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

25–494 2017

BROADBAND: DEPLOYING AMERICA’S 21ST 

CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 21, 2017 

Serial No. 115–15 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Chairman 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Tennessee 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio) 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

Ranking Member 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Tennessee, opening statement ............................................................................ 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Michael F. Doyle, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 3 

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 5 

Hon. Leonard Lance, a Representative in Congress from the State of New 

Jersey, opening statement ................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement ..........................................................................................

Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 170 

WITNESSES

Steven K. Berry, President and CEO, Competitive Carriers Association ........... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 

Answers to submitted questions ......................................................................

Michael Conners, Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe ....................................................... 28 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 30 

Answers to submitted questions ......................................................................

Thomas A. Murray, Founder and Managing Member, Community Wireless 

Structures, and Chairman of the Board of Directors, Wireless Infrastructure Association .................................................................................................... 36 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 

Answers to submitted questions ......................................................................

Joanne S. Hovis, President, CTC Technology and Energy ................................... 48 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50 

Answers to submitted questions ......................................................................

Leroy T. Carlson, Jr., CEO, Telephone and Data Systems, Inc., and Chairman, U.S. Cellular ............................................................................................... 62 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 64 

Answers to submitted questions ......................................................................

James W. Stegeman, President, Costquest Associates, Inc. ................................ 128 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 131 

Answers to submitted questions ......................................................................

Bryan Darr, CEO, Mosaik Solutions ...................................................................... 157 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 159 

Answers to submitted questions ......................................................................

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Broadband coverage map of Iowa, submitted by Mr. Loebsack ........................... 171 

Statement of Public Knowledge, submitted by Ms. Eshoo ................................... 172 

Statement of the Satellite Industry Association, submitted by Mrs. Blackburn 175 

Statement of Rocket Fiber, submitted by Mrs. Blackburn ................................... 180 

Statement of the American Cable Association, submitted by Mrs. Blackburn .. 183 

Statement of CTIA, submitted by Mrs. Blackburn ............................................... 192 

Statement of Century Link, submitted by Mrs. Blackburn ................................. 197 

Statement of the Information Technology Industry Council, submitted by 

Mrs. Blackburn ..................................................................................................... 198 

Statement of various telecom groups ..................................................................... 199 

Statement of the Telecommunications Industry Association ............................... 202 

(1) 

BROADBAND: DEPLOYING AMERICA’S 21ST 

CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE 

TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room 

2322 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Marsha Blackburn 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Lance, Shimkus, Latta, Guthrie, Olson, 

Kinzinger, Bilirakis, Johnson, Long, Flores, Brooks, Collins, 

Cramer, Walters, Costello, Doyle, Welch, Clarke, Loebsack, Ruiz, 

Dingell, Eshoo, Engel, Matsui, McNerney, and Pallone (ex officio). 

Staff present: Chuck Flint, Policy Coordinator, Communications 

and Technology; Adam Fromm, Director of Outreach and Coalitions; Gene Fullano, Detailee, Communications and Technology; 

Giulia Giannangeli, Legislative Clerk, Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection/Communications and Technology; Kelsey 

Guyselman, Counsel, Communications and Technology; Alex Miller, 

Video Production Aide and Press Assistant; David Redl, Chief 

Counsel, Communications and Technology; Dan Schneider, Press 

Secretary; Gregory Watson, Legislative Clerk, Communications and 

Technology; Jeff Carroll, Minority Staff Director; Alex Debianchi, 

Minority Telecom Fellow; David Goldman, Minority Chief Counsel, 

Communications and Technology; Jerry Leverich, Minority Counsel; Lori Maarbjerg, Minority FCC Detailee; Jessica Martinez, Minority Outreach and Member Services Coordinator; and Dan Miller, 

Minority Staff Assistant. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Mrs. BLACKBURN [presiding]. The Subcommittee on Communications and Technology will now come to order. 

The Chair now recognizes herself for 5 minutes for an opening 

statement. 

And I do want to welcome everyone to the Communications and 

Technology Subcommittee hearing titled, appropriately, 

‘‘Broadband: Deploying America’s 21st Century Infrastructure’’. 

Also, a thank you to the witnesses for appearing as we examine 

the barriers to deployment and consider discussion drafts to facilitate the deployment of communications infrastructure. 

2 

Broadband is the infrastructure challenge of this decade, and the 

digital divide continues to frustrate so many Americans. We must 

cut through the red tape by streamlining permitting processes and 

implement accurate availability of data in order to solve the 

broadband dilemma. 

Lack of broadband access, particularly in our rural areas, is an 

issue which affects the constituents of numerous members of this 

subcommittee, Republican and Democrat. We are all tired of hearing stories about parents driving their children to the local McDonald’s for internet access in order to finish homework assignments. 

We owe them better, period. 

The 5G revolution is upon us, and we should modernize our laws 

to address issues such as tower siting and federal rights-of-way 

which are tying the hands of our private sector. 

Let’s consider the small cell phenomenon. Many carriers are now 

deploying small cells, the size of pizza boxes, as opposed to large 

towers. Small cells can be easily attached to freestanding poles, 

mitigate the risk of adverse environmental impacts, and are less 

likely to upset local zoning ordinances. They simply do not require 

the depth of review contemplated by outdated laws designed for 

larger towers. 

Each administration has attempted to spur broadband deployment, beginning with the Clinton administration’s efforts in 1995 

when GSA tried to streamline the permitting process for wireless 

antennas. $7.2 billion in federal grants and loans were awarded 

through NTIA’s Broadband Technology Opportunity Program and 

the RUS Broadband Initiative Program as a part of the Obama administration’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

President Trump has signaled that broadband will be a significant 

part of his administration’s planned infrastructure package. 

Therefore, we will be considering two discussion drafts that expedite broadband deployment. The first will assist these efforts by 

doing things such as creating an inventory of federal assets that 

can be used to attach or install broadband infrastructure. And two, 

requiring all landholding agencies to use common templates when 

leasing space for wireless broadband attachments. And No. 3, 

streamlining processes for communications facilities location applications at the Department of Interior and the Forest Service. The 

second, Representative Eshoo’s ‘‘Dig Once’’ initiative, would mandate the inclusion of broadband conduit during theconstruction of 

certain highway projects that receive federal funding. 

In addition to reducing barriers to deployment, we must accurately collect and aggregate data to update the National Broadband 

Map. The map has not been updated since June 2014, when BTOP 

funding ceased. It is imperative that we fix these maps, but doing 

so is a fool’s errand without precise data. This will ensure that private and federal investments are targeted at unserved areas. 

Unleashing broadband will create economic, educational, and 

healthcare opportunities for millions of hardworking taxpayers. A 

recent Accenture report notes that smart cities growth could result 

in a $500 billion impact on GDP over 10 years. 

People want broadband as much as new roads. Republicans and 

Democrats are eager to work together to solve this problem. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

3 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Blackburn follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN

Welcome everyone to the Communications and Technology Subcommittee’s hearing titled: ‘‘Broadband: Deploying America’s 21st Century Infrastructure’’. Also, 

thank you to the witnesses for appearing as we examine barriers to deployment and 

consider discussion drafts to facilitate the deployment of communications infrastructure. Broadband is the infrastructure challenge of this decade and the ‘‘digital divide’’ continues to frustrate many Americans. We must cut through red tape by 

streamlining permitting processes and implement accurate availability data in order 

to solve the broadband dilemma. 

Lack of broadband access, particularly in rural areas, is an issue which affects 

the constituents of numerous Members of this subcommittee, Republican and Democrat. We are all tired of hearing stories about parents driving their children to the 

local McDonald’s for Internet access in order to finish homework assignments. We 

owe them better, period.The 5G revolution is upon us and we should modernize our 

laws to address issues such as tower siting and federal rights of ways, which are 

tying the hands of our private sector. 

Let’s consider the ‘‘small cell’’ phenomenon. Many carriers are now deploying 

small cells the size of pizza boxes, as opposed to building large towers. Small cells 

can be easily attached to freestanding poles, mitigate the risk of adverse environmental impacts, and are less likely to upset local zoning ordinances. They simply 

do not require the depth of review contemplated by outdated laws designed for larger towers. 

Each Administration has attempted to spur broadband deployment beginning 

with the Clinton Administration’s efforts in 1995 when GSA tried to streamline the 

permitting process for wireless antennas. $7.2 billion in Federal grants and loans 

were awarded through NTIA’s Broadband Technology Opportunity Program and the 

RUS Broadband Initiative Program as a part of the Obama Administration’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. President Trump has signaled that 

broadband will be a significant part of his Administration’s planned infrastructure 

package. 

Therefore, we will be considering two discussion drafts that expedite broadband 

deployment. The first will assist these efforts by doing things such as: 1) creating 

an inventory of federal assets that can be used to attach or install broadband infrastructure; 2) requiring all landholding agencies to use common templates when leasing space for wireless broadband attachments; and 3) streamlining processes for 

communications facilities location applications at the Department of Interior and 

Forest Service. The second, Representative Eshoo’s ‘‘Dig Once’’ initiative, would 

mandate the inclusion of broadband conduit during the construction of certain highway projects which receive federal funding. 

In addition to reducing barriers to deployment, we must accurately collect and aggregate data to update the National Broadband Map. The map has not been updated since June 2014 when BTOP funding ceased. It is imperative that we fix the 

map, but doing so is a fool’s errand without precise data. This will ensure that private and federal investments are targeted at unserved areas. 

Unleashing broadband will create economic, educational and healthcare opportunities for millions of hardworking taxpayers. A recent Accenture report notes that 

smart cities growth could result in a $500 billion impact on GDP over ten years. 

People want broadband as much as new roads. Republicans and Democrats are 

eager to work together to solve this challenge. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. At this point I recognize Mr. Doyle for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this hearing 

today, and to all of the witnesses for appearing before us today. 

Access to affordable broadband remains one of the great challenges faced by people in this country, and far too many people in 

this country either have no access, limited access, or overpriced acVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:57 Jun 20, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-15 CHRIS
4 

cess. Broadband is an essential tool for participation in modern life. 

We use it to find employment, educate our children, get access to 

health care, and connect with our communities. But far too many 

Americans don’t have the type of connectivity that they want or 

need, and certainly in many parts of the country the free market 

has failed to close these gaps. 

As many of the witnesses point out in their testimony, carriers 

that provide connectivity under the Universal Service Program will 

not be able to raise enough capital to build out or sustain rural 

broadband networks on their own. As major cities are looking at 

the challenges and opportunities of gigabit or multi-gigabit 5G 

wireless deployments in the next few years, rural carriers will be 

working over the next 10 years to deploy basic LTE services. 

I think moving forward with this program is critical, but the 

challenge we face as a nation is that servicing rural America will 

require greater sustained investment if we hope to prevent communities from being left behind. Tax credits and toll booths can’t sustain infrastructure in places that don’t have economically-viable 

markets. 

The draft bills offered by the majority today are fine bills that 

address a number of challenges to deploying broadband, but they 

don’t get at the real problem, which is that there isn’t a business 

case for investing in these regions. I was looking through some of 

the data submitted by CostQuest Associates from the second panel. 

Some members here have districts with as few as 11 percent of the 

household served by terrestrial broadband. Recent studies have 

also shown redlining in cities like Cleveland, which have resulted 

in low-income communities being left behind while affluent parts 

of the city receive upgraded service. 

And access isn’t our only challenge. The FCC found that 82 percent of the country has only one provider to choose from for highspeed broadband. With numbers like that, if we were talking about 

health care, Republicans would be fighting to repeal and replace 

internet service in this country. 

The Consumer Federation of America found that a lack of competition results in Americans overpaying roughly $60 billion a year 

for broadband that amounts to $250 billion over the past five years. 

According to CostQuest Associates, that overage alone would pay 

for the buildout of a ubiquitous high-speed network that could support high consumer use, autonomous vehicles, and future demand. 

We can’t ignore the impact that a lack of competition has on cost 

to consumers or the pace of deployment. 

At this time, Madam Chair, I would like to yield the balance of 

my time to Ms. Matsui. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Mr. Doyle, for yielding me time. 

Technology plays a role in nearly every sector of our economy. 

Yet, across our country too many families face a digital divide. This 

has real consequences on the American people and their ability to 

compete. Not having access to broadband could mean a child is unable to do research online or send a homework assignment on time. 

In order to ensure our families are equipped with tools they need 

to participate in today’s digital economy, we need to make real, 

sustained federal investments in broadband deployment. This is 

going to require more than tax cuts and deregulatory action. 

5 

Our country has always been committed to the principle of universal service and recognized that there is a public sector role for 

places the private sector will never go. Millions of Americans could 

lose out if we don’t make a commitment now to build the infrastructure we need for all of us to compete in the 21st century. 

Thank you, Mr. Doyle. I yield to anyone else who wants time. 

Mr. DOYLE. Yes, reclaiming, would anybody like the last minute? 

Yes, Mr. Luja ́n. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member 

Doyle, for the time today. 

Access to broadband, as we know, is a critical resource for all 

Americans today. It is how they learn, find jobs, do business, communicate with family, follow the news. But in my state and too 

many rural states, we have been left behind. Congress plans to advance a long overdue infrastructure package, and it must include 

meaningful investments in broadband. 

We must also be creative in how we support such investments, 

which is why I am working to develop legislation that seeks to assist broadband buildout, not through direct government investments, but through federal incentives. My discussion draft, the 

Broadband Infrastructure Finance Innovation Act, creates low-interest financing opportunities for public/private partnerships as 

well as state and local authorities. These opportunities include 

lines of credit, secured loans, loan guarantees, and interest rates 

pegged to that of Treasury bonds. 

So, I look forward to today’s discussion and, with that, I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back, and we are waiting 

for a couple of members on our side to come from the Capitol. So, 

Mr. Pallone, I will recognize you for 5 minutes. I know you are just 

coming in, and I know Mr. Loebsack wants a portion of that time. 

So, I will seek the leadership, your guidance on this. Do you want 

to claim the time or Mr. Loebsack? 

Mr. PALLONE. Yes, I will. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. You will claim the time. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PALLONE. I will make sure, yes, that I yield at the end to 

Mr. Loebsack. 

I want to thank you, Madam Chairwoman and our Ranking 

Member Doyle, for the hearing, and our witnesses. 

In these uncertain economic times, deploying more secure, highspeed internet means providing more opportunities for more people, 

opportunities to get a proper education, to apply for new jobs, or 

to train for a new career. And that is why the Democratic members 

of this subcommittee have introduced bills to maximize this potential, especially for those that are struggling to find good jobs. 

Our bills also give the FCC a key role in keeping our networks 

secure. These efforts are critical because secure broadband could 

help give all Americans a fair shot, even in the corners of this 

country that are hardest to reach. 

6 

During the last Congress we worked to draft a discussion bill 

that had bipartisan support here in our committee. We are also 

happy to move forward with Congresswoman Eshoo’s Dig Once bill. 

And we are ready to get back to work again this year. 

But, without prior consultation, Republicans unilaterally revised 

this bipartisan bill, and at this point we are still reviewing the new 

draft. But I would have hoped that the Republican majority would 

have consulted with us prior to revising the legislation and announcing this legislative hearing. 

At the same time, the proposal in this bill will only get us so far. 

More critically, we must include broadband in our efforts to overhaul the nation’s infrastructure. Congress needs to invest in a connected future, and I have seen some suggest that tax incentives 

will somehow increase broadband in rural and tribal areas. But tax 

cuts alone won’t get it done, especially in areas where there is not 

a strong business case, like tribal lands. 

The FCC staff recently released a report showing what it would 

actually take to deploy to these remote areas and explaining that 

it will cost at least $40 billion to reach 98 percent of the population. The costs go up dramatically to reach the last 2 percent, and 

that is a serious investment that we should be discussing as part 

of any infrastructure bill. 

Unfortunately, the Trump administration is ignoring the needs of 

the people in rural America and tribal lands. The President’s budget would brutally cut off agencies like the U.S. Economic Development Administration and the Appalachian Regional Commission. 

These agencies are critical to support deployment in the parts of 

the country that could use the jobs that come with more 

broadband. And this Congress must reject the President’s budget 

and we must pass a real infrastructure bill that includes at least 

the $40 billion to make sure 98 percent of the country gets 

broadband. 

So, today’s witnesses are the types of experts we need to hear 

from to lay the foundation for that legislation. 

And I would like to yield my time, I guess I am yielding 1 

minute. You already spoke, Mr. Luja ́n? All right, then, I will yield 

the rest of the time to Congressman Loebsack. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you, Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Madam 

Chair, for this hearing. 

Broadband is not a luxury for rural America; it is survival. And 

I think everybody who is here today understands that. 

Communities cannot thrive if they are left behind as the rest of 

the country moves forward. Investing in broadband creates jobs 

and it helps communities grow. There are two critical things we 

need to connect these communities, dollars and data. We are talking about dollars, but we also need data. We need direct investment in fixed and mobile broadband, just like we invest in other 

types of infrastructure, and we need data. Right now, the data the 

FCC is using to determine where to invest in wireless shows that 

the entire state of Iowa, for example, is covered. 

Madam Chair, I would like to request unanimous consent to 

enter into the record a map I have here of coverage of Iowa. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. So ordered. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you. 

7 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. LOEBSACK. As you can see, folks, according to the FCC, all 

of Iowa gets 4G LTE coverage, according to the FCC, at the moment. Now I am constantly driving through my 24 counties to meet 

with constituents in Iowa, and I can tell you, and they can tell you 

as well, that this is not a reality. It is just not a reality. We have 

dead spots; we have dropped calls; we have poor speeds, and we 

have more in some areas. 

That is why I have recently introduced the Rural Wireless Access 

Act to improve these maps. We have to have good data. We have 

to have good maps. We have to get the data right, so we can target 

the resources to fix the problem. So, data, absolutely critical folks, 

not just the money. 

Thank you so much, Mr. Pallone, for yielding, and I will yield 

back. Thank you. 

Mr. PALLONE. I yield back the remainder of my time. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Lance, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LEONARD LANCE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you very much, and I want to thank the distinguished panel for appearing before us today. And I certainly 

commend the Chair for her distinguished work in this area. 

Commerce has always been reliant on infrastructure. Innovations 

from the Transcontinental Railroad in the 19th century to the 

interstate highly in the 20th century have succeeded in connecting 

more businesses with consumers, decreasing the cost of doing business, expanding markets, and improving America’s quality of life. 

As the committee tasked with regulating interstate and foreign 

commerce since 1795, it is the Energy and Commerce’s job to encourage the deployment of the infrastructure of the 21st century, 

broadband internet, which has the potential to connect every business and consumer in the country and around the world. 

While the district I serve in New Jersey is not among the most 

unserved or underserved, I believe striving to connect those households that lack broadband access is a worthy goal that will benefit 

all Americans. As our economy becomes increasingly more 

digitized, bringing broadband access to more areas of the country, 

connects more consumers and small businesses to the internet 

economy for the economic benefit of all, improved broadband infrastructure will also pave the way for future technologies like 5G, 

which has the potential to add millions of jobs and billions of dollars in GDP growth to the economy. 

However, as we seek to decrease this digital divide and expand 

our broadband infrastructure, it is imperative that we learn from 

the mistakes of the past and ensure that we have the necessary accurate data to deploy our resources efficiently and effectively. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony of both panels and continuing the subcommittee’s work on this important topic. 

And I am certainly willing to yield to other members who wish 

to have an opening statement. 

Mr. Shimkus? 

8 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank my colleague. 

And as the chairwoman said, in my district my district staff 

knows that I am a McDonald’s afficionado and the No. 1 meal is 

my go-to meal. So, if my parents had a chance to get me to go to 

McDonald’s to do my homework, I probably would have been all in 

on that. 

[Laughter.] 

