircraft maintenance training. Microsoft’s HoloLens headset relies 

on unlicensed spectrum to connect our customers to the worlds—physical and online—around them. 

Microsoft’s Xbox game console is dependent on unlicensed spectrum too. Game 

consoles serve as central hubs not only for multi-player gaming, but also for making 

calls on Skype, watching TV on Netflix, and controlling home IoT devices. Advanced 

game consoles depend on Wi-Fi-linked Internet access for all of these features, and 

they use unlicensed Wi-Fi and Bluetooth technologies to distribute data to different 

devices throughout our customers’ homes, and to link game controllers—including 

guitars and steering wheels—to consoles. 

The businesses and consumers we serve expect every application to work both in 

the office and on the go, and they expect access to the same cloud applications on 

laptops, smartphones, tablets, and wearables. 

The unlicensed bands are the workhorses that make this happen. Our telemetry 

shows that ninety-eight percent of Windows 10 devices are connected to Wi-Fi and 

nearly half of all data flows over the Wi-Fi connection. This is the case because consumers and enterprises overwhelmingly use Wi-Fi to link to their fixed wireline 

broadband service, whether that service is delivered by cable or a telco. 

Unlicensed spectrum fuels economic growth 

Of course, the importance of Wi-Fi is not limited to Microsoft, or even to Internet 

firms generally. Wi-Fi access points serve an ever-growing ecosystem of devices, including not only laptops, smartphones, and tablets, but also doorbells, irrigation systems, thermostats, refrigerators, lighting systems, and wearables. 

Two relatively recent economic studies help to quantify the value of unlicensed 

spectrum. 

In 2014, Raul Katz, a professor at Columbia University, estimated that by this 

year unlicensed spectrum would contribute $547.22 billion in economic surplus annually and nearly $50 billion to the annual GDP.1 He arrived at that estimate by 

building on his historical assessment of unlicensed spectrum’s economic value in 

2013 ($222.4 billion in total economic value and $6.7 billion contributed to the 

GDP)2 and analyzing two key drivers of growth in the area. First, Professor Katz 

analyzed growing adoption of then-widely deployed technologies and applications, 

including Wi-Fi-cellular off-loading, residential Wi-Fi, Wireless Internet Service Providers, Wi-Fi-only tablets, wireless personal areas networks, and radio-frequency 

identification devices. As Professor Katz explained, research from a wide variety of 

19 

3 Consumer Electronics Association, Unlicensed Spectrum and the American Economy: Quantifying the Market Size and Diversity of Unlicensed Services at 2 (Aug. 4, 2014), https:// 

ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7521751149.pdf. 4WI–FI ALLIANCE, Total Wi-Fi® device shipments to surpass ten billion this month (Jan. 5, 

2015), http://www.wi-fi.org/news-events/newsroom/total-wi-fi-device-shipments-to-surpass-tenbillion-this-month. 5 Cisco, VNI Forecast Highlights Tool: 2020 Forecast Highlights, http://www.cisco.com/c/m/ 

en_us/solutions/service-provider/vni-forecast-highlights.html, (accessed Feb. 23, 2017). 

industry resources anticipated very rapid growth in adoption of those technologies. 

For example, Cisco estimated that between 2013 and 2017 the number of tablets 

in use in the United States would grow by more than 300 percent and the Internet 

traffic generated by each of those units would increase nearly five-fold. Dr. Katz also 

accounted for increased economic value generated by the ‘‘deployment of emerging 

innovations, such as machine-to-machine communications and agricultural automation.’’ Though his estimate attempted to account for those future developments, Dr. 

Katz underscored that ‘‘estimates of economic value of future technologies are extremely conservative.’’ 

Also in 2014 Richard Thanki conducted a study for the Consumer Electronics Association focusing on retail sales attributable to products that depend upon unlicensed spectrum.3 To estimate the economic value generated by that spectrum, 

Thanki collected sales data for the wide variety of devices that use it—Wi-Fi devices, but also less obvious parts of the unlicensed ecosystem, such as broadcasting 

hardware, medical devices, and baby monitors. Thanki concluded that unlicensed 

spectrum generates more than $62 billion in ‘‘incremental retail sales value,’’ a 

number that he cautions is overly conservative because it focuses solely on ‘‘the sale 

of devices using unlicensed spectrum to end-users’’ and does not attempt to quantify 

‘‘indirect contributions in terms of savings, productivity, and utility’’ that ‘‘greatly 

exceed’’ the study’s assessment of direct benefits. 

These indirect benefits, including the innovation gains described above, should not 

be overlooked. In addition to its direct value in driving the adoption of new devices 

and technologies, unlicensed spectrum yields a wide range of indirect economic spillover benefits that prove more difficult to quantify. These indirect impacts reverberate throughout the economy in job growth, wage gains, and productivity. 

Unlicensed spectrum fuels innovation 

Congress and the FCC had great foresight in enabling use of unlicensed spectrum 

decades ago, and, in particular, the release of the ISM band for unlicensed spread 

spectrum use in 1985. Today this spectrum is powering our cloud economy. The unlicensed bands produce the exceptional economic value discussed above because anyone can use them as long as they follow basic FCC rules on power limits and emission restrictions that are designed to protect other users from harmful interference. 

Today, innovators of all types—incumbents as well as start-ups—recognize this powerful combination of light regulations and low barriers to entry. And this advantage 

has helped make the Internet of Things a reality. But the growing number of IoT 

applications will require access to enough low-, mid-, and/or high-frequency spectrum to succeed. A variety of protocols operating in unlicensed spectrum have been 

developed to enable IoT devices, including Wi-Fi, zigbee, Bluetooth, WirelessHART, 

and z-wave. 

Smart home technologies are already bringing unlicensed IoT technologies into 

millions of American homes through devices like Sonos connected speakers, which 

form their own mesh networks using the 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz unlicensed bands. 

Many other IoT devices rely on radio-frequency identification, commonly known as 

RFID. RFID tags most often use unlicensed spectrum to communicate with everything from container cars to lost luggage. These popular devices are already on their 

way to becoming ubiquitous. Ericsson has estimated that, by 2018, IoT devices will 

surpass mobile phones as the largest category of connected devices. 

As you can see, unlicensed spectrum is critical to a wide variety of technologies 

and applications, and the numbers tell the story of just how much value this creates: 

• Innovators have seized on the opportunities created by unlicensed spectrum to 

develop a wide range of new devices. In January 2015, the Wi-Fi Alliance announced that the industry had shipped its 10 billionth Wi-Fi device.4

• Unlicensed frequency bands support more traffic than any other band. In the 

United States 54.9 percent of total Internet traffic transited a Wi-Fi network. 

(By comparison, just 3.4 percent of total Internet traffic transited a mobile network using licensed spectrum.)5

20 

6 Cisco, Cisco Visual Networking Index: Global Mobile Data Traffic Forecast Update, 2016– 

2021 (Feb. 9, 2017), http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/visual-networking-index-vni/mobile-white-paper-c11-520862.html. 7 Ericsson, Ericsson Mobility Report: On the Pulse of the Networked Society at 25 (June 2016), 

https://www.ericsson.com/res/docs/2016/ericsson-mobility-report-2016.pdf. 8 Cisco, supra note 6. 9The Economist, TV Dinners: Unused TV Spectrum and Drones Could Help Make Smart 

Farms a Reality (Sept. 27, 2016), http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/ 

21707242-unused-tv-spectrum-and-drones-could-help-make-smart-farms-reality-tv-dinners. 

• We’ve seen tremendous investment in unlicensed access points. To carry the 

huge wave of data I’ve described, the number of public Wi-Fi access points 

around the world will grow six-fold from 2016 (94.0 million) to 2021 (541.6 million).6

In addition to delivering direct value to consumers and enterprises, unlicensed 

networks are also valuable because they sustain licensed networks. Mobile traffic 

is asymmetric: considerably more data (especially video) is downloaded than 

uploaded. Licensed network providers and device makers increasingly choose to offload downlink traffic from licensed networks to Wi-Fi, harnessing the power and 

pervasiveness of unlicensed access points. And, as data caps and speeds become 

more of a concern, smartphone users now take advantage of Wi-Fi as an option for 

their most data-intensive applications. By one estimate, 85 percent of the traffic 

generated by smartphone video apps goes over Wi-Fi—one of the reasons that ‘‘although cellular data usage on smartphones is growing, Wi-Fi data growth is dramatically outpacing it.’’ 7 By 2021, 64 percent of the traffic from smartphones will 

be offloaded from mobile devices to fixed networks via Wi-Fi or small cells. For tablets, that number is projected to be 72 percent.8

The flexibility in the FCC’s unlicensed rules is also clearing the way for 

innovators to take advantage of underutilized spectrum, such as television whitespaces (TVWS). Certified TVWS devices allow consumers, Internet service providers, 

local governments, and others to access unassigned and unused spectrum that exists 

between television stations. At these frequencies, a signal can travel over much larger distances than conventional Wi-Fi, making it perfect for providing broadband access to unserved and underserved rural areas. There are many potential uses for 

such technology. As described in a recent article in the The Economist,9 Microsoft 

researchers are using TVWS to collect data from far-flung sensors on a farm in 

Washington state. The sensor data, once analyzed in the cloud, enables the farmer 

to engage in ‘‘precision farming,’’ to minimize both irrigation and pesticide use. And 

because FCC rules ensure that white-spaces devices will protect over-the-air broadcasters and other licensed services from harmful interference, they will add economic value without causing any harmful interference. 

Microsoft has invested significantly in white-spaces technologies, and is committed to their success. Even though the Incentive Auction created uncertainty 

among white-spaces users and the developing ecosystem, Microsoft has continued to 

invest in white spaces to ensure that this technology lives up to its transformative 

potential once the auction and repack is concluded and the FCC’s updated rules are 

finalized. We have spearheaded white-spaces projects in the United States and 

around the world. 

In southern Virginia, for example, Microsoft has partnered with Mid-Atlantic 

Broadband Communications and the Commonwealth of Virginia to use white spaces 

to bring high-speed Internet access into the homes of previously unconnected students. In these areas, as many as 50 percent of school children lack access to highspeed Internet at home, making it hard for them to do their homework, and excluding them from the revolution in education that the Internet has brought for students in many wealthier areas. Using white spaces, we are able to leverage the fiber 

connections that run to these schools, allowing students in surrounding areas to access school networks wirelessly from home. With this single project, Microsoft and 

its partners will serve 7,500 primary and secondary school students when the system is fully deployed. If deployed statewide, this approach could help to connect a 

quarter million unconnected students in Virginia alone. 

Microsoft has also worked to deploy white-spaces networks in previously unserved 

parts of rural Africa, proving that this technology will play an important role in U.S. 

and international communities where infrastructure challenges are even greater. In 

Kenya, Microsoft and its partners have used white spaces to deploy Internet access 

points in areas that do not even have access to an electrical grid. We have used 

white-spaces technologies to connect these rural access points to distant fiber connections, and used conventional Wi-Fi to bring these connections to individual deVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:10 Dec 06, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\27651.TXT JACKIE
21 

10Quotient Associates, Wi-Fi Spectrum Needs Study: Final Report (Feb. 2017), https:// 

www.wi-fi.org/download.php?file=/sites/default/files/private/Wi-Fi%20Spectrum%20Needs%20 

Study.pdf. 11 Id at 2. 

vices. These access points are solar powered, allowing them to be completely isolated 

from any other physical infrastructure. 

These projects are just the beginning. We are committed to taking on more investments with partners around the United States this year, with a focus on supporting 

connectivity, skills, and local innovation in rural and underserved communities. We 

strongly support action at the FCC to ensure that enough TV white-spaces channels 

remain available for unlicensed use, and hope the FCC will finalize commercially 

reasonable white-spaces rules soon so we can move ahead. 

Next steps toward meeting the growing demand for unlicensed spectrum 

As this Subcommittee has long recognized, radio spectrum is an essential input 

to economic growth and innovation. Under the Subcommittee’s and full Committee’s 

leadership, the United States has adopted a set of core spectrum policies that can 

guide effective decision-making by Federal agencies. Central among these are that 

agencies should find additional spectrum resources to support affordable broadband 

for all Americans and to meet the seemingly insatiable consumer and enterprise demand for wireless data services. Agencies should free new spectrum bands for commercial service and find ways to use underutilized spectrum bands more efficiently 

through sharing. And agencies should continue to advance a balanced spectrum policy that identifies potential spectrum bands for licensed and unlicensed use—in low, 

mid, and high frequency bands. 

While the unlicensed ecosystem has produced exceptional economic value and innovation to date, our existing unlicensed bands will not be able to support the continued growth of wireless data produced by consumers, enterprises, and the Internet 

of Things. Last month, the Wi-Fi Alliance released the Wi-Fi Spectrum Needs Study. 

It concludes that an additional 500 MHz to 1 GHz of spectrum is required to satisfy 

expected growth in busy-hour demand for Wi-Fi through 2025.10 Importantly, the 

analysis also found that unlicensed spectrum should be ‘‘assigned with sufficient 

contiguity such that wide channels of 160 MHz, or perhaps even wider in the future, 

can be constructed.’’ 11 Wider channels would enable greater throughput, which will 

result in faster downloads for users. 

Based on our analysis of the Nation’s spectrum bands, Microsoft believes that 

spectrum sharing will be required to meet the demand for unlicensed spectrum. Depending on the specific frequency range, sharing may involve Federal or non-federal 

spectrum users. So we are strong supporters of the MOBILE NOW Act, which would 

kick-start this process by initiating proceedings on sharing mid-band spectrum for 

licensed and unlicensed use. 

We close with three recommendations. 

First, the Subcommittee, both through MOBILE NOW and more broadly, should 

continue to promote a balanced spectrum policy that includes adequate unlicensed 

frequencies. Future spectrum needs will likely be met through heterogeneous networks where different spectrum bands—some licensed, some unlicensed—will be 

mixed and matched over the communications path to provide the necessary bandwidth for a given device at a given location at a given time. This means that Congress and the FCC should act to free up new licensed, unlicensed, and shared spectrum for wireless broadband at low, mid, and high frequencies. We therefore support the MOBILE NOW Act, reported out of the full Committee, and hope that the 

Committee will aggressively push agencies to free new bands for commercial licensed and unlicensed services. 

Second, the Subcommittee should oppose efforts to over-protect incumbents 

through onerous technical regulations when the FCC permits unlicensed users to access underutilized bands on a shared basis. Under the Commission’s rules, unlicensed devices cannot cause harmful interference and cannot claim protection from 

interference. Yet some incumbents seek far more than this. They ask Congress and 

the FCC to impose technical rules that would hobble unlicensed technologies by 

making investment uneconomic and creating a perpetual state of regulatory uncertainty. Committee oversight of the FCC should therefore ensure that the Commission adopts only reasonable technical rules that support economically rational investment for growth in unlicensed bands. 

Third, the Subcommittee can lend its support to voluntary industry standard-setting efforts. Standards bodies such as the IEEE have been critical for decades in 

developing industry consensus standards for unlicensed devices. Engineers from 

Microsoft work hard with their peers at other companies to develop standardized 

22 

techniques for sharing the unlicensed bands. Given all the demand for access to unlicensed spectrum, it is more important than ever that companies work together at 

IEEE and in other appropriate standards organizations to ensure new technologies 

share effectively and equitably with existing users. These consensus-driven efforts 

can often obviate the need for costly government regulation. 

Thank you for addressing these important issues today. As I’ve noted above, unlicensed spectrum plays a critical role in innovation and our economy. We look forward to finalization of the TV white-spaces rules, resolution of outstanding dockets 

relating to unlicensed spectrum, and successful passage of the MOBILE NOW Act. 

At Microsoft, we are committed to working with you to ensure that a balanced spectrum policy continues to produce value for the American economy, support innovation, and increase access to the internet. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. LaPlatney? 

STATEMENT OF PAT LAPLATNEY, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, RAYCOM MEDIA ON BEHALF OF THE 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS 

Mr. LAPLATNEY. Good morning, Chairman Wicker, Ranking 

Member Schatz, and members of the Subcommittee. My name is 

Pat LaPlatney, and I’m the President and CEO of Raycom Media, 

where I oversee 60 broadcast television stations stretching from 

Hattiesburg to Honolulu, as well as a number of production and 

digital media properties. 

I’m testifying today on behalf of the National Association of 

Broadcasters and its 1,300 full-power television stations that serve 

communities across the country with free, locally focused programming. I appreciate you inviting me here to speak about the upcoming voluntary upgrade that broadcasters across the country and in 

other parts of the world are making to the next generation television standard, ATSC 3.0. 

In a world where broadband access is an expectation on par with 

electricity and water and social media is ubiquitous, the importance of local broadcasting and the trusted news coverage it affords 

is paramount. Through Next Gen TV, broadcasters will deliver all 

of this, along with the most watched entertainment programming 

and sports, to your constituents in new and exciting ways. 

So what is Next Gen TV? Next Gen TV is a crystal clear, ultra 

high-def picture that enhances the broadcast viewing and listening 

experience. Next Gen TV has more effective emergency alerting capabilities that will save more lives. Next Gen TV integrates the 

best of broadcast and broadband to offer interactive content, such 

as dropdown menus of sports scores or movie information. Next 

Gen TV enables access to broadcast television through smart 

phones and tablets, ensuring that our local stations’ content is 

available virtually anywhere, anytime, and through any platform 

that viewers desire. 

Finally, Next Gen TV is spectrally efficient, meaning it offers 

more channels for free with the same amount of spectrum. No expensive cable bill or data plan is required. Simply put, Next Gen 

TV will enhance the ability of local broadcasters to impact the communities we serve. 

The recent broadcast coverage of the tragic tornado in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, and the hurricanes in the Puna District on the 

Big Island of Hawaii provided ample evidence of the potential viewer benefits that Next Gen TV will afford. Through my stations’ 

23 

wall-to-wall coverage, Next Gen TV would have enabled more and 

better emergency services, including enhanced alerting, interactive 

menus of hyperlocal detail, and the potential for mobile access had 

cellular signals failed. 

A broad coalition, including public and commercial broadcasters, 

consumer electronics manufacturers, and public safety advocates, 

has petitioned the FCC to allow stations to conduct a voluntary 

market-driven transition to this new Next Gen TV standard. After 

several months, the FCC unanimously approved a Notice of Proposed Rule Making last week. Broadcasters stand willing and 

ready to make the necessary investments in our infrastructure to 

enable an upgrade to Next Gen TV. We simply need the FCC to 

quickly finalize these rules in order to move forward. We applaud 

the FCC for its work to date, and we encourage the Committee to 

stay engaged. 

Before I conclude, I want to highlight one issue currently before 

Congress that does pose challenges to viewers’ ability to enjoy the 

benefits of Next Gen TV—successful completion of the broadcast incentive auction. As the auction winds its way to completion, one 

thing is certain. The broadcast industry will end up with less spectrum. So the ability of those nonparticipating stations to repack 

successfully into a smaller broadcast band without viewer disruption is critical. 

To that end, I want to thank the Committee leadership, Senators 

Moran and Schatz, as well as their co-sponsors, Senators 

Blumenthal, Blunt, Fischer, and Udall, for the work on draft legislation that ensures broadcasters will have adequate time and resources to successfully repack following the close of the incentive 

auction. Your legislation will make certain that no consumer will 

lose access to their broadcast service as a result of the repack. It 

is just this certainty that investment in Next Gen TV requires. 

Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. LaPlatney follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAT LAPLATNEY, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE

OFFICER, RAYCOM MEDIA, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

BROADCASTERS

Good morning, Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Schatz and members of the 

subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify today on behalf of the National 

Association of Broadcasters (NAB). My name is Pat LaPlatney, and I am the President and Chief Executive Officer of Raycom Media, where I oversee 60 broadcast 

television stations stretching from Hattiesburg to Honolulu, as well as a number of 

production and digital media properties. 

I am testifying today on behalf of the National Association of Broadcasters, where 

I serve as a member of the Television Board of Directors and represent more than 

1,300 full-power local television stations. This includes stations owned by major networks like ABC, CBS, Univision, Fox and NBC; separately-owned network affiliate 

stations and independent broadcasters. Each of these stations serves its community 

with free over-the-air television that combines locally-focused content, including 

highly valued local news, with the most-watched entertainment programming in the 

media landscape. 

I appreciate you inviting me here today to speak about the upcoming, voluntary 

upgrade that broadcasters across the country, and throughout the world, for that 

matter, are planning to make to the Next Generation Television standard, ATSC 

3.0. Next Gen TV will drastically improve and expand the experience of the large 

and growing population of over-the-air broadcast television viewers—and in a more 

spectrally efficient manner that requires no additional government funds. Next Gen 

TV is based on an Internet Protocol backbone, which supports a seamless blending 

24 

of Internet and TV content. The result is a higher quality interactive viewing experience that combines the best of broadcast and broadband and that will enable innovative broadcasters to bring new services to viewers. In today’s increasingly fragmented video space, Next Gen TV will improve the quality and features of the country’s most-watched programming, allowing viewers the potential to consume it wherever and however they choose and permitting broadcasters to compete more effectively against other digital video providers. 

In a world where preteens have smartphones, broadband access is an expectation 

on par with electricity and water, and social media enable a wide range of viewpoints to spread around the globe instantly, locally-oriented broadcasting and local 

news coverage from trusted sources are more important than ever. Through Next 

Gen TV, broadcasters are able to deliver to our viewers—your constituents—sharp 

ultra HD images, in addition to interactive features, customizable content and multichannel immersive sound. Viewers can also look forward to more choices, more 

channels and more flexibility. Mobile devices and TV sets equipped with Next Gen 

receivers will make over-the-air TV available virtually anywhere. And it will provide 

even more effective alerting to the public in times of crisis. 

One need only look at the impact broadcasters have in their communities today 

to recognize the potential public safety benefits Next Gen TV affords local viewers. 

Earlier this year, near Hattiesburg, Mississippi, a tornado touched down shortly before dawn, leaving a 25-mile wake of destruction and four casualties. Local broadcasters gave residents advanced warning of where to go, or not go, and provided a 

communications lifeline to emergency services. Or look at Hawaii News Now, which 

embedded news crews for an extended period of time in the Puna District on the 

Big Island while back-to-back hurricanes battered houses only to be followed by a 

threatening lava flow. Next Gen TV would have enabled more and better emergency 

services, including enhanced alerting, interactive menus with hyper-local detail and 

the potential for mobile access even when cellular signals fail. Moreover, Next Gen 

capabilities would enhance the recovery efforts of local broadcasters, such as our 

local NBC affiliate WDAM–TV in Hattiesburg, to publicize specific resources available to particular storm victims, instruct viewers on safe havens and conduct fundraising drives. 

Broadcasters live in the communities we serve. And regardless of where they reside, our broadcasters are committed to ensuring that local residents in communities 

across the country have the same opportunities as people in large cities to benefit 

from advances in technology. Next Gen TV is critical to affording these opportunities. 

Next Gen TV represents a unique partnership between the technology industry 

(CTA), first responders (AWARN) and commercial (NAB) and public (APTS) broadcasters. We petitioned the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to allow stations to conduct a voluntary, market-driven transition to this new standard, specifically outlining the many ways viewers will benefit from this standard while also ensuring no viewer disruption during the transition. To that end, any broadcast upgrade to Next Gen TV will be facilitated by channel-sharing arrangements that 

allow broadcasts to continue in the current standard as well. In response to our petition, the FCC released on February 24 a rulemaking notice proposing to authorize 

TV broadcasters to use the Next Gen standard. 

Some of my fellow panelists will outline the advancements they hope to accomplish either on their current spectrum or in newly designated spectrum bands over 

the years and decades to come. One thing they will not say, however, is that they 

are asking the FCC for permission to make investments to enable these innovations. 

In fact, broadcasters are the only licensees required to ask the FCC for permission 

to innovate. It’s like having to ask the governor for permission to plant a garden 

in your own yard. 

Broadcasters are willing and ready to make the necessary investments in our infrastructure to provide what we believe will be truly groundbreaking improvements 

to free, over-the-air television for the benefit of viewers across the country. The new 

standard will allow us to transmit in Ultra High Definition with High Dynamic 

Range (HDR) and enhance viewer experiences through interactivity, as well as provide enhanced emergency and weather alerts to TVs, phones and tablets. Most importantly, the Next Gen TV standard is flexible enough to allow us to continue innovating within this new standard to adapt to the next—and as yet unknown—ways 

consumers will want to consume broadcast content in the future. 

Before I conclude, I do want to highlight one issue currently before Congress that 

poses challenges to viewers’ ability to enjoy the benefits of Next Gen TV—the successful completion of the broadcast incentive auction. As the broadcast incentive 

auction winds its way to completion, one thing is certain: We will end up with less 

spectrum for broadcasting and fewer stations. In light of this, we will need to make 

25 

the most of the broadcast spectrum that remains, and provide the most compelling 

services we can, to be competitive and continue serving our communities. Next Generation TV provides a vehicle for broadcasters to do just that. 

To that end, I want to thank Senators Moran and Schatz, as well as your cosponsors, including Senators Blumenthal, Fisher and Blunt, for your work on draft legislation that ensures broadcasters have adequate time and resources to successfully 

repack following the close of the incentive auction. Legislation that ensures no television or radio broadcaster will pay out of pocket to cover repack costs and that no 

broadcaster will be forced off the air due to circumstances beyond their control, provides the certainty that an investment in Next Gen TV requires. 

Thank you again for inviting me here today. I look forward to answering any 

questions. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Stroup, you’re recognized. 

STATEMENT OF TOM STROUP, PRESIDENT, 

SATELLITE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION 

Mr. STROUP. Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Schatz, and 

members of the Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for the 

opportunity to appear before you today. I am Tom Stroup, President of the Satellite Industry Association. 

Since its creation over 20 years ago, SIA has been the unified 

voice of the U.S. industry on policy, regulatory, and legislative 

issues affecting the satellite business. Like the other industries 

represented on the panel today, the satellite industry supports 

hundreds of thousands of jobs and generates billions of dollars in 

revenue. Beyond strictly financial metrics, however, I would encourage the Subcommittee to consider that our very way of life depends on the benefits we receive from satellite-based services and 

applications. 

Satellites, providing truly ubiquitous coverage that enables communications; Earth observation; and position, navigation, and timing services, have transformed how we communicate; how we map, 

navigate, and see our world; how we produce food and energy; conduct banking; predict weather; perform disaster relief; ensure national security; and so much more. Of course, delivering these diverse services to a broad range of customers is only possible because of our ability to access spectrum. 

Satellites have long played a central role in distributing virtually 

all television content to American viewing audiences. In particular, 

live events, like breaking news and sports, depend on the point to 

multi-point coverage and high service quality that satellites provide. Communication satellites also provide connectivity to business networks, mobile platforms like commercial aircraft and maritime vessels, as well as direct to household consumers. 

Satellite broadband, a high-quality and cost-effective solution, is 

playing an increasingly important part in addressing the digital divide across the United States, including in the most rural and remote areas of the country where it remains uneconomical for terrestrial services to build. Today, the commercial satellite industry 

has approximately 2 million customers nationwide enjoying highquality broadband services, no matter where they are located. And 

with the addition of multiple high throughput, high speed broadband satellites this year, we expect the prevalence of broadband 

services by satellite to increase rapidly. 

26 

1SIA Executive Members include: The Boeing Company; AT&T Services, Inc.; EchoStar Corporation; Intelsat S.A.; Iridium Communications Inc.; Kratos Defense & Security Solutions; 

Ligado Networks; Lockheed Martin Corporation; Northrop Grumman Corporation; OneWeb; SES 

Americom, Inc.; Space Exploration Technologies Corp.; SSL; and ViaSat, Inc. SIA Associate 

Members include: ABS U.S. Corp.; Artel, LLC; Blue Origin: DigitalGlobe Inc.; DRS Technologies, 

Inc.; Eutelsat America Corp.; Global Eagle Entertainment; Glowlink Communications Technology, Inc.; Hughes; Inmarsat, Inc.; Kymeta Corporation; L–3 Electron Technologies, Inc.; O3b 

Limited; Panasonic Avionics Corporation; Planet; Semper Fortis Solutions; Spire Global Inc.; 

It is also extremely important to mention the critical nature that 

satellites provide to our safety and national security. Satellites are 

often the only means of communicating after a natural or other disaster. Furthermore, they enable our military to project power in 

the air, on land, and at sea. To cite just one example, satellite communications enable agile connectivity and efficient mission control 

for remotely piloted aircraft carrying out critical missions abroad. 

Let me turn to innovation and growth. Even as demand for spectrum has increased, the satellite industry has developed ways to 

use this limited natural resource more efficiently. High throughput 

satellites, for example, rely on frequency re-use and spot beam 

technology to produce increased output factors upwards of 20 times 

that of traditional satellites, meeting FCC benchmark broadband 

speeds. The industry has seen similar increases in the capacity of 

its systems. 

In another highly anticipated advancement in the industry, hundreds of new high throughput, non-geostationary satellites will 

soon provide additional high-speed capacity at low latency levels. 

Existing high throughput satellites already support the delivery of 

3G and 4G services, and in the future, satellite fleets will be a part 

of the system architecture that delivers new 5G, IoT, and intelligent connected transportation services to consumers. 

Advances in commercial remote sensing satellites are also occurring at a rapid pace. SIA member companies are launching satellites that can view and sense the Earth across multiple spectral 

bands at unparalleled spatial resolutions and with unprecedented 

global coverage and re-visit rates. Data from the U.S. remote sensing operators are building new markets based on geospatial data 

from agriculture to business intelligence to weather prediction. 

Of course, all the breakthroughs we’ve seen because of satellite 

technology should not be taken for granted. They depend upon our 

industry’s ability to access spectrum. In order for our industry to 

sustain and meet the growing demand for satellite services, we encourage regulators to continue to allocate sufficient spectrum for 

satellite use. Together, we have an opportunity to address the digital divide, meet the growing needs of U.S. consumers, ensure our 

country’s safety and national security, and do so in a manner that 

utilizes spectrum most efficiently. 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you, and I’m happy 

to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stroup follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TOM STROUP, PRESIDENT, 

SATELLITE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Schatz, and members of the Subcommittee, 

I would like to thank you for holding this important hearing and for the opportunity 

to appear before you today. I am Tom Stroup, President of the Satellite Industry 

Association (SIA)1. Before joining SIA in late 2014, I served as CEO of Shared SpecVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:10 Dec 06, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\27651.TXT JACKIE
27 

TeleCommunication Systems, Inc.; Telesat Canada; TrustComm, Inc.; Ultisat, Inc.; and XTAR, 

LLC. 

trum Company (SSC), a leading developer of spectrum intelligence technologies. For 

a little more than ten years, I also served as the President of the Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA). I have also founded and run several companies in the technology industry, including Columbia Spectrum Management, P-Com 

Network Services, CSM Wireless, and SquareLoop. 

The Satellite Industry Association is a U.S.-based trade association representing 

the leading satellite operators, manufacturers, launch providers, and ground equipment suppliers who serve commercial, civil, and military markets. Since its creation 

almost twenty years ago, SIA has been the unified voice of the U.S. satellite industry on policy, regulatory, and legislative issues affecting the satellite business. 

Before I go any further into my remarks, let me first commend the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), who I know will be testifying here next week, and 

the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) for decades of experience and for their foresight in allocating spectrum to useful technologies and applications, including satellite services. Their efforts have resulted in 

innovative government and commercial capabilities, which have benefited U.S. consumers and the Nation. 

Today, the satellite industry supports over 213,000 American jobs, many of which 

reside in the home states of several of this Subcommittee’s members. This number 

includes tens of thousands of well-paying manufacturing jobs. Just to mention one 

area of growth, more of these jobs will be added in states like Florida, where this 

week one of our members will be breaking ground on a new plant. The satellite industry’s 2015 estimated revenue was $89 billion. These figures of 

course do not reflect revenues from businesses made possible by our services, services which, like satellites themselves, are not always apparent. But satellites are 

constantly operating in the background of space, enabling the American economy in 

ways consumers might not be aware, such as supporting smartphone app transactions, to use just one close at hand example. Beyond strictly financial metrics, I 

would encourage the Committee to consider that our very way of life depends on 

the benefits we receive from satellite-based services and applications. Satellites— 

communications, earth observation, and position, navigation, and timing—have 

transformed how we communicate, how we map, navigate, and see our world, how 

we produce food and energy, conduct banking, predict weather, perform disaster relief, ensure national security, and so much more. Of course, delivering these diverse 

services to a broad range of customers is only possible because of our ability to access spectrum in a number of frequency bands. 

I want to go into a little more detail on just a few of the qualitative benefits we 

receive from satellites because of their ubiquitous coverage, which enables cost-effective service even in rural and remote areas. 

Satellites have long played a central role in distributing virtually all television 

content to American viewing audiences. In particular, live events like breaking news 

and sports events such as the Super Bowl and the upcoming NCAA Tournament depend on the point-to-multipoint coverage and high service quality that satellites provide. Communications satellites also provide connectivity—including broadband 

connectivity—to business networks, to mobile platforms like commercial aircraft and 

maritime vessels, as well as direct to household consumers. 

As you all know all too well, advances in information technology and communications continue to spur economic growth in the United States, but they also highlight 

a growing disparity between the haves and have-nots. Satellite broadband, a highquality and cost-effective solution for broadband services, is playing an increasingly 

important part in addressing the digital divide across the United States, including 

in the most rural and remote areas of the country where it remains uneconomical 

for terrestrial services to build. Currently the commercial satellite industry has approximately 2 million customers nationwide enjoying high-quality broadband services at reasonable rates, no matter where they are located. This includes the 14 percent of consumers that currently are not served by terrestrial broadband. Commercial satellite operators, which have already invested billions of dollars in the construction and deployment of high-throughput satellites, offer service to those consumers today. 

With the addition of multiple high throughput, high speed broadband satellites 

this year, we expect the prevalence of broadband services by satellite to increase 

rapidly and the number of satellite broadband customers across the United States 

to continue to grow substantially. Further, given that most of these satellites and 

their ground equipment will be built in the United States, we should see the creation of additional domestic design and manufacturing jobs. 

28 

It is also extremely important to mention the critical nature that satellites, and 

the use of spectrum, provide to our safety and national security. Satellite capabilities enable our military’s ability to project power in the air, on land, at sea and in 

cooperation with allies. To list all of the ways satellites and spectrum are utilized 

by the U.S. military and Intelligence Community would take too long and quickly 

lead to classified discussions. So, I will mention just a few examples. 

• Satellite communications (SATCOM), both commercial and military, provide 

agile connectivity and efficient mission control capability to our forces and operations in the continental U.S. (CONUS) and forward deployed locations, including for remotely piloted aircraft or (RPA), other advanced weapons systems like 

the F–35, and U.S. Navy warships. Capacity demand for the bands supporting 

these needs routinely outpaces supply and continues to grow rapidly. 

• Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) satellites and aerial platforms are essential to capabilities that allow us to see global threats to our nation, including from missiles, terrorism, as well as more traditional activities of 

enemy combatants and potential adversaries, and they demand dedicated highcapacity satellite links. 

• The Global Positioning System (GPS) provides position, navigation, and timing 

services which are critical to every phase of military operations, commercial networks, critical infrastructure, and more. 

All of these satellite capabilities depend upon spectrum availability and heavily 

factor in the Department of Defense’s decisions concerning future force structure 

and concepts of operation. From individual special operations teams to large scale 

theater-level air, land and sea operations, none of these would exist as we know 

them today without the command and control and delivery of data that satellites 

provide. In short, it is hard to overstate how integral satellites are to our Nation’s 

ability to defend our interests in a conflict-filled world. 

In addition, satellites play a critical role when our national terrestrial communications infrastructure is unavailable because of a national disaster, electrical outage 

or, worse yet, terrorist attack. Unlike their terrestrial counterparts, satellite networks are not susceptible to damage from such disasters, because the primary repeaters are onboard the spacecraft and not part of the ground infrastructure. Handheld terminals, portable Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT) antennas, and temporary fixed installations can all be introduced into a post-disaster environment to 

provide support relief and enhance recovery efforts. This is why the Department of 

Homeland Security has designated commercial satellite systems as critical infrastructure. 

Indeed, emergency preparedness networks are increasingly including satellite networks as part of their system design in order to ensure sufficient resiliency and costeffectiveness. Government and intergovernmental agencies use satellite networks to 

provide seismic, flood-sensing, and other early warning data. Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) have begun incorporating satellite back-up into their next generation 911 systems to cost-effectively mitigate potential network outage risks 

caused by any ground-based or environmental disruptions. 

I alluded earlier to the fact that satellites have been relying on the use of spectrum for many years, but this should not lead anyone to conclude that the industry 

has been doing anything but driving technology forward in exciting ways. So, let me 

say a word on innovation and growth. The satellite industry is today investing tens 

of billions of dollars to innovate and increase connectivity in the U.S. and across 

the globe. Specifically, even as demand for spectrum has increased, the satellite industry has developed ways to use this limited natural resource more efficiently. 

High throughput satellites, for example, rely on frequency re-use and spot beam 

technology to produce increased output factors upward of 20 times that of traditional satellites, meeting FCC benchmark broadband speeds. The industry has seen 

similar increases in the capacity of its systems. The first broadband satellite began 

service in 2008 with a capacity of 10 gigabits per second (Gbps) and today they have 

capacity of 180 Gbps or more. 

In another highly-anticipated advancement in the industry, hundreds of new highthroughput (non-geostationary) satellites will soon join existing operators in LowEarth and Medium-Earth orbits to provide additional high speed capacity at low latency levels. Existing high throughput satellites already support the delivery of 3G 

and 4G services, and in the future satellite fleets will be a part of a system architecture that delivers new 5G, IoT, and intelligent, connected transportation services to 

consumers. 

To expand further on another area of growth, mentioned at the outset, advances 

in commercial remote sensing satellites are also occurring at a rapid pace. SIA 

29 

Member companies are launching satellites that can view and sense the Earth 

across multiple spectral bands, at unparalleled spatial resolution and unprecedented 

global coverage and revisit rates. The U.S. industry’s capacity to monitor, evaluate, 

and understand change is allowing for more frequent insights into the impacts and 

opportunities of human activity in all aspects of life and business, and enabling a 

data revolution from space. Data from U.S. remote sensing operators are building 

new markets in agriculture, mapping, business intelligence, and weather prediction; 

they are supporting global efforts for humanitarian assistance and disaster response; and they are providing unique information to the U.S. national security 

community that, by virtue of it being commercial and unclassified, can be shared 

at critical times with our allies and partners. 

One final, general note on innovation: the satellite industry also helps drive our 

exploration of frontiers in science and space, ensuring American technological leadership continues in these increasingly competitive areas. 

Of course, all of the breakthroughs we’ve seen because of satellite technologies 

should not be taken for granted. They depend upon our industry’s ability to access 

spectrum. And here I would like to note that satellites can and often do operate in 

bands with other users. In most cases satellite networks have different—often higher—requirements for sharing. In order for our industry to sustain and meet the 

growing demand for satellite services, we encourage regulators to continue to allocate sufficient spectrum for satellite use. In a similar vein, we also ask the Senate 

and this Subcommittee to consider how to pursue a balanced approach to making 

additional spectrum available for future growth, that you ensure that satellite is a 

part of that equation. Together we have an opportunity to address the digital divide, 

meet the growing needs of U.S. consumers, ensure our country’s safety and national 

security, and do so in a manner that utilizes spectrum most efficiently. 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you and I am happy to answer any 

questions. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you, Mr. Stroup, and thank you all for 

your excellent testimony and for helping us by staying in the time. 

Now, as I explained earlier and I’ve gone over this also with consultation with Senator Schatz—I will now turn the gavel over to 

Senator Gardner, go vote, and immediately come back. At this 

point, I think it’s probably best to recognize Senator Schatz for 

questions, and then we’ll proceed along the list that has been prepared for us by our staff. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you, Chairman Wicker. 

My first question is for Mr. Heiner. The use of wireless devices 

in the unlicensed bands is so popular that the Wi-Fi Alliance predicts that we will need another 500 gigahertz of spectrum in the 

unlicensed bands to accommodate demands by 2025. I’m going to 

ask you three questions just in the interest of time so you can 

knock them all out in a row. 