But it is interesting listening to the comments on both sides because there is, obviously, a great opportunity, I think, to work together to move issues. A couple of things that I would like to talk 

about are, and Ms. Matsui mentioned Universal Service Fund 

should be properly directed, and I think that is a key for underserved areas. 

We have adequate maps. The Chairwoman Blackburn mentioned 

adequate maps and real definitions. My point would be adequate 

definitions. What is high speed? What are we going to decide? And 

many of you in this sector know that I talk about this all the time 

because what is high speed to one is not high speed to another. 

This should be part of an infrastructure package, as we tee this up. 

If there is ever going to be a $1 trillion infrastructure rollout, obviously, this should be part of that. Also, we are addressing Anna 

Eshoo’s bill, too, which had a lot of support in the last Congress, 

and that dovetails right into infrastructure. 

So, I think properly managed, as we move this process forward, 

Madam Chairman, I think we should be able to move on a bipartisan package that should have some legs, and I look forward to 

working with you on it. 

I yield back. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you very much. 

Are there other members on our side who would like to speak? 

Mr. Johnson? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I thank you for yielding. 

This is a very, very important hearing. And I have heard some 

of the comments by my colleagues. I represent Appalachia. There 

are many places in my district that young people, high school children, college kids even, have to go to a neighboring town or a public library or some other facility to get access to the internet to do 

their school projects. You can’t educate young people in 2017 in the 

kind of high-tech-driven world that we live in when they have to 

go to that extreme. 

We have got to solve this problem, and I look forward to hearing 

what our panel has to say today. And I look forward to working 

with you, Madam Chairman, to address these issues. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you very much. 

Anyone else? 

Seeing none, I yield back the balance of my time, Madam Chair. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back, and this concludes 

our member opening statements. 

I will remind all that, pursuant to the committee rules, all members’ opening statements will be made a part of the record. 

We want to thank all of our witnesses. We are so grateful that 

you are here today and grateful that all of that testimony got in 

early. We thank you for that, and we thank you that you are here 

to testify. 

9 

We will have two panels, just as a couple of our members have 

mentioned. Each panel of witnesses will have the opportunity to 

give an opening statement, followed by a round of questions from 

members. Once we conclude with the questions on the first panel, 

we will take a brief reset and bring the second panel forward. 

Our first witness panel for today’s hearings includes, and we welcome, Mr. Steve Berry, who serves as the President and CEO of 

Competitive Carriers Association; Mr. Michael Conners, who is the 

Sub Chief of the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe from California; Mr. 

Thomas, or ‘‘Tam’’, Murray, who is the Founder and Managing 

Member of Community Wireless Structures, which is based out of 

northern Virginia; Ms. Joanne Hovis, who is the President of CTC 

Technology and Energy, and Mr. Ted Carlson, Jr., who is the CEO 

of Telephone and Data Systems and Chairman of U.S. Cellular. 

We appreciate all of you being here today and preparing for this 

hearing. We will begin the panel with you, Mr. Berry. You are now 

recognized for 5 minutes for your statement. 

STATEMENTS OF STEVEN K. BERRY, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

COMPETITIVE CARRIERS ASSOCIATION; SUB CHIEF MICHAEL CONNERS, SAINT REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE; THOMAS A. 

MURRAY, FOUNDER AND MANAGING MEMBER, COMMUNITY 

WIRELESS STRUCTURES, AND CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF 

DIRECTORS, WIRELESS INFRASTRUCTURE ASSOCIATION; 

JOANNE S. HOVIS, PRESIDENT, CTC TECHNOLOGY AND ENERGY; LEROY T. CARLSON, JR., CEO, TELEPHONE AND DATA 

SYSTEMS, INC., AND CHAIRMAN, U.S. CELLULAR 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN K. BERRY 

Mr. BERRY. Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, and 

Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify 

about broadband infrastructure. 

I am here today on behalf of CCA, representing nearly 100 wireless carriers and nearly 200 vendors and suppliers. 

I agree with your observations, Chairman Blackburn, that 

broadband is the infrastructure issue of this decade. Mobile 

broadband, in particular, drives jobs creation, drives economic development, connecting Americans while providing new applications 

for services that were really unthinkable only a few years go. 

Demand for mobile broadband is growing exponentially, and we 

are on the verge of an evolutionary leap into 5G services. 

Qualcomm projects, with 5G, it will support 22 million jobs and 

generate $3.5 trillion in revenue. 5G will build upon 4G LTE, and 

it is not a replacement for LTE, especially in rural America. So, 

there is no time to wait. This is not a telecommunication issue 

only. It is a jobs issue. It is an education issue and a public health 

and a public safety issue, and an American competitiveness issue. 

I am pleased to support the committee’s efforts to expand infrastructure. Also, FCC Chairman Pai is off to a good start with his 

Digital Empowerment Agenda and proposing the Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee. The record is sufficient for FCC to 

act now. 

Let me identify five areas for action. 

10 

First, any infrastructure proposal must include support for mobile broadband. A bipartisan group of Members of Congress, including 12 members of this committee, recently wrote President Trump 

to that effect. This should include direct support, tax incentives, access to spectrum, reduced fees, and streamlined procedures. Most 

importantly, direct support should be distributed through the FCC 

and used to provide additional resources for the Mobility Fund. 

Second, we must take steps to streamline the process at every 

level. Barriers to deployment remain. It sort of reminds me of that 

famous line in a classic movie Cool Hand Luke, ‘‘What we’ve got 

here is a failure to communicate.’’ 

To provide wireless service, carriers need to deploy towers, small 

cells, conduit, antennas, and, yes, even wires. The process for approval is a regulatory nightmare. Let me share with you a visual 

of the incredibly burdensome steps and potential pitfalls that carriers have to endure. I think you have it up on your screen and before you. 

One look at this infographic and it is abundantly clear that we 

need to simplify and streamline the process. We need to make it 

easier to build the infrastructure of the 21st century. 

The discussion draft bills this committee is considering take important steps to address many of these challenges, and Congress 

should move forward without delay. Broadband is an immediate 

priority for the nation, and leadership starts at the federal level. 

Twenty-eight percent of the nation’s geography is owned or managed by the federal government and 100 percent of all the spectrum. 

Third, Congress should legislate now. For example the Dig Once 

bill is common-sense policy and would immediately help carriers to 

gain access to backhaul wireless data, as Ms. Anna Eshoo knows. 

Congress should streamline and accelerate historic and environmental review and direct federal agencies to set real deadlines for 

action and decisions with consequences for missing deadlines, like 

shot-clocks with deemed granted provisions if an agency doesn’t respond. The committee need not wait for a broader infrastructure 

proposal. 

Congress should also support swift action at the FCC, and I 

mean now at the FCC. Deploying the latest wireless infrastructure 

is totally different than constructing a large tower. And I ask you 

for a moment, imagine a 250-foot tower. Now let me show you today’s tower. The pizza box that the chairman talked about, this is 

the new tower, and they are getting smaller, believe it or not. Too 

often the same rules applied to deploying small cells or even changing out antennas is as applied to tall towers. Streamlining the application process will also ease increased demand on municipal resources. 

Fourth, application fees and other costs associated with reviews 

should be justified, consistent, and tied to actual review costs and 

rights-of-way management. Again, the same fees that apply to tall 

towers should not apply to small cells. Applications to deploy 

broadband need to be viewed as investments. Yes, that is correct, 

investments, to create jobs, to create an expanded economy, and 

not as a revenue-generator from the application itself. 

11 

Fifth, and maybe most importantly, as Mr. Loebsack said, we 

need better data. If you can’t measure an issue, you can’t fix it. The 

current FCC data for wireless coverage is not standardized or reliable. For example, the difference of only 5-decibel milliwatts in 

propagation measurement can overstate geographic coverage by 

over 100 percent. We need to clearly identify and have better data. 

Finally, spectrum is infrastructure. You can add capacity and 

coverage by adding spectrum and building sites, but this committee 

deserves credit for your launch of the Incentive Auction, and it is 

critical to put that 600-megahertz spectrum into use in the 39 

months ahead of us and deploy it in rural America. This committee 

should be congratulated in your meeting the growing demands and 

empower our economic growth. And we believe that eliminating the 

regulatory morass—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. BERRY [continuing]. That delays our building of the infrastructure is well worth the time. 

Thank you, and I ask for your kind indulgence. I was over 5 minutes. 

[The prepared statement of Steven K. Berry follows:] 

12 


25494.033

Broadband: Deploying America's 21" Century Infrastructure 

Testimony of Steven K. Berry 

President and Chief Executive Officer 

Competitive Carriers Association 

before the 

U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

March 21,2017 
13 


25494.034

Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for 

inviting me to testify about the critical role that mobile broadband infrastructure has in modern life for 

Americans in all corners of this country. As Chairman Blackburn astutely noted, "broadband is the 

infrastructure issue of this decade." CCA wholeheartedly agrees. Broadband networks, and mobile 

broadband networks in particular, are analogous to the interstate highway system that transformed our 

economy in the 1950's. The on and off ramps that these networks provide are essential to our 

economy, creating jobs, economic development, and opportunity that is instrumental to virtually every 

aspect of life. America's dependence on mobile broadband increases every day. That is why today's 

hearing is so important, as you know, and I am pleased to offer my testimony. 

I am testifying on behalf of Competitive Carriers Association, the nation's leading association of 

competitive wireless carriers. CCA is made up of nearly 100 carrier members ranging from small, rural 

providers serving fewer than 5,000 customers to regional and national providers serving millions of 

customers. CCA also represents almost 200 associate members- small businesses, vendors, and 

suppliers that serve carriers of all sizes. 

Broadband infrastructure encompasses the towers, wires, conduit, spectrum, and other 

equipment and resources that power broadband networks. Broadband is infrastructure and 

infrastructure is broadband. The demand for mobile broadband in this nation has grown exponentially 

over the past few years, and will continue to grow at an astounding rate. A recent Cisco report found 

that mobile data use grew 63 percent in 2016 and 18-fold over the last five years. looking ahead, data 

traffic will increase at least another seven-fold over the next five years. Putting this into practical terms, 

one CCA member reported that data traffic increased more than 3 times at the NFL® championship this 

year compared to last year's game, and about 8 times more than the 2015 game. All ofthis demand 

2 
14 


25494.035

creates an ever-growing list of groundbreaking services, technologies and applications, from telehealth 

treatments and monitoring to public safety solutions, distance learning, and the Internet of Things. 

Mobile broadband is a critical economic driver, and its role in economic development will be 

magnified following the evolutionary leap to SG technologies. Qualcomm projects that SG will support 

22 million jobs and generate up to $3.5 trillion in revenue by 2035. Focusing on small and rural 

broadband providers, which comprise the vast majority of CCA's members, a recent report by the 

Hudson Institute states that the investments and ongoing operations of small rural broadband providers 

contribute $24.1 billion annually to the nation's gross domestic product, with 66 percent ($15.9 billion) 

of that amount benefiting urban areas. The report also found that rural broadband investment is an 

important driver of job growth, estimating that nearly 70,000 jobs can be attributed directly to 

economic activity of small, rural broadband providers. A CCA-commissioned study from a few years ago 

also confirmed an increase in median incomes across an entire state as broadband availability increased. 

This ongoing economic activity and investment is directly dependent on the ability of providers to 

buildout network infrastructure, and this buildout is contingent on sound, common sense infrastructure 

policies. And now, we are expected to achieve full-fledged SG networks in 2020. 

let me be clear- if we want to deploy broadband networks that will support SG, we cannot wait 

to address broadband infrastructure challenges unti12020 or later. Chairman Pal recently committed to 

immediately instruct his staff to implement Section 7 of the Communications Act. CCA fully supports 

Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) enforcement of the statutory one-year shotclock imposed on new technologies and services, including new technologies and services advanced by 

sound broadband infrastructure policies that will lead to next generation deployments. Congress rightly 

recognized that government should not impede innovative progress that is in the public interest. Hence, 

Congress and the FCC must tackle broadband infrastructure challenges today to meet current and future 

3 
15 


25494.036

demands. While SG will build on 4G LTE coverage, it is important to note that SG is not a replacement 

for LTE, particularly in rural America. 

Americans rely on high-speed mobile broadband service for their jobs, health care, schools, and 

much, much more. But there are many areas of the country where these services aren't available and as 

a result, the Americans and economy in those areas suffer. Industrial recruitment suffers and 

productivity declines. Lack of services will even harm home prices, and students in these areas may be 

unable to complete homework assignments. Delay in addressing broadband infrastructure challenges 

will continue to leave many Americans on the wrong side of the digital divide. Areas that remain 

unserved or underserved, particularly those in rural America, risk being left behind by today's 

technological revolution. CCA members are proud to serve challenging and high cost areas, but there is 

a long way to go to connect the entire country. Policies established by Congress and the FCC will play a 

significant role in whether rural America has access to the latest services or languishes behind the 

modern economy. 

As a native of Southwestern Virginia, I experienced first-hand how robust mobile broadband 

services improve economic development in rural America. My hometown and the surrounding region is 

still underserved, and I am hopeful that efforts to support expanded deployment will fill those gaps. 

Speaking personally, I am pleased that Chairman Pai has made closing the digital divide a priority of his 

administration. There is no time to waste. For mobile broadband providers to build the infrastructure 

needed to close the digital divide between urban and rural America, Congress and the FCC must act 

quickly and adopt streamlined, common sense deployment policies and procedures that support 

buildout across the U.S. and particularly in rural America. And CCA fully supports creation of Chairman 

Pai's Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee (BDAC), which will provide advice and 

recommendations on how to accelerate the deployment of broadband by reducing and removing 

4 
16 


25494.037

regulatory barriers to infrastructure investment and, in turn, enhance the FCC's ability to carry out its 

statutory responsibility to encourage broadband deployment to all Americans. 

The FCC, either through the BDAC or independently, should move quickly to provide immediate 

relief to these infrastructure challenges, and Congress should take the following steps to provide longterm certainty. First, Congress should include mobile broadband in any infrastructure bill. Second, 

Congress should pass legislation that improves the process for deploying facilities on federal lands. 

Third, Congress should pass legislation that reduces barriers to deployment that can result in prohibitive 

delays and expenses, including clarifying what "prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting" means for 

broadband deployment. Congress also should streamline and modify the historical and environmental 

review processes, reduce the bureaucracy across multiple government agencies associated with locating 

and modifying facilities, and establish "dig once" policies, once and for all. Fourth, Congress should act 

to rein in unreasonable fees charged by federal, state, local, and tribal entities to approve wireless 

facility deployment. Fifth, and most importantly, Congress and the FCC must base their decisions on 

data that accurately reflects on-the-ground mobile broadband user experience, standardized across the 

industry. 

The right infrastructure policies will not only create jobs and drive economic development today 

by unlocking network investment and creating competition throughout the ecosystem, but also will 

pave the path for the United States to lead the world in SG in the future. 

Include Mobile Broadband Infrastructure in Any Legislative Infrastructure Proposal 

President Trump campaigned on the need to update our nation's infrastructure, and he is right: 

our nation is in desperate need of an infrastructure overhaul. This package must include mobile 

broadband to fulfill the President's commitment and meet Congressional expectations, particularly in 

rural America. CCA was pleased to see a broad bipartisan group of Members of Congress, including a 

dozen members that serve on this Committee, convey that message to President Trump in a recent 

5 
17 


25494.038

letter, stating that "[a]s you consider the parameters of your infrastructure proposal to Congress, we 

write to urge you to include investments that will bring the benefits of broadband connectivity to rural 

America." 

Specially, the infrastructure proposal should include direct, long-term support for mobile 

broadband infrastructure prioritizing areas that are otherwise uneconomical to serve. The FCC should 

distribute this support because, as Chairman Pai recently noted, the FCC has a better track record than 

other agencies of preventing overbuilding and awarding support to projects that can deliver the 

intended services. CCA also supports tax incentives, especially rural-focused credits, to spur investment 

and deployment like those discussed in Chairman Pai's Digital Empowerment Agenda. While certain tax 

credits should be included to support expanding and upgrading broadband infrastructure, like proposed 

Gigabit Opportunity Zones, there are instances where mobile facilities in rural America will never be 

profitable because of low population and the high costs of serving these areas. In these cases, tax 

credits may not go far enough to foster infrastructure investment. Only direct, predictable support will 

connect these communities, plain and simple. In addition to direct support and tax incentives, CCA 

supports preserving and expanding mobile broadband through utilizing bonus depreciation and/or 

immediate expensing. Broadly, CCA supports policies that create opportunities for greater and faster 

access to spectrum for mobile broadband use, with reduced fees and streamlined siting procedures. 

Congress is currently considering several important legislative initiatives to spur broadband 

deployment. These bills should not be delayed due to a broader infrastructure bill and we urge 

Congress to take immediate action to pass these narrowly tailored bills. However, a broader 

infrastructure package could provide a vehicle for several standalone policy updates that can provide an 

immediate positive impact, building upon the progress Congress has made to break down barriers to 

deployment. Similarly, the FCC can and should move forward quickly to promote streamlined 

deployment of services. The FCC also should work in conjunction with Congress to codify streamlined 

6 
18 


25494.039

infrastructure policies and defer to Congress when certain infrastructure changes fall outside existing 

FCC authority. 

Improve Access to Federal Lands 

One of the most overlooked areas of infrastructure policy is access to federal lands. According 

to the Congressional Research Service, roughly 635-640 million acres of land- 28 percent of the United 

States' geography- are owned or managed by the federal government. As you might guess, access to 

federal lands is especially critical for rural carriers to provide service throughout their service territories. 

Serving these lands is not only important from a commercial or consumer perspective, but more so from 

a public safety perspective. Millions of Americans visit our parks and forests every year- we have seen 

repeatedly how mobile broadband and access to connectivity can help to save lives. 

CCA represents members that provide service on federal lands today, and many more carriers 

that would like to. Unfortunately, all too often, CCA members express frustration about the hurdles 

they face when applying through federal agencies to deploy or upgrade facilities on federal lands. These 

experiences include lost or missing applications, applications that languish for years, inconsistent or 

undisclosed rules across and within agencies, redundant historical or environmental reviews, and 

inconsistent denials. Several CCA members were even forced to seek deadline waivers from the FCC 

tied to Universal Service Mobility Fund support because the awards required them to provide service on 

federal lands and the carriers could not overcome the delays. The unresponsiveness of government 

bureaucrats has created widespread regulatory uncertainty for our members. They have been 

unnecessarily hamstrung from providing high quality mobile broadband service in rural America. In 

many cases, providers are not getting the basic courtesy of a response from federal agencies, resulting 

in stalled, and sometimes abandoned plans to buildout in these areas. This is not an acceptable 

outcome. 

7 
19 


25494.040

The 2015 Broadband Opportunity Council report supported increased access to deploy mobile 

broadband on federal lands and facilities, and Congress and the FCC have long supported this goal. Now 

is the time to move forward with policies and procedures that improve access to mobile broadband and 

to harmonize and streamline procedures and processes across federal agencies. The Broadband 

Deployment on Federal Property Working Group recently released for comment a draft "standard 

treatment" to streamline deployment on federal lands. The document is a step in the right direction, 

but lacked several important provisions. For example, any document governing siting on federal lands 

should hold federal agencies to specific time frames or "shot clocks" to process siting applications and 

negotiate leases to build on federal lands and other real property, like historic landmarks. These shot 

clocks should be attached to a "deemed granted" provision. Inserting a "deemed granted" provision in 

infrastructure legislation is a vital component to ensure that shot clocks actually serve their intended 

purpose and government is responsive to rural providers, and ultimately to your constituents. Projects 

crossing the jurisdictions of more than one federal agency should be required to specifically designate a 

"lead" agency who will manage all project applications, fees and approvals. Small wireless facilities and 

their associated equipment also should be excluded from the rigors of a full Section 106 review. 