Which bands are the most important for unlicensed spectrum 

today? What are the industry’s plans to identify more bands for unlicensed spectrum? And then do tech companies generally agree or 

differ greatly in terms of a strategy for the unlicensed bands? 

Mr. HEINER. Thank you for those questions, Senator Schatz. I’ll 

answer the first two sort of together. We very much need to find 

and sort of utilize as efficiently as possible additional unlicensed 

spectrum in the low, mid, and high-frequencies. At the low end, 

around the 600 megahertz, after the incentive auction, we have the 

possibility of really investing very heavily in TV white spaces technology. That’s technology that enables signals to travel quite a long 

distance, four or five miles. It’s only—think of, like, FM radio, 88 

to 108 on the dial. Of course, an FM station can cover the whole 

city—600 megahertz not far off from that. So at very low power, 

we’re able to serve an entire community. We have an example of 

this coming up in southern Virginia as a test pilot. 

30 

At the mid frequencies, that’s where most Wi-Fi is today, 2.4 and 

5 gigahertz, and that’s very good spectrum for within a home. It 

can penetrate a couple of walls. As you know, your signal falls off 

outside the home. But we’d like more contiguous spectrum next to 

what we already have to build out more channels. 

And then at the high end, at the millimeter waves, the recent 

Spectrum Frontiers proceeding at the FCC has opened up new 

spectrum, which we’re very enthused about. This spectrum can 

carry very heavy throughput, but only for short distances, so we’re 

talking about line of sight. And there are great applications for 

that technology to be able, for example, to have your PC connect 

to a monitor with no cables to stream video within the home, for 

augmented reality scenarios where you’re wearing a headset and 

devices in the room are actually communicating with the headset 

via these high millimeter waves. 

So we very much want to see it in all three bands. 

Senator SCHATZ. Mr. Heiner, in the interest of time, I’ll take the 

last question for the record so I can get to my second and final 

question. 

This is for Mr. Bergmann and Mr. LaPlatney. We all want faster 

Internet service and better wireless service coverage that will result from the current incentive auction. But at the same time, a lot 

of us are concerned that consumers would lose access to their local 

broadcast news if channels are forced off the air in the repacking 

process. So the question for Mr. Bergmann and Mr. LaPlatney is: 

Isn’t there a way to balance these concerns and make sure that 

member companies can deploy quickly after the auction while also 

protecting our constituents’ access to local news? 

Mr. Bergmann first. 

Mr. BERGMANN. Thank you, Senator. So we’re absolutely committed to a smooth transition process. We do believe it’s important 

to have timely access to that spectrum. We have confidence that 

the FCC will be able to stick to its 39-month schedule. The faster 

we get access to those bands, the faster we can invest, create jobs, 

and build out our 5G spectrum, and we’re very confident that we’ll 

be able to work collaboratively to get that done. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you very much. 

Mr. LaPlatney? 

Mr. LAPLATNEY. Thank you, Senator Schatz, again, for your 

question, and thank you for your leadership on a bill to help address these issues. We believe currently with the information we 

have that both the time and the financial resources are going to be 

inadequate, again, based on current information. Speaking for 

Raycom, we got our letter, our repack letter, about a month ago, 

and we will have 22 of our stations that will need to be repacked 

in markets from West Palm Beach, Florida, to Cape Girardeau, 

Missouri; Evansville, Indiana; and Hattiesburg—or, pardon me— 

Biloxi, Mississippi. 

It’s a complicated process. For instance, a couple of our markets 

will have to move from Channel 12 to Channel 8, and that could 

involve—it will involve putting a new antenna that’s going to weigh 

potentially thousands of pounds more on an existing tower. There’s 

all kinds of issues surrounding that. We’ve begun engineering studies already in a number of these markets. So we’re concerned about 

31 

the timeline. We’re concerned about the amount of money. But we 

will work collaboratively, and we’ll work as quickly as we can to 

move through the repack, to be as efficient and effective as we can 

in working on this. 

Senator SCHATZ. I’d just like to indulge the Chairman, if I could 

have his indulgence for a minute. 

Mr. Bergmann, can we have your commitment, yes or no, to 

working out a solution that accommodates these very serious concerns? 

Mr. BERGMANN. We’re absolutely committed to working with you, 

with our partners in the broadcast industry. Thirty-nine months is 

an eternity in the wireless industry. As you can imagine, after 

spending $20 billion to purchase something that’s essentially the 

value of T. Rowe Price or Hilton Hotels or Jet Blue two times over, 

we want to make sure to put that spectrum to good use. We’ll absolutely work collaboratively with you all to make that happen. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you. 

Senator GARDNER [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Schatz. 

Senator Klobuchar? 

STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. 

Thank you to all of you. I love that the broadcasters are having 

issues with the microphones. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I think we all know how important this 

topic is. We have a very active broadband caucus, and, in fact, Senator Capito and I led a letter that was signed by 48 Senators urging the President to include broadband in any kind of infrastructure package, because I think we could really have the potential of 

making something that’s progressing even much bigger. We’ve also 

been working on the dig once legislation with Senator Gardner and 

Senator Daines to make it easier to deploy broadband. But I specifically wanted to focus on rural issues. 

First, Mr. Bergmann, part of the MOBILE NOW Act that I 

worked on with Senator Fischer would require the FCC to explore 

ways to provide incentives for wireless carriers to lease unused 

spectrum. How could leasing or disaggregating spectrum in rural 

areas improve wireless service for rural customers? 

Mr. BERGMANN. Senator Klobuchar, thank you for the work that 

you and Senator Fischer have done on the Rural Spectrum Accessibility Act. We really think that’s a creative tool that can help. We 

recognize that our members compete to expand their service maps. 

They want to serve the entire country. They took LTE coverage 

from zero to over 99 percent in 7 years. But we recognize that rural 

areas have particular challenges, geography, topography, fewer 

people, and we really need to think creatively about how to get 

there. The legislation that you’ve worked on is a big part of that. 

Getting access to that 600 megahertz spectrum will be really important as well, too. It has those propagation characteristics that 

enable us to provide service in rural areas. So making sure we 

have that smooth and timely process to get that spectrum put to 

use is really important. 

32 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. Stroup, I am Co-Chair of the 911 Caucus and Senator Nelson 

and I actually have announced new legislation, the Next Generation 911 Act of 2017, to provide more Federal funding through the 

existing 911 Grant Program. As you know, everything is changing. 

911 people are now using—can have the ability for firefighters to 

get blueprints of buildings, and for people who get stranded in the 

woods of Minnesota, we could use location accuracy to find them. 

Can you explain how a satellite backup can improve the resiliency 

of Next Gen 911 systems? 

Mr. STROUP. The satellite networks today have ubiquitous coverage and the opportunity to provide backup communications, 

whether it’s in time of an emergency or when people are lost. So 

it is the ubiquitous nature of the coverage that allows them to be 

able to enhance these services that are provided by terrestrial providers. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

And then finally, Mr. LaPlatney, ensuring our communications 

networks can effectively support public safety includes natural disasters and emergency events—like we have flooding in North Dakota and Minnesota—and these kinds of things can destroy communications infrastructure. How can public safety be enhanced by 

a Next Generation TV standard? 

Mr. LAPLATNEY. So the Next Gen Television standard allows for 

better targeted alerts in emergencies, whether it’s flooding or tornadoes or hurricanes. It also has the capability to awake dormant 

televisions and mobile devices. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Did you just say awake dormant televisions? 

Mr. LAPLATNEY. Yes. Essentially—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I couldn’t just let that go. What does that 

mean? 

Mr. LAPLATNEY. That’s OK. You’re all over me today, Senator. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LAPLATNEY. So if you’re asleep at 3 in the morning and 

there’s a tornado bearing down on you, this technology has the capability to wake your phone up or wake your television up and say, 

‘‘You’re in the path of a storm. Please take cover.’’ 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Wow. So it would turn it on without your 

control. 

Mr. LAPLATNEY. Essentially, turn it on, awake it. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. All right. So this idea with the new standards with the 911 and what we’re working on here could help to 

make that more standard across the country? 

Mr. LAPLATNEY. Absolutely. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. Thank you, all of 

you. We’re excited about the possibilities on a bipartisan basis here 

to move forward on broadband as well as enhance 911 services. 

Senator GARDNER. Senator Cortez Masto? 

STATEMENT OF HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

33 

Gentlemen, thank you for joining us. As a new member, I’m excited to be working with you on this issue. First of all, let me just 

say thank you for the bipartisan willingness to work together. 

The broadcasters from Nevada—and I represent the great state 

of Nevada—have the same concerns that you just brought out 

today, and it’s nice to hear, Mr. Bergmann, you’re willing to work 

with them. So that’s something I will be paying attention to. 

And then my colleague talked about rural areas. The challenge 

for us in Nevada is getting access to wireless broadband, you name 

it, in our rural areas for so many needs, where we can bring telemedicine, we can bring education, we can bring behavioral services 

through broadband wireless to those areas. Thank you for your 

comments. 

I’m curious if there are any other areas you can see that we 

should be looking toward to incentivize and bring additional services through wireless, through spectrum, that we should be looking 

at in those rural areas. I know you addressed it with access to 600 

megahertz. Was there anything else that we should be looking to 

do to enhance the ability to bring those services to our rural areas? 

Mr. BERGMANN. Thank you, Senator Cortez Masto. Reaching 

rural areas does require creativity, and as I mentioned, the wireless industry invested $32 billion last year to try to build out and 

improve its networks. And just to assure you that we continue to 

expand that coverage footprint, just over the last 2 years, we added 

800,000 road miles to our coverage and over 500,000 citizens. So 

we continue to make that a priority. 

But you’re right. We have to be creative, in addition to, you 

know, creating incentives to share spectrum, and that happens 

today in the marketplace. Verizon has a very successful LTE in 

Rural America program, where it shares spectrum with smaller 

companies that serve rural areas. Incentivizing that is incredibly 

helpful. Having a robust mobility fund is important. So we commend FCC for adopting a mobility fund at its last open meeting 

and we look forward to that implementation. 

I would say, particularly in western states, siting on Federal 

lands is a real opportunity, where today, it can take 2 to 4 years 

to site on Federal lands. If we could speed that up, you reduce the 

cost, you make it easier to get out there and serve citizens who 

might be near areas with lots of Federal land. So those are just a 

couple of ideas. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. That’s very helpful. Thank you very 

much. 

Senator WICKER [presiding]. Thank you very much, Senator Cortez Masto. 

You know, I kind of felt like I would get a turn if we proceeded 

in this fashion. 

Let me start with you, Mr. Heiner. What’s the takeaway in terms 

of Federal policy coming out of this committee with regard to the 

unlicensed spectrum? Do we need to leave it like it is? What do we 

need to do? What decisions do we need to make from a legislative 

standpoint or from a standpoint of giving advice to our regulatory 

friends? 

Mr. HEINER. Well, a couple of points I was mentioning a minute 

ago, and so I won’t repeat it at length now. But we do need to enVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:10 Dec 06, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\27651.TXT JACKIE
34 

courage the FCC to enable unlicensed spectrum in the low bands, 

the mid bands, and the high bands. There are a couple of FCC proceedings that are open, and we look forward to their conclusion. 

In the incentive auction, for instance, which was a success in 

that 70 megahertz was made available for licensed use and 14 

megahertz for unlicensed use. We just need to finalize that and get 

the repacking of the broadcast stations done and try to do that in 

such a way that there are new unlicensed channels open that are 

open in every part of the country, including urban areas, so that 

the device manufacturers for TV white spaces devices will know 

that if they sell their device, it can be purchased and used any 

place. There are some open proceedings, I believe, also relating to 

2.4 gig and 5 gig, and then also up in the millimeter bands. So we 

need to see all of them sort of concluded in ways that encourage 

the unlicensed use. 

The only other point I would make is, you know, it’s important 

that we all work together in the unlicensed space to prevent interference to other users of the same frequencies, and it’s important 

that regulation not be so onerous that the effect of it is actually to 

block people from using the unlicensed spectrum. So we just need 

to find the right balance there. 

Senator WICKER. OK. I may ask other members of the panel if 

they’d like to weigh in on that issue. First, let me talk about another aspect of your testimony, and that is the data centers that 

constitute the cloud. Where are these data centers located? I understand a lot of them are right outside of town here. How safe are 

they? How safe is their infrastructure? Then I’ll ask other members 

of the panel to volunteer if they’d like to weigh in on either of these 

matters. 

Mr. HEINER. Well, thank you for that question. You know, we 

have—— 

Senator WICKER. It’s not up in the air somewhere, is it? 

Mr. HEINER. Yes, it’s—— 

Senator WICKER. It’s a big building. 

Mr. HEINER. What happens is people used to go to the white 

board and say, like, you know, we’re going to connect to a server 

someplace, and they would draw like an image of a cloud, and then 

it became—you know, that’s the cloud. The data centers are on the 

ground. They are massive—— 

Senator WICKER. This could be front page news tomorrow. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HEINER. They are massive, massive buildings with just racks 

and racks and racks of servers. You know, we have one in Washington State on the Columbia River, and the idea is to get hydroelectric power, you know, which is cheap and efficient. But we have 

about 100 data centers around the world. We try to have them 

close to—spread around the world to reduce latency, so that, you 

know, we have a very fast connection to customers wherever they 

are. 

These are highly, highly secure facilities. People sometimes 

worry about, ‘‘Gee, if my data is in these facilities, are they safe? 

Is it safer if I keep the data at home?’’ Our point of view is really 

that it’s sort of like is your data safe—is your money safe in a 

bank, or is it safer under the mattress? And, actually, it’s safer if 

35 

it’s professionally managed. So we put tremendous resources into 

ensuring that security of those systems. 

Senator WICKER. If somebody launches a rocket propelled grenade at my bank, I’m not going to lose my money. What if they attack the fibers that connect to these data centers? Also help me 

out—where are the bulk of them? You told me where yours are. If 

you could answer those two—— 

Mr. HEINER. Well, they are spread around the world. In terms 

of the effect of an attack on any one data center, all the data is 

replicated and backed up in a professional way to many, many 

other locations, and so that shouldn’t be a concern. In terms of 

where they’re located, it really is all over the world. The leaders 

in running these data centers, of course, are Microsoft, Amazon, 

which has Amazon web services, and Google, and they all have 

their own policies on where they site them. 

Senator WICKER. OK. Is there any other member of the panel 

who would like to talk about either unlicensed spectrum or the 

data centers that comprise the cloud? 

Mr. Stroup, were you raising your hand? 

Mr. STROUP. Actually, I was. This is somewhat related to the 

question relating to the information in the cloud. One member on 

the panel whose members provide service above the cloud—one of 

the great advantages in times of emergency is that infrastructure 

is protected from the kinds of attacks that you mentioned or natural disasters. So that directly going to the point that you had 

raised in terms of data in the cloud. It does go to the security of 

the information in the communications networks. 

Senator WICKER. Yes, sir, Mr. Bergmann. 

Mr. BERGMANN. Chairman Wicker, just to the question about 

providing both licensed and unlicensed spectrum, we believe that’s 

important as well, too. The wireless industry relies on unlicensed 

spectrum and looks to launch new services in unlicensed bands. I 

would just encourage this committee to continue to focus on the 

needs for licensed spectrum as well, too, particularly as we look towards 5G. 

We’re looking for high bands as an initial platform for 5G services, and so one of the things that we want to make sure of is that 

we have enough high band spectrum in large channels, large contiguous channels. So even after the FCC adopted its Spectrum 

Frontiers order last year, there are now 14 gigahertz of spectrum 

for unlicensed use in the high bands and just under four for licensed spectrum in the high bands. 

So we really want to make sure that we have enough spectrum 

there so that we can invest—again, the industry is looking to invest $250 billion over the next 7 years, creating 3 million jobs, really enabling us to take that 5G lead. So we just encourage you all 

to prioritize both of those. 

Senator WICKER. What, if any, recommendations do you have to 

the FCC in this regard? 

Mr. BERGMANN. We would love it if the FCC would move forward 

with its further notice, where it’s teed up 18 additional gigahertz 

of high band spectrum that could be used for 5G services, and we 

really want to make sure that the FCC prioritizes licensed specVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:10 Dec 06, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\27651.TXT JACKIE
36 

trum and make sure that we have enough to maintain that leadership as we move from 4G into 5G. 

Senator WICKER. Mr. LaPlatney, you emphasized Next Generation TV in your testimony. What needs to happen at the Federal 

level to help your goals become a reality? 

Mr. LAPLATNEY. Thank you for the question, Senator Wicker. 

There is an NPRM out there currently. I believe we’re in a comment period. And I think the short answer to your question is just 

continued oversight by this committee. It would be the hope of the 

industry—— 

Senator WICKER. That would be a Notice of Proposed Rule Making. 

Mr. LAPLATNEY. Correct. I’m sorry. Notice of Proposed Rule Making—thank you—at the FCC. We’re in a comment period now. We 

expect that comment period to end sometime during the summer, 

and it would be our hope that the standard would be adopted sometime during the fall. 

Senator WICKER. Have you made recommendations? Have you responded to this notice with suggestions? 

Mr. LAPLATNEY. Yes, sir. I think a number of industry participants have. 

Senator WICKER. Anyone else? 

[No verbal response.] 

Senator WICKER. OK. Well, Mr. Bergmann, many industries are 

leveraging digital platforms for innovation and growth in 

healthcare. It’s a very exciting area in which we are actually helping people lead longer and more meaningful lives. In Mississippi, 

there’s a great example of this called the Diabetes Telehealth Network. It provides patients with remote care management, resulting 

in cost savings of over $300,000 for only 100 patients. Of course, 

we would like to write this large. If expanded, this program could 

save Medicaid $189 million. 

How do we ensure that there’s sufficient spectrum available to 

continue to fuel this innovation in tele-medicine and provide quality healthcare access to all Americans regardless of where they 

live? 

Mr. BERGMANN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We certainly agree 

with you. mHealth is one of the most promising applications that 

5G looks to bring. Whether we’re talking about remote patient 

monitoring, chronic disease management, there are tremendous opportunities to cut costs, as you mentioned, but to also improve outcomes, to save lives and make sure that patients have a better 

quality of life. So just a couple of things that this committee can 

do, again, focusing on making spectrum available in low, mid, and 

high bands, making sure that we have licensed spectrum that enables us to provide those guarantees of performance, that reliability 

and security that we really want to have out of our health applications. 

And then maybe a sometimes overlooked aspect is infrastructure 

siting, particularly as we look to build out high band spectrum 

which will have that incredible capacity, five times the responsiveness, 10 times the speeds of what we have today. It’s important 

that we have this new 5G infrastructure. So being able to site 

37 

those small cells quickly and without unnecessary costs or delays 

is really important. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you. Anyone else want to talk about 

telehealth? 

Yes, sir, Mr. Heiner. 

Mr. HEINER. Just one additional comment, which is that the TV 

white spaces technology could also be very helpful for telemedicine, 

because it has the capability, as I mentioned earlier, of sending signals over long distances. And, in fact, Microsoft has a system up 

and running in Botswana, where circumstances can be difficult, 

specifically focused on telemedicine, and in this way, the doctors in 

the more urban areas are able to reach out to patients in rural 

areas. 

Senator WICKER. Now, the administration believes, and I support, certainly, in a general sense, the idea that regulations many 

times, though well intended, have stifled job creation, and that we 

need regulatory reform, not only from the standpoint of legislation, 

but also coming out of the administration. So would each of you 

five experts give us the benefit of some recommendations, two or 

three recommendations, that you might send to the administration 

for regulatory reform in the early months of this administration? 

Mr. Bergmann? 

Mr. BERGMANN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So just a couple of 

thoughts. Certainly, two places where we would appreciate this 

committee’s guidance are with respect to the privacy regulations 

and the open Internet regulations that the past FCC adopted; in 

the case of privacy, where the FCC departed from longstanding 

FTC precedent; in the case of Title II, where public utility regulation was applied to broadband services. Both of these areas are 

places where we believe the Committee can help guide the FCC. 

A third area, as we look forward toward things like the Internet 

of Things, making sure that we have consistent national framework 

to guide innovation in that space is very important for the future 

growth of those services. 

Senator WICKER. Let me make sure I understand what you’re 

saying with regard to Title II. It’s your view that the FCC made 

a mistake in that regard in recent years and that that should be 

turned around? 

Mr. BERGMANN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We’re certainly very encouraged to hear Chairman Pai talk about reversing that decision and 

recognizing the competition and the innovation that’s happening in 

the mobile broadband space. 

Senator WICKER. All right. Mr. Entner? 

Mr. ENTNER. Thank you, Chairman. In my opinion, the American 

people have benefited tremendously from a light touch regulatory 

approach to telecom and technology, in general, and the growth 

speaks for itself. I think we should return to light touch regulation 

and make it possible for companies across the whole competitive 

environment to compete with each other. Competition is really the 

lifeblood here of the industry, and Americans have benefited tremendously from it. I think that’s the importance here, that the 

same rules apply to everybody the same way, no matter how they 

compete with each other with similar services. 

38 

Senator WICKER. With regard to returning to light touch, would 

you agree with Mr. Bergmann on the Title II issue? 

Mr. ENTNER. I would. 

Senator WICKER. All right. Now, members of the public should 

know that the panel is a panel suggested by both the Republican 

and Democratic membership of this committee. It’s not a one-sided 

show at all. 

Would anyone care to take issue with either Mr. Bergmann or 

Mr. Entner with regard to the Title II issue? 

[No verbal response.] 

Senator WICKER. All right. What suggestions do you have for policymakers, the administration, Congress, or the regulators with regard to regulatory reform? 

Mr. HEINER. So I would just focus on unlicensed spectrum, which 

is already a success story in terms of the very low regulation that 

those bands entail. That low regulation means that barriers to 

entry for innovators are incredibly low. Anybody can, you know, 

dream up some device and transmit on the frequencies with almost 

no regulation. So I would just urge the Congress and the FCC to 

continue to maintain that approach, which is a proven success, and 

expand to the extent possible the amount of bandwidth available 

to unlicensed spectrum. 

On the net neutrality point, I would just say that Microsoft very 

much supports the core principles of net neutrality, would like to 

see it enshrined, however that’s done. The specifics around Title II 

is not something that’s at all important to us. 

Senator WICKER. Mr. LaPlatney, do you have anything to add? 

Mr. LAPLATNEY. Yes, Senator Wicker. The broadcast industry is 

highly regulated, and we would love to see the FCC take up local 

ownership rules, the local media ownership rules. We think 

there’s—whether it’s the newspaper or broadcast press ownership 

or the local duopoly rule, we think that those rules—it’s time for 

those rules to be revisited. So that would be our suggestion. 

Senator WICKER. Mr. Stroup? 

Mr. STROUP. Yes. First, I’d like to commend the FCC for many 

of the modifications they made to the Part 25 rules last year, working with the industry. However, we would like to see them make 

some modifications to the restrictions on the industry that were 

adopted in the Spectrum Frontiers proceeding on where we can locate our Earth stations, and, of course, going to the core of this proceeding, ensuring that there is sufficient spectrum made available 

for the growth of the industry. 

Another area that we would recommend relates to export reform. 

Fortunately, a number of the ITAR restrictions were removed, allowing manufacturers of satellites to export and compete in the 

market on a worldwide basis. But there were some restrictions that 

remain with respect to Earth imaging, and we would request that 

that be revisited. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you very much. 

Ranking Member Schatz, I’ve tried my best to stir up a disagreement among these panelists, and I’m having an awful time doing 

it. So I’ll yield to you for a few questions. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you need disagreement, I think I can provide it for you. 

39 

My additional question is for Mr. Bergmann. The U.S. has been 

a global leader in the development of mobile technology, and there 

has been a lot of anticipation for the implementation of 5G. In fact, 

the Committee passed MOBILE NOW in January, which will make 

additional spectrum available for 5G networks. 

My question for you, Mr. Bergmann, is can you put this in a 

global context in terms of how we are viewed in the highly competitive world of international technology companies and why it’s so 

important for the United States to lead on 5G? 

Mr. BERGMANN. Thank you, Senator Schatz. We are clearly recognized as the world’s leader in 4G LTE. We invested first, innovated first, and that’s paid dividends over the last 7 years. If you 

look at the mobile ecosystem, the two largest operating systems are 

both based here in the U.S. A stunning 76 percent of apps developers are located here in the U.S. So we think it’s paid tremendous 

dividends in terms of innovation. We believe that 5G has seen more 

greater opportunities as we look at these services that have much 

greater capacity to impact industries across the economy and our 

consumers’ lives. 

So there truly is a global race. I mentioned some of the other 

countries around the world that are taking steps to make large 

swaths of spectrum available and to streamline the way that they 

site that infrastructure and architecture. So it’s really critical that 

we do the same here in the U.S. 

Senator SCHATZ. Can you flesh out what those new opportunities 

are as opposed to the last generation? 

Mr. BERGMANN. Sure. So, you know, if we look at healthcare, you 

look at the opportunity to have remote patient monitoring or chronic disease management, or, as you look at the ability to use high 

band spectrum, we have the opportunity to have ultra HD, so you 

might have remote surgery and be able to extend the reach of expert doctors beyond urban centers into rural areas. 

Similarly, in the education space, where you might have virtual 

reality applications that allow students in Hawaii to, in the blink 

of an eye, be in the center of the Roman Coliseum. There are tremendous opportunities in transportation and energy as well, too, 

where we have the ability to cut traffic times, reduce fatalities, cut 

emissions. There are tremendous opportunities associated with 

that. 

Senator SCHATZ. So could you give me a status report? Where are 

we? Who are our greatest competitors? Who is on top of this? Are 

we already behind? Just tell me where we are. 

Mr. BERGMANN. I think we’re really poised to lead. The FCC’s actions to make that high band spectrum available have led to over 

two dozen trials here in the U.S. Companies have already invested 

in R&D. So we’re out ahead of the standards process. One of our 

member companies announced just earlier this week a pilot program to offer 5G services in 11 different markets. So I think we’re 

very much poised to lead. But it is a race, and it will be important 

that we make the right policy decisions here. 

Senator SCHATZ. Who are we in a race with? 

Mr. BERGMANN. Japan, the EU, South Korea, China. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you. Anyone else care to comment on 

that? 

40 

Mr. Entner? 

Mr. ENTNER. Thank you, Senator. I want to highlight the importance of configuring the spectrum in large channel configurations, 

because think of these channels as like water pipes, and the bigger 

the pipe, the faster the speed. In the United States, spectrum is 

typically allocated in 5 by 5 or 10 by 10 megahertz channels. Overseas, it is in 20 by 20 megahertz channels very frequently. 

And, inherently, how you can provide for speed is you have now 

carrier aggregation, where you essentially can glue three of these 

pipes together, three of these channels, and if you glue together 

three 5 by 5s, it gives you 15 megahertz of spectrum as one channel. Or if you glue together three 20 by 20s, that’s 60. Inherently, 

whoever has the 20 by 20s will be four times faster, and that is 

a really important consideration to keep the U.S. competitive with 

the rest of the world. 

Senator SCHATZ. And is one of our unique challenges the spectrum currently allocated, I think, appropriately, to national security and other needs, that maybe not every country has quite that 

obligation and quite that same public policy? 

Mr. ENTNER. It is within the existing spectrum, not necessarily 

about different and new spectrum. It’s just like when we have spectrum, how do we divide up that spectrum? 

Senator SCHATZ. Oh, this is within the bands that are allocated. 

Mr. ENTNER. Correct. 

Senator SCHATZ. Is that an FCC decision that has to be made, 

or are these technical changes that can be made at the operating 

level? 

Mr. ENTNER. Initially, it’s an FCC decision of how they are allocating the spectrum. If through pure happenstance, a company 

wins several licenses in the market, and they lie next to each other, 

they can create this. But that doesn’t happen very often. So 

through regulatory foresight, this problem can be alleviated. 

Senator SCHATZ. OK. Thank you very much. 

A question for Mr. LaPlatney. I want to talk to you about the 

Next Gen TV. You know, I understand the transition that was 

made from analog to digital and the consumer benefits, the economic benefits, and the need to sort of subsidize that transition. As 

a television watcher, I can understand the desire for better and 

better TV, more and more cross platform utility, and sharper and 

sharper resolution. 

But I’m not yet persuaded that this is as fundamental of a shift 

as the analog to digital shift was, and I want to be persuaded of 

how revolutionary this technology is, because I’m not there yet. So 

give me your best shot. 

Mr. LAPLATNEY. Well, so I think the best way to explain it, you 

know, is the points we talked about earlier. So there’s the ability 

in this standard to better target emergency warnings, including 

turning on devices, which I think is so far removed from what we 

can do today. I think that’s a much larger step than the analog to 

digital. I think also the standard, because of the hybrid IP broadcast architecture—— 

Senator WICKER. Can I just interrupt there? 

Senator SCHATZ. What’s that? 

41 

Senator WICKER. Let me just interrupt there. So what you’re saying is I’ve got a device on my night stand, and suddenly there’s a 

tornado. So what happens? 

Mr. LAPLATNEY. So we could alert your phone. 

Senator WICKER. So it turns my phone—— 

Mr. LAPLATNEY. On. If it has power, it would turn your phone 

on, and there would be an alert that would come up and say, ‘‘You 

are in the path of a storm’’ or ‘‘You’re in imminent danger. Take 

cover immediately.’’ In fact, you know, the tornadoes that went 

through Hattiesburg back on the twenty-first of January—if we 

would have had that technology, I believe we could have saved 

some lives. 

Senator WICKER. Nobody has that technology now? 

Mr. LAPLATNEY. That technology is—we can alert, but this technology allows us to target much more effectively. So, as an example, today’s alerts sometimes conform to county lines, and as a tornado moves through geography, it doesn’t conform to county lines. 

So you could alert just those consumers in the path of the storm, 

the polygon in front of the storm, as opposed to Montgomery County and Prince George’s County. It’s a much more targeted alert that 

would be more effective. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you, Senator Schatz, for letting me 

interject there. 

Senator SCHATZ. So I want to understand—when you talk about 

Next Gen TV, it sounds like a platform that’s integrating several 

different kinds of new technology, because this ability to turn on 

your device for civil defense, this preparedness purpose, is not 

the—I mean, that’s not the central technology that I was thinking 

of when I hear about the Next Gen TV. 

Mr. LAPLATNEY. Again, it’s a hybrid broadcast standard, so it allows better, more relevant advertising for our viewers and users, 

and that, I think, is important to the broadcast industry, because, 

currently, our targeting capabilities are way behind our friends 

over on the mobile side or the cable folks or Facebook or Google. 

And, you know, in a given market today, Facebook or Google could 

take 40 percent, 50 percent, 60 percent of the advertising revenue 

to market. So there’s that capability. 

It also offers the ability for a user to have a more Hulu or Netflix 

type of experience. So you have a dropdown menu, and you want 

to know what the score is of some game other than the one you’re 

watching, or you want to know who that actor is. It allows that 

type of interaction. And then it also—you know, it can transmit to 

suitably equipped mobile devices, which I think for our industry is 

almost a game changer. As you know, the growth—— 

Senator SCHATZ. It can transmit from the TV to—— 

Mr. LAPLATNEY. Tower. 

Senator SCHATZ. Oh, from the tower to any platform, a tablet or 

whatever it may be. 

Mr. LAPLATNEY. Right, if it has a 3.0 chip in it. So it would have 

to have a—— 

Senator SCHATZ. Aren’t there other ways to do that right now? 

Mr. LAPLATNEY. There are ways to get a signal—— 

Senator SCHATZ. To get TV on your tablet, right? 

42 

Mr. LAPLATNEY. You can, but it’s over IP, essentially. So this is 

broadcast, and I think the key there is that if you—and having four 

boys, I can tell you that we have data cap issues in our house. And, 

you know, if somebody wants to watch movies over 3.0, it’s not 

going to hit their data cap. So if they’re consuming a lot of 

video—— 

Senator SCHATZ. Having one boy, I like it when we hit our cap. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LAPLATNEY. So there are a number of different capabilities, 

and it really is a—it’s a game changer for the industry. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you very much. 

Senator Fischer? 

STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Senator Schatz. 

Senator Hassan? 

STATEMENT OF HON. MAGGIE HASSAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Senator HASSAN. Thank you, Senator Fischer, and thank you to 

all of the panelists. I, too, apologize for us being in and out on this 

morning of votes. 

Mr. Heiner, I wanted to follow up a little bit on your testimony 

where you advocated for a balanced, all-of-the-above approach to 

spectrum policy, and I can’t agree more. I think Granite Staters 

and folks around the country benefit most when we have both licensed and unlicensed spectrum available to them. You know, you 

talked about the example, I think, of the wireless phone industry. 

I know that data from Cisco shows that 60 percent of wireless traffic was offloaded onto Wi-Fi networks last year, which helped create a positive consumer experience where network traffic was alleviated, and the industry all around thrived as a result. 

So can you elaborate a little bit more specifically on how a balanced, all-of-the-above approach to national spectrum policy that 

includes both licensed and unlicensed spectrum will benefit rural 

communities, specifically? 

Mr. HEINER. Yes, I’d be happy to, and thank you very much for 

the question. Mr. Bergmann was describing just a few minutes ago 

the possibilities of greater access for rural communities through 5G 

and new spectrum, and what I would focus on as well, then, is the 

possibility of using TV white spaces technology. 

So this is in the 600 megahertz band, where some new spectrum 

was made available as a result of the incentive auction, and this 

band has propagation characteristics such that—at very low power 

and so, you know, low cost. A transmitter can serve quite a large 

community. 

So, for instance, we have this trial running—we’re getting it running—in southern Virginia, where the school has fixed broadband 

access, so a wired connection. The students are dispersed around 

that rural area, and through just a series of just a handful of transmitters, we will be able to reach 7,200 kids and thereby address 

the homework gap. So in that region, half the kids do have 

broadband at home and half the kids don’t. 

43 

So the concept is you give each of those—the kids who don’t— this little device that will only cost about $50, and it picks up the 

TV white spaces signal and basically turns it into a Wi-Fi signal. 

So in this manner, we can help to address the homework gap. 

Senator HASSAN. That’s fabulous. And I expect that there would 

be telehealth applications as well? 

Mr. HEINER. There would be. I mean, we were just actually discussing that a minute ago. We have a trial in Botswana, actually, 

specifically focused on telemedicine, and we’re bringing doctors, you 

know, in the urban areas to patients in the rural areas through 

this technology. 

Senator HASSAN. Thank you very much. 

I wanted to follow up, too, with Mr. LaPlatney, because I am 

strongly supportive of the recent spectrum auction. I think it holds 

great promise for innovation and our economy, and I’m pleased to 

see it moving forward. You’ve talked this morning about some of 

the challenges that broadcast stations face as they need to move to 

different frequencies and to what I’m learning as an industry term, 

repack. I’ve been talking with broadcasters in New Hampshire and 

across the country, and I know we all want to make sure we’re prepared. 

I wanted to just focus a little bit on the issue for radio stations— 

I know we’ve talked about television broadcasting—but, in particular, those that share towers with television stations. I’m concerned that they could be negatively impacted or temporarily go off 

the air. If so, are there any resources or recourse available, or is 

there more that needs to be done to address the issue for radio, in 

particular? 

Mr. LAPLATNEY. Thanks for your question. There are a number 

of towers, television towers, that have radio occupants throughout 

the country. During the repack process, when we have tower 

riggers climbing up and down towers, there will be times where 

those radio antennas will be powered down or shut off. So it’s a 

real issue. It could be for hours at a time or for days at a time. 

So I do think something needs to be done. I really think it just 

underscores the need for the FCC to take up a rational approach 

to the repack, and I know that the members of the NAB are currently in conversation with folks at the FCC around—talking about 

this issue and trying to come up with some answers. 

Senator HASSAN. Thank you very much. 

Senator GARDNER [presiding]. I see the Chairman of the Full 

Committee, Senator Thune, has arrived. 

Senator Thune? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the 

Subcommittee having this hearing and putting together such an excellent panel. 

I just want to say how much I appreciate the work that you all 

do connecting people across the country from remote rural areas to 

cities to each other and the world and providing education, entertainment, and public safety services, which contributes greatly to 

the economy and to the quality of life of every American. You all 

44 

drive the innovation and investment that’s made the United States 

a leader in advanced wireless technology. Our job in Congress is to 

make sure that, consistent with our national security and public 

welfare obligations, the market has access to spectrum and that industry is not unduly burdened when getting the spectrum into 

service. 

This committee reported out a bill here recently called the MOBILE NOW Act, and that makes a down payment on that obligation. It would make available 255 megahertz of prime spectrum, 

both licensed and unlicensed, in the next three years, but that really is just the beginning. To meet America’s demand for mobile 

broadband, it’s estimated that the wireless industry will need more 

than 350 megahertz of new licensed spectrum by 2019. 

The MOBILE NOW Act would direct the FCC and NTIA to study 

the potential for commercial service in a number of additional spectrum bands, but having access to spectrum is only part of the challenge. It can take years and tremendous investment to deploy new 

wireless services, and so the bill also streamlines the process of applying for easements, rights-of-way, and leases for federally managed property and establishes a shot-clock for review of those applications, which we think is something that’s essential. 

MOBILE NOW would also establish a national broadband facilities asset database listing Federal property that could be used by 

private entities for the purpose of building or operating communications facilities. I’m hoping we can get the bill passed. I look forward to the full Senate acting on that in the coming weeks and I’m 

very much focused on working with our colleagues on this committee and the entire Senate and the House in making the next 

payment toward America’s wireless leadership. 

I just have one quick question I want to ask, and I want to direct 

this to Mr. Bergmann. The widespread deployment of small cells is 

a massive undertaking for companies and also for state and local 

officials. Are there opportunities for companies and government officials to work collaboratively and to streamline the approval process so that it focuses only on sitings that raise significant deployment issues? 

Mr. BERGMANN. So, thank you, Chairman Thune, and we certainly commend you and Ranking Member Nelson and the Committee for the work on MOBILE NOW, and that focus on infrastructure is tremendously important as we look to lead in that race 

to 5G, and, certainly, small cell deployment is an absolutely critical 

part of that equation. Our companies are looking to deploy hundreds of thousands of small cells to deliver that high-capacity service, and being able to move quickly is something that will reduce 

costs and enable us to move faster. 

Right now, today, there are challenges both with the local zoning 

process and, as you mentioned, with Federal agencies. So we would 

certainly appreciate this committee’s attention to finding opportunities to right-size that process so that we exclude small cells, 

where appropriate, that are the size of a pizza box or a lunch box. 

I don’t think anyone thinks that the process that applies to a 200- 

foot tower should apply when you’re putting a lunch box on top of 

an existing building. 

45 

So we would love to work with you to try to find opportunities 

to speed those deployments. In the end, what it will mean is $275 

billion of investment and 3 million jobs. So it’s a real priority. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. We appreciate that. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you, and thanks again for the opportunity 

to speak at this hearing. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CORY GARDNER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Thune. 

I’m going to go ahead and take my questions now, and then Senator Udall is after this. 

Mr. Entner, recently, in my home state of Colorado, a company 

announced that they would be pursuing a launch of a 5G pilot 

project in Denver, bringing us closer to the next generation of wireless 5G. Of course, companies have to evaluate or reevaluate their 

spectrum holdings to determine how best to play a role in this 

wireless innovation. As you talk about in your testimony, high, 

mid, and low band spectrum will all be critical to building the next 

generation of wireless service. 

What are some of the specific bands you believe could help advance this effort? I know Mr. Heiner was asked a similar question. 

But could you elaborate a little bit further? 

Mr. ENTNER. Thank you. We could certainly use more spectrum 

below 1 gigahertz, as it is ideal to penetrate walls and cover rural 

areas. Adjacent to the current bands would be most appropriate. 

When we look at mid spectrum again here, bands that are currently idle or largely idle would be appropriate around navigation, 

for example, and then the large swaths in the millimeter band that 

are actually unused at this time should also be brought in, and the 

FCC has several proposals here on this space. 

I just want to bring to the attention of the Committee—you 

know, over the last few weeks, all the wireless carriers have reintroduced unlimited plans so that people like the fellow witnesses 

here no longer have the problem with data caps. I think it is 

unappreciated what impact it will have, actually, on spectrum. 

When we look at LTE, we currently are getting faster speeds 

from our mobile networks than we get from Wi-Fi. And when unlimited is now back, the whole incentive of using Wi-Fi has been 

diminished significantly, because there is no cost advantage anymore to shifting over to Wi-Fi. That will drive, really, the demand 

for licensed spectrum further, and that’s why we need more spectrum. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Entner. 