Reduce Barriers to Mobile Broadband infrastructure Deployment 

The infrastructure hurdles faced by mobile broadband providers, both for base stations and 

small cells used for network densification, add unnecessary complexity and delays to broadband 

deployment. Carriers must navigate a myriad of steps to deploy new sites or to upgrade or maintain 

existing sites. The chart mapping the current process in Appendix A demonstrates the astonishing web 

of regulations, approvals, and fees carriers face to build or install infrastructure. While navigating this 

process can be problematic, these challenges become overwhelming when you factor in the costs to 

deploy small cells, and dramatic increase in the number of applications for sites. These onerous and 

often unnecessary steps slow private and public investment in our nation's broadband infrastructure 

8 
20 


25494.041

and deprive consumers of the latest and greatest technologies, network speeds, and access to the 

applications that are vital to today's economy. It seems that government entities may need some 

education about the vast economic, public safety, and social benefits of mobile broadband so that 

deployment is a high priority for all government entities. 

CCA has consistently supported efforts to streamline the policies that govern infrastructure 

deployment, which will facilitate mobile broadband deployment today, lay the groundwork for SG 

services of tomorrow, and dramatically reduce time and opportunity costs for carriers to deploy in 

unserved or underserved rural areas, federal lands or anywhere lacking mobile broadband. Last 

Congress, this Committee worked on several proposals that tackled barriers and would help to achieve 

these goals. CCA continues to support these efforts, and encourages the Committee to advance the 

discussion draft bills to: 

streamline and accelerate historical review under the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA) and environmental review per the National Environmental Protection Act 

(NEPA); 

streamline the application process to locate or modify facilities with federal agencies, 

including the Department of the Interior, the Forest Service, and the Department of 

Defense; 

• establish deadlines for development and use of master contracts to site wireless 

facilities on federal property; 

clarify key terms and language in the relevant statutes to provide certainty and reduce 

deployment delays; 

establish an inventory of federal assets to construct or collocate broadband facilities; 

and, 

establish "dig once" policies. 

9 
21 


25494.042

Longer term, Congress should consider other policies that affect the ability to deploy mobile 

broadband services. That includes ensuring robust access to backhaul services, particularly as carriers 

densify networks while dealing with growing capacity demands. Additionally, Congress should consider 

updates to Section 224 of the Communications Act to support cost-effective wireless attachments on 

poles and in Rights-Of-Ways. As carriers densify their wireless broadband networks and handle 

increasing capacity demands, there will be an ever-growing reliance on additional backhaul services, 

including from fiber and other wire line services. Making it easier to expand competitive backhaul 

services will help streamline mobile broadband deployment. Equally important is timely access to pole 

attachments. 

In addition, Congress should consider revising and updating "shot clock" requirements for 

decisions on applications on the state and local level, including "deem granted" provisions for instances 

of no response. CCA recently asked the FCC to interpret Section 332 of the Communications Act to 

shorten existing shot clocks to 30 days for collocations (currently 90 days) and 60-75 days for other 

permits (currently 150 days). However, it is fully within this Committee's purview to establish timely 

response deadlines. Given the changing technological landscape trending toward small cell, DAS 

deployment and collocations, and the minimal, if any, impact that this type of equipment has on its 

surroundings, the FCC or Congress would do well to facilitate faster review of this equipment. Adopting 

a "deemed granted" remedy, whereby a siting application is deemed granted by operation of law if 

review is not completed within a certain time frame, is critical to ensuring these shot clocks function as 

intended. 

Congress also should support streamlined procedures for small cells and distributed antenna 

systems. For small cell applications that include multiple substantially similar sites, "batched" review of 

applications or updated programmatic agreements that provide increased certainty to carriers also may 

alleviate demands on government employees who must process this growing number of applications. 

10 
22 


25494.043

Further, policymakers should be careful not to burden carriers with any new regulations that 

could stifle deployments. This includes new tower marking rules that must be promulgated later this 

year by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as a result of the FAA Extension, Safety and Security 

Act of 2016. CCA agrees with Commissioner Mike O'Rielly that the scope of the tower marking 

requirements should be narrowed to appropriately capture risks for aviators and clearly exempt 

telecommunications towers to remove a potential barrier to deployment and increased expense for 

carriers. 

Rein in Costs 

CCA members understand that reviewing infrastructure applications take time and resources, 

and that there often are fees associated with this review. CCA fully supports paying justified costs for 

application review. That said, the current application fee structure and costs associated with pole 

attachments are in dire need of reform; fees are inconsistent, often unrelated to application review, and 

excessive. Excessive fees, especially fees attached to the Section 106 historical review process, can 

make deploying service cost prohibitive in rural America. 

Congress or the FCC should clarify what is considered a fair, reasonable, and uniform fee, and 

ensure that application fees are administered in a competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory manner. 

Fees should be tied to the actual costs of reviewing siting applications and managing rights-of-way, and 

be publicly available for carriers as they consider the application process. In a recent filing at the 

Commission, CCA asked the FCC to limit costs by interpreting "just and reasonable compensation" under 

Section 253 of the Communications Act as limiting fees to recover reasonable costs of reviewing and 

issuing permits, and managing rights-of-way. Additionally, these fees should be made public. 

They also should be fair. CCA fully supports Chairman Pai's pole attachment proposals, including 

expanded FCC jurisdiction over pole attachments and reviewing the cost of access to poles. Similar to 

other cost proposals, pole attachment costs should be related to the cost to attach to the pole. The FCC 

11 
23 


25494.044

does not have jurisdiction over poles owned by other government entities or those owned by railroads. 

Congress should expand FCC jurisdiction to bring down pole attachment costs and clarify that Section 

253 requires all fees to be issued on a non-discriminatory and competitively neutral basis applicable to 

all rights-of-way users, not just between wireless providers. 

With respect to historic review, siting a wireless tower has been designated as a "federal 

undertaking" because carriers seeking to deploy broadband infrastructure are dependent on federally 

licensed spectrum to provide service. Many small wireless deployments also are a "federal 

undertaking," or, even if exempt and already deployed, can still necessitate Section 106 review under 

the NHPA under certain circumstances. Any deployment that qualifies as a "federal undertaking," must 

include additional reviews and fees, particularly under Section 106 of the NHPA. Congress should 

narrowly tailor application of Section 106 to ensure that mobile deployment efforts are not frustrated 

where full Section 106 review is not necessary and to include wireless carriers in the same 

technologically neutral regime as other providers that do not depend on licensed spectrum to provide 

service. This is a competitive disadvantage in areas where wireless carriers compete against fixed 

wire line or unlicensed wireless services to provide broadband to consumers. 

Tribal review, in particular, often entails unnecessarily high costs, many seemingly unrelated to 

the actual cost of review or the presence of a tribal interest in a historic property. Considering the need 

to deploy advanced mobile services to meet skyrocketing consumer demand for mobile data, benefiting 

all Americans, Congress or the FCC should introduce practical and reasonable limitations on Tribal 

review to bring down deployment delays and costs while appropriately addressing Tribal concerns. 

Tribes should be an ally in the broadband deployment process-not an opponent. Considering the FCC's 

Mobility Fund II Order estimates 340 million dollars will be reserved to create new broadband 

opportunities on Tribal lands, Congress and the FCC should foster partnerships between Tribal Nations 

and broadband providers. 

12 
24 


25494.045

Compliance costs associated with NEPA also require attention. The FCC broadly excludes 

collocations from NEPA review, but not the vast majority of new poles and support structures needed to 

complete a 5G project. Congress should provide that new support poles are not a "major federal action" 

under NEPA, at least new support poles in a right-of-way under 125 feet. Congress also should 

introduce shot clocks for certain milestones in the FCC's environmental assessments (EAs), including the 

environmental review dispute resolution. 

Cost-based and appropriate fees, similar to opportunity costs associated with streamlining 

reviews and eliminating barriers to deployment, allow carriers to invest more with fewer resources. This 

is particularly important for carriers serving high cost areas or with support from the limited resources 

of the Universal Service Fund. CCA urges Congress to support policies that allow competitive carriers to 

put their resources towards deploying mobile broadband that will spur economic growth and meeting 

consumer demands. 

Standardized Data 

Quality data should guide policymakers when making decisions about infrastructure, especially 

decisions regarding where infrastructure deployment is most needed. Ubiquitous mobile broadband 

coverage will fail without the foundation of accurate broadband coverage data. It is imperative that 

Congress, the FCC, and consumers have an accurate view of where robust services are available based 

on standardized, actionable data. When analyzing wireless coverage data, seemingly slight 

discrepancies can have significant impacts on outcomes that skew results. Factors including propagation 

measurement, map resolution, and clutter factor, which reflects the presence of vegetation or other 

structures, can render data unusable for combining or comparing other carrier reported data. For 

example, a difference of only -5 decibel-milliwatts (dBm) loss propagation results in a difference of 100% 

geographic coverage. 100%! As that increases to -10 dBm, the geographic coverage difference 

approaches 300% in rural areas. It is clear that measurements need to be standardized. 

13 
25 


25494.046

Data that reflects consumers' real world experiences may be most important in the context of 

Mobility Fund Phase II (MFII). Adopted by the FCC earlier this year to meet Congress's mandate to 

provide reasonably comparable services in urban and rural America, MFII attempts to preserve and 

expand mobile broadband in high cost areas. However, before moving forward with auctioning nearly 

$5 billion in support over the next ten years, the FCC must take steps to improve the data that 

determines which areas are eligible for support. CCA commends the FCC for including a challenge 

process in the MFII Order, and for releasing a Further Notice of Proposed Rule making to determine the 

factors of a challenge process, but significant work remains to correct and standardize the underlying 

coverage data. FCC Chairman Pai made this clear when he recently noted his experience of insufficient 

mobile broadband coverage while driving from Wichita, KS to Des Moines, lA- despite the FCC's Form 

477 data showing the entire route blanketed in 4G lTE coverage. 

I imagine that each of you could instantly spot overstated coverage in your districts despite 

what the FCC's 477 data depicts. In fact, Representative Dave Loebsack recently introduced H.R. 1546, 

the Rural Wireless Access Act of 2017, to address this very problem. As Representative Loebsack noted, 

without accurate coverage maps, resources will not be directed to the areas that need them most. CCA 

supports Representative Loebsack's legislation and other efforts to correct the flaws of the Form 477 

data before the FCC determines what rural areas will be eligible for USF support, locked-in for the next 

10 years, and welcomes continued Congressional oversight and involvement to get this right. 

Spectrum Access Impacts Mabile Broadband Deployment 

Even before construction begins, carriers must have access to spectrum to provide mobile 

broadband services to customers over physical infrastructure. Particularly in rural areas, having access 

to low-band spectrum, below 1 GHz, is critical to building out coverage with fewer cell sites due to its 

propagation characteristics. For example, spectrum at 700 MHz will propagate nearly 3.5 times further 

than spectrum at 2100 MHz in the AWS band. The coverage propagation characteristics reach even 

14 
26 


25494.047

further with 600 MHz spectrum that is being reallocated for mobile broadband use through the 

incentive auction. Once put to use, this 600 MHz spectrum will be vital to expanding mobile broadband 

coverage into unserved areas. CCA commends this Committee for its critical role in authorizing the 

incentive auction, which is the second largest spectrum auction in FCC history with 84 MHz of 

reallocated spectrum, 70 MHz allocated for mobile broadband use, and $7 billion provided to the 

Treasury for deficit reduction. CCA members must quickly put this spectrum to use to expand mobile 

broadband coverage and serve their consumers. Therefore, Congress must continue its oversight of the 

statutorily-created repacking process to ensure broadcasters complete construction of their new 

channel within 36 months or sooner and cease operations no later than 39 months post-auction. In 

addition, Congress should support efforts to expedite the transition, especially in rural areas. 

Nevertheless, in all areas, carriers can add capacity to their networks to handle growing 

consumer demands through reusing spectrum more frequently by adding additional cell sites or by 

gaining access to additional spectrum resources. As carriers begin to put 600 MHz spectrum to use, they 

will immediately add both capacity and coverage to existing sites. Building on the success of the 

incentive auction, Congress also should support efforts to allocate additional spectrum resources for 

mobile broadband use, including at low-, medium-, and high-bands and both licensed and unlicensed. 

Additional spectrum is needed to keep up with consumers' demand and to power new connections 

including the Internet of Things. That said, additional spectrum alone will not suffice for the United 

States to remain the leader in mobile broadband, and must be paired with reforms to streamline 

deployment, reduce time delays, and rein in fees. 

15 
27 


25494.048

CCA is committed to working with Congress, the FCC, and the Administration to advance policies 

that support expanded mobile broadband infrastructure nationwide. Meeting broadband infrastructure 

challenges, especially in rural America, is critical to job creation and economic development in the 21'' 

Century. Thank you for the opportunity to testify at this important hearing, and I welcome any 

questions. 

16 
28 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Berry. 

Mr. Connors, you are recognized, 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF SUB CHIEF MICHAEL CONNERS 

Mr. CONNORS. [Speaking Native language.] 

Hello. My name is Michael Conners. I am a Sub Chief of the 

Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe. 

Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, and Members of 

the Subcommittee, it is my honor to be here with you today to discuss our tribe’s successful efforts to build critical broadband infrastructure in New York, highlight our legislative priorities, and recommend the best practices for deploying broadband services on 

tribal lands and throughout rural America. 

The Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe is a federally-recognized tribal 

government located in our traditional territory of Akwesasne in 

northern New York. Our tribe prides itself on being a good partner 

with our local, state, and federal leadership to promote the wellbeing of our community and to advance our collective legislative 

goals. 

Being one of the primary employers in our region, the Saint 

Regis Mohawk Tribe, Akwesasne Mohawk Casino, Mohawk Networks, and Akwesasne TV provide more than 1600 employment opportunities and over $52 million in salaries annually to the residents of northern New York. The success of our enterprises allows 

our tribe to further provide economic development opportunities 

and increased access to critical infrastructure. 

In 2009, the tribe was awarded $10 million through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, USDA’s Broadband Initiative 

Program, to form Mohawk Networks, a tribally-owned telecom entity. By 2015, Mohawk Networks connected roughly 80 percent of all 

homes in our territory to high-speed internet service. 

While we have seen the positive impacts this has brought to our 

community, our non-Native neighbors in the north country have 

not. Mohawk Networks estimates more than 100,000 homes in our 

neighboring counties have been overlooked. Twenty percent of 

homes are unable to access speeds greater than 6 megabytes per 

second, and 37 percent cannot afford the average monthly rate 

charge of $59.99. 

For this reason, we have decided to expand our broadband service to our neighbors in the surrounding non-tribal communities. 

The first phase of expansion into Lewis County through the activation of five towers has been made possible by a $6.4 million grant 

received in round two of the new New York Broadband Program. 

Discussions are currently underway with Clinton County legislators regarding the expansion of Mohawk Networks’ broadband infrastructure to Clinton County by the end of 2018. 

A primary component of what allows the tribe to be competitive 

and keep our costs low is our utilization of 16 towers throughout 

multiple surrounding counties and the reliability of our innovative 

technology. Working in conjunction with local stakeholders allows 

us to provide broadband services throughout the North Country 

and keep costs low. Currently, the average cost per household for 

the deployment of our wireless technology is $1700, far less than 

the traditional method of laying miles of fiber. 

29 

While we are moving forward and making progress, several hurdles have presented themselves. These include: 

One, cumbersome grant requirements. While the tribe was fortunate to receive a $10 million grant, this only covered the initial implementation of the program and was received as reimbursements 

rather than direct funding. While we were able to cover these costs, 

this financial investment is difficult for many rural tribal communities who may lack successful economic development. 

Two, grant funds are not enough, and opportunities seem to be 

disappearing. Opportunities benefitting Indian country and rural 

America tend to be hit the hardest by budget cuts and are inconsistently funded. We were disappointed to see that the tribal building incentive for the Connect America Fund was not included in 

this year’s application, despite active outreach from members of 

this subcommittee. 

Three, there is a lack of support and understanding about the capabilities of tribal telecom entities. When we applied for phase 1 

of the new New York Broadband Program for the expansion of our 

broadband infrastructure into surrounding counties, we were beaten up by large telecom companies. And they have yet to expand 

broadband to our underserved communities. Fortunately, our phase 

2 funding gives our neighbors equal access to broadband. 

With these hurdles in mind, the tribe recommends that the 

House Energy and Commerce Committee consider the following: 

One, provide set-asides for tribal and rural infrastructure 

projects. This funding presents the opportunity to transform infrastructure projects into sustainable solutions that address a critical 

gap in our nation’s infrastructure. 

Two, support the passage of legislation that positively impacts 

Indian country. We request serious consideration of H.R. 1581, 

which increases access to telecommunication grants and services 

for programs in Indian country and other high-cost areas with a 

significant Native American population. This will give more tribes 

the opportunity to develop and expand broadband infrastructure in 

the way that we have. 

Three, encourage partnerships to reduce costs and increase access. 

Four, build upon existing infrastructure. We were happy to see 

the committee’s consideration of broadband conduit installation and 

highway construction projects. This will greatly increase the potential for conductivity between rural towns. 

Thank you for taking the time to discuss broadband infrastructure on tribal lands and in rural America. The Saint Regis Mohawk 

Tribe looks forward to working with you to deploy broadband 

where it is needed most. 

[Speaking Native language.] 

[The prepared statement of Sub Chief Michael Conners follows:] 

30 


25494.049

Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe 

Chief Ron LaFrance Jr. 

Chief Eric Thompson 

Chief Beverly Cook 

Sub-Chief Michael L. Conners 

Sub-Chief Cheryl jacobs 

Sub-Chief Shelley jacobs 

TESTIMONY OF SUB CHIEF MICHAEL CONNERS 

Before the House Energy and Commerce Committee 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

March 21,2017 

Hello, my name is Michael Conners. I am a Sub Chief of the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe ("SRMT" 

or "Tribe"). Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Pallone, and Members of the Committee, it is 

my honor to be here with you today to discuss our Tribe's successful efforts to build critical 

broadband infrastructure in New York, highlight our legislative priorities, and recommended best 

practices for deploying broadband services on tribal lands and throughout rural America. 

SRMT is a federally recognized tribal government located in our traditional territory of Akwesasne 

in Northern New York. Our Tribe prides itself on being a good partner with our local, state, and 

federal leadership to promote the well-being of our community and to advance our collective 

legislative goals. Being one of the primary employers in our region, the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, 

Akwesasne Mohawk Casino Resort, Mohawk Networks, and Akwesasne TV provides more than 

1,600 employment opportunities and over $52 million in salaries annually for the residents of 

Northern New York. The success of our enterprises, allows our Tribe to further provide a number 

of critical services to our members and non-native neighbors including sustainable education, 

employment, and economic development opportunities, public satety and healthcare, and 

increased access to critical infrastructure. 

In 2009, SRMT was awarded $10 million through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

("ARRA''), U.S. Department of Agriculture's Broadband Initiative Program to form Mohawk 

Networks, a tribally-owned telecom entity, in an effort to connect residential and commercial 

customers in the North Country with reliable and cost-effective broadband services. By 2015, 

Mohawk Networks connected roughly 80 percent of all homes in our territory to high-speed 

internet service. 

The Tribe recognizes the importance of high speed broadband accessibility and what it has done 

for our own community. It is unfortunate that our non-native neighbors in the North Country do 

not have the same access we do. Mohawk Networks estimates more than I 00,000 homes in our 

neighboring counties have been overlooked, 20 percent of homes are unable to access speeds 

greater than 6 Mbps, and 37 percent cannot afford the average monthly rate charged of$59.99. 