Mr. Bergmann, while the United States is a global leader, as 

we’ve discussed today, in wireless service, other nations are quickly 

catching up and trying to exceed advances in this space, particularly nations like South Korea and Japan. It’s important that we 

retain our competitive advantage by being number one in the 

world, and wireless technologies rely on spectrum to operate. That’s 

going to mean we need even more spectrum than currently available for commercial and nonfederal users, and that’s why I support 

freeing up more Federal Government spectrum for such uses. 

46 

What do you think the impact on American competitiveness 

would be if we don’t have adequate spectrum in the pipeline? 

Mr. BERGMANN. Thank you, Senator Gardner. What we’re seeing 

is more wireless being integrated into every major sector of the 

economy. We talked a little bit earlier about energy, transportation, 

and healthcare. These are places where our leadership in 4G gave 

us tremendous advantages. An apps economy that didn’t exist 7 

years ago now employs over 1.6 million people. So we want to make 

sure that in that race to 5G with even more capabilities, we’re out 

in front, and that we keep innovation here in the U.S. That’s why 

the work that you all are doing on spectrum, on infrastructure 

siting is really critical. 

Senator WICKER [presiding]. Thank you. 

Next is Senator Moran. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MORAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS 

Senator MORAN. Chairman, thank you very much. 

Thank you all for being here. Let me start with Mr. Bergmann, 

and I apologize for my absence for your testimony and also most 

of the questioning, so you may be repeating in answering me something that’s already been asked. We’ve paid a lot of attention to 

spectrum issues and want to make sure that good things are happening. 

Last summer, the FCC identified several high bands in their 

Spectrum Frontier proceedings. Did the FCC do enough, or is there 

a need for additional high band spectrum above 24 gigahertz for 

terrestrial mobile systems? What else can be done to ensure? 

Mr. BERGMANN. Thank you, Senator Moran. The FCC’s action in 

the Spectrum Frontiers proceeding to make that high band spectrum available is really important. That’s going to be the initial 

platform where 5G services are tested and launched. So that’s an 

important step. I really commend this committee for your focus on 

additional bands, and at the FCC, the leadership of Chairman Pai, 

Commissioner O’Rielly, Commissioner Clyburn, all of whom have 

talked about the importance of high band spectrum. They have a 

proceeding now where they’ve proposed to make 18 additional 

gigahertz of high band spectrum available, and that’s spectrum 

that will deliver speeds that are 10 times what we have today, 

services that are five times more responsive—and when you think 

about applications like self-driving cars, you want to make sure 

that you have responsive services—and the ability to connect 100 

times the devices that we have today. 

So as we think about the Internet of Things and what that will 

open up in terms of opportunities for savings in the energy sector, 

there’s tremendous potential from that high band spectrum. Making sure that we get that to market quickly, that we have large 

contiguous channels, as my co-panelists have said, and that we 

have an emphasis on licensed spectrum that will allow us to provide that performance, provide that reliability, and that security 

that we expect out of those kinds of healthcare and other services 

is really critical. 

Senator MORAN. Let me turn to Mr. Heiner in regard to unlicensed spectrum. Senator Schatz and I have worked on trying to 

47 

encourage a balanced approach to licensed and unlicensed spectrum. Let me ask you about the continued demand for unlicensed 

spectrum, I assume growing at exponential rates. Where do we 

look? What bands might we find? 

Mr. HEINER. Well, the demand is growing, you know, very, very 

rapidly. We do need to look across all three bands: low, middle, and 

high. Low, I’ve explained a little bit. It gives us the opportunity for 

TV white-spaces technology to serve rural areas, and it can work 

in urban areas as well. In the mid-range, that’s where we have the 

existing technology at 2.4 and 5 gig, and there are opportunities 

there to expand those bands. 

And then in the millimeter bands, you know, we’re very enthused 

by the Spectrum Frontiers proceeding where spectrum was opened 

up between 57 and, I think, 72 gigahertz. And as Mr. Entner was 

saying, with that much spectrum, there’s the possibility of setting 

up wider channels. Those wider channels have more throughput, 

and so it’s a very efficient use of technology. 

A new standard has been developed. This is the industry coming 

together on a consensus basis through a standard setting body and 

creating a standard beyond Wi-Fi called WiGig, and the Gig is for 

very high throughput. And I believe that standard requires the 160 

megahertz channels, which the millimeter bands can afford. So 

we’re very enthused about that. 

Senator MORAN. Keep looking is your answer, and look everywhere. 

Mr. HEINER. And keep—that’s right. 

Senator MORAN. Let me turn to Mr. LaPlatney. Although I didn’t 

hear your testimony, I’m astute enough to know that you mentioned my name, so thank you. Senator Schatz and I have been 

working on an issue of importance. I come from a place in which 

getting broadband opportunities to rural America is significantly 

important. Spectrum matters to us, but so does community broadcasting. 

I want to indicate that we want to be in a position to make certain that good things happen in this repack process. What’s going 

on that has a consequence on next-generation technologies in your 

world? 

Mr. LAPLATNEY. Well, so we are in the early stages of the repack. 

We talked a little earlier about, you know, broadcasters now doing 

engineering studies, and it appears, based on current data, that 

there will be 1,000 to 1,100 stations repacked, which is a pretty significant number. So we, as of today, believe that the amount of 

time we have to complete the repack and the amount of money we 

have is insufficient. So we will appreciate your continued oversight, 

and as we get more information, we will certainly pass that along, 

but we have some concerns today. That said, we will do everything 

we can to make sure that if there’s a way to do it in 39 months, 

we’re going to do it. 

Senator MORAN. I appreciate that. I think I would back the idea 

that there’s any desire to slow this process down. We all want it 

to work very quickly for the benefit of all. 

Mr. LAPLATNEY. Absolutely. 

Senator MORAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you, Senator Moran. 

48 

Senator Udall? 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. Chairman Wicker, thank you so much. 

This has been a fascinating panel, I think, with a lot of excellent 

testimony. So thank you for bearing with us in the middle of the 

vote and continuing here. 

As you all know, today, there are more wireless devices than 

there are people in the United States, and with so many new wireless devices connecting to the Internet, we could face a spectrum 

crunch that could hinder the next Internet revolution. That’s why 

I’m pleased that my Spectrum Challenge Prize Act has been approved by this committee. This contest would provide a significant 

monetary award to the first person who finds a way to make spectrum use vastly more efficient. This approach helps incentivize 

more innovators and researchers to focus on the problem and will 

help use American ingenuity to solve it. 

Chairman Wicker, I’m also pleased that Mr. LaPlatney is here to 

give a broadcaster’s perspective. We tend to forget that broadcasting is our first wireless technology and is still relevant today. 

Mr. Bergmann, my first question is for you. Senator Moran and 

I worked in 2015 to reform the Spectrum Relocation Fund. This 

multimillion dollar fund pays the cost of relocating Federal users 

when a particular spectrum band is auctioned for commercial use. 

The Spectrum Pipeline Act made $500 million of existing money 

available for R&D and pilot projects that could lead to more efficient Federal use of spectrum. Last year, OMB issued guidance to 

agencies for proposing plans to use these funds. 

Mr. Bergmann, do you agree that the OMB should continue to 

make Spectrum Reallocation Fund resources available to Federal 

agencies that are exploring how to use spectrum more efficiently? 

Mr. BERGMANN. Senator Udall, we truly appreciate the work that 

you and Senator Moran have done to improve the Spectrum Relocation Fund. That’s a really important tool for making sure that 

there are the right incentives and opportunities for win-win solutions to put spectrum to efficient use. We know that Federal agencies have exclusive or primary access to somewhere between 60 

percent to 70 percent of the spectrum below 3 gigahertz. So trying 

to make sure that we’re using that spectrum efficiently and trying 

to identify opportunities to make that available for commercial use 

is a really important goal, and that tool is a very strong one. 

We believe that there truly are opportunities for win-wins. The 

AWS–3 auction was an opportunity for government users to upgrade their systems and resulted in making available 65 megahertz 

of spectrum that went on to produce the world’s largest—or the 

U.S. largest spectrum auction. So we certainly appreciate your 

work on that. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, and I appreciate that answer. 

Mr. Heiner, your testimony briefly discusses cloud computing. 

This is a topic of keen interest to me, and Senator Moran and I 

have worked together for several years now on Federal IT reform 

legislation and oversight to increase cloud adoption. I believe replacing so-called legacy IT systems with modern solutions can save 

49 

the Federal Government billions of dollars and improve cyber security. 

Can you share more about why Microsoft and other companies 

are increasingly leveraging the cloud and what that means for future broadband connectivity needs? 

Mr. HEINER. Yes, and thank you for the question. You know, 

every 15 years or so, there’s a major shift in the computing landscape. We had the mainframe era in the 1960s; then the revolution 

of personal computing; then the shift to client server computing, so 

these were PCs and then servers running, you know, in the back 

end at enterprises; and today, it’s cloud computing. 

The basic concept is that it’s incredibly economically efficient to 

run servers in central locations, these data centers, rather than at 

each individual company. The analogy someone offered is to energy, 

where in the 1880s, it was a revolution that you could have electric 

power, and each factory had its own generator. And someone 

dreamt up, ‘‘You know, I’ll make power for the whole city,’’ and 

then we had Con Ed, and that was much more efficient. 

Well, it’s similar with the cloud as well. So, you know, we really 

believe—and we’re seeing it in the marketplace—that enterprises 

around the world will be more efficient and will have better access 

to data analytics and even artificial intelligence techniques if they 

are delivered via the cloud. The same is true for the Federal Government, and, obviously, it’s a big lift to move legacy systems over 

to that new approach, and it will take a long time. But we believe 

that ought to be done as well. 

Now, the cloud is operating its data centers in remote locations, 

and so people need connectivity to reach those data centers. It’s 

just as simple as that. It’s an absolute, you know, sine qua non for 

the cloud computing to have first-rate connectivity, and that’s 

whether it’s licensed or unlicensed. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you, Senator Udall. 

Senator Peters? 

STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN 

Senator PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thanks to each of our panelists today for your testimony on 

a very important subject. 

Mr. Heiner, I have a question for you in some area that I find 

particularly fascinating, and that’s what’s being done by American 

manufacturers that are using the white space spectrum. I was particularly intrigued by some of the work that Microsoft is doing in 

Virginia to help the homework gap by using white spaces to leverage the fiber connections that run through these schools and allows 

students in the surrounding areas to access their school’s network 

wirelessly from home, which is incredibly important for education 

today. 

In your estimation, what must be done at the FCC to ensure that 

we have enough TV white space channels available so that we can 

have this kind of unlicensed use that can be so beneficial? 

50 

Mr. HEINER. Well, we just need to conclude the incentive auction 

process and the so-called ‘‘repacking’’ of the TV channels in such 

a way that there’s as much spectrum available for TV white spaces 

as possible. And, in particular, there’s this possibility of having vacant channels in some areas where there are not enough TV stations to fill up all the available spectrum, and we’d like to see as 

many vacant channels as possible that we can leverage for TV 

white spaces and also have a system where, from coast to coast in 

both rural and urban areas, certain channels are just set aside for 

TV white spaces. In that way, the device manufacturers will know 

that they can build a device and it can be deployed any place in 

the country. 

Senator PETERS. Do you see any other challenges in expanding 

school connectivity, which I think is so important, or things that 

we should be working on? 

Mr. HEINER. Well, it’s a question of setting up incentives for investment. You know, nothing is free. But the technology is very efficient. We can have low-power transmitters that are relatively inexpensive, and the devices in the students’ homes are relatively inexpensive as well. We do have a petition pending at the FCC to try 

to clarify that the E-rate program should cover TV white spaces as 

well as the other means of access to the Internet, and we hope that 

moves forward. 

Senator PETERS. Mr. Entner, I know you addressed this next 

topic in your written testimony. I don’t think you addressed it before us here as a panel. But this is really to all of you. I think it’s 

an important question for us to think about. We know that the advances in technology that we’re seeing are all accelerating at an exponential rate, and that curve seems to get steeper and steeper 

every year as we go forward. 

Then on our side, when it comes to public policy, we know the 

rate of progress from us moves at a pretty consistent rate, which 

is called the ‘‘snail’s pace,’’ as it goes forward, which means that 

it is tough for some of our regulatory agencies to keep up, particularly if they’re underfunded, lack personnel, lack expertise. They 

probably need all those things, but we also know that that’s a difficult sell in this current fiscal environment. So we have to look for 

opportunities to collaborate with academia, standard setting bodies, 

industry, to come up with some voluntary standards to deal with 

all of these various technologies to kind of find a unified approach. 

Mr. Entner, you mentioned this in your written, but if you want 

to expand on that—and I would certainly encourage the other witnesses if you have some thoughts as to how we put together these 

kinds of partnerships to make sure that we’re allowing the technology to flourish and innovation to flourish, but also dealing with 

some of the regulatory challenges associated with it. 

Mr. HEINER. Well, I would just touch on the benefits of collaborative industry standard setting. The Blue Tooth technology that 

we’re all using every day—that was a voluntary industry standard. 

Wi-Fi is a standard, and WiGig, which I referred to earlier. Certain 

issues can arise in terms of avoiding interference when you have 

shared spectrum with other users in that spectrum or in adjacent 

channels, and sometimes it seems as if the FCC regulation may get 

a little heavier than is needed to really address those concerns, and 

51 

we would encourage that wherever possible the industry work together, again, through standard setting bodies to achieve that. 

More broadly, I think we need to work with the International 

Telecommunications Union, and Microsoft, for its part—we are sort 

of part of the government delegation to the worldwide spectrum 

discussions that are going on through the ITU, and we very much 

support the efforts of working with academics as well. 

Mr. LAPLATNEY. Thank you for your question, Senator Peters. I 

would suggest that the ATSC 3.0 has been a tremendously collaborative and very quickly moving process relative to past standard 

changes, and I think the last time we changed the TV standard, 

it took 19 years. This particular transition, or this standard development, is moving at a much quicker pace, so we’re encouraged by 

that, and encouraged by the current FCC that’s helping us to move 

that along. So thank you. 

Mr. STROUP. I think we saw the beginning of that opportunity in 

some discussions between the wireless industry and the satellite 

industry in the Spectrum Frontiers proceeding, something that becomes more important as we look at the millimeter wave bands, because despite all of the discussion that’s taken place, many of those 

bands have been identified for the growth of the satellite industry. 

And the topic of service to world areas came up several times during the course of the discussions today. That’s been an area where 

the satellite industry has been providing service, including telemedicine services, for decades. 

I noted in my testimony the growth of the industry, the new high 

throughput satellites that are being launched—already have been 

launched and providing FCC broadband speeds, and the continued 

growth with all Earth orbit satellites. So being able to access that 

spectrum and, in some cases, on a shared basis continues to be 

very important, and, hopefully, it will be done through voluntary 

discussions. 

Senator PETERS. Great. 

Mr. BERGMANN. Thank you, Senator Peters. I would say the 

wireless industry participates in a variety of different standard setting bodies, both for unlicensed spectrum and for licensed spectrum. It’s a tremendously important tool for the industry in terms 

of being able to develop and bring new products to market. Certainly, one reason why we like a mix of both unlicensed and licensed spectrum is with licensed spectrum, we’re able to bring new 

services to market quicker sometimes, because we can launch services before standards are developed. 

To your point about collaborative processes, I think that’s another great one. That’s certainly a model that we in the wireless 

industry have embraced, whether it’s wireless emergency alerts or 

911 location accuracy. We’ve found a successful ability to partner 

in those two cases with public safety, but in other cases as well, 

too, to try to advance public policy goals in a flexible and nimble 

way. 

Senator PETERS. Right. Thank you. 

Mr. ENTNER. Thank you, Senator. I think one of the things 

that—as you mentioned, technology is progressing exponentially, 

whereas government policy not always is following the pace. I 

think it just needs more foresight so that we are using more ambiVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:10 Dec 06, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\27651.TXT JACKIE
52 

tious goals in what we are clearing and making available to industry. 

I think, overall, the technology and telecom industry has worked 

very well together. One notable example is, for example, LTE-U 

and license assist access. So I think we should encourage these 

types of voluntary processes with a light touch regulatory environment. 

Senator PETERS. Thank you. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you, Senator Peters. 

Senator Inhofe? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess the panel 

knows that we’re simultaneously meeting with other committees, 

so I have to reprogram my Senate Armed Services concerns here, 

and so I don’t know really what you’ve already gone over. 

Mr. Bergmann, deployment of the next generation of telecommunications technology will allow faster Internet speeds, which 

will require a substantial infrastructure investment. Now, have you 

really discussed what we can do? This is Congress. We’re your 

partner, and we want to help. What should we be doing? 

Mr. BERGMANN. So, Senator Inhofe, you’re right. We’re facing a 

great opportunity and a great challenge. As we look to lead in 5G, 

we recognize that it’s a whole new network, built not just around 

tall towers, but also around hundreds of thousands of small cells 

that are the size of pizza boxes or lunch boxes that will enable us 

to have these much faster and much higher capacity services. 

A couple of things this committee can do is to work with us to 

make sure that local permitting processes are not overly burdensome, to make sure that we have access to rights-of-way and poles 

on a timely basis and at fees that are reasonable and cost-based, 

to make sure that Federal agencies move quickly and have deadlines. So, particularly, as we look to parts of the country that have 

large areas of Federal lands or Federal buildings, the delays today 

can be on the order of 2 to 4 years and sometimes much longer 

than that. So if we can start to shorten some of that siting, we’ll 

be able to get that infrastructure out there more quickly and more 

cheaply. 

Senator INHOFE. I spent 30 years on that side of the table. The 

problem I had with the Federal Government very often was predictability and knowing in advance what’s going to happen. You 

mentioned the towers. You have to know well in advance before 

huge expenditures are made and what the rules are going to be 

when you finally get to the point where you’re going to try to make 

it happen. I assume that would be one of your concerns. 

I understand that consumer demand for wireless has more than 

doubled in 2015 alone. I didn’t know this. I’m the newest one on 

this committee. To meet this, you have to rely on licensed spectrum, which you exclusively own, and unlicensed spectrum, which 

anyone can use. Could you share with the Committee why it’s important to use both licensed and unlicensed spectrum to meet the 

growing consumer demand, which has doubled in the last year 

alone? 

53 

Mr. BERGMANN. Sure, Senator. Both licensed and unlicensed are 

really important parts of the wireless industry’s ability to serve. 

We offload traffic to unlicensed spectrum. We’re looking to launch 

new LTE-based services in unlicensed spectrum. Licensed remains 

the foundation of mobile networks, and that’s a place that enables 

us to build in highly reliable, highly secure services. So as we look 

to 5G and the kinds of things like self-driving cars or remote surgery, where we want to have a really high level—a high quality of 

service, licensed will be a critically important part of that overall 

equation. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. And, Mr. Heiner, Microsoft has been a 

leading innovator in the use of unlicensed spectrum. Congress and 

the FCC have directed more spectrum be made available, balancing 

between licensed and unlicensed spectrum. Do you believe there is 

an appropriate balance between the two, licensed and unlicensed? 

Mr. HEINER. Well, I think a theme coming out of the hearing 

today is everyone on this side of the table would like to see as 

much spectrum as possible allocated to both licensed and unlicensed use. We speak very much in terms of a balanced spectrum 

policy. That doesn’t necessarily mean, like, 1 megahertz for unlicensed and 1 megahertz for licensed. At different bands, it may 

make more sense to allocate more to licensed or more to unlicensed 

in a particular circumstance. 

We are enthused about the extra bandwidth that opened up in 

the 600 megahertz band as a result of the incentive auction, and 

we’re enthused about the Spectrum Frontiers proceeding, where 

new spectrum has opened up as well. 

Just to your point about predictability, of course, that is important, too, because you need to know ,sort of, years ahead in order 

to plan and develop standards and then build devices. It’s been a 

little bit of a challenge in the TV white spaces area over the past 

10 years, where the rules have been a little bit in flux. We really 

feel like we need to move forward with investing in that technology 

now, and we’re, sort of, redoubling our efforts, and we feel like the 

rules are sort of almost done, and so we’re ready to move forward. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, I like to bring that up because that’s true 

with any issue we could be talking about right now. It seems like 

government doesn’t have the understanding that they really need 

to know what’s going to be expected of them next year or 10 years 

from now because the investment sometimes has to be made way 

in advance. 