Because of the Tribe's success within our own territory, Mohawk Network's subsidiary, North 

Country Broadband, is making headway in expanding broadband service to our neighbors in 

surrounding. non-tribal counties. This expansion is made possible by a $6.4 million grant received 

Helping Build A Better Tomorrow 

Jakhlienawa:se ·Souba Alolanerenhake ne Enlohrhen'ne 

4.12 State Route 37 

Akwesasne, Ne\v York 13655 

www.srmt~nsn.gov 

Phone: 518-358-2272 
31 


25494.050

in Round II of the New NY Broadband Program. Round ll funding totals $268 million in publicprivate investments to ensure that unserved and underserved New York households have access to 

high speed broadband services allowing rural communities to compete in a modern economy. 

Through Mohawk Networks' subsidiary, North Country Broadband, the Tribe will immediately 

advance the expansion of our wireless technology in the Lewis County census block. The first 

stage of the grant will allow for the activation offive towers. Discussions are currently underway 

with Clinton County legislators regarding the expansion of Mohawk Network's broadband 

infrastructure to Clinton County by the end of2018. 

A primary component of what allows SRMT to be competitive and keep our costs low is our 

utilization of 16 towers throughout multiple, surrounding counties and the reliability of our 

innovative technology. Working in conjunction with the Development Authority of the North 

Country and the Federal Communications Commission, Mohawk Networks utilizes a DANC fiber 

ring allowing us to provide broadband services throughout the North Country and keep costs low. 

Currently, the average cost per household for the deployment of our wireless technology is $1700, 

far less than the traditional method of laying miles of fiber. 

Challenges 

While we are moving forward and making progress, several hurdles have presented themselves 

when expanding our broadband infrastructure. These include: 

I. Cumbersome grant requirements. Because of the cumbersome nature of important grants 

for broadband infrastructure in tribal and rural areas, SRMT tribal leadership has questioned 

whether the process of applying for funding is worthwhile. It is understood by SRMT that we 

are not the only tribe that bears this concern. 

2. Grant funds are not enough and opportunities seem to be disappearing. While the Tribe 

was fortunate to receive a $10 million grant to launch Mohawk Network's efforts, these costs 

only covered the initial implementation of the program and were received as reimbursements 

rather than direct funding. Not only did we have to front the money for the project, the Tribe 

had to invest an additional $2.9 million in the first 2 years to cover operation costs and an 

additional $3.7 million for its current expansion operations. While the Tribe has been able to 

use revenues from its gaming enterprise to cover these additional costs, this financial 

investment is difficult for many rural, tribal communities who may lack successful economic 

development. 

Furthermore, opportunities benefiting Indian Country and rural America tend to be hit the 

hardest by budget cuts and are inconsistently funded. We were disappointed to see that the 

tribal bidding incentive for the Connect America Fund Phase II Reverse Auction Order was 

not included in this year's funding application despite active outreach from members of this 

Committee and other allies in Indian Country (see attached). SRMT is also concerned that the 

President's budget attempts to zero out important programs that advance broadband 

deployment in rural America. 

3. There is lack of support and understanding about the capabilities of tribal telecom 

entities. A primary problem for the Tribe, is the lack of understanding of the range of benefits 

2 
32 


25494.051

that supporting a tribal telccom entity can provide. For example, when SRMT applied for a 

Phase I of the New NY Broadband Program for the expansion of its broadband infrastructure 

into surrounding counties, SRMT was beaten out by large telecom companies. While the Tribe 

congratulates these companies on their successful applications, they have yet to expand 

broadband to our underserved communities. It was only by garnering the support oflocal, state, 

and federal representatives for Phase II funding that our application received serious 

consideration and our neighbors are being granted equal access to broadband. 

Recommendations 

With these hurdles in mind, SRMT recommends that the House Energy and Commerce Committee 

consider the following: 

l. Provide set-asides for tribal and rural infrastructure proJects. As you move forward in 

forming the details of the much anticipated infrastructure package, it is important that you 

include set-asides for broadband infrastructure projects on tribal lands and in rural areas. This 

funding not only ensures that tribal communities advance, but it provides the opportunity to 

transform infrastmcture projects into sustainable solutions that address a critical gap in our 

Nation's infrastructure. 

2. Support the passage of legislation that positively impacts Indian Country. The Tribe 

requests that Congress enact H.R. 1581, the Tribal Digital Access Act, as introduced by 

Congressman Ruiz (D-CA). This Act amends the Communications Act of 1934 to increase 

access to telecommunications grants and services for programs in Indian country and rural, 

insular, and other high cost areas with a significant Native American population. As we are 

currently witnessing in New York, working in partnership with tribal governments can have a 

positive economic impact on our rural areas. This legislation would give more Tribes the 

opportunity to develop and expand important broadband infrastructure in the way that we have. 

3. Encourage partnerships to reduce costs and increase access. Without support from Lewis 

County legislators who backed SRMT's pilot program, our state and federal representatives 

who introduced legislation to encourage the development of broadband in New York, the 

Development Authority of the North Country, and the Federal Communications Commission, 

our Tribe would not be as successful as we have been in expanding critical broadband 

infrastructure. It is important that we maintain these working relationships in order to achieve 

our shared goals of advancing the future of Indian Country and rural America. 

4. Build upon existing infrastructure. A primary component of the success of our expansion 

has been the utilization of 16 existing towers and connecting into the DANC fiber ring. As 

Congress begins to improve and expand broadband services, we encourage you to utilize and 

invest in existing in1rastructure. The relationships that have already been forged between 

telecom entities and tribal governments for existing infrastructure, allows for high success rates 

and simultaneously protects sacred sites and other potential areas of environmental concern. 

Additionally, building off of existing infrastructure allows greater connectivity for rural areas. 

We arc happy to see the Committee's consideration of broadband conduit installation in certain 

highway construction projects. A primary component of our success is being able to connect 

into neighboring networks. This type of infrastructure will give a leg up to communities who 
33 


25494.052

may be only accessible by road and greatly increase the potential for connectivity between 

rural towns. 

Best Practices 

With these recommendations in mind, SRMT would like to leave you with a few best practices 

that we have identified in our efforts to provide affordable broadband to the North Country. 

I. Be a good partner, consult in a timely fashion, and promote transparency. In an effort 

to be a good governmental partner, SRMT has worked extensively with our local, state, 

and federal legislators and agencies to expand our broadband infrastructure and wireless 

services. Without this meaningful engagement, much of the North Country would remain 

an undcrserved area. 

2. Think about the potential impacts. Not only does broadband deployment ensure equal 

access to critical infrastructure, it also increases access to health care and creates new 

economic, education, training, and employment opportunities for tribal members and 

residents of rural America. 

Thank you for taking the time to discuss broadband infrastructure on tribal lands and in rural 

America. SRMT looks forward to working with you to deploying broadband where we need it 

most. 

Sken:nen- In peaee, 

THE SAINT REGIS MOHAWK TRIBAL COUNCIL 

4 
34 


25494.053

<!tnngr.ess nf t}f.e lltnit.eil j;tat.es 

3Jlllusijingtun, it(!! 20515 

The Honorable Ajit Pai 

Chairman 

Federal Communications Commission 

445 121

h Street SW 

Washington, DC 20554 

Dear Chairman Pai: 

February 22, 2017 

We are writing to urge the FCC to include a tribal bidding credit in its Connect America Fund 

(CAF) Phase II Reverse Auction Order, which we understand is on the agenda for the February 

23 Open Meeting. This credit is critically needed to encourage broadband deployment in Indian 

Country, the most unserved and underserved regions in our nation in terms of broadband access. 

CAF II has the potential to be a game changer for Native Americans across our nation, but it 

needs structural support from the FCC to see this realized. 

The Connect America Fund is the FCC's primary program to expand access to broadband and 

voice services in unserved and underserved areas of our country. Chief among these areas are 

tribal lands, where 68 percent of rural areas lack access to broadband internet services. High 

poverty rates, lack of infrastructure, and oftentimes rugged terrain all contribute to the increased 

cost of installing, maintaining, and upgrading broadband infrastructure on tribal lands. 

Our nation has a trust responsibility to ensure the cultural survival, well-being, and sovereignty 

of tribes and tribal members. Broadband services are critical to fulfilling this trust responsibility, 

connecting Native youth in the classroom, improving access to health care services through 

telemedicine, and enabling tribal members to pursue higher education using online resources. 

Our treatment of tribes in the past has created some of the greatest disparities of any cultural 

group in our nation; we have a responsibility to turn course and finally honor our treaty and trust 

obligations of our forefathers. 

Without a tribal bidding credit, Indian Country will continue to fall behind in access to 

broadband and telephone services as providers build out other lower cost rural areas. Past 

incentives, such as the bidding credit included in the Mobility Fund and Rural Broadband 

Experiments have proven successful at fostering investment on tribal lands. Therefore we urge 

you to include a tribal bidding credit in any updated CAF bidding rule Order approved by the 

Commission. 

Sincerely, 

FAINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 
35 


25494.054

Tom Cole 

k!J'.,ru,.,. Darren Soto Earl Blumenauer 

~bfr Michelle Lujan CJri m 

.. A.~ 
36 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Conners. He yields back. 

Mr. Murray, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your opening. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS A. MURRAY 

Mr. MURRAY. Thank you, Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member 

Doyle, Members of the Subcommittee. 

I am Tam Murray. I am here today wearing two hats. I am a 

small tower developer right here, right across the river in Arlington, Virginia, and I am also the chairman of the Wireless Infrastructure Association, WIA. 

My firm, Community Wireless Structures, is geographically-focused. We have developed towers in 10 Virginia counties, northern 

Virginia, and central Virginia. We are one of an estimated number 

of 600 small tower developers throughout this country who work on 

a local basis. They get towers built in Nashville, Pittsburgh, Kalamazoo, wherever it might be. There are 200,000 telecommunication 

structures that are used for broadband towers in this country, and 

I am proud to say that my firm has built 50 of those. 

So, I have been doing this for 20 years, and you have got to go 

back to 1996. So, what was the opportunity that I saw to leave my 

prior profession and come into this? It was one word: collocation. 

Collocation is the siting of multiple carriers on one telecommunication structure. 

1996 was a very different world. My cell phone was a brick 

bolted in the trunk of the car. The lowly flip-phone had not even 

been dreamed of, and carriers looked at infrastructure as a proprietary thing. Each was developing their own network. It wasn’t unusual to come to an intersection and see three towers, each with 

one carrier on it. 

So, the business opportunity that I pursued was collocation. I approached Loudoun County. I said, this road, this Dulles Greenway 

that is being built, it is 12 miles; it could be 16–20 applications. 

How about my firm develops four sites, one at each interchange 

down the length of the Greenway. And it was a home run for all 

parties involved. The county decisionmakers, the local government 

was happy. So, it wasn’t clutter at each interchange and there was 

service for the citizens of Loudoun; there was service for the carriers. They didn’t have to duplicate the spending of cap ex on three 

towers. There was one tower that worked. 

So, what worked on the Greenway, we built more sites in 

Loudoun. Collocation has been used throughout the state of Virginia, throughout every state in the Union. It is a wonderful model. 

It is the envy of the world. And that is really how the small tower 

industry got started, and everyone else, all my colleague companies, if you will, throughout the country are building on the same 

model. 

I have three asks. One is federal lands, two is some expediency 

on tribal approvals, and the third is the small cell definitions. 

The first item, federal lands, really segues nicely with the Greenway. So, the Greenway, one of the special sauces, coming back to 

the McDonald’s analogy, the special sauce on the Greenway was 

that we negotiated with one landlord to get four sites. Now, if you 

go to, Congressman Pallone mentioned the hardest corners to reach 

in a state, if you take a big piece of land that is owned by an agenVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:57 Jun 20, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-15 CHRIS
37 

cy, and a carrier or an infrastructure developer can approach that 

agency and secure 30 sites or 20 sites, whatever it takes to cover 

that given piece of geography, that is a huge benefit to the development of infrastructure. Negotiating 30 different leases versus negotiating with one party is huge. 

So, we know that there is a draft federal lands bill. Tell us, WIA, 

what we can do to help push that along. That is really going to 

help the deployment of broadband. 

On tribal review, my firm has developed 50 towers. Two of those 

are inside the Beltway. Everyone would describe inside the Beltway as disturbed land. It is a great place to be and live and work, 

but this is not the great outdoors. 

And yet, our applications for towers inside the Beltway had to go 

through a tribal review. Now what we think, if those reviews could 

be done at less expense, there are fees from each tribe, and if it 

could be done expedited, somebody mentioned the term ‘‘deemed 

granted,’’ that would be wonderful. That will help broadband, too. 

My third point, 20 seconds, is small cells. Small cells are new 

technology. The challenge with new technologies is defining them. 

There are parties in this country that will say that 120 feet is a 

small cell. It is not. That is hogwash. Our association, WIA, has 

studied this. A utility pole is 34 feet. Add 10 feet. Add a few antennas. You are at 50 feet. So, it is a very reasonable definition of 

small cells to say 50 feet or less. That should be expedited review. 

Above 50 feet, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a tower. 

It should be treated as a tower with the standard local responsible 

review. 

So, the federal lands, expediting the tribal, and the small cell 

definition are the ways that would be very much helpful. 

I welcome any questions after the panel is done. 

[The prepared statement of Thomas A. Murray follows:] 

38 


25494.055

Testimony of 

Thomas A. "Tam" Murray 

Founder and Managing Member, Community Wireless Structures 

Before the 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

United States House of Representatives 

Hearing entitled 

"Broadband: Deploying America's 21st Century Infrastructure" 

March 21,2017 

Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for 

holding this important hearing and for the opportunity to testify on eliminating barriers to 

broadband infrastructure deployment. My name is Tam Murray and I am the founder and 

managing member of Community Wireless Structures (CWS), a small communications tower 

developer based in Arlington, VA. We have built 50 towers in Northern and Central Virginia. 

I currently serve as the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Wireless Infrastructure 

Association (WlA), the principal organization representing the companies that build, design, 

own, and manage wireless broadband facilities throughout the United States. The more than 230 

member companies of WIA work daily to ensure that the wireless infrastructure necessary to 

support our mobile devices is deployed and working whenever and wherever we use it- at 

home, at work, or at play. As mobile devices and applications continue to evolve, they always 

need a wireless connection to a wired network a connection commonly supported by a macro 
39 


25494.056

cellular tower. WIA's mission is to support the connectivity that will promote the expansion of 

wireless broadband to every point on the map and thus enable wireless providers to meet 

consumers' ever-increasing demand for data-more of it, anytime, everyplace. 

As a small business owner, every day I see the challenges posed by unreasonable deployment 

barriers at Federal, state and local levels. These barriers include cumbersome siting procedures, 

inconsistent fees, complicated review processes and obstacles to deploying infrastructure on 

Federal property. 

Small tower developers have a very narrow margin for error, and capital is always tight. 

Consistency and predictability are important to any business, but the need for fair and reasonable 

application of regulations is especially important for small businesses like mine. Many of us 

simply cannot withstand gratuitous additional burdens to infrastructure buildout. While we often 

work well with local authorities, if a local zoning regulation or entity imposes unnecessary and 

costly delays or requirements, it impairs, postpones or prevents altogether our ability to deploy 

broadband. Fortunately, many localities increasingly recognize the importance of wireless 

broadband for their economic development and general wellbeing, and many work as partners 

with industry. Still, some localities resist and impose costly and/or time consuming barriers to 

deployment. Our industry seeks productive partnerships with all localities, and we are willing to 

work together to address legitimate local concerns as we pursue our mission to expand 

broadband access everywhere. Since this is an acknowledged public policy goal, as well, 

Congress has a role in addressing particularly unreasonable demands and delays. 

2 
40 


25494.057

I have been in the tower business for over 20 years. I have seen first-hand the growth and 

evolution of the wireless industry. When I first entered the industry, the world looked much 

different. What began as an effort to provide the convenience and luxury of mobile voice 

communications has become an essential part of daily life. And it shows this industry's impact 

on the economy, a recent Accenture study found that 5G deployment could spur as much as $275 

billion in private investment and create three million jobs over the next seven years. According 

to research from Cisco, over the next five years, global mobile data traffic will increase 

sevenfold in the United States. Global mobile data traffic will grow two times faster than global 

fixed IP traffic. By 2021, there will be 5.5 billion mobile users, up from 4.9 billion in 2016, and 

by 2021 there will be approximately 12 billion mobile-ready devices or connections. These 

growth statistics underscore the need for government policies that support the burgeoning 

demand for mobile data and address the industry challenges of meeting it by efficiently and 

responsibly deploying wireless infrastructure. 

This tremendous growth is, at the same time, both encouraging and sobering. The challenge for 

the wireless infrastructure industry, the communications sector at large, and for this 

Subcommittee is how to meet consumer demand. All entities must continue to work together to 

maintain our country's position as the global leader in wireless innovation-a goal this 

Subcommittee has long-since recognized, embraced and promoted. 

To ensure that capacity meets consumer demand, we need to respectfully and responsibly build 

and deploy every kind of wireless infrastructure, including traditional macro cellular towers, 

rooftop sites, small cells, distributed antenna systems, and Wi-Fi hot spots. This diverse yet 

3 
41 


25494.058

integrated infrastructure ecosystem results in greater efficiency in the use of spectrum and gives 

wireless carriers the bandwidth they need to meet growing data demands on their networks. 

Using spectrum, a finite and limited resource, with the greatest possible efficiency allows more 

data to flow over existing frequencies. Our wireless networks need to incorporate and harmonize 

all technologies to deliver the coverage and the capacity we need for maintaining the existing 

necessary cellular network and for future networks that will enable the Internet of Things and 50 

connectivity. 

One of the drivers of wireless innovation over the past two decades has been the shared or 

"neutral host" infrastructure model adopted by the wireless industry in the United States, where 

multiple carriers collocate their antennas on a single support structure. Collocation maximizes 

the use of existing facilities, while it minimizes aesthetic issues and reduces environmental 

impacts. Shared infrastructure eliminates the need for each tenant to build its own tower, which 

prevents the unnecessary proliferation of duplicative towers in neighborhoods and communities. 

In countries where collocation is not supported, we have seen the appearance of so-called "tower 

farms," where each wireless provider builds its own independent support structure, often 

adjacent to other towers, resulting in visual clutter. On the other hand, where collocation is 

promoted, it enhances competition in the wireless industry by lowering a significant barrier to 

entry for new mobile wireless service providers and other tenants. The neutral host model allows 

new, smaller c.ompetitive wireless providers to operate without having to raise capital to build 

out their own wireless infrastructure. In fact, the shared infrastructure model is more 

economically efficient for the entire industry, and is the envy of other countries around the 

world. 

4 
42 


25494.059

The collocation model has created hundreds of independent tower companies nationwide. During 

initial carrier build outs 30 years ago, the focus was on proprietary networks -- each carrier 

developing its own tower, often producing 3-4 towers at the same intersection, and creating 

unacceptable visual clutter. 

Local governments understandably wanted more ordered development, and independent tower 

companies stepped in to provide that answer, developing a macro cellular site that could 

accommodate all carriers. The wireless providers benefitted by saving capital expenditures and 

achieving better service levels at less cost. The municipalities avoided the inefficient review of 

geographically overlapping applications. And the public ended up with many service choices 

without tower farms of multiple towers at individual locations. 

In my personal experience, the collocation model that CWS introduced in Loudoun County on 

the Dulles Greenway was duplicated throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia and is now the 

model approach to infrastructure deployment in every state. In developing towers on the private 

toll road, Dulles Greenway, in 1996, I partnered with the owner the road. Having a partner who 

could offer the best real estate along this 12-mile stretch enabled CWS to produce the best 

infrastructure network. By contrast, if we had to negotiate with 4 different landlords for the 4 

different locations, the spacing between the sites -- and the resulting network quality -- might 

have been poor. 

5 
43 


25494.060

The Federal government is in a similar position to the owner of the Dulles Greenway. Both 

control wide properties, and as such can offer wireless providers and infrastructure providers a 

great number of locations that are geographically adjacent. For mobile wireless to work well, 

each cell site must link with adjacent sites, and having just one landlord for a vast number of 

adjacent sites can contribute to network quality and efficiency. 

This Subcommittee has historically played a significant role in streamlining broadband 

infrastructure deployment. An outstanding example is this Subcommittee's work on Section 

6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of2012 (the "Spectrum Act"), 

which has assisted enormously in the speedy deployment of wireless infrastructure. There has 

been real progress on the speed, cost, and ease of effort to deploy next generation networks as a 

direct result of this Subcommittee's work. 

Now and in the future, there arc several things Congress can do to reduce obstacles to 

infrastructure deployment. Let me describe three of these for your consideration. This 

Subcommittee should: 

I. Consider examining the FCC's tribal consultation process; 

2. Pass the legislation you recently released in draft form that will streamline the process for 

siting infrastructure on Federal Lands, with a few adjustments; and, 

3. Ensure that future deployments of 5G infrastructure is not slowed down by unreasonable 

barriers. 

6 
44 


25494.061

First, Congress should consider examining the FCC's tribal consultation process. The FCC's 

Tower Construction Notification System ("TCNS") aids in connecting wireless infrastructure 

providers with federally recognized native nations that have expressed an interest in the area in 

which the deployment would take place. While we are committed to protecting historic and 

cultural sites, the existing process is fraught with inefficiencies and lacks the clarity and certainty 

needed to build out 5G networks. I want to be clear, I am not speaking about deployments on 

tribal lands, an area that this Subcommittee has rightly focused on in the past in seeking to close 

the digital divide. Rather, I am speaking of those deployments where a tribe has indicated that 

they may have a historic cultural interest in sites outside of identified tribal territories. To 

improve this burdensome process that is fraught with uncertainty and attendant delay, the FCC 

should: I) modernize the TCNS system to proactively exclude those deployments that have no 

ground disturbance; 2) institute a deemed granted provision, like this Subcommittee put forward 

in Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act; and 3) ensure fees have reasonable limits. 

Second, I would like to commend this Subcommittee for its hard work on the recently released 

staff discussion draft regarding infrastructure. Many of the provisions in this draft will be very 

helpful in reducing some of the barriers to infrastructure deployment. Particularly useful are the 

sections on streamlining and expediting the byzantine process of siting wireless broadband 

infrastructure on Federal lands. This Subcommittee has expressed, on a bipartisan basis, 

significant interest in this issue and we appreciate your leadership. The Federal government owns 

or administers nearly thirty percent of all land in the United States, as well as thousands of 

buildings. Broadband providers currently face significant challenges when working to secure 

access to Federal lands and buildings. 

7 
45 


25494.062

Although your draft does not include Department of Defense land, commercial wireless service 

can help augment mission critical DoD operations and enhance quality of life for service men 

and women. Men and women in uniform, as much as their civilian counterparts, love their 

smartphones. While there are certain military sites where there are understandable concerns 

about commercial wireless providers, there is no good reason for DoD's general approval process 

to be so lengthy and cumbersome. There is good news, however, on this issue. Leaders from the 

Department of the Navy's spectrum and real estate divisions worked with industry through a task 

force for almost a year to review the existing siting process on Navy and Marine installations 

across the country and refine what was once a seven-plus year process down to one that takes 

less than a year. The new process was launched last year. We are encouraged by the Navy's 

commitment to update and adjust its processes in an effort to reach its stated goal of on-base 

coverage that is equal to or exceeds the coverage the commercial sector enjoys off-base. 

In addition, this Subcommittee released draft legislation requiring that broadband conduits be 

installed as a part of certain highway construction projects, also known as "dig once." This 

initiative would help facilitate broadband infrastructure deployment and reduce duplicative 

Federal reviews for work at the same location. 

Third, I would also like to note for the Subcommittee the FCC's responsive action in the Section 

253 Public Notice. The deployment of small cells and fiber networks provides new solutions to 

the capacity crunch facing consumers. If localities put forward policies that favor one technology 

over another, or if they implement fees that use the public rights of way as a profit center, it will 

8 
46 


25494.063

impede the development of 5G networks and the great promise they offer to consumers. I am 

encouraged by the FCC's activity in this area and urge the Commission to move swiftly on this 

item. 

5G will require an ongoing densification of mobile networks. From macro towers to small 

wireless facilities, such as small cells, all fonns of infrastructure will be needed to bring about 

the promise of next generation wireless and to meet consumers' demand for mobile data. When 

deployed rationally, these types of infrastructure serve to complement each other and improve 

the network as a whole. For instance, small cells are useful for addressing capacity issues 

because they allow for a large amount of data to travel a short distance. Small cells also allow for 

the efficient reuse of spectrum. Macro towers, on the other hand, can serve a large geographic 

area, and provide the basis for umbrella coverage. This is critical in rural areas where there is 

less population density. 

Small cell deployments need streamlined review to accelerate deployment. To avoid an 

understandable public backlash, this must be done in a way that respects and addresses local 

community concerns, including reasonable height limits, so that new towers are not built under 

the guise of small cells. While this Subcommittee has helped to secure swift deployment of 

collocations through 6409(a), a new "greenfield" tower uses regular order and community 

involvement. As is common with any new technology, local communities are struggling to 

define the small cell deployment process. 

9 
47 


25494.064

The wireless industry supports the streamlined deployment of small wireless facility 

infrastructure in the public right when it is consistent with existing utility infrastructure in the 

right of way. For example, the wireless industry has united around a definition that includes 

volumetric equipment limits, which have been promulgated in FCC regulations. Industry has also 

proffered a height limit standard of fifty feet for deployments of small cells in the rights of way 

or I 0 feet higher than the prevailing heights of other structures in the proximity. Those support 

structures that have larger volume or greater height than this standard would, and should, be 

required to go through appropriate local authorization to ensure responsiveness to local concerns. 

In closing, to reap the tremendous benefits of next generation broadband, we all must work 

together to encourage and incentivize responsible and efficient wireless infrastructure 

deployment. Your draft bill is a significant and positive step in that direction, and there is much 

more work to be done. From the threshold of that project, !look forward to working with you 

and the rest of the Subcommittee on these issues. Thank you again Chairman Blackburn and 

Members of the Subcommittee for holding this hearing and including me as a witness. 

10 
48 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank you, sir. He yields back. 

Ms. Hovis, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your opening. 

STATEMENT OF JOANNE S. HOVIS 

Ms. HOVIS. Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, Members of the Subcommittee, good morning and thank you very much 

for inviting me to testify. 

I am Joanne Hovis. I am President of CTC Technology and Energy, and I am also CEO and co-founder of the Coalition for Local 

Internet Choice. 

I make the case today for including broadband, particularly in 

rural areas, among the infrastructure categories in any infrastructure investment program, and recommend particular public/private 

partnership and related mechanisms that can be included to increase the likelihood of the necessary capital flowing to the areas 

with the greatest needs. 

Broadband, like any other type of infrastructure, requires significant upfront capital for deployment of networks, and private capital will flow to areas where potential return is highest. In a number of densely-populated, higher-income areas, incumbent phone 

and cable companies have upgraded or are upgrading their networks to enable new services. A handful of these areas have also 

seen investments by new entrants seeking to outflank the incumbents. These are very fortunate communities, but metro area communities in general are more fortunate than rural because of the 

flow of private capital. 

In contrast, obviously, in less-densely-populated and lower-income areas, the pace of progress has been much slower. These 

areas offer lower returns on private investment and, therefore, 

have seen their economies stagnate. 

One of the ways in which we can improve these economics in 

rural areas is by leveraging state and local government capabilities. State and localities are increasingly motivated to incent private sector investment in next-generation broadband networks. 

States and localities have experience, capabilities, and assets that 

enable them to build broadband infrastructure that can be made 

available to the private sector for competitive services and innovation, with a public entity, building infrastructure and facilitating 

infrastructure, but uninvolved in the private sector role of operations and service delivery to the public. 

Alternatively, the state or locality can partner with the private 

sector for shared investment in private networks that secure public 

sector goals, such as service in rural areas that would maintain 

such critical practices as home-based business and home-based 

schooling. 

However, as we consider what might be coming in an infrastructure bill, the concern about the economics is that that infrastructure bill has to change and improve economics in those rural areas 

and at the local level. Based on my experience, I would say that 

even a combination of tax credits and public/private partnerships 

together would be insufficient to attract the necessary investment 

to rural areas. 

All things being equal, investors will go where the market is 

strongest, the returns are highest, the revenues are likely to be 

49 

most robust. And in the case of public/private partnerships, capital 

will flow to where potential revenues are greatest. 

For this reason, I suggest that the stratgies considered for any 

infrastructure program include some of the following recommendations to make tax credits and public/private partnerships in rural 

areas more viable, attract them more to rural areas, as it were, 

more attractive to investors. 

First, create a financing support mechanism to reduce public/private partnership borrowing costs. Creating such mechanisms would 

make public/private partnerships more viable at modest cost to the 

Treasury. For example, federal contribution toward a reduction of 

interest costs would improve viability. 

Second, enable the use of tax-free municipal bonds to fund public 

infrastructure in public/private partnership situations or for least 

to private ISPs; thus, reducing municipal borrowing costs, enabling 

public/private partnerships and increasing project viability at modest cost. 

Third, enable transferability of tax benefits such that nonprofits 

and public entities can sell tax credits or other tax opportunities 

on the market; thus, making tax mechanisms more viable for areas 

that are of less interest for private capital. 

Fourth, carve out funding and other support for areas where the 

local economy has been impaired by technology change and 

globalization, and where broadband could have a disproportionate 

impact relative to cost on improving economic opportunity. And 

this, I think, aligns with my broader point that tax credits alone, 

all other things being equal, will not flow to the rural communities 

where private investment has not gone already. 

Finally, include Dig Once and construction efficiency strategies 

in other public/private partnership projects in order to capitalize on 

opportunities presented by construction. So, for example, envision 

a scenario of the reconstruction of a municipal water system 

through a Dig Once environment. Conduit for communications, 

fiber that could be utilized by private sector entities would be 

placed at the same time. At incremental cost, we would be building 

two networks, with the second network at a very low cost relative 

to what it would cost to build without that Dig Once insight. My 

written testimony includes some examples of such case studies. 

And thank you very much for your consideration. 

[The prepared statement of Joanne S. Hovis follows:] 

50 


25494.065

Testimony of Joanne S. Hovis 

President, CTC Technology & Energy 

before the 

U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

"Broadband: Deploying America's 21st Century Infrastructure" 

March 21, 2017 
51 


25494.066

Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, and members of the Subcommittee, good 

morning and thank you for inviting me to testify today. 

My name is Joanne Hovis. I am the president of CTC Technology & Energy, an independent 

broadband technology and planning consultancy that supports public sector clients nationwide. 

1 am also the CEO and co-founder of the Coalition for local Internet Choice, a national 

organization that represents a wide range of public and private interests who support the 

authority of local communities to make broadband internet choices. I believe that local internet 

choice is critical to enabling broadband deployment and creating broadband competition, 

especially in unserved and underserved areas. 

I am a member of the boards of directors of the Benton Foundation and the Fiber 

Broadband Association (formerly the Fiber-to-the-Home Council). 

At CTC, I have developed business model analysis and strategy for some of the largest 

public-private broadband initiatives in the country. I lead the CTC teams that advised the states 

of Connecticut, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, and New York; the 

cities of Atlanta, Boston, Palo Alto, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C.; and many other 

public entities. 

I focus in particular on broadband public-private partnerships (P3) that enable both 

public and private entities to benefit from public assets and private innovation and service 

delivery. Among my client engagements are the pioneering broadband P3s in the Commonwealth 

of Kentucky and the cities of Boulder, CO; Bloomington, IN; Madison, WI; Westminster, MD, and 

Huntsville, Al. 

1 
52 


25494.067

Deploying Broadband Will Require Federal Infrastructure Funding, Innovative New 

Approaches, and Partnerships 

One of the hallmarks of President-elect Trump's candidacy was a commitment to major 

infrastructure investment across the U.S. and to increasing the role of the private sector in such 

development through tax mechanisms and public-private partnerships. 

Like electricity in the last century, high-capacity broadband internet access today is 

rapidly becoming the critical platform and driver of simultaneous progress in economic 

development and global competitiveness, education, health care, public safety, transportation, 

and much more. By working cooperatively with state and local governments, the private sector 

stands to benefit in multiple ways-as partners in designing, building, financing, and operating 

these advanced communications networks, as users of the networks to market their goods and 

services in the rapidly emerging information-based global economy, and as contributors to the 

next generation of innovations. 

I make the case today for including broadband, particularly in rural areas, among the 

infrastructure categories in any infrastructure investment program, and recommend particular 

P3 and related mechanisms that can be included to increase the likelihood of the necessary 

capital flowing to the areas with the greatest needs. 

Broadband Gaps Align with Lower Income Levels and Lower Population Densities-These 

Are the Areas that Would Benefit Most from Broadband P3s 

Americans access the broadband internet over networks owned by phone companies, 

cable companies, and, in a few locations, competitors. 

2 
53 


25494.068

Broadband, like any other type of infrastructure, requires significant upfront capital for 

deployment of networks and services, and private capital will flow to areas where potential 

return is highest. In a number of densely-populated, higher-income areas, incumbent phone and 

cable companies have upgraded their networks to enable new services and high-speed internet 

access. A handful of these areas have also seen investments by new entrants seeking to outflank 

the incumbents in establishing 21'' century broadband infrastructure. 

In contrast, in less densely-populated areas and lower-income areas, the pace of progress 

has been much slower. Offering lower returns on private investment, these areas have seen their 

economies stagnate, their children move to more promising locations, their hopes for a better 

future ebb away. Fortunately, P3s and other collaborative public-private structures offer one 

promising solution. 

Broadband Public-Private Partnerships Present Opportunities for Economic Benefit in Rural 

and Low-Income America 

State and local governments are increasingly motivated to incent private sector 

investment in next generation broadband networks, with a focus on homes, businesses, and 

government users such as public safety. States and localities have experience, capabilities, and 

assets that enable them to build broadband infrastructure that can be made available to the 

private sector for competitive services and innovation, with the public entity building the 

infrastructure but uninvolved in the private sector role of operations and service delivery to the 

public. Alternatively, the state or locality can partner with the private sector for shared 

investment in private networks that secure public sector goals (such as service in rural areas that 

3 
54 


25494.069

seek to maintain economic viability and enable such critical practices as home-based business 

and home-schooling). 

Private sector users could include application developers and innovators in a range of 

areas (home-based education, transportation, public safety, health care, etc.) as well as 

broadband internet service providers {ISPs) and wireless companies seeking fiber backhaul for 

next-generation wireless such as SG cellular. 

To maximize this possibility, I will recommend in the next section creation of a series of 

P3 opportunities and financing support that will have the following positive effects on the 

deployment of both wired and wireless broadband: 

1. Increase investment in new broadband facilities by reducing borrowing costs for P3s. 

2. Stimulate development of a P3 market for broadband networks, which has been limited until 

now (despite the interest of private entities) because of the high cost of infrastructure 

deployment. 

3. Maximize use of existing public broadband assets by enabling states and localities to add to 

them, and then make them available to private sector ISPs. 

4. Create investment opportunity in areas that struggle to attract capital, particularly: (1) small 

business areas in both urban and rural areas that are chronically underserved with businessgrade broadband, and (2) smaller, remote towns and rural areas that have suffered from 

chronic underinvestment with respect to private broadband infrastructure. 

5. Create broadband construction jobs. Construction of fiber optics and wireless towers has 

immediate, significant direct job creation benefit because the bulk of funding is for labor 

rather than materials. 

4 
55 


25494.070

6. Support workforce education and development programs to prepare America's workers to 

succeed and thrive in the emerging information-based global economy. 

Recommendations 

Even a combination of tax credits and P3s alone would be insufficient to attract 

investment to rural areas. All things being equal, investors will go to where the market is 

strongest, the returns are highest, and the revenues are likely to be most robust. 

As a result, unless tax credits are geographically targeted, investors will not generally take 

the tax credits to rural parts of the country. Instead, investors will likely use the tax credits in 

markets, including through P3s, where the potential for substantial revenues is greatest wellto-do, densely-populated areas. This is both because the market and the asset type facilitate high 

revenues, and because the state or locality that sponsor the P3 will probably be capable of 

undertaking more significant public spending or public guarantees of the P3 private revenues 

than state or local entities in lower-income, sparsely populated areas. 

For this reason, based on my experience, I suggest that the strategies include some of the 

following recommendations to make the tax credits and P3s in rural areas more viable and more 

attractive to investors: 

1. Create financing support mechanism to reduce P3 borrowing costs. Create financing 

mechanisms that would reduce borrowing costs for states, localities, and private entities to 

build the infrastructure, thus making the P3s more viable at modest cost to the treasury. For 

example, federal contribution toward/reduction of interest costs would improve viability of 

P3 projects. 

5 
56 


25494.071

2. Enable use of tax-free municipal bonds to fund public infrastructure in P3 environments or 

for lease to private ISPs, thus reducing municipal borrowing costs, enabling P3s, and 

increasing project viability at modest cost. Specifically, create exception to private use 

limitations for tax-free municipal bonds focused on funding broadband infrastructure that 

would be available for private use, or that would be managed by a private partner under a 

formal P3 structure. Allowing use of tax-free bonds for broadband infrastructure to be leased 

and/or operated by private ISPs is projected to greatly increase state/municipal interest in 

broadband P3s and in investment in assets for use by private entities. 

3. Enable transferability of tax benefits such that non-profits and public entities can sell tax 

credits or other tax opportunities on the market-thus making tax mechanisms more viable 

for areas that are of less interest for private capital. By way of analogy, the New Market Tax 

Credits program has had consistent bipartisan support for a similar approach focused on 

lower-income areas. This two decade-old, proven program allows investors in economic 

development infrastructure to sell their investment tax benefits on the market, thus realizing 

cash inflows that can help finance and support the project. This bipartisan program should be 

renewed and enlarged as a particularly efficient way of attracting private capital to areas that 

otherwise offer insufficient returns on investment. 

4. Carve out funding and other support for areas where the local economy has been impaired 

by technology change and globalization-and where broadband could have a 

disproportionate impact {relative to cost) on improving economic opportunity. 

Geographically-targeted incentives could include more robust funding or finan,cial benefits 

for infrastructure investments in rural and low-income areas. Unfortunately, recent budget 

6 
57 


25494.072

proposals go in the opposite direction. For example, President Trump's budget proposal 

would exacerbate this issue by eliminating funding for two programs that have delivered 

measurable benefits in the areas of digital inclusion and broadband infrastructure. His budget 

would zero out both the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) and the Department of 

Commerce's Economic Development Administration (EDA). As I discuss below, my experience 

working with the government of Garrett County, Maryland-which has received modest ARC 

funding for an innovative broadband public-private partnership project-illustrates the 

importance of programs such as these. 

5. Include mandatory Dig Once and construction efficiency strategies in other P3 projects, in 

order to capitalize on opportunities presented by construction in the rights-of-waywhether by government agencies, utilities, or private entities-to cost-effectively install fiber 

and conduit. For example, consider a P3 scenario for replacement of an aging municipal water 

system. The concessionaire could be required to simultaneously install conduit in all of the 

trenches dug to replace water mains and supply pipes, thus effectively constructing extensive 

broadband infrastructure at incremental cost. Dig Once is thus an enormous opportunity at 

the local level to create a multiplier effect on federal infrastructure funding. 

Local Government Examples 

At the moment, early actors are developing new and exciting partnerships to bring nextgeneration broadband to their communities. I describe some of those projects in the following 

brief case studies. 