I’m sure you covered quite a few things. I apologize for those of 

us on Armed Services not being here. 

That’s all I have, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. 

Well, this has been a very interesting and enlightening two 

hours. I think this was an important hearing with a very talented 

and knowledgeable panel. We’ve been interrupted by votes and 

other committee meetings, so it may be that you did have to reiterate a few themes, but that’s helpful to us also. Thank you very, 

very much. 

We’ll stand adjourned and express our appreciation on behalf of 

the entire Subcommittee. 

54 

Without objection, the record will stay open for two weeks. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:28 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(55) 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VIASAT

Satellite Broadband White Paper 

Exploring the Value of Spectrum to the U.S. Economy to explore the future 

spectrum policy and how wireless technology benefits consumers and the 

economy. 

ViaSat, as a leading provider of satellite and terrestrial broadband communications solutions would like to thank the Committee for holding this important hearing on the future of spectrum policy and for providing an opportunity to submit 

input for the record. 

Spectrum is the life blood of wireless technology, both terrestrial and satellite, 

and our industries collectively need to be good stewards of its use, work together 

to enable spectrum sharing where feasible, and continue our efforts to increase spectrum efficiency for the benefit of consumers, emergency response teams, enterprise 

users, government/military users, and for the benefit of the American economy. 

ViaSat uses a wide variety of technologies, both terrestrial and satellite, to provide spectrum-based broadband service to about 700,000 residences and small busiVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:10 Dec 06, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\27651.TXT JACKIE

302VIASA1.eps
56 

ness, and about 1,000 aircraft, including United Airlines, American Airlines, 

JetBlue, Virgin American, and the United States government’s senior executive 

service fleet. 

We also deliver broadband service on unlicensed frequencies to over 10 million 

Wi-Fi access points worldwide. 

ViaSat’s advanced satellite broadband network technology has revolutionized the 

efficient use of spectrum, increasing the total network capacity provided by the 

spacecraft and associated ground infrastructure. Typical spacecraft systems dedicated to satellite communications have historically delivered a mere 2–3 Gbps of capacity. Ten years ago, the top speed provided was 1.5 Mbps. 

Today, ViaSat has surpassed all satellite providers in capacity with advanced 

spectrum use and reuse techniques implemented in ViaSat-1 in November 2011 

with its 140 Gbps of capacity—fifty to seventy times more total capacity that what 

previously was in place. We’re now offering 25/3 Mbps service in many parts of the 

Nation over ViaSat-1. 

ViaSat is continuing this revolutionary efficient reuse of spectrum, with the 

launch of ViaSat-2, scheduled in April 2017, which will deliver over 280 Gbps of capacity (twice the amount on ViaSat-1). ViaSat-2 will have seven times the coverage 

of ViaSat-1, and will be able to support 25/3 Mbps service. 

ViaSat’s global fleet of third-generation (ViaSat-3) satellites begin launching in 

2019. Each of the ViaSat-3 spacecraft efficiently use spectrum to deliver over 1000 

Gbps of capacity, more capacity than of all of the existing satellite communication 

spacecraft on-orbit combined. That is seven times what we have on ViaSat-1 today. 

And ViaSat-3 will support even faster speeds. 

In a decade, ViaSat has achieved nearly three orders-of-magnitude, 1000-fold, improvement in spectrum efficiency. We have significantly increased the number of 

broadband users we can support, we are providing faster and faster speeds, we’re 

on a path to provide virtually unlimited data allowances, and we’re winning customers from terrestrial alternatives. In other words, we’re providing a fully competitive broadband alternative, and are reaching consumers in urban, suburban, and 

rural locations and also serving users in the airborne, maritime, and land mobile 

environments. 

These developments have made possible by new spectrum sharing techniques— 

advanced methods of spectrum reuse that do not affect other spectrum users. 

By increasing spectrum efficiency through reuse and sharing techniques, ViaSat 

has been able to reduce the ‘‘cost per bit’’ of delivering broadband service. Achieving 

this result was critical to developing a high-quality broadband product and affording 

millions of Americans an effective competitive alternative to wired and wireless terrestrial services. 

ViaSat’s broadband customers include individual consumers, small and large businesses, emergency response teams, government and military users, and major airlines such as United, JetBlue, Virgin, and now American. The locations of ViaSat’s 

Ka-band broadband network customers at fixed locations are shown in figure 1. Figure 2 shows typical flight routes of the many commercial aircraft that have Wi-Fi 

powered by our satellite broadband service. 


302VIASA2.eps
57 

In fact in America, over 2 Million Personal Electronic Devices (PEDs) connect 

every day to these broadband Internet networks, with over 1 Million PEDS operating on commercial aircraft Wi-Fi service each month. 

ViaSat also provides these satellite broadband services to emergency response organizations, like the Red Cross, businesses, schools, medical facilities, and government and military users for their essential missions and communications needs. 


302VIASA3.eps 302VIASA4.eps 302VIASA5.eps
58 

1 Cisco, Connect-World, the information and communication technology (ICT) decision makers’ 

magazine, 18 Jan 2015 

‘‘Service providers around the world share concerns about running out of bandwidth. Business challenges surrounding continued bandwidth growth, linked to 

video, mobility, and cloud applications, are significant. Service providers also report 

declining revenue from a cost-per-bit perspective, so not only does the network need 

to grow, it also needs to grow more cost effectively.’’ 1

ViaSat’s satellite broadband service currently relies primarily on a fleet of three 

spacecraft and associated ground segment: 

(i) Ka-band payload on Anik F2 

(ii) WildBlue-1, and 

(iii) ViaSat-1, it’s first-generation, high-capacity satellite. 

To continue to acquire customers and to expand the infrastructure to deliver 

broadband service competitive with terrestrial alternatives, ViaSat’s network of 

earth stations will continue to expand. To illustrate as shown in Figure 4, ViaSat1 with capacity of 140 Gbps uses 20 earth stations to connect to the Internet backbone. ViaSat’s second-generation ViaSat-2 doubles this capability, and requires more 

than 40 earth stations to to connect to the Internet. With the planned deployment 

of multiple third-generation ViaSat-3 high-capacity satellites, each of which will provide over 1 Terabit per second (over 1,000 Gbps) of throughput and support even 

higher customer speeds, hundreds of earth stations to connect to the Internet are 

required. 


302VIASA6.eps
59 

2See Proposed Frequency Allocations and Radio Treaty Matters, 37 Fed. Reg. No. 151, 15714– 

717, 15733 (Aug. 4, 1972); corrected at 37 Fed. Reg. 25175 (Nov 28, 1972); Frequency Allocations 

and Radio Treaty Matters, 38 Fed. Reg. No. 40, 5565, 5595–7 (Mar. 1, 1973). 3 Establishment of Domestic Communication-Satellite Facilities, Further Notice of Inquiry and 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 25 FCC 2d 718, at ¶ 2 (1970) (citing Establishment of Domestic 

Communication-Satellite Facilities, Report and Order, 22 FCC 2d 86, at ¶ 11 (1970)). 

These earth stations are distributed across the United States—they are not primarily located in remote or rural areas. To the contrary, they are located close to 

the customers and connections to the Internet backbone, which are often in more 

populated areas as seen in Figure 1. 

These revolutionary advances in efficient use of spectrum leading to higher capacity have been made possible by incorporating greater bandwidth into satellites, facilitated by the FCC’s decision to allocate 2.5 Ghz of the Ka-Band for satellite services 

(in each direction) after: (i) wisely predicting the increased demand for satellite-based 

services that exists today; 2 and (ii) correctly recognizing that satellite operations 

might not be able to be ‘‘fully and economically accommodated in the only frequency 

bands [then] available.’’ 3 Specifically, ViaSat’s newest spacecraft are designed to operate across a wide range of the Ka band. ViaSat-1 was the first commercial spacecraft to operate across that range. ViaSat-2 and ViaSat’s third-generation, ViaSat3 spacecraft under construction will employ even more of this satellite spectrum to 

provide increased capacity. 

Large parts of this segment currently is used by the earth stations that aggregate 

and interconnect to the Internet backbone, and in a manner that is compatible with 

existing terrestrial uses of same spectrum. In fact, these types of earth stations have 

successfully shared spectrum with authorized terrestrial users without any reported 

cases of interference. ViaSat also obtained authority to reuse this spectrum to serve 

aircraft above 10,000 feet, likewise in a manner that is compatible with existing terrestrial uses. 

ViaSat’s focus is on providing efficient and cost-effective broadband solutions, regardless of technology, and it works with and employs terrestrial-based communications to meet the communications needs of its customers. 

By way of example, ViaSat recently acquired NetNearU Corp., a wireless network 

systems provider that delivers managed Wi-Fi Internet access services on unlicensed 

frequencies to over 10 million Wi-Fi access points worldwide. 

Leveraging the management platform acquired in that transaction, ViaSat now 

provides wireless network systems that deliver broadband service to consumers, 

businesses, and government customers, in buildings and through outdoor hotspots. 

Our experience as a leading provider and innovator of communications technologies, including those that rely on shared spectrum, and as a provider of both 

satellite and terrestrial wireless services, is depicted in Figure 5; more bandwidth 

and higher data allowances leads to increased customer satisfaction. 


302VIASA7.eps
60 

ViaSat is uniquely positioned to offer insights in this Committee supporting solutions for making the most efficient use of spectrum while enabling flexibility for the 

development and operation of a wide range of technologies and services. 

In conclusion, ViaSat, like other wireless broadband providers, requires access to 

additional spectrum to meet the insatiable demand for higher speeds and data requirements. ViaSat will continue to innovate and develop mechanisms for sharing 

the valuable spectrum resources to facilitate state-of-the-art broadband service delivery. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DEB FISCHER TO

SCOTT BERGMANN

Question 1. Mr. Bergmann, as you know, estimates suggest that as many as 50 

billion devices may be connected to the Internet by 2020. The advancement of the 

Internet of Things has the potential to stimulate economic growth and enable consumer benefits through the sharing of data from device to device. However, it will 

also increase the demand for spectrum. What can we do to ensure there is adequate 

spectrum available to meet the needs of the growing Internet of Things? 

Answer. CTIA appreciates your leadership on this issue and supports the bipartisan DIGIT Act you introduced with your colleagues to encourage the growth of the 

Internet of Things. There is broad consensus among policymakers, CTIA’s members, 

and other stakeholders that more spectrum needs to be made available in order to 

supply the capacity needed to meet the public’s insatiable demand for wireless services—demand that will further accelerate with the next generation of wireless networks, 5G, and the Internet of Things. With the recent close of the FCC’s Incentive 

Auction, for the first time in several years there are no other auctions scheduled. 

Identifying substantial amounts of spectrum across a variety of bands, with a clear, 

defined timeline, should be a national priority. The MOBILE NOW legislation takes 

important steps toward achieving that objective, and should be part of a comprehensive, ongoing plan to designate low-, mid-, and high-band frequency to meet the 

public’s growing reliance on wireless connectivity. Given that it takes on average 13 

years to reallocate spectrum for wireless broadband use, we encourage Congress to 

provide a clear plan for additional licensed spectrum across a wide and diverse 

range of frequencies to meet tomorrow’s needs. 


302VIASA8.eps
61 

Question 2. Mr. Bergmann, a recent study by Deloitte observed that to realize the 

full potential of 5G networks, it is imperative for governments at all levels to make 

the permitting and regulatory process more efficient. As we work here in Congress 

and with the FCC to develop a process for the deployment of small cell technologies, 

where should we focus our efforts? 

Answer. Unlocking the promise of 5G networks requires modernized permitting 

and regulatory processes that will enable wireless providers to deploy the infrastructure needed to support those networks. Small cells are already being deployed 

across the country to create greater capacity to accommodate the ever-increasing demand for 4G LTE services. And 5G will require initial deployment of as many as 

300,000 new small cells around the country in just the next few years—roughly as 

many cell sites as have been built over the last 35 years. 

States and localities across the country are beginning to understand the importance of small cell technologies. They are working to update their permitting processes to reflect this evolution and position their communities to be the connected, 

smart cities of the future. The Nebraska legislature is currently considering the 

Small Wireless Facilities Act (LB 389), supported by CTIA, which will remove barriers to efficient deployment of small cell wireless infrastructure. But in many localities across the nation, siting and zoning regulations create barriers that impede 

wireless infrastructure deployments, including small cells. These barriers take several forms. First, some localities prohibit new wireless infrastructure altogether, or 

impose restrictions that have the effect of prohibiting it. For example, some have 

enacted moratoria on all new wireless deployments, prohibiting any facilities in 

downtown or residential areas, and/or imposed design and operating requirements 

that make deployment technically and economically infeasible. Second, some localities take very long times to approve new deployments, as long as eighteen to twenty-four months, despite the urgent need for the facilities to accommodate ever-growing consumer demand. Third, some localities impose excessive fees for access to local 

rights of way that far exceed any costs they may incur from reviewing permit applications and managing deployments along public rights of way. And wireless providers often face annual fees for each small cell that can reach thousands of dollars 

or more per facility, which can make deployment cost-prohibitive and divert resources away from new investment, particularly in rural areas. Congress and the 

FCC can address these barriers, while maintaining localities’ traditional role in permitting new facilities, by prohibiting unreasonable restrictions that impede investment, putting time limits on review periods, and curbing excessive and discriminatory fees. 

In addition, modernizing the review process for wireless infrastructure deployments on Federal lands and Federal properties would also facilitate additional network investment to advance wireless coverage and 5G capabilities for the public and 

the Federal Government. MOBILE NOW includes much-needed Federal siting reforms. But the lack of a uniform practice across agencies for conducting siting reviews, the failure to use a standard siting agreement, and delays in those reviews 

have impeded new infrastructure. Additional Congressional oversight over agencies 

administering Federal lands to address these issues, and agencies’ adoption of 

standardized processes and deadlines for action, would do much to advance needed 

new infrastructure on the nearly 30 percent of lands across the Nation that are 

owned by the Federal Government, including lands and properties in hard-to-serve 

rural and remote areas. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARIA CANTWELL TO

SCOTT BERGMANN

Question 1. In your written testimony you state: ‘‘We would suggest reasonable 

shot clocks for new site and collocation permit applications and broader application 

of existing deemed granted remedies. Additionally, permit fees and other charges for 

wireless siting should be reduced to reflect small cells’ minimal impact and be limited to the actual, incremental costs to localities for processing these applications.’’ 

Is CTIA advocating broad preemption of state and local siting laws and regulations? 

Answer. CTIA is not advocating broad preemption. However, the Federal Government has long played a role in promoting communications networks and providing 

guiderails for state and local authority where necessary to achieve deployment 

goals. In 1993, for instance, Congress took action to prohibit state and local governments from regulating rates for personal wireless services and from restricting access to the marketplace for new entrants. Again, in 1996, Congress acted to limit 

state and local government authority over tower siting by mandating that they consider requests to site wireless facilities within a reasonable period of time. In 2009, 

62 

the FCC interpreted that language to create specific timelines for acting on collocation and other applications and, in 2014, further updated its rules to implement provisions of the 2012 Spectrum Act that further recognized the evolution of wireless 

technologies. Now, consistent with these past legislative and regulatory efforts, we 

are seeking to further modernize the Federal approach to reflect the challenges of 

today’s and tomorrow’s networks. States and localities have legitimate interests in 

managing the siting of wireless facilities. We are asking only that the FCC to interpret the Communications Act to ensure localities issue permits for wireless facilities 

within reasonable times, without unreasonable requirements or discriminatory policies, and with fees that fully recover their costs to process those permits. In particular, many local laws and regulations governing the placement of small cells— 

including where they can go, how long it takes to review their applications, and how 

much it costs—are the same for the requirements that govern traditional macrocell 

deployments. Yet, small cells are much smaller facilities, usually no more than a 

few feet in any dimension, and are typically placed on poles along local streets or 

on existing structures such as rooftops, water towers, and the sides of buildings. 

They have far less potential for visual and other impacts than the traditional 

macrocell towers that existing state and local procedures were designed to address. 

Streamlining permitting procedures for these smaller facilities will account for their 

limited impact and will greatly speed deployment of critical facilities needed to support the public’s exploding demand for broadband. 

Question 2. If CTIA is not advocating Federal preemption of state and local law, 

is CTIA willing to partner and coordinate with groups that represent state and local 

governments and Tribes in order to come up with an outreach and capacity building 

game plan that includes things like: education about small cell and 5G services, 

model applications, best practices in handling applications, concerns about fee 

gouging, discussions of legitimate public interests and concerns of local communities? 

Answer. CTIA and our members work closely with state and local organizations 

and remain committed to continuing that dialogue. Our members have worked successfully with state and local governments to develop state laws and ordinances. For 

example, in Arizona and Colorado legislation to streamline siting of small cells was 

recently adopted. These bills were the result of discussions with organizations representing many jurisdictions across the state. CTIA and our members will continue 

to engage with state and local organizations on similar legislation as well as on 

other efforts to improve wireless siting processes in other states while ensuring that 

actions to modernize our Nation’s infrastructure policies are not delayed. The FCC’s 

recently created Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee is an ideal forum for 

such discussions, as it is designed to provide timely, informative feedback to the 

FCC on ways to improve the state and local permitting processes. CTIA also has 

worked with tribal representatives for many years regarding ways to modernize the 

process while protecting tribal interests. CTIA has participated in several meetings 

and working sessions toward those ends, and looks forward to working with Congress, the FCC, and the tribal representatives to update these processes. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO

TO SCOTT BERGMANN

Question 1. Mr. Bergmann, in your testimony you mentioned a number of sectors 

that benefit from the wireless industry. I was interested in you elaborating about 

innovations on the public safety and transportation side. Could you give me some 

specific examples and where we’re going in the future? 

Answer. Today’s Fourth Generation (‘‘4G’’) wireless services are delivering innovations that directly benefit public safety and transportation. Fifth Generation (‘‘5G’’) 

wireless services, with their higher speeds and more robust capabilities, promise 

even more innovations in these sectors. 

On public safety, the improvements in data speeds, capacity and latency that 4G 

and 5G offer over previous wireless technologies can provide first responders with 

on-the-scene access to building information, traffic flows, improved E911 network 

capabilities, and other critical information. And rescue services will be able to transmit more extensive data about patients to the hospitals that will receive them, improving emergency medical care. The January 2017 Accenture report on 5G that I 

referenced in my testimony identified other public safety benefits such as more robust, integrated video surveillance, wireless sensors to identify the use of firearms, 

and flood sensors to provide motorists with route guidance to steer them away from 

flooded roads. Likewise, the January 2017 Deloitte study that I mentioned found 

63 

that a 60-second improvement in first-responder response due to improved wireless 

connectivity translates to a reduction of eight percent in mortality. 

4G and 5G can deliver similar benefits to the Nation’s transportation systems. As 

I noted in my testimony, these technologies are essential for wireless-powered selfdriving cars, which could reduce vehicle emissions by 40–90 percent, cut travel 

times, and save tens of thousands of lives. The Accenture report explained how 5G 

will help communities to enhance public transportation, reduce traffic congestion, 

and generate revenues from more efficient public parking systems. The various public safety and transportation innovations, coupled with the use of smart electrical 

grids, 5G-enabled smart cities can see $160 billion in benefits and savings. 

Question 2. Also, since you addressed this in your testimony, are there specific 

telecom infrastructure siting stories or issues with places like public lands, that 

make up 84 percent of my state, or tribal lands, that you can share and you’ve seen 

that we should be addressing? Also please include your specific ideas on how we alleviate them. Lastly, please elaborate on examples of the kinds of local siting and 

zoning rules that have become the most challenging to your members. 

Answer. The wireless industry’s ability to build facilities on Federal lands is important in all states but is particularly critical in Nevada because of the vast expanse of Federal lands there. CTIA members have worked with the multiple Federal 

agencies that manage those lands. While facilities have been constructed, many 

more are needed to ensure that Federal employees who work on those lands, and 

the public that lives on or visits them, can benefit from 4G and 5G wireless 

connectivity. But the lack of a uniform practices across agencies for conducting 

siting reviews, the failure to use a standard siting agreement, and delays in those 

reviews have impeded new infrastructure. Additional Congressional oversight over 

agencies administering Federal lands to address these issues, and agencies’ adoption 

of standardized processes and deadlines for action, would materially promote needed 

new infrastructure in Federal lands across Nevada and elsewhere. 