7 
58 


25494.073

City of Westminster, Maryland 

In this rural town, home to 20,000, a broadband P3 has emerged in which the city has 

invested to deploy fiber optics to every home and business-and then leased the fiber to a private 

ISP that committed to provide services. For small businesses, in particular, the new services have 

been transformative, as they previously had no Internet option above a few megabits per second. 

Garrett County, Maryland 

This remote Appalachian community has no broadband in some remote, mountainous 

areas. The county's concern arose from citizen complaints that they could not home-school their 

children without adequate bandwidth to download home-schooling curricula, and could not 

telework or run home-based businesses without broadband. 

The county developed a P3 to support the deployment of a fixed-wireless broadband 

network, currently under construction, that will serve up to 3,000 currently unserved homes. The 

private partner will match the public investment with its own capital and will assume operating 

risk. The county contribution (which was matched with development funds from the Appalachian 

Regional Commission) made the economics of this opportunity attractive to the private partner. 

Huntsville, Alabama 

In February 2016, the city of Huntsville, Alabama, the state's northern technology hub, 

announced that its municipal electric utility will build a fiber network throughout its city limits 

(presumably, to pass all or most businesses and homes), and that Google Fiber will become the 

first lessee of some of that fiber in order to provide gigabit services to residences and small 

businesses. 

As in Westminster, the Huntsville model puts the city in the business of building 

infrastructure, a business it knows well after a century of building roads, bridges, and utilities. 

8 
59 


25494.074

The model leaves to the private sector (in this case, Google Fiber and any other provider that 

chooses to lease Huntsville fiber) all aspects of network operations, equipment provisioning, and 

service delivery. 

Swift County, Minnesota 

In one innovative, shared-risk project, a state grant and a county bond issuance have 

enabled a private company to deploy next-generation broadband in Swift County, a rural area in 

west central Minnesota that has a population of only 10 people per square mile. 

Swift County is no exception when it comes to the economic challenges of deploying 

broadband in low population density areas. 

With the active support and encouragement of the county, Federated Telephone 

Cooperative, a phone co-op in the region, applied for and won a grant with the State of 

Minnesota in 2015. (Set up to promote "border to border" broadband access, the state of 

Minnesota has a $35 million statewide grant program designed to help new and existing ISPs as 

they try to reach new customers in hard-to-reach areas. 1 According to Minnesota's Department 

of Employment and Economic Development, 25 percent of the state's rural residents lack access 

to high-speed broadband.) 

Federated Telephone won the state's largest award: $4.95 million. That amount pays for 

only 40 percent of the project's projected cost, however, under the terms of the grant. The 

balance of the project's $12.5 million total cost is funded by a loan from the county. 

1 "Broadband Grant Program," Minnesota Office of Broadband Development, http://mn.gov/deed/programsservices/broadband(grant-program/. 

9 
60 


25494.075

To launch the project, Swift County sold $7.8 million in general obligation bonds. 2 

Federated provided a $1 million cash security in the event of missed payments, and will repay 

the loan over 20 years. 

The project is designed to expand broadband availability to 600 households, 425 

businesses, and 75 community buildings. 

RS Fiber Cooperative (Minnesota) 

Construction of a new fiber optic network to residences and farms is underway in rural, 

south-central Minnesota thanks to a public-private partnership, called the RS Fiber Cooperative, 

and the state's grant program. The network will eventually pass more than 6,200 potential 

customers across 10 cities and 17 townships. The network will be built in phases, with the first 

phase expected to cost $15 million. The state contributed $1 million to the effort through the 

rural broadband grant program, and the participating municipalities have financed the rest with 

$8.7 million in general obligation bonds, as well as additional bank loans. Once completed, the 

first phase of the network will allow the cooperative to offer better broadband than is currently 

available in the area using wireless transmitters. The cooperative will use the revenue it begins 

to generate to service the bonds and finance the construction of the last-mile portion of the fiber 

network.3 

2 lange, Carolyn, "Swift County approves bond for broadband internet," West Central Tribune (May 3, 2016) 

http://www.wctrib.com/news/local/4024564-swift-county-approves-bond-broadband-internet. 

3 Madsen, Nancy, "Minnesota Rural Broadband Development a Game Changer," Government Technology (July 20, 

2015) http://www.goytech.com/dc/articles/Minnesotas-Rurai-Broad_band-Development-a-Game-Changer.html. 

10 
61 


25494.076

State Government Example: KentuckyWired 

With eastern Kentucky losing coal jobs at an unprecedented rate, Kentucky developed a 

plan to use broadband to spur economic development. But Kentucky faced the same challenges 

found in rural communities across the country: Bringing high-speed internet to low-populationdensity areas is an expensive prospect. 

The solution is a statewide P3 that will connect 1,100 government entities into a 3,400-

mile fiber optic backbone that will be made available to private sector ISPs for use and 

development. The selected concessionaire will build, maintain, and operate the network for 30 

years. 

KentuckyWired has been a bipartisan effort from the outset, and originated with U.S. Rep. 

Hal Rogers as an economic development initiative for replacing lost coal jobs. The program has 

been strongly supported by state elected officials of both parties, first by former Gov. Steve 

Beshear and, more recently, Gov. Matt Bevin. 

Conclusion 

Thank you for your consideration and the opportunity to appear before you today. 

11 
62 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentlelady yields back. 

Mr. Carlson, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your opening. 

STATEMENT OF LEROY T. CARLSON, JR. 

Mr. CARLSON. Thank you, Chairman Blackburn and Ranking 

Member Doyle and Members of this Subcommittee. 

Now is the time to take bold action to improve mobile broadband 

networks in rural America. We at U.S. Cellular are excited that the 

FCC has now adopted a Mobility Fund Phase II order for further 

rural development of high-speed wireless broadband networks. We 

are also excited that Congress is considering additional infrastructure policies targeted for rural communities. 

It is clear to me that there is bipartisan realization that the 

funding being made available under the Mobility Fund II program 

is insufficient to achieve the goal of providing ubiquitous, highquality mobile broadband to all Americans. For over a year, we 

have been discussing with Congress the fact that the FCC does not 

have standardized data showing the extent and quality of mobile 

broadband in rural America. 

The FCC Form 477 for mobile broadband data that was used to 

size Mobility Fund II, and which is planned to be used to determine the list of areas eligible for funding, is substantially flawed. 

It is flawed because instructions to carriers for filing Form 477 

data do not produce maps of consistent data signal strength resolution. These filings also do not depict variations in signal strength, 

which dramatically affects the quality of service customers can expect. 

I have included in my filed testimony a propagation map of signal strength coverage from several of U.S. Cellular sites in the 

state of Tennessee which is representative of our rural coverage 

throughout the country. This map shows where service quality is 

comparable to urban areas, as well as areas where signal strength 

coverage is weaker. 

The FCC’s Form 477 instructions do not produce maps like this. 

Instead, the data we file shows the entire area as served by 

broadband without distinguishing between strong coverage that allows for streaming of video and lesser coverage that does not. This 

FCC collection data flaw must be addressed before distributing Mobility Fund Phase II resources. 

We recommend that the FCC modify its rules for Form 477, so 

that every carrier is required to submit propagation maps at a 

standard negative 85 dbm level, which equates to typical wireless 

performance metrics that urban consumers experience today. Maps 

produced at this urban standard will increase the areas available 

for rural investment. If we were asked to produce these coverage 

maps for our service areas, we could so in a relatively short period 

of time and at a low cost. 

The FCC, thus far, has decided not to follow our recommendation 

to address flaws in the existing Form 477 data collection process. 

Instead, they have opted for a process by which carriers and others 

could challenge the coverage maps. We are concerned that this 

challenge process will place significant and tremendous burdens on 

wireless challengers, burdens that would not be required if the 

Form 477 rules were simply fixed. 

63 

There is another issue that Congress should be very concerned 

about. The FCC intends to make no funds available for any rural 

area that has service today at 5 megabits per second, even though, 

going forward, the construction requirement for Mobility Fund II is 

10 megabits per second. This will leave large 5 megabits per second 

rural areas lacking the high-quality 10-megabits-per-second service, and with no investment available to them for up to a decade, 

causing them to fall farther behind the nation’s urban areas. 

Action is needed. Once Congress and the FCC agree on a consistent methodology for gathering coverage and network performance data, all areas that are not currently receiving 10-megabitsper-second service should be eligible for funding. 

Your leadership in making sure the FCC collects this data, so 

you know the scope of the challenge, will help target policies to be 

most effective. Better data will ensure scarce resources are used in 

areas where the greatest impact will be achieved. 

I appreciate this committee’s continued leadership on these 

issues, and we look forward to helping you achieve your objectives. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be with you today. 

[The prepared statement of LeRoy T. Carlson, Jr. follows:] 

64 


25494.077

WRITIEN STATEMENT 

of 

LeROY T. CARLSON, JR. 

CHAIRMAN, 

UNITED STATES CELLULAR CORPORATION 

before the 

SUBCOMMITIEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ENERGY AND COMMERCE COMMITIEE 

"BROADBAND: DEPLOYING AMERICA'S 21ST CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE" 

MARCH 21, 2017 
65 


25494.078

Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, and members of the Subcommittee, my 

name is LeRoy T. Carlson, Jr., and I am Chairman of United States Cellular Corporation. Thank 

you for the opportunity to discuss ideas for accelerating broadband investments as a critical 

part of our nation's commitment to improve its infrastructure in the 21" Century. 

Introduction. 

U.S. Cellular provides mobile wireless service in nearly 200 markets across 24 states 

located in regional clusters across the country, including many of the states represented on this 

Committee such as Tennessee, Oregon, Missouri, Iowa, West Virginia, illinois, Vermont, New 

York, North Carolina, and California. The overwhelming majority of the geography we serve is 

rural in character and as a result, much of our business involves finding ways to build cell 

towers in small towns and on rural roads, areas where population density, income levels, and 

commercial development are often well below those in our nation's urban areas. 

Consequently, we are constantly thinking about ways to address the economics of providing 

vital services to areas that present financial challenges to build, maintain, and upgrade. 

For nearly 240 years, this nation has led the world in creating a business climate that 

encourages entrepreneurship, development and innovative thinking, as well as public 

investments that serve the larger community. To that end, much of our business success in the 

20'h Century was built upon our backbone infrastructure- our rail network, our interstate 

highway system, our electrical grid, and our fixed line telephone system, which all blossomed 

with the active engagement of the public and private sectors. Today, we are in competition 

with every nation in the world to develop broadband, the information and services "highway" 

2 
66 


25494.079

equivalent of the last century, to spur a similar economic boom in every corner of the nation, 

from Bend, Oregon to Nashville, Tennessee, to Bloomfield, Iowa, to Burlington Vermont. 

As the Administration and Congress contemplate investing $1 trillion in infrastructure, 

we must include within that amount a significant broadband investment. In my travels around 

the world, from Korea to China to Europe, and in my interactions with other telecom 

executives, I learn about how governments are providing their citizens the broadband tools to 

grow business, create jobs, and expand their markets. In the 21" Century, the United States 

will only lead the world in the production and export of goods and services if we have world 

class fixed and mobile broadband networks. 

Congress now has an opportunity to make some smart and creative policy choices that 

will accelerate broadband deployment. Below I will touch upon the importance of accurate and 

actionable data, improving the federal universal service mechanism, tax policies, empowerment 

zones, "dig once," and lowering barriers to deployment, each of which the Subcommittee 

should explore carefully. First, some perspective on where we are: 

The Rise of Mobile Broadband as an Enabler of Public Safety, 

Education and Economic Development. 

While it is important for policymakers to ensure that our nation has high-quality mobile 

and fixed broadband networks, I will focus my remarks on mobile because it is the fastest 

growing and most dynamic part of the Internet. Here are some statistics illustrating consumers' 

preference for mobile and its explosive growth. 

For the 90-day period ending December 31, 2016, Facebook reported: "Mobile ad 

revenue reached $7.2 billion, up 61% year-over-year, and was approximately 84% of total ad 

3 
67 


25494.080

revenue .... Mobile continues to drive our growth, with 1.15 billion people accessing Face book on 

mobile on an average day in December, up 212 million or 23% compared to last year." 1 

A study by the Pew Research Center illustrates dramatic growth in mobile. As shown 

below, smartphone adoption has more than doubled in five years, while tablet ownership has 

gone from 3% to 51% in just six. 2 

The evolution of technology adoption and usage 

% of U.S. adults 1ulw ... 

100% 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

2000 2005 2010 2011 2015 2016 

Source: Sw\·eys; conducted 2000-201"8. Internet use figures based on pooled ana!ys!s of all surveys conducted during 

each cdiendar year. 

PEW RESEARCH CENTER 

1 See, https://s21.g4cdn.com/399680738/files/doc financials/2016/Q4/Q4'16-EarningsTranscript.pdf. 

2 See, http://www .pewresearch .org/fact -tank/2017 /01/12/evolution-of-technology/. 

4 
68 


25494.081

In addition to smartphone adoption, the number of households that rely solely on a 

smartphone for broadband has increased dramatically: 3 

Several groups are shifting their home internet 

connectivity away from broadband and toward 

smartphones 

% of ea~h group u;ho ha~>e .. , 

Smartphog,.but 

Broadband at hom. 

AllaUult.s 10% 6N. 

AfncanAmerican.s 62 54 

flurq_lresldent$ 60 55 

Household inCOtfl(! < $20K 46 41 

$20K~$50K 

\50K-$75K 

Parents 

67 63 

85 80 

77 73 

High school degree or le55 50 47 

f>LOW RESEARCH Cf:NTER 

no broadband at home 

J\l1i 701:, (>H-.Gf" 

8% 13% ... 5"% 

10 19 

15 •·· 13 21 •·· 10 16 •·· 10 •·· 10 17 .. •·· , 11 18 .. , 

Cisco predicts that between 2016 and 2021, global mobile data traffic will increase 

seven-fold, and there will be 11.6 billion mobile devices in use, exceeding the world's projected 

population of 7.8 billion. 4 

A recent study by Reportlinker revealed that 31% of people having no broadband 

connection at home state they don't need it because their smartphone has unlimited data, 

3 See, http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/12/21/home-broadband-2015/. 

4 See, Cisco VNI Global Mobile Data Traffic Forecast, 2016-2021, accessed at: 

http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/visual-networking-indexvni/white paper cll-520862.pdf. 

5 
69 


25494.082

while 27% say you can do everything you want with a smartphone, and 15% say it is cheaper to 

have only one connection. 5 

It is worth updating my testimony to the U.S. Senate from one year ago, to describe how 

mobile broadband drives so many aspects of our lives. Consumers' and businesses' reliance 

upon high-quality, ubiquitous mobile broadband deepens every day, and a quick review of why 

this matters may help explain why Federal policy remains an essential and urgent component of 

building, operating, and continuously upgrading mobile broadband networks: 

• Public Safety. The ability to use 911/E-911/Text-to-911 depends 100% on high 

quality coverage, to fully enable location-based services. 6 When disaster strikes, 

first responders depend on mobile wireless and broadband networks, which are 

the first to return to service. The value and utility of FirstNet, our nation's 

mobile broadband public safety network, increase every time a new cell tower is 

constructed, as it provides a place to locate critical public safety communications 

equipment. 

• Health Care. Mobile devices and applications capable of diagnosing, monitoring 

and treating various conditions are exploding into the marketplace and 

revolutionizing health care. 7 These advances improve patient outcomes, and 

increase efficient delivery of services. It is now possible for a diabetic patient to 

continuously monitor, store, and transmit glucose levels to health care providers 

through a mobile device.8 Mobile video conferencing is increasingly important 

5 See, Reportlinker, Wired, Wireless or Both? Americans Rethink Their Internet 

Connections, (Mar. 9, 2017), accessed at: http://www.reportlinker.com/insight/internetconnections.html. 

6 The FCC estimates that 70% of 911 calls are placed from wireless phones, and that 

percentage is growing. See, https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/911-wireless-services. 

7 An updated list of hundreds of approved mobile medical applications can be found at: 

https://www.fda.gov/MedicaiDevices/DigitaiHealth/MobileMedicaiApplications/ucm368784.ht 

ill· 

8 http://www.dexcom.com/g5-mobile-cgm. Someday soon, patients may wear a 

contact lens that constantly measures glucose level through tears, transmitting the data to 

attending physicians. See, https://verily.com/projects/sensors/smart-lens-program/. 

6 
70 


25494.083

to emergency medical services and in delivering health care to remote areas 

where facilities are not easily accessible. 9 These applications are but a small 

fraction of the incredible health care tools enabled by mobile broadband. 

• The Internet of Things. Soon, almost any object will be capable of connecting to 

the Internet. Gartner expects nearly 21 billion loT devices to be deployed by 

2020. 10 According to General Electric, the Industrial Internet, defined as the 

combination of Big Data and the Internet of Things, may be responsible for $15 

trillion (not a typo) of worldwide GOP by 2030Y 

• Education. Students are increasingly using mobile devices to access learning 

materials, do homework, create presentations, and communicate with teachers. 

Students with connectivity throughout the community are more likely to meet 

educational goals, especially in an age where learning through the Internet is 

essential. 

• Agriculture. Connected tractors, irrigation systems, livestock management, 

commodity tracking, and many more applications depend upon mobile wireless 

connectivity. By definition, these services require networks that are not 

measured by "road miles covered" but by actual services reaching their acreage. 

• Low-income households. For households that cannot afford to purchase a 

desktop computer, a router, a WiFi access point, and subscribe to both mobile 

and fixed networks, a single mobile device is capable of meeting voice 

communications and Internet needs. 

9 The FCC's Connect2HealthFCC initiative is a powerful example of how broadband data 

can be used to improve health care. See, https://www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/fccinitiatives/connect2healthfcc; 

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily Releases/Daily Business/2017/db0316/DOC-343926Al.pdf; and 

https ://www. fcc .gov I d ocu men t/ commissioner -clyb urn-continuation-con nect2 health-taskforce. 

10 See, https://www.gartner.com/doc/3558917/forecast-internet-things--endpoints. 

11 See, http://www.ge.com/digital/sites/default/files/industrial-internet-insightsreport.pdf. 

7 
71 


25494.084

If the Committee takes nothing else away from these examples of how critical mobile 

broadband is to rural America, it should be this: None of the benefits described above will help 

rural Americans unless high-quality mobile broadband coverage is available everywhere they 

live, work, and travel. In areas where emergency calls cannot connect, or where medical 

devices cannot transmit data, lives will be lost. In areas where tablets and laptops don't work, 

educational opportunities will be foreclosed. The enormous power of the Internet of Things 

cannot be fully realized without ubiquitous mobile broadband. As Deere & Company has 

previously noted to the FCC, a lack of connectivity on our nation's farmlands costs productivity 

and wastes water and fertilizer. 12 The lack of mobile broadband denies low-income households 

the opportunity to fully participate in our nation's economy. 

As you can see, there are enormous opportunities here to grow our economy, increase 

public safety, improve education, reduce health care costs, and make our nation more 

competitive. Here are some observations and ideas for what Congress can do to accelerate 

mobile broadband deployment throughout the nation. 

Making Smart, Targeted Investments Begins With Accurate Measurement. 

There are differing opinions regarding the state of mobile broadband deployment in 

America. Some FCC statistics say 99.1% of Americans are covered by at least one carrier 

12 See, http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521752479. 

8 
72 


25494.085

providing 4G LTE service. 13 Other data, such as the FCC table below, suggest that 53% of all 

Americans and 87% of rural Americans lack access to mobile broadband at 10 Mbps/1 Mbps: 14 

Table4 

So, 4G service may be available, but high-quality service needed to compete with the rest of the 

world may not. In conversations with many policy makers from across the country, they 

understand from firsthand usage that dropped calls, dropped data sessions, and poor quality 

remain a problem in their districts regardless of what a map may show. 