CTIA members also work closely with tribes when seeking to site wireless facilities on tribal lands. In addition, however, tribes play a role in reviewing the siting 

of wireless facilities on non-tribal lands—and it is this review of non-tribal land 

siting that was the focus of my testimony. CTIA supports the dual goals of protecting sites of historic, religious, and cultural significance to Indian tribes, and delivering nationwide communications services to all Americans. The tribal review 

process for siting on non-tribal land, which is a consultative role, can nonetheless 

take an extremely long time and fees can be costly. The Federal Government can 

provide some guidance to streamline the review process while ensuring sites of historic, religious, and cultural significance are protected. 

Finally, local siting and zoning rules are extremely challenging for CTIA’s members because they block needed wireless investment. These local obstacles take several forms. First, some localities prohibit new infrastructure altogether, or impose 

restrictions that have the effect of prohibiting it. For example, some have enacted 

moratoria on all new deployment, prohibit any facilities in downtown or residential 

areas, and/or impose design and operating requirements that make deployment 

technically and economically infeasible. Second, some localities that do not prohibit 

new deployments often take very long times to approve them, often six months or 

longer and even over a year, despite the urgent need for new facilities to accommodate ever-growing customer demand. Third, some localities impose excessive fees for 

access to local rights of way which far exceed any costs they may incur from reviewing permit applications and managing deployments along local streets. CTIA’s members face annual fees for each small cell of typically thousands of dollars or more, 

which make deployment cost-prohibitive and thus block new investment. CTIA is 

working with Congress, the FCC, and states and localities to modernize the state 

and local siting and zoning rules and ensure that fees for use of public properties 

and rights of way are based on the actual, direct costs to the communities for reviewing those applications and managing the public rights of way. 

Question 3. With the barrier of siting broadband projects on Federal public and 

tribal lands, would you favor an interagency working group that coordinates agencies like the Federal Communications Commission, the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and National Telecommunications & Information 

Administration to come up with streamlined solutions to barriers denying rural Nevadans quality online access? Who are the other stakeholders or Federal agencies 

that would need to be represented in these discussions to ensure we close the digital 

divide? 

Answer. Yes, CTIA supports the creation of such an interagency working group 

with the goal of identifying ways to improve and streamline procedures for siting 

wireless facilities on Federal and tribal lands. To effectively develop modernized 

64 

2http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21707242-unused-tv-spectrum-anddrones-could-help-make-smart-farms-reality-tv-dinners 

policies that reflect the evolution of wireless infrastructure, the working group must 

include other Federal agencies with substantial Federal land holdings, including 

NTIA; Department of Defense; the Department of Agriculture, including the U.S. 

Forestry Service; the Department of the Interior, including the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs; and the 

Department of Transportation; among others. It should also include the General 

Services Administration (‘‘GSA’’) because of GSA’s responsibilities to manage Federal buildings and properties, which can serve as sites for new infrastructure. Such 

a working group should consider the benefits of shot clocks and standardized processes and fees for siting wireless facilities on Federal lands. Adoption of these 

changes could help alleviate the delays currently experienced by the industry in locating facilities on the nearly 30 percent of lands in this country that are owned 

by the Federal Government. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. DEB FISCHER TO

DAVE HEINER

Question. Mr. Heiner, as you know, estimates suggest that as many as 50 billion 

devices may be connected to the Internet by 2020. The advancement of the Internet 

of Things has the potential to stimulate economic growth and enable consumer benefits through the sharing of data from device to device. However, it will also increase the demand for spectrum. What can we do to ensure there is adequate spectrum available to meet the needs of the growing Internet of Things? 

Answer. Senator Fischer, Microsoft appreciates your leadership on advancing policies that support the growth of the Internet of Things (IoT). Microsoft is a provider 

of the hardware, software, and cloud services that power IoT. We help our customers connect, monitor, and manage millions of devices and related assets, and we 

provide the cloud services that help organizations unlock the value of new business 

models that are possible only through the combination of connected devices, machine learning, and big data analytics that power IoT. 

Today, the majority of IoT traffic is carried over unlicensed spectrum. The specifics of a given IoT application determine its spectrum requirements such as frequency, size of the channel required for the IoT data (bandwidth), and how often 

the IoT data needs to be sent. It is still early, but it may turn out that applications 

such as IoT in agriculture can most cost-effectively be delivered using periodic 

transmissions over narrowband low-frequency spectrum, while other IoT applications, such as remote operation of devices or equipment, may require high-bandwidth, high-frequency, almost continuous transmissions, with a guaranteed high 

quality-of-service. 

Microsoft expects over time that there will be a continuum of spectrum requirements across different IoT applications and use cases. Microsoft agrees with your 

assessment that the growth of IoT traffic will increase demand for spectrum. At 

present, Microsoft does not believe additional spectrum bands be should allocated 

specifically for IoT use. With some exception, IoT-enabled devices and equipment 

will be either at a fixed or part of or attached to something that is moving. For this 

reason, Microsoft suggests that the Congress authorize the Commission to identify 

low-, mid-, and high-band spectrum currently allocated to either mobile and/or fixed 

wireless services and inquire about the corresponding changes to the technical and 

services rules required to enable a full range of IoT devices to share the band without causing harmful interference to incumbents. 

We believe that it makes sense for latency-sensitive IoT applications or those that 

require an assurance of high Quality of Service to require licensed spectrum. For 

this reason, a mobile operator should be able to use its existing licensed spectrum 

for IoT applications. With respect to unlicensed spectrum, Microsoft envisions that, 

in some bands, unlicensed IoT devices will be able to share spectrum with incumbent services under the Commission’s Part 15 regulatory framework. 

For example, Microsoft is pioneering the application of cloud-based IoT and analytics using the unassigned and unoccupied spectrum in the broadcast television 

bands, known as the TV White Spaces (TVWS). Signals in the TV bands travel 

much further and pass through more obstacles than signals at higher frequencies 

for the same radiated power level. Therefore, TVWS frequencies are particularly 

well-suited for IoT for agriculture applications. 

Last September, an article in The Economist 2 documented our work on cloud-powered IoT solutions for agriculture. The goal of this work is to leverage cloud-services, 

65 

connectivity, and sensors to improve agricultural yields on small farms. This work 

is happening under an experimental license obtained from the FCC. We have found 

that while unlicensed IoT devices can access the TVWS as long as they meet the 

FCC’s technical and operational rules, these rules were created with wide channels 

for broadband communication in mind and do not adequately accommodate 

narrowband IoT applications. To be clear, Microsoft strongly supports last-mile 

broadband service delivered over the TVWS. The company has been engaged in the 

policy and regulatory discussions regarding TVWS for more than a decade, and only 

in recent years has begun exploring the potential of the UHF and VHF bands for 

IoT use in addition to broadband. 

Microsoft believes that the FCC’s technical rules for TVWS access can be modified 

to accommodate both wideband and narrowband applications. Microsoft, therefore, 

in principle would support complementary changes to the FCC’s technical rules for 

TVWS devices that will accommodate a full range of narrowband IoT applications, 

including in the agricultural domain. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARIA CANTWELL TO

DAVE HEINER

Question 1. We need to think creatively about how to promote broadband buildout 

in rural America and in a way, that takes advantage of advances in technology and 

leverages existing infrastructure. This will both speed deployment and make sure 

we are spending our precious broadband dollars efficiently. 

In rural Washington, there are Public Utility Districts and Port Districts that 

have deployed fiber to run their own operations. Often, these fiber networks have 

excess capacity. We should be figuring out ways to leverage these kinds of existing 

infrastructure to extend broadband into unserved areas. 

In your written testimony, you talked about the ability of unlicensed spectrum to 

meet the need for last mile connectivity. Microsoft has had success with TV White 

spaces technology in rural areas around the globe. 

Based on your experience, what are the key features that make these projects 

work? Specifically, what type of partners are you working with? What type of 

broadband infrastructure are you leveraging and what type of legal or regulatory 

environment is best to permit this type of innovation? 

Answer. Senator Cantwell, under Microsoft’s Affordable Access Initiative, we develop partnerships with local Internet access providers and other local entrepreneurs to deploy new last-mile access technologies, cloud-based services and applications, and business models that reduce the cost of Internet access and help more 

people affordably get online. 

Microsoft’s participation is intended to reduce the technical, business, and (in 

some countries) regulatory risk associated with launching such efforts in hard-toreach and often economically distressed areas around the world, where the first hurdle is often convincing potential Internet access providers that such a business is 

viable. Our comprehensive approach means addressing all potential barriers and, 

depending on where the project is located, may include suitable consumption models 

and payment methods, relevant applications and services, reliable Internet access, 

access to power, and access to capital. It also means that we must leverage the existing local infrastructure to the greatest extent possible to increase affordability. 

Over time, Microsoft’s role in each project winds down, because we have absolutely 

no interest in becoming an Internet service provider. 

One last-mile access technology featured in many of our Affordable Access Initiative projects are devices that can access the TV white spaces (TVWS). Radio waves 

in the TVWS (unused UHF and VHF channels) travel further and can penetrate 

common building materials better than radio waves operating at higher frequencies 

for a given transmitted power level. The UHF and VHF TV bands are global spectrum bands, potentially leading to economies of scale for TVWS devices. Access to 

the TVWS is authorized today on an unlicensed (i.e., free and open access) basis in 

the U.S., Canada, UK, South Korea, and Singapore. Other countries have initiated 

consultations regarding access to the TVWS under a variety of proposed rules. In 

countries where there are no applicable laws or rules in effect, Affordable Access 

Initiative projects using TVWS spectrum obtain temporary authorizations from the 

relevant National Regulatory Agency. The challenge is that where there are no rules 

in place there is regulatory uncertainty, which weighs heavily on investment decisions. 

Question 2. As we are thinking about broadband infrastructure, does a focus on 

technology neutrality make sense to support unlicensed spectrum use or should we 

be focusing on fiber? 

66 

Answer. Senator Cantwell, I agree that we need to think creatively about ways 

to promote broadband buildout and affordable access across rural America. Microsoft believes that regardless of where someone chooses to live in the United States, 

they should be able to access the Internet at broadband speeds. It is equally essential that the broadband access be available at a price point that is affordable to 

rural consumers, but also is profitable to the service provider. Fiber is a great longterm goal. However, given the distances often involved in reaching rural and remote 

areas, challenging geography such as mountains, limitations of specific technologies, 

cost considerations, etc., most of these last mile broadband networks will consequently be wireless, heterogeneous, and all backhauled to the nearest Internet 

point-of-presence, which will most likely be a fiber-optic cable connected to the 

Internet backbone. We also see fixed broadband delivered over satellites as being 

a viable option in certain circumstances. 

Our experience with a number of overseas Affordable Access Initiative projects in 

remote areas is that the last-mile TVWS network is really only a segment of a larger broadband network. TVWS radios can operate point-to-point and point-tomultipoint, the latter of which is similar to how Wi-Fi operates. At a given power 

level, there is a tradeoff between the size of the coverage area of a fixed TVWS radio 

and the amount of data in megabits per second a network can carry. We have found 

that fixed TVWS transmitters can operate at data rates providing robust broadband 

access at distances greater than 10 kilometers. This means that other wireless network technologies must be used in conjunction to connect the TVWS network to the 

Internet point-of-presence. Depending on the distances and the terrain involved, the 

wireless signal may have to bounce off multiple point-to-point microwave dishes to 

cover the span. 

For this reason, Microsoft views unlicensed access to the TVWS as a tool for network designers to use when and where appropriate in the design of communications 

networks. It is a tool, though, that requires regulatory authorization, because it 

must not cause harmful interference to other users of the spectrum bands. The simple answer here is that unlicensed access to the TVWS is complementary to optical 

fiber with respect to enabling affordable broadband access in rural America. The 

Committee can and should support policies that allow optical fiber to be cost-effectively deployed further out in less densely populated areas and support policies that 

ensure a sufficient amount of unlicensed spectrum is available in rural markets for 

incorporation into last-mile broadband access networks. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. BRIAN SCHATZ TO

DAVE HEINER

Question. Do tech companies generally agree or differ greatly in terms of a strategy for unlicensed bands? 

Answer. Most tech companies that prioritize unlicensed spectrum are generally in 

agreement that more unlicensed spectrum in needed. When advocating for specific 

low, mid, and high frequency bands, companies sometimes have varying businessspecific interests. As I mentioned in my testimony, Wi-Fi is an important use case 

of unlicensed spectrum. The Wi-Fi Alliance, which is a not-for profit organization 

consisting of the worldwide network of companies including Microsoft that form the 

Wi-Fi ecosystem, has identified the frequency range 5950–7250 MHz (‘6 GHz band’) 

as a spectrum band that warrants consideration for its potential to support unlicensed gigabit-speed Wi-Fi. 

Increasingly, as consumers access the broadband Internet wirelessly over their 

portable devices, the critical metric is becoming the speed to the device rather than 

the speed to the home or to the curb. As broadband service providers in more densely populated areas are now beginning to offer gigabit broadband access to the home 

and office, Wi-Fi congestion could become a bottleneck that keeps individual consumers from experiencing gigabit speeds on their devices. 

In densely populated areas, during busy times of the day, most users can only access channels in the 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi band that are 20 MHz wide. In addition to the 

individual channel size being too small to support gigabit Wi-Fi, the 2.4 GHz band 

as a whole often suffers from congestion due to its comparatively small size and the 

enormous quantity of applications (Bluetooth devices, microwave ovens, baby monitors, etc.) that use the band in addition to Wi-Fi. This congestion is most noticeable 

during the busiest hours and in the busiest places, and degrades the mobile experience for all Wi-Fi users. 

Segments of the 5 GHz band are being used for Wi-Fi. Some of these sub-band 

segments requires Wi-Fi devices to use a technique called Dynamic Frequency SelecVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:10 Dec 06, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\27651.TXT JACKIE
67 

1http://www.wi-fi.org/beacon/alex-roytblat/wi-fi-study-reveals-need-for-additional-unlicensed-spectrum 

tion to ensure that the device does not cause harmful interference to military and 

other radar systems. 

IEEE 802.11n protocol allows for 20- and 40-MHz wide channels in the 5 GHz 

band. A newer standard, IEEE 801.11ac protocol allows for 40-, 80-, and 160-MHz 

wide channels in the 5 GHz band. Wi-Fi devices accessing 160–MHz wide channels 

can attain gigabit speeds. The vision for 5 GHz band (5150–5850 MHz) gigabit WiFi established several years back assumed that it would concurrently support multiple contiguous 160–MHz channels. Last fall, NTIA reported its conclusion that it 

would not be possible for unlicensed Wi-Fi devices to share spectrum with Federal 

and other license holders in the 5350–5470 MHz band. That decision means that 

a maximum of two 160 MHz channels can operate in the 5 GHz band at the same 

time. 

The Wi-Fi Alliance commissioned a study 1 on spectrum needs for future Wi-Fi 

use. The study determined the amount of spectrum required to support Wi-Fi traffic 

by taking into consideration existing and future device capabilities and projected deployment needs for business, residential, and public locations under two different 

growth scenarios. Four key findings on the report released in February 2017 are: 

• The ever-growing number and diversity of Wi-Fi devices along with increased 

connection speeds and data traffic volumes will exceed the capacity of spectrum 

currently available in the 5 GHz band by 2020; 

• Between 500 MHz and 1 GHz of additional spectrum in various world regions 

may be needed to support expected growth in Wi-Fi by 2020; 

• If demand for Wi-Fi exceeds expected growth, then between 1.3 GHz and 1.8 

GHz more spectrum may be required by 2025; and 

• Wi-Fi spectrum needs to be sufficiently contiguous to support 160 MHz wide 

channels, which are required to support a growing number of bandwidth-intensive applications and to allow maximum Wi-Fi benefits to be attained. 

The Wi-Fi Alliance initiated a process to identify potential spectrum bands to address the Report’s findings. Based on criteria such as the availability of large contiguous blocks of spectrum to support multiple 80- and 160-MHz channels, a Wi-Fi signal’s ability to penetrate two walls across the frequency range, limitations in the 

power of the client device (e.g., game system, handset, tablet, laptop) across the frequency range, a current allocation for mobile services, etc., the focus was narrowed 

to sub-10 GHz spectrum. 

The experience of several Wi-Fi Alliance members, including Microsoft, in the unsuccessful multi-year effort to examine sharing the 5350–5470 MHz band with Federal and other users led the organization to look at spectrum bands where there was 

little or no Federal usage. In the 6 GHz band, Federal usage begins at 7025 MHz 

and continues at higher frequencies, with some breaks. Discussions with several WiFi radio manufacturers indicated that current 5 GHz radios can be rapidly modified 

for 6 GHz operation. Review of the types of communication services operating in the 

band indicate that it would not be a good candidate for licensed use. The Wi-Fi Alliance also noted complementary efforts in Europe to begin study of the 5925–6425 

MHz band for potential Wi-Fi use on a shared basis. 

Separately, several Wi-Fi Alliance members, including Microsoft, have banded together to support an independent measurement, modeling, and mitigation effort to 

determine whether Wi-Fi devices can share spectrum with the other users of the 

6 GHz band without causing harmful interference. 

Microsoft is under no illusion about the magnitude of the challenge ahead to develop mitigation strategies and techniques enabling unlicensed devices to share access with incumbent 6 GHz band license holders. However, the consensus of the WiFi community is that all-in-all, the 6 GHz band is the most promising and practical 

place to look to address its future spectrum needs. Our starting point is examining 

whether a Wi-Fi access point operating both indoors and outdoors with a maximum 

radiated power of 4 Watts EIRP can share the 6 GHz band successfully with incumbents. Measurement data and modeling will guide mitigation efforts and overall direction. 

Microsoft requests that, in future spectrum legislation, the Committee include 

language directing the FCC to begin the process for amending the technical and 

service rules necessary for Wi-Fi to share the 6 GHz band with incumbent users. 

Additionally, we ask the Committee to consider authorizing NTIA’s Institute for 

Telecommunication Sciences in Boulder, Colorado to perform measurements and 

provide other technical support of industry as it relates to the 6 GHz efforts. If nothVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:10 Dec 06, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\27651.TXT JACKIE
68 

ing else, an authorization provides a signal to help focus the organization’s priorities. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TOM UDALL TO

DAVE HEINER

Question 1. Microsoft’s website describes using TV ‘‘white space,’’ the unused 

bandwidth between television channels, ‘‘to bring broadband connectivity to some of 

the 4 billion global citizens who are not currently online’’ (see https://www.mi 

crosoft.com/empowering-countries/en-us/decent-work-and-economic-growth/tvwhite-space/). Do similar opportunities exist within the United States to deploy 

broadband to unserved and underserved areas? 

Answer. Senator Udall, under Microsoft’s Affordable Access Initiative, we develop 

partnerships with local Internet access providers and other local entrepreneurs to 

deploy new last-mile access technologies, cloud-based services and applications, and 

business models that reduce the cost of Internet access and help more people 

affordably get online. The Initiative supports both domestic and overseas projects. 

The ‘homework gap’ project in southern Virginia is an example of the type of collaborative project supported under the Initiative. 

Unlicensed TV White Spaces (TVWS) devices is one such new last-mile access 

technology that can serve as an important tool for the designer of broadband networks connecting rural communities. Microsoft views high-power fixed-wireless 

TVWS devices as part of a heterogeneous network that can provide last mile 

connectivity between the nearest Internet point of presence and unserved and underserved areas within the United States. TVWS radios can operate point-to-point 

for wireless backhaul and operate point-to-multipoint, similar to Wi-Fi. 

The reason we refer to TVWS as a network element is that there is a design 

tradeoff between range and the megabits per second that can be delivered. Based 

on our experience, under the current technical rules, the sweet spot for a TVWS radio’s range is somewhere over 10 kilometers for commercially attractive data transfer rates. For communities within 10 kilometers of the nearest Internet point-ofpresence, a single TVWS network can provide connectivity. Communities located 

considerably beyond 10 kilometers from the Internet point-of-presence may require 

the broadband network to combine multiple wireless technologies (and frequencies) 

to cover the distance. To increase the affordability of the resulting broadband service, the Initiative looks to leverage the existing local infrastructure to the greatest 

extent possible. 