Over the past several years, the FCC has attempted to improve its data collection by 

requiring mobile carriers to submit reports of broadband coverage and speeds on FCC Form 

477. Compiled together, the Form 477 data has the potential {if the data were accurate and 

consistent) to provide a useful picture as to where coverage exists, and at what speeds, 

allowing policymakers to direct federal universal service funds to areas that need new 

investments. Using the FCC's Form 477 data, released in September 2016, we commissioned 

CostQuest Associates to compile a U.S. map depicting where 4G service is lacking: 

13 See, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Working Toward Mobility Fund II: Mobile 

Broadband Coverage Data and Analysis {Sept. 30, 2016) at 

https:Uapps.fcc.gov/edocs public/attachmatch/DOC-341539A1.pdf. 

14 See, Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability 

to all Americans, 2016 Broadband Progress Report, FCC 16-6 {Jan. 29, 2016), at Table 4, 

accessed at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs public/attachmatch/FCC-16-6Al.pdf. 

9 
73 


25494.086

While we don't disagree that the purple areas probably lack 4G service, our experience 

in states like Oklahoma, Tennessee, Illinois, North Carolina, Iowa, Wisconsin, Vermont, Kansas, 

Nebraska, and West Virginia tells us that this map overstates 4G availability. To be clear, we do 

not believe carriers are misrepresenting their coverage to the FCC. Instead, they are depicting 

coverage accurately within the loose guidelines set forth for how to submit coverage data. Let 

me explain the problem and propose a solution. 

Below is a two-color coverage map of several U.S. Cellular towers in rural Tennessee: 

10 
74 


25494.087

usee Tennessee March 20, 2017 f<;. US. Cellular 

+Sites 

• usee High Quality Service Area (161 Square Miles) • 

• usee 4G Service Below 1 OMbps (366 Square Miles) • 
75 


25494.088

The green area is where signal is strong and customers can expect to experience highquality service that is reasonably comparable to that which is available in urban areas. We 

would expect users in the green areas to receive download/upload speeds of approximately 10 

Mbps/1 Mbps or better, and that calls will rarely drop. 

The red area is where customers can expect to get service, but it may be less reliable. 

Calls will drop more often as handsets move around and data speeds may slow down. In the 

red area, vagaries such as distance from the tower, foliage, obstacles, and terrain, can all affect 

the quality of service, more so than in the green areas where signal strength is greater. As a 

result, users would expect to receive speeds below 10 Mbps/1 Mbps. 

In areas with higher population density or where demographics demand it, carriers can 

afford to build networks out so that customers only experience the green areas. A rural carrier 

would need to invest in additional "fill-in" cell sites in the red areas in order to bring these areas 

up to the urban/suburban quality standard. Unfortunately, in many or most rural areas, there 

is no business case for investing hundreds of thousands, or even millions in additional cell sites 

to increase reliability and speeds. 

When submitting data to the FCC on Form 477, carriers are not required to distinguish 

between their green and red areas. When the FCC inaugurated its Form 477 data collection, it 

issued instructions for carriers to "[r]eport a list ... of census tracts, "in which your mobile 

wireless broadband service is advertised and available to actual and potential subscribers." 15 

The instructions define mobile wireless broadband service as a service that, "allows end users 

15 See, https://transition.fcc.gov/form477/477inst.pdf, at p. 25 (emphasis mine). 

12 
76 


25494.089

to receive information from and/or send information to the Internet from a mobile device and 

using a mobile network at information transfer rates exceeding 200 kbps in at least one 

direction.'"6. Service is advertised and available in a census tract if the provider "is advertising 

and actively making mobile broadband service available to actual and potential subscribers 

anywhere in the tract"Y 

This listing of census tracts reported by carriers overstates where service is available 

since tracts reported as having service available may contain large areas in which service in fact 

is not available. In addition, including tracts with throughput at 200 kbps in one direction 

serves to overstate service coverage and misclassify low speed areas as "broadband available." 

In addition to submitting a list of census tracts, each carrier must submit a shapefile for 

each technology deployed in each frequency band, which allows the creation of nationwide 

coverage maps. The FCC's instructions state that carriers should: 

indicate the minimum advertised upload and download data 

speeds associated with that network technology in that frequency 

band ... and the coverage area polygon should depict the 

boundaries where, according to providers, users should expect to 

receive those advertised speeds. 18 

The problem with this Form 477 instruction is that it produces maps that do not 

differentiate between the green areas and red areas. That is, the instructions require carriers 

to report geographic coverage areas nationwide where customers can expect to receive service 

16 See, https://transition.fcc.gov/form477/477inst.pdf, at p. 24 (emphasis in original). 

17 See, id. (emphasis mine). 

18 See, https://transition.fcc.gov/form477/477inst.pdf, at p. 24 (emphasis in original). 

13 
77 


25494.090

at the minimum advertised speeds for the technology involved. These coverage areas include 

the red areas of lower service quality. 

We believe the solution to this is to improve the quality of data submitted to the FCC, so 

that Form 477 maps only depict the green areas. Red areas would no longer be considered to 

be providing mobile broadband for universal service purposes. Instead they would be made 

eligible for federal universal service support, as they should be, because there is rarely a chance 

to make a return on investment by building more towers in those areas. Citizens living in those 

areas would receive improved service levels, comparable to those living in urban and suburban 

communities. 

Many stakeholders have raised these concerns, and to its credit, the FCC has 

acknowledged that the data needs improvement. However, the FCC is moving forward with the 

Mobility Fund II auction that will commit $450 million in annual funding over the next ten years, 

without first fixing the Form 477 data. In order to determine which areas are eligible for 

investment, they are relying on a "challenge process," essentially shifting the burden to each 

carrier to figure out where the coverage maps of competing carriers reflect inaccuracies. That 

is an enormous and expensive task, one which carriers are not well-equipped to perform. 19 Nor 

would it make the red areas above eligible for investment. 

The far better course would be to improve Form 477 instructions so that all of the data 

submitted is based on more conservative and consistent standards that do not overstate 

19 For example, U.S. Cellular estimated that testing its 14-state universal service 

network, comprising approximately 500,000 census blocks, would take 27,750 days at 18-hours 

per day. That works out to 2,000 testing teams, each working a 9-hour shift per day, for 28 

days. 

14 
78 


25494.091

coverage in rural areas. We realize that taking such a course of action would introduce 

approximately a one year delay in commencing the Mobility Fund II auction, however moving 

ahead with poor data risks misallocating a substantial portion of $4.5 billion in support funds. 

Last week, Senators Capito and Klobuchar introduced a bill in the Senate entitled "The 

Measuring Economic Impact of Broadband Act," seeking to provide Congress with reliable, 

publicly available economic data that it needs to make informed decisions about expanding 

broadband. The law would require the Bureau of Economic Analysis to conduct a study of the 

effects of broadband deployment and adoption on the U.S. economy. 20 Should that bill 

become law, it will benefit the public to a far greater extent if the quality of data collected 

through the Form 477 process is improved. 

Additionally, last week Congressman Loebsack introduced H.R. 1546, "The Rural 

Wireless Access Act of 2017," a bill requiring the FCC to use standard definitions, collect 

coverage data in a consistent and robust way, improve the reliability and validity of its data, and 

increase the efficiency of its data collection. We support this bill because the Commission has 

for many years struggled to accurately measure where broadband of all technologies exists, and 

the characteristics and quality of such services. 

We applaud the FCC's recognition of its data problem and intend to work with the FCC 

to develop a workable challenge process in advance of the Mobility Fund II auction. That said, 

we remain concerned that a challenge process may fail to uniformly correct the data issues, 

20 See, https://www .klobucha r .senate.gov /public/index.cfm/newsreleases?ID=4D34DD69-DSES-4A76-9707-C4B63SF14541. The bill is co-sponsored, by a 

bipartisan group of Senators including King, Boozman, Heitkamp, Franken and Sullivan. 

15 
79 


25494.092

especially if much of the country goes untested due to the burdens of the challenge process. 

We and others have urged the FCC to first fix the Form 477 data before making decisions about 

how Mobility Fund II support should be invested. 

We urge Congress to continue to encourage the FCC to improve the 477 data collection 

process before committing $4.5 billion in universal service funding. 

Accurately Measuring Mobile Broadband Availability Enables Policymakers to 

Determine How Much Investment is Needed and to Accurately Target Support. 

In its Mobility Fund II Order, the FCC claimed without support that a budget of $453 

million per year, "will allow MF-11 to achieve its objectives in a fiscally responsible manner 

(emphasis added).'' 21 However, this is not the correct assessment of objectives. The FCC has no 

basis to conclude that its budget will accomplish the objective that Congress gave the FCC, 

namely, to provide rural citizens with access to high-quality telecommunications services that 

are reasonably comparable to those in urban areas. 22 Respectfully, without accurate Form 477 

mapping data, nobody understands the size of the task at hand, or whether any objective is 

being achieved. 

If the Form 477 data were improved as discussed above, exposing the red areas for 

investment, it may lead policymakers to prioritize Mobility Fund II funds for those rural areas 

where far more people live, work, and travel. In addition, the FCC's recent order excludes from 

21 See, Connect America Fund, FCC 17-11, Report and Order and Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (Mar. 7, 2017), at para. 25. 

22 See, 47 U.S.C. § 254(b)(3). 

16 
80 


25494.093

eligibility for Mobility Fund II support any area where at least one carrier offers 5 Mbps/1 Mbps 

or greater of mobile broadband service. Yet, carriers that win Mobility Fund II support must 

build out to a 10 Mbps/1 Mbps standard. This means areas with 5 Mbps/1 Mbps of service will 

get no federal support to improve networks for ten years. 

Today, a 5 Mbps/1 Mbps service level falls short of Congress' objective that the FCC 

ensure that services in rural areas are reasonably comparable to urban areas. According to 

OpenSignal, the overall speed that Americans experience from mobile broadband networks is 

12.34 Mbps download. 23 That figure implies that consumers experience significantly faster 

speeds in urban areas. Ineligible rural areas relegated to 5 Mbps cannot be considered 

reasonably comparable to urban and in ten years they will be much farther behind. Moreover, 

investments that increase speeds in rural areas would undoubtedly improve our ranking 

worldwide. 24 

By fixing the Form 477 and opening up for support areas with less than 10 Mbps/1 Mbps 

of service, the FCC would focus its Mobility Fund II budget in the areas where investment will 

help the most rural citizens. This is not to say that the Commission should ignore remote areas 

that are extremely high-cost to serve. The remaining areas should be dealt with in the FCC's 

Remote Areas Fund (RAF), which remains in development. 

23 See, Open Signal, Global State of Mobile Networks (August 2016), accessed at: 

httos://ooensignal.com/reports/2016/08/global-state-of-the-mobile-network/#speed. 

According to OpenSignal, the U.S. ranks 38th worldwide in overall mobile broadband speed, 

behind South Korea (1" at 41 Mbps), Japan (9th at 21 Mbps), China (15'h at 18 Mbps), Estonia 

(24th at 15 Mbps), and Slovenia (27th at 14 Mbps). 

24 While some may argue the FCC's low ranking reflects the geographic size of our 

nation, that gives me no comfort. We trail some developing countries that have clearly made 

mobile broadband a priority. 

17 
81 


25494.094

CostQuest has estimated that providing 4G service to the areas that the FCC shows to be 

unserved (an area we believe to understate the need) will require approximately 37,500 new 

towers, at a cost of $12.5 billion. 25 In addition, annual operating expenses for these towers will 

cost approximately $21 billion over ten years, for a total of approximately $33.5 billion. These 

estimates budget nothing for the red areas discussed above. Nor do they include 5G 

investments, which are only a few years away. 

Given the explosive growth in demand for mobile broadband and the large amount of 

work yet to be done, the FCC's proposed $450 million dollar universal service investment in 

mobile technology, which is only 10% of its $4.5 billion dollar annual investment in wire line 

technology, is inadequate. As shown in the FCC's Mobility Phase I auction results map/6 $300 

million doesn't go very far in rural areasY To illustrate, we have gone to extraordinary lengths 

to build towers in remote areas using federal universal service support. Attached as Exhibit 1 

are photographs of cell sites in Washington and Wisconsin, showing the construction of roads, 

clearing of forest, and even the use of work horses to transport equipment. 

We conclude that the FCC's budget comes up far short of what's needed to make a 

significant portion of rural America's mobile broadband capability reasonably comparable to 

25 See, CostQuest Associates, Cost Study for 4G Unserved Areas, accessed at: 

https://ecfsapi. fcc.gov /file/10217086509033/2017%200216%20CQ%20Cost%20Study%20for% 

20Unserved%20Areas%20FINAL.pdf. 

26 See, http://apps.fcc.gov/auction901/map/auction result ext.html. 

27 It should be noted that nearly a third of Mobility Fund I support was returned for nonperformance, some due to an inability to obtain right of way approvals on Federal lands. 

18 
82 


25494.095

urban areas. 28 Perhaps the FCC's budgetary constraint flows from the intractable problem of 

fixing the way consumers contribute to the universal service mechanism. Whatever the case, it 

is time for Congress to make a bigger commitment to mobile broadband. 

The Nation Needs a Big Broadband Infrastructure Bill. 

It is difficult to overemphasize how important it is for Congress to foster development of 

robust mobile broadband networks in rural areas right now. New investments in mobile 

broadband infrastructure each year will have multiplier effects, creating jobs and stimulating 

economic growth. 29 One wireless industry job supports over six additional jobs in the economy, 

almost one and one half times higher than U.S. manufacturing sector jobs support.30 Each dollar 

of investment in wireless results in $2.32 of economic activity. 31 We hear directly from our 

employees and customers that managers and educated professionals no longer consider rural 

areas that lack high-quality mobile broadband services attractive enough to relocate to, or to 

stay in. 

28 Indeed, this amount is about 10% of what the FCC has proposed to invest in wireline 

broadband networks in rural America. 

29 See, http://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/technologymedia-telecommunications/us-tmt-impactof-4g-060612.pdf. 

30 See, Coleman Bazelon and Giulia McHenry, Mobile Broadband Spectrum, A Vital 

Resource for the U.S. Economy, at pp. 19-20 (May 11, 2015), available at: 

http://www.brattle.com/system/publications/pdfs/000/005/168/originai/Mobile Broadband 5 

pectrum -

A Valuable Resource for the American Economy Bazelon McHenry 051115.pdf?1431372 

403. 

31fd. 

19 
83 


25494.096

As you know, cell towers and fiber networks are the building blocks of a broadband 

economy. Cell tower and fiber constructed today are capable of transporting data at today's 

speed limit. Within a few years, as SG technology is introduced, new electronics and software 

upgrades will use the same towers and fiber to greatly increase network capabilities. As the 

Cisco and Gartner projections show, our nation's data capacity needs continue to explode. In 

order to keep up with this demand, especially in rural areas where it is more difficult to justify 

investments, I urge Congress to include robust fiber and mobile broadband investments within 

any infrastructure bill that is developed this year. 

Last week in Pittsburgh, FCC Chairman Pai suggested that direct funding for broadband 

infrastructure appropriated by Congress as part of a larger infrastructure package should be 

administered through the FCC's Universal Service Fund (USF) and targeted to areas that lack 

high-speed Internet access. 32 Provided the FCC has accurate data on where support should be 

targeted, and that sufficient funds are made available to close the mobility gap in rural America, 

we support Chairman Pai's suggestion. In our experience, the federal high-cost mechanism has 

historically been an effective means of accelerating infrastructure development. Given the 

opportunity, we would welcome the opportunity to work with the Committee to develop this 

idea further, which could significantly expand direct investment by carriers in rural areas. 

32 See, Remarks of FCC Chairman Ajit Pai At Carnegie Mellon University's Software 

Engineering Institute "Bringing the Benefits of the Digital Age to All Americans" Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania March 15, 2017, accessed at: 

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs public/attachmatch/DOC-343903Al.pdf. 

20 
84 


25494.097

I urge this Committee to consider legislation to substantially increase investment in 

mobile broadband networks serving rural America, either through a direct program or by 

increasing funding for the federal universal service mechanism, as suggested by Chairman Pai. 

In addition to direct investment, there are tax provisions that can help to accelerate 

investment, such as tax credits and depreciation allowances. We commend Congress for 

extending the bonus depreciation for property acquired and placed into service through 2019. 

These rules have allowed us to make investments in towers, network equipment, and other 

qualifying property that create jobs and produce economic multiplier effects. We urge you to 

work with the Ways and Means Committee to develop effective and responsible tax credits and 

other cost recovery rules that will provide business with the incentive to build infrastructure, 

especially in rural areas. 

Separately, Congress can make all universal service fund support go farther by passing 

legislation to exclude universal service support from taxable income, similar to funds provided 

under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. By excluding support from taxation, we 

will be able to use 100% of the support received for investments in rural areas and not just the 

net amount after taxes. 

Last September, then Commissioner Pai suggested the creation of "Gigabit Opportunity 

Zones," where financial incentives would be provided for Internet service providers to deploy 

gigabit broadband services in low-income neighborhoods. State and local governments willing 

to adopt deployment-friendly policies could apply to the federal government for designation as 

a Gigabit Opportunity Zone. Designation would allow ISPs to capture federal tax incentives for 

building networks, such as being able to expense capital investments, or carrying over losses for 

21 
85 


25494.098

an extended period. Startup companies using the Gigabit network could receive tax credits to 

stimulate business development. We believe these ideas have merit and should be developed 

further. At the very least, Congress should authorize a robust pilot program to test them in 

both urban and rural areas. 

We support "dig once" policies for any federal infrastructure investment that supports 

installation of underground conduit and fiber when building or renovating roads, railways, 

pipelines, utility infrastructure, and energy distribution channels. I understand that dig once 

can reduce the cost of fiber installation by as much as 90%. Chairman Walden and 

Congresswoman Eshoo have previously introduced dig once legislation and we fully support a 

requirement that projects using federal infrastructure funds include underground fiber. 

Lastly, an infrastructure bill should reduce barriers to entry for mobile broadband. 

Over three decades after the inauguration of cellular telephone service, the ability to obtain 

rights of way on Federal lands continues to be a significant burden for carriers. We note that 

the Majority Staff's Report for this hearing includes a provision requiring the Bureau of Land 

Management and Forest Service to undertake a rulemaking designed to standardize their 

requirements for obtaining rights of way. The costs, uncertainties, and delays involved in 

operating on Federal lands significantly delay or preclude mobile broadband deployment. 

Citizens living in, visiting, and traveling through these areas face needless risk and 

inconvenience. We support proposals set forth in the discussion draft that will streamline these 

processes and lead to consistent and predictable outcomes. 

22 
86 


25494.099

Closing Remarks 

In closing, we have an administration and both parties on the same page that it is time 

to invest in our nation's infrastructure. As someone who has participated in the development 

of mobile wireless since its inception, I state to you without hesitation that some of the 

greatest advances in public safety, health care, education and economic development are 

happening as we speak, and will continue to develop in the coming years. Whether these 

advances make it to rural America largely depends on choices that you make today. 

Congress and the FCC must ensure that the towers, fiber, and related equipment are 

constructed in rural areas where carriers cannot make a business case to invest. The FCC's 

contemplated $4.5 billion dollar investment over the next ten years is not enough to keep the 

digital divide from widening. We need a coordinated strategy to address the digital divide 

because there never comes a time when we can say the job is completed. 

To stay ahead of the curve and make smart policy choices, you must know at all times 

the state of our nation's mobile broadband network· where service is available and its quality. 

The National Broadband Map that you authorized in 2009 was a great start, and we need to 

build on it and have something comparable for mobile broadband that gives policymakers 

appropriate visibility. 

You must have reasonable estimates as to what it will cost to keep rural areas 

reasonably comparable urban. Understanding costs underpins any budget you may develop; 

indeed it informs you how long it will take to accomplish a legislative goal. 