Question 2. Many school children in New Mexico and across the country face a 

particularly cruel aspect of the digital divide: the homework gap. Teachers increasingly assign homework that requires an Internet connection. This makes just getting assignments done a real challenge for the nearly one-third of New Mexico kids 

without access to the Internet at home. When former FCC Commissioner Jessica 

Rosenworcel and I visited Hatch Valley High School, we heard from students, teachers, parents and school administrators about the need to ensure all kids have access 

to broadband. Students told us how they go to the school parking lot or local Pick 

Qwik store to access free Wi-Fi and complete their homework. Could you share more 

about how Microsoft is developing new approaches to help close the homework gap? 

Answer. Microsoft and its partners are extending the E-rate-covered broadband 

Internet access service of 18 participating schools to the homes of eligible students 

that live in Charlotte County and Halifax County, Virginia via wireless transmission using TV White Spaces technology over unlicensed spectrum—at no additional cost to the E-rate fund and for no charge to the students. This pilot project 

will assist in closing the homework gap for thousands of eligible students in the participating school districts. They will obtain authenticated access to their school 

Internet service, subject to the same rules and restrictions applicable to their Internet connectivity in school, so that the students can conduct research, do their homework, collaborate on projects with other students online, and pursue other educational opportunities from the safety and convenience of their homes. In the longer 

run, ISPs—in conjunction with the schools they serve in other areas—could use this 

technology to close the connectivity gap for the millions of other students across the 

United States who either cannot afford or do not have access to the Internet at 

home. Microsoft and its partners submitted a petition to the FCC asking it to clarify 

that this is permitted under the existing E-rate rules and, if not, to issue a waiver 

for the project. The petition is pending. 

Question 3. I am interested in learning your thoughts about how to craft spectrum 

policy that is ‘‘future proof.’’ The United States Frequency Allocation Chart (available at https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/january_2016_spectrum 

69 

_wall_chart.pdf) indicates that essentially all available spectrum has already been 

allocated. So the challenge today seems to be finding efficiencies and repurposing 

spectrum when new uses become important. How do we ensure that allocations 

made today do not unintentionally prevent us from meeting spectrum needs in the 

future? 

Answer. Senator Udall, a fundamental challenge in developing laws and regulations regarding information and communications technology policy is that the technology (and market opportunities) moves much faster than Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) can react. Spectrum policy is no different. 

What makes spectrum policy even more challenging is that, as you rightly point out, 

essentially all spectrum considered for some form of wireless communications has 

already been allocated to one or more commercial radio communication services or 

for Federal use. It means spectrum policy is often a hard-fought zero-sum game 

where there are clear winners and losers, which makes it an even more challenging 

process. It usually takes many years between when a spectrum band is identified 

for repurposing at a policy level and when the repurposing of the band has been 

completed and the new service is up and running. 

Microsoft believes that the continued demand for spectrum can be met more rapidly by increasing spectrum utilization through static and dynamic spectrum sharing between and among different radio communications services, and, where possible, with unlicensed devices as well. The potential for spectrum sharing will be 

different for every spectrum band based on the radio service(s) operating in the 

band, how they are deployed, the protection requirements, mitigation techniques 

available, etc. This detailed technical work is best left to the expert agency, the 

FCC. If Federal spectrum use is involved, the FCC needs to consult with NTIA. 

Nonetheless, Congress can play a significant role in defining the objectives of our 

spectrum policy. For example, Congress can make clear that the Commission: 

• should identify and examine for shared use more low-, mid-, and high-frequency 

spectrum bands: 

• should ensure that a balance of licensed and unlicensed spectrum is available: 

• should signal that the technical and service rules for accessing shared spectrum 

are fair and economically feasible; and 

• should take steps to discourage spectrum warehousing, which can create an artificial shortage. 

Ultimately, spectrum policy should support long-term competition in broadband 

services and be technology-neutral to the greatest extent possible. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TOM UDALL TO

PAT LAPLATNEY

Question 1. Mr. LaPlatney, your testimony states that you oversee Raycom Media’s 60 broadcast television stations stretching from Hattiesburg to Honolulu. This 

includes ABC, CBS, and NBC affiliate stations. President Trump declared via Twitter on February 17th that ‘‘FAKE NEWS media’’ including ‘‘NBCNews, ABC, CBS’’ 

and others are ‘‘the enemy of the American People!’’ (see https://twitter.com/ 

realDonaldTrump/status/832708293516632065). President Trump reportedly later 

told a gathering of conservatives in Washington, D.C., that ‘‘A few days ago I called 

the fake news the enemy of the people, and they are—they are the enemy of the 

people’’ (see Jackson, David. ‘‘Trump again calls media ‘enemy of the people’ ’’ (see 

Jackson, David. ‘‘Trump again calls media ‘enemy of the people’.’’ USA Today. 

Feb. 24, 2017. available at http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/ 

02/24/donald-trump-cpac-media-enemy-of-the-people/98347970/). Do you agree 

with President Trump that ABC, CBS, or NBC News are enemies of the American 

people? 

Answer. Senator Udall, we take great pride in the fact that Raycom Media is a 

trusted source of emergency information and news in every community we serve. 

Respectfully, we disagree with that characterization of the media. 

Question 2. Could you share your views on the importance of the First Amendment protection of press freedom and the role of a free press in our democracy? 

Answer. The right to speak freely without fear of incrimination and the right of 

the press to challenge the government and root out corruption remains one of the 

most important rights our founders enshrined in the Constitution. Broadcasters 

have been, and continue to be, proud stewards of these ideals in the modern media 

age. It is a mission we hold dear to our hearts. We shine a light on injustice and 

empower citizens to take action. In this digital world, it is very easy for the average 

70 

American to find information that confirms their beliefs rather than challenges 

them. This is where local broadcasters play such an important role in our democracy. We present the public with facts, provide information about issues that matter 

to people where they live and remind viewers about the incredible acts of service 

taking place in our communities. As newspapers continue to struggle, broadcasters 

have been carrying the mantle for locally focused investigative reporting. In fact, 

Raycom Media launched a new national investigative unit in late March which will 

produce high impact, interesting and informative series of national importance with 

a core focus on localism. The national unit will work closely with local investigative 

units across Raycom media properties placing a spotlight on subject areas of importance to your constituents. 

Question 3. I appreciate the availability of free, over-the-air television. Although 

broadcasting is one of our first ‘‘wireless’’ technologies, it still provides a lot of value 

for many Americans, particularly during severe weather events or other emergencies. So I am excited about continued innovation and upgrades to TV broadcast 

technology. Your testimony describes new and enhanced services broadcasters will 

be able to offer TV viewers thanks to the ATSC 3.0 standard. Will these ‘‘Next Gen 

TV’’ features be available in rural areas that still lack reliable broadband service? 

Answer. Senator, we are grateful for your appreciation of free, over-the-air (OTA) 

broadcasting and your support for ATSC 3.0. The renaissance of local TV is playing 

out in New Mexico and across the country as over 17 percent of U.S. TV households 

now rely exclusively on OTA signals (according to Gfk market research) for television viewing. While ATSC 3.0 deployment will be a station-by-station determination, we expect that deployment to be national in scope across a range of markets— 

urban and rural. One important factor that is essential to the successful deployment 

of ATSC 3.0 is a successful completion of the voluntary incentive auction repack. 

As we work through the extremely complicated repack as quickly as possible, we 

look forward to working with you on ensuring that New Mexican’s that receive a 

TV signal today, will be able to do so after the auction. This will allow your constituents that live in more remote portions of the state to benefit from these new innovative services and help close the digital divide. 

Question 4. I am concerned about reports that there is no intention of making the 

new ATSC 3.0 standard ‘‘backward compatible’’ with older television sets. Will viewers with older TVs still be able watch their favorite over-the-air channels after 

broadcasters switch to ATSC 3.0? 

Answer. Next Gen TV is not backwards compatible with the current standard, 

meaning that current television sets cannot receive Next Gen TV signals without 

additional equipment. That is why broadcasters have proposed to protect consumers 

during the Next Gen TV deployment by partnering with other stations in their market to continue to transmit their programming in the current standard as well. This 

will ensure that every viewer maintains access to broadcast programming whether 

it through the current signal, or an ATSC 3.0 signal. Serving viewers is our business, and we have no interest in leaving viewers behind. 

Question 5. The transition from analog to digital TV transmission forced consumers to either buy a digitally-compatible TV or a digital converter box to continue 

to watch over-the-air channels. The Digital Television Transition and Public Safety 

Act of 2005 (PL 109–171) authorized a TV Converter Box Coupon Program that provided up to two coupons worth $40 each to eligible households that wanted to continue to watch broadcast channels without buying a new TV. My understanding is 

that this $40 coupon covered the full cost of purchasing a converter box. Will there 

be an equivalent to a digital converter box available to TV viewers who have older 

TV sets that are not compatible with ATSC 3.0? If so, how much will it cost? 

Answer. We anticipate that consumers interested in receiving Next Gen TV signals will have several options. These could include purchasing a new television set, 

a gateway device that will receive Next Gen TV signals over-the-air and transmit 

them on a consumer’s home wireless network, or a small device that a consumer 

could plug into their existing television set. Consumers will also have the option to 

continue receiving broadcast programming through the current standard. At this 

point, it is too soon to predict pricing points for any of these options, and NAB is 

not advocating for a government subsidy to cover these costs. 

Question 6. I am interested in learning your thoughts about how to craft spectrum 

policy that is ‘‘future proof.’’ The United States Frequency Allocation Chart (available at https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/january_2016_spectrum 

_wall_chart.pdf) indicates that essentially all available spectrum has already been 

allocated. So the challenge today seems to be finding efficiencies and repurposing 

spectrum when new uses become important. How do we ensure that allocations 

71 

1SIA Executive Members include: The Boeing Company; AT&T Services, Inc.; EchoStar Corporation; Intelsat S.A.; Iridium Communications Inc.; Kratos Defense & Security Solutions; 

Ligado Networks; Lockheed Martin Corporation; Northrop Grumman Corporation; OneWeb; SES 

Americom, Inc.; Space Exploration Technologies Corp.; SSL; and ViaSat, Inc. SIA Associate 

Members include: ABS U.S. Corp.; Artel, LLC; Blue Origin: DigitalGlobe Inc.; DataPath Inc.; 

DRS Technologies, Inc.; Eutelsat America Corp.; Global Eagle Entertainment; Glowlink Communications Technology, Inc.; Hughes; Inmarsat, Inc.; Kymeta Corporation; L–3 Electron Technologies, Inc.; O3b Limited; Panasonic Avionics Corporation; Planet; Semper Fortis Solutions; 

Spire Global Inc.; TeleCommunication Systems, Inc.; Telesat Canada; TrustComm, Inc.; Ultisat, 

Inc.; and XTAR, LLC. 2These proposals are supported by all SIA members except for AT&T, which abstains from 

participation. 3 47 CFR 8.2 (a) ‘‘Broadband Internet access service. A mass-market retail service by wire or 

radio that provides the capability to transmit data to and receive data from all or substantially 

all Internet endpoints, including any capabilities that are incidental to and enable the operation 

of the communications service, but excluding dial-up Internet access service. This term also encompasses any service that the Commission finds to be providing a functional equivalent of the 

service described in the previous sentence, or that is used to evade the protections set forth in 

this part.’’ 4FCC 2016 Broadband Progress Report, FCC 16–6. Speed benchmarks are 25 Mbps download/ 

3 Mbps upload (25 Mbps/3 Mbps) for fixed services and the report states that ‘‘the current record 

is insufficient to set an appropriate speed benchmark for mobile service.’’ 

made today do not unintentionally prevent us from meeting spectrum needs in the 

future? 

Answer. Broadcasters operate in only one spectrum band, and our innovation 

strategy contemplates doing more within that current capacity. While our competitors continue to seek more and more spectrum allocations in multiple bands, broadcaster innovations will enable the ability to do more with less. Next Gen TV allows 

broadcasters to make even more efficient use of their existing spectrum, providing 

customers with better service using the same 6 MHz channels stations use today. 

Encouraging this kind of innovation, without making overly prescriptive regulatory 

requirements a condition of permission to innovate, is the best way to future proof 

spectrum policy. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TOM UDALL TO

TOM STROUP

Question 1. Do you have any suggestions for universal service reforms or other 

policy changes that would help expand broadband access in rural and remote areas 

where satellite providers can offer Internet access more affordably than cable, 

wireline and wireless providers? 

Answer. 

Satellite Industry Association 1,2

Broadband Definition 3,4

To begin, there are no real limitations on what broadband can become, and therefore, it is better to avoid rigid definitions at the early phase of deployment. Rather, 

it is more appropriate to define broadband in terms of evolving performance characteristics, based on the technologies and applications that consumers want and use, 

not fixed ‘‘top down’’ performance definitions. In the past, there has been a singular 

focus on ‘‘speed’’ as the sole factor that should define broadband (e.g., Gigabit service). While this may be important for some applications, it may not be necessary 

at arbitrary levels for all essential applications or on all devices. Different speeds 

may be more suitable to different types of applications. Furthermore, the government should ensure that reforms or changes encourage the provision of enterprise 

broadband as well as consumer broadband. Enterprise broadband is heavily relied 

upon by U.S. businesses—including small business in rural and remote areas—that 

fuel the U.S. economy and provide a multitude of products and services available 

to U.S. consumers. 

Other factors such as differentiated service or pricing models, data caps, service 

availability, jitter, bursting, symmetry, latency, mobility and portability may emerge 

to play a role in consumer broadband choice and requirements. Given a competitive 

market, those solutions that are most responsive to consumer needs and preferences 

should succeed, while those that do not respond to such needs and preferences are 

likely to fail. Universal service policies should reflect these preferences by embracing consumer choice not government preferences and should be structured to be 

technology neutral 

72 

5Maxwell, Winston J. and Bourreau, Marc. ‘‘Technology Neutrality in Internet, Telecoms and 

Data Protection Regulation’’ Computer and Telecommunications Law Review, Issue 1, 2015. According to Maxwell and Bourreau, technology neutrality refers to a) where ‘‘technical standards 

designed to limit negative externalities (e.g., radio interference, pollution, safety) should describe 

the result to be achieved, but should leave companies free to adopt whatever technology is most 

appropriate to achieve the result’’; b) that ‘‘the same regulatory principles should apply regardless of the technology used.’’; and c) that ‘‘regulators should refrain from using regulations as 

a means to push the market toward a particular structure that the regulators consider optimal.’’ 

Technology Neutrality 5

Technology neutral funding is also important. Government funding decisions that 

favor one technology over another interfere with market forces, including investment and deployment decisions by the private sector. On the other hand, for areas 

that are truly difficult for the market to serve, the government should offer funding 

for the broadband providers that offer the best value for universal service dollars. 

This ensures that the American Universal Service Fund (USF) contributor gets the 

‘‘most bang for the USF buck’’ and that broadband service reaches the most subscribers with the limited budget. 

USF Portability 

Another idea that has been around for a while is ‘‘portable consumer subsidies.’’ 

Under this proposal, existing USF subsidies would belong to the consumer who 

would have the option of transferring to other broadband service providers and taking their subsidy with them. This would be similar to number portability for telephone service. This would introduce consumer choice in the process and open up 

competition for USF dollars, allowing the consumer to choose the service that is best 

suited for his or her needs rather than government mandated technologies. 

Question 2. Could you address concerns that satellite Internet service providers 

do not currently offer fast download speeds with low latency that can match the offerings of wireline and wireless Internet service providers? Do you expect newer 

generations of satellites and other innovations to make satellite broadband more 

competitive with other types of ISPs? 

Answer. 

Today’s Advanced High-Speed Satellite Broadband Networks 

To borrow a phrase from a recent commercial campaign, today’s satellite 

broadband service is not ‘‘your father’s satellite broadband.’’ Just as satellite TV and 

satellite radio took time to develop and become significant competitors in the video 

distribution and audio markets a decade ago, satellite broadband is becoming competitive in the broadband market. With base speeds on new high throughput 

broadband satellites reaching 25/3 Mbps and beyond for residential, aviation wi-fi, 

maritime and enterprise customers, to name a few, we are now seeing customers 

turn to satellite broadband as an alternative to DSL, cable, and, in some cases fiber, 

in urban and suburban markets as well as rural and remote areas. Up to one-third 

of satellite broadband customers are former cable or DSL subscribers. 

The newer high throughput broadband satellite designs are allowing higher 

speeds and data volumes, as well as supporting more subscribers for both voice and 

data services. Keeping up with the trends of Internet traffic, today most of the demand (80 percent and growing) is for over-the-top video downloading (e.g., Netflix, 

Hulu, YouTube). Very limited amounts of Internet traffic are latency-sensitive. 

Therefore, satellite broadband, that connects consumers directly into enterpriselevel fiber, is often a better solution than existing terrestrial networks. In fact, experience shows that many consumers prefer satellite broadband over terrestrial solutions because of price, service, and the type of applications that they routinely use. 

Future LEO/MEO Satellite Broadband Networks 

In addition to today’s advanced geostationary broadband satellite networks, there 

are new low earth orbit (LEO) and medium earth orbit (MEO) satellite systems 

under design and anticipated for launch and operation the next few years. Many 

of these systems will be able to offer low latency broadband that competes directly 

with terrestrial networks. They could also complement high throughput geostationary satellite networks, all making satellite broadband a viable alternative for 

consumers. 

Appropriate Policy Choices Are Critical 

In order to facilitate the full use of these advanced satellite broadband networks, 

policymakers need to make the right choices by allocating sufficient spectrum resources and not put the regulatory finger on the spectrum scale in favor of purely 

terrestrial wireless technology. Technology neutrality is also critical in the context 

73 

of making subsidy choices where the government must encourage competition 

among platforms. This will allow satellite broadband to flourish as a competitor to 

incumbent technologies, reducing the need for regulation, and increasing choices for 

American consumers, wherever they may choose to live and work. 

Question 3. I am interested in learning your thoughts about how to craft spectrum 

policy that is ‘‘future proof.’’ The United States Frequency Allocation Chart (available at https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/january_2016_spectrum 

_wall_chart.pdf) indicates that essentially all available spectrum has already been 

allocated. So the challenge today seems to be finding efficiencies and repurposing 

spectrum when new uses become important. How do we ensure that allocations 

made today do not unintentionally prevent us from meeting spectrum needs in the 

future? 

Answer. It is critical that any spectrum policy adopted by the United States not 

favor one technology over another—either explicitly through one policy or implicitly 

through technical rules that by application advantage one over the other. There 

needs to be competition among competing platforms. Given the enormous investment costs of providing communications services—particularly satellite services— 

the expansion of one service should not come at the expense of another. 

Today, in many cases, spectrum is shared among different, but compatible services and is being used efficiently by the satellite industry. The satellite industry has 

been sharing spectrum successfully for many decades—both in the context of coordinated use among satellite operators, but also with a number of non-satellite services, e.g., fixed backhaul. 

It is also critical to remember that there is a wide variety of spectrum needs for 

communications services other than those that meet individual consumer demand. 

For example, enterprise broadband, is relied on by small, medium, and large U.S. 

businesses through the 50 states, fuels the U.S. economic growth and provides a 

multitude of products/services available to U.S. consumers. Banking transactions 

rely on satellite communications services, as does the distribution of almost all video 

programming throughout the United States. Our military and first responders utilize commercial satellite broadband technologies for mission critical applications. As 

policy makers make spectrum allocations and licensing decisions, the broader needs 

of the country must also be considered and the impact of these decisions must be 

appropriately weighed. 

Finally, it is critical to understand that spectrum ‘‘need’’ can also be met by innovation rather than solely by additional allocations. Because of changes in technology, the same amount of spectrum is often able to be used much more efficiently 

today than it was even a decade ago—enabling demand to be met through innovation. 

While it may not be possible to future proof all allocation decisions, creating a regulatory environment that incentivizes and rewards innovation in spectrum compatibility with incumbent users and maintaining a technology neutral approach to the 

delivery of services in the United States will go a long way to ensuring that the 

U.S. leads both at home and abroad in technology and services. 

Æ