23 
87 


25494.100

To succeed, you must appropriate funds to help carriers build more fill-in facilities, in an 

amount sufficient to bring rural areas up to a reasonably comparable standard, and include 

future support for SG technology. 

Finally, this industry is quintessentially interstate- it requires federal oversight and 

action to ensure our citizens have access to the best telecommunications infrastructure in the 

world. We need tax policies, incentives, and for various approval processes to be streamlined 

and made more efficient. 

All of this is within your sight right now, and I encourage you in the strongest possible 

way to seize this moment to significantly advance our nation's critical telecommunications 

infrastructure. 

24 
88 


25494.101

Exhibit 1 

Photographs of Tower Construction in Remote Areas 
89 


25494.102
90 


25494.103
91 


25494.104
92 


25494.105
93 


25494.106
94 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, sir, and that concludes the testimony from our panel. We are going to move to questions. I will 

begin by recognizing myself for 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. Berry, I want to come to you first. We talked a lot about 

data. We agree with you and, Mr. Carlson, with you that the data 

is not being utilized as it should be. Looking at the Tennessee map, 

that area with nothing, that is in my district. And so, unlike Mr. 

Loebsack, I am out there. I can tell you where the signal drops. 

And I would like for you just to comment on data for a second. 

And then, let’s go talk about the USF because we have had a lot 

of hearings and looked at USF and the problems that are there, including fraud. We know that that exists. And I want you to comment on a couple of things. 

Should we be looking to do better through the USF? Should we 

be looking to do something different other than the USF? Should 

the USF be expanded to include a grant-making operation or 

should the federal government be looking to take on this burden? 

So, if you will comment on the utilization and the application for 

USF and, then, a couple of comments about data? 

Mr. BERRY. Thank you, Chairman. 

Well, the USF, it is a well-recognized, well-used mechanism that 

has encouraged broadband buildout throughout the United States 

for a long time. It is a process that we are familiar with. Does it 

need to be improved? I think it does. I think that mobile 

broadband, i.e., the Mobility II, could be substantially enhanced in 

terms of dollars committed to mobility. 

You look at it, and I think in Mr. Carlson’s testimony, very clearly, 87 percent of the United States, of the citizens in the United 

States, do not have 10–1 megabyte speed. If you look at 47 to 49 

percent of the households in the United States are wireless-only 

households, but, yet, the mobile broadband fund, the Mobility II 

Fund, is substantially less than what is currently provided on the 

wire-line side. 

I am not saying that you don’t need wire-line and wireless, but 

I think we can do a better job of providing more funds to Mobility 

II, because the facts are that in many instances, especially those 

economically-challenged, they are using their mobile phones as 

their access to the internet. And the FCC has a process, and if we 

can get the data correct, if they can actually get the numbers and 

the knowledge of where there is coverage and where there is not— 

I remember when I met with you and showed you the FCC data 

of Tennessee, and you took one look at it and said, ‘‘That’s not 

right.’’ Well, if it is that obvious to everyone that travels their district, it is that obvious to your constituents. I think we can do a 

much better job, as Mr. Carlson said. And the Mobility II Fund 

could be not only expanded, but it could handle additional revenue 

that would be targeted in a very targeted fashion for unserved and 

underserved areas. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. Let me stay with you and, Mr. Carlson, 

I am going to bring you in on this. Both of you talked in your testimony about barriers for deployment and moving past some of these 

barriers, and how deployment will help with investment and education and economic development, all of those components we want 

to see that I call quality of life. 

95 

And what I would like for you to comment on is kind of next-generation services and next-generation deployment. What are you all 

investing in? What are you looking toward? If you could get rid of 

some of these barriers to deployment, what additionally would you 

be able to do? Where are you going next? 

Mr. BERRY. Do you want me to—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Yes, go ahead. 

Mr. BERRY. My members tell me that, No. 1, the job isn’t done; 

that we are going to build 5G services on top of 4G LTE and 

VoLTE. So, the first priority is coverage. If you don’t have a signal 

and if you don’t have access to a wireless signal to do voice or text 

or data, then it is hard to get to the next generation. 

So, I think if we don’t get to 4G LTE and VoLTE, get to an IP 

network, then your ability to get to a 5G IoT, Internet of Things, 

connectivity is extremely impaired. And I would note that in rural 

America industrial IoT probably has the greatest promise for economic growth and sustainability for those rural areas to bring new 

jobs in. And I think that is where we have to finish the job that 

we have started and, then, I think we will be ready for the 5G 

world. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Carlson? 

Mr. CARLSON. Yes, I would just like to emphasize the education 

aspect of 4G and very high-quality 4G signals. A student who 

wants to go onto the internet and, let’s say they are interested in 

history. Maybe they want to look at history of World War II and 

they want to look at movies about what happened in World War 

II. They won’t be able to download those movies in a satisfactory 

state if they don’t get that signal. 

And they need to get that signal at home. They need to be able 

to get that signal in the backseat of the car when their parent is 

driving them to school or driving them somewhere else. They need 

to get the signal. They shouldn’t be forced to go to a local library, 

which may be 20–30 minutes away, to get a signal, which is only 

open a certain number of hours a day. 

Students need full access to a high-speed signal. I mentioned the 

10 megabits per second. That is today’s urban standard. The urban 

standard I believe is growing about 15 percent per year. So, that 

doubles in five years. So, five years from now, it is going to be 20 

megabits per second. We need to get a strong signal out to all of 

rural America today, so that rural America’s children can be educated to compete in the modern world. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. My time has expired. Mr. Doyle, you are recognized for 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. 

Well, let me just stay on that for a second, Mr. Carlson. Tell me, 

what challenges do you face in getting access to affordable 

backhaul for cell sites? 

Mr. CARLSON. Well, affordable backhaul for cell sites is a big 

challenge. We many times have to put in backhaul ourselves to cell 

towers that we put up because they are in remote areas. And we 

have to lay in sometimes even roads. I mean, there was one case 

where we even had to have a team of horses. We couldn’t get roads 

in. We had to have a team of horses pulling a fiberoptic cable. 

96 

So, it is a cost element, but it is also an access element. I think 

the proposed draft that would say Dig Once I think is an excellent 

solution to allowing fiberoptic cable to run under highways that are 

being built, so that that kind of backhaul could be better produced. 

We need all the help we can get in terms of backhaul. Siting for 

cell sites is a big issue. We connect a lot of our cell sites with 

microwave. So, getting siting and approvals more rapidly to get 

those cells built would be great. 

Mr. DOYLE. Yes. I think access to affordable backhauls, that is 

a real barrier to deployment, and we need to work on that. 

Mr. Berry, tell me this. In your written testimony you say in 

some cases tax credits may not go far enough to foster infrastructure investment. Can you explain why tax credits alone won’t be 

able to get the job done? 

Mr. BERRY. Thank you, Congress. 

And I think Ms. Hovis also addressed that issue. You know, if 

you have tax credits, you have to assume that at some point in 

time you can actually make a profit at what you are doing. So, the 

tax credit actually helps. 

I think one of the innovative ideas that has been suggested is 

maybe those grants or those USF funds could be non-taxable, so 

that you could actually increase the amount of value of the contribution by 40 percent, 35–40 percent, because that is essentially 

what Uncle Sam takes out of the grant to USF, to a USF Mobility 

II entity. 

In rural areas you are barely meeting an economic model. And 

so, you are putting enormous pressure on the private sector to fully 

fund or fully support a network. And accelerated depreciation, immediate acceleration of depreciation might be helpful. But the fact 

of the matter is, the economic model in many of these areas, it is 

so critical because there is not a great—— 

Mr. DOYLE. Yes, there is not a strong case to make. 

Mr. BERRY. There is not a strong case for the model, for the economic model, to begin with. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. 

Ms. Hovis, in your testimony you talked about some of the benefits of public/private partnerships in enabling municipalities to address a number of the challenges they face in getting their communities connected. And you have worked with a number of these 

communities. But I am aware in a number of states they have 

passed laws really to prevent municipalities from engaging in these 

types of partnerships. 

What do municipalities lose out on when they are denied this option, and what can Congress do to help that situation? 

Ms. HOVIS. Thank you, Ranking Member Doyle. 

What exists in a number of these states are various kinds of barriers that are opposed to allowing collaboration at the local level 

between public and private entities. I think many of these laws are 

frequently cast as supposedly protecting private sector opportunity, 

when, in fact, what they frequently do is tie the hands of local communities to work with the private sector to achieve better 

broadband outcomes. 

In my experience, there are hundreds of communities throughout 

the country, thousands of communities who are looking for ways to 

97 

enable to private sector opportunity around broadband and to attract private capital and to work with the private sector to improve 

the broadband environment. And when we tie their hands with regard to, for example, building and leasing public assets, such as 

fiber or conduit, and son, we are removing from the equation one 

incredibly important player. And that seems to me very unfortunate. And frankly, it is not in the national interest. It would seem 

to me, also, that it subverts all of the goals that we all share here, 

which is better broadband, particularly for rural communities and 

communities that have been left out. 

Mr. DOYLE. Yes, I couldn’t agree with that more. Thank you. 

I see my time is almost up, so I will yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Shimkus, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

This has been a great hearing, and I appreciate your time. And 

I have written a lot of notes. 

What struck me, though, is, as you were talking about the high 

speed and stuff, usually, historically, members would say, ‘‘Oh, I 

need this information,’’ ‘‘I need that information,’’ and we would 

turn back to our staff. But now, we are all gathering, I was looking 

up National Forests, Mr. Murray, just to find out, I have the Shawnee National Forest, so I was trying to find out, well, what is the 

National Forest around. I know I have got the land between the 

lakes, not a National Forest, but it is a government federal land 

in Kentucky. It got the Hoosier National Forest in Indiana. 

Of course, these National Forest areas, especially when you go 

out West, they are the size of states. So, I think you just make a 

compelling argument that they ought to have one application to get 

sited in National Forests. Maybe through 30 different locations, do 

it one time, because that is an area that is tough for my constituents to get signals in the Shawnee National Forest. It is just has 

been a difficult process. 

So, I wrote down that note. I think that is a good thing to propose. And I don’t know if we would have to work with the Resources Committee on that, but that is why we have this testimony. So, I appreciate that comment. 

The other thing, it is really kind of Ms. Hovis, but it is also Mr. 

Connors, because I was intrigued. There is concern when government grants or low-interest loans go in to compete against established providers. Even though maybe they are not serving at the 

speed that we want, that it is unfair for tax dollars to go to compete against a private sector who is trying to meet that need. 

So, we are talking on both sides. We want to incentivize people 

to deploy, but, then, we incentive a competitor through tax credits 

or something to compete against the incumbent, which makes it 

difficult. 

Mr. Connors, in your testimony you talk about going to North 

County, talking about them not having the same access. A hundred 

thousand have been overlooked and they are speeds no greater 

than 6 megabits. And then, in your testimony you are talking 

about $24 million in grants received through round two of a state, 

is it a state buildout? 

Mr. CONNORS. State, yes. 

98 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Which I think is great because we want everybody 

to have high speed. But is there someone trying to provide service 

in that North County area? 

Mr. CONNORS. Well, the North Country region is where we are. 

We are providing the service on our Akwesasne territory. What we 

are doing is we are branching out, but we are right now in Lewis 

County, which is about an hour-and-a-half away. They came to us 

looking for additional services based on how successful we were in 

our territory. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. But there is no one trying to provide service there, 

right? I see people shaking their heads behind you. But there is no 

one trying to provide service there now? 

Mr. CONNORS. They have service, but it is not adequate. So, they 

are getting our quality service there. And we won round two of the 

state grant, and that is providing additional service in Lewis County. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Which is great, and I am not saying what you are 

doing but there is a concern that if you are a provider who is trying 

to provide in that area, and then, you use state tax credits or 

grants or stimulus dollars. We have seen this before in the ARRA 

where people came in, put in a bid, got federal dollars. They didn’t 

have the numbers to support an operating system, and that system 

went for lacking. 

And so, I think there is a balance between trying to ensure that, 

if we are going to incentivize using tax dollars, that there is a real 

need and that we are not competing against an incumbent who is 

trying to provide the service at the same time. Does that make 

sense? 

Mr. CONNORS. Yes. In our area the service providers are only 

going down the main hub, the main street area. What we are doing 

is we are branching off of that, going into the unserved areas. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And that is the importance of having proper maps, 

to identify served versus unserved. And as we will find, we still 

don’t have that. 

Mr. CONNORS. That is right. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And I had much more I wanted to talk about, but 

my time pretty much has expired. 

Madam Chairman, I thank you and I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Loebsack, you are recognized. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Well, as I noted in my opening statement, broadband access is 

critical for rural communities. I am going to show that map one 

more time. OK? It claims that, basically, all of Iowa is covered, but 

that is not true. 

And I really appreciate the Chair’s comments about this as well. 

So many of us on this committee really struggle with this issue, 

and it is a bipartisan issue. We live in these rural areas and we 

get dropped calls. Our constituents get dropped, all the things that 

are happening out there in rural America. And it really does bring 

us together on a bipartisan basis. That is why I appreciate this 

hearing today. 

99 

You know, it is a jobs issue, too. There is no question about that, 

no matter how you look at it. It is a survival issue in many ways, 

I think, for rural communities around this country. 

I have often said that, if we can’t get proper coverage in places 

like rural Iowa, but rural anywhere, we are not going to have these 

communities survive into the future. It can provide them economic 

growth. It can help provide the jobs that we really need in these 

areas. But, without it, these places are going to continue to struggle and a lot of them are simply going to wither and die on the vine 

in some ways. I hate to be overly dramatic, but I think it really 

is that dramatic. I think that is the future that we are talking 

about here. I mean, it comes down to, as I said, dollars and data. 

Mr. Carlson, I appreciate, of course, your explanation and comments regarding the challenges raised by using the current Form 

477 data to determine wireless coverage and USF eligibility. And 

I mentioned my bill that I introduced, H.R. 1546, the Rural Wireless Act, to require FCC to improve data collection for developing 

these coverage maps. Because, really, it is the case; it is kind of, 

if it is garbage in, it is going to be garbage out, basically. 

Did you want to mention anything about my bill? Hopefully, you 

have had a chance to look at that as well. 

Mr. CARLSON. Yes, Congressman, I have had a chance to read 

your bill, and it is an excellent bill. I applaud you for getting the 

process started, because this is something we need, to get good 

data, so that rural America can get policies made by Congress and 

by the FCC that is data-driven, that is accurate, and that will give 

rural citizens not the chance, but to give them the opportunity to 

have services that are reasonable comparable to those that exist in 

rural areas. 

We would be delighted to work with you to make sure that the 

bill really gets the FCC to do what you want to get them to do. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you so much, and I do appreciate your testimony. 

Obviously, Mr. Berry, the same question. 

Mr. BERRY. Absolutely, CCA strongly supports your legislation 

and really look forward to seeing a standard that is a usable standard that really provides guidance to the FCC for the future. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you. 

Mr. BERRY. Thank you. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thanks to both of you. And, look, as Co-Chair of 

the Rural Broadband Caucus, you mentioned, I think, Mr. Berry, 

that a number of us sent a letter to the President advocating for 

the inclusion of rural broadband in any infrastructure package. I 

think we are all agreed that that ought to be the case. 

But the policies we are talking about today are a good first step. 

There was bipartisan consensus surrounding many of these issues 

last Congress, but they only get us so far. For example, tribal 

lands, we all want more coverage in tribal lands, but in Iowa that 

is only .3 percent of our land. So, that is important, but we have 

got to go further than that. 

I want to make sure that whatever we do makes a difference in 

places like Iowa. And there is no doubt, of course, that we do need 

real direct investments for fixed and mobile broadband, as well as, 

if we are really going to get the kind of broadband we need in rural 

100 

areas. And I think this whole funding question is something we are 

going to be struggling with. We are going to have more time to discuss that. But, clearly, it is going to have to be some kind of a balance, some kind of a mix of different mechanisms going forward. 

And I am looking forward to having that discussion in this committee and, then, beyond as well. 

But any of you want to have any further comments about funding and how we go forward on this? I know we have heard from 

you, Ms. Hovis. Any others? 

Mr. CARLSON. I could make a comment. As I said, I don’t think 

the funding that is there today in Mobility Fund II is sufficient to 

bring rural America up to urban quality standards. And I think 

when we get the accurate maps, all of us will see how short that 

funding is. But that is OK. It is OK to see the problem as it really 

is because, then, we can decide where we should start on the problem and how we should think about the size of broadband infrastructure spending, as we look forward to working on a bipartisan 

basis to get that infrastructure spending put in place. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you, Mr. Carlson. 

Thanks to all of you. If you would like to respond in writing, that 

would be wonderful. I have reached the end of my 5 minutes. I certainly don’t want to ask the Chair to go over. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you all. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you. He yields back. 

Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

You know, before I start my questions, I would just like to point 

out to our committee and to our panelists the importance, as we 

migrate from 4G to 5G, it is going to be very important that we 

change siting rules at the federal and local levels for wireless carriers because that modernization is needed, so that it is not going 

to take years to site something the size of a pizza box on a tower 

or on a fixture, and that the rent to the carriers is reasonable, so 

that we can begin to see some real progress in expanding 

broadband coverage throughout or internet coverage throughout 

rural areas. 

With that, Mr. Murray, you highlight what appears to be a success story with regard to the Navy shortening the timeframe for 

siting of commercial towers on Navy and Marine installations. Are 

we to understand that this success has not bee replicated across 

DoD and the other branches of Service? 

Mr. MURRAY. I am going to defer to the written record. The Wireless Infrastructure Association, they will dig deeper into that. I do 

know, just from my discussions with them, that certain agencies 

are receptive; others aren’t. Much of the discussion of federal lands, 

you know, we think of, although Iowa doesn’t have many federal, 

well, it doesn’t have many Indian lands, but there are lots of federal lands even in just Fairfax, Virginia. I guess some agencies are 

more receptive than others. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Do military personnel use their personal phones to 

contact public safety services when on base? Do you know? 

Mr. MURRAY. I don’t know the answer to that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Berry, you are shaking your head. 

101 

Mr. BERRY. Yes, and I think it does go a lot to the manager of 

the facility or the federal land itself, and it is even for DoD. I have 

been called by commanders of a couple of Air Force bases asking 

which carriers in the area can they work with to ensure that their 

base residents can have access to wireless. And I think we have introduced them to several ideas: that not only can you get access to 

quality broadband wireless, but they could actually utilize that 

even in some of their deployment scenarios on base. And I don’t 

think that many, especially in DoD, were under the impression 

that they could do that and not interfere with the tactical communications systems that they have and utilize in deployment. 

And so, education is part of the issue. At least the couple of Air 

Force generals I spoke to were very interested in sharing that they 

had an improved methodology. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I can tell you I spent 26-and-a-half years in the 

Air Force, and I was an IT officer. I know what my response would 

be. It would be let’s get her done. You know, make it as quick as 

we can. 

Mr. Murray, also, we have a whole system of infrastructure 

siting rules at the federal as well as the local level that probably 

made sense for 200-foot macro-wireless towers. But does it make 

sense to use rules designed for macro-towers when wireless carriers 

will be rolling out small cells, as many as 300,000, around the 

country? Don’t we need to update rules for updated technologies? 

Mr. MURRAY. Yes, we absolutely do. The networks today, they 

are a combination of solutions. If you drive to Baltimore, the phone 

works in the Baltimore Tunnel and that is a distributed antenna 

system. If you have a good signal at the Metro stop, it is through 

DAS. 

A good deal of the discussion this morning is coverage in rural 

areas. The macro-site, the tall tower, 199-foot monopole or a lattice 

tower, that still has a long, healthy future in this country. But the 

solution is going to be a combination of solutions, a Swiss Army 

knife, if you will. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mr. MURRAY. As far as the rules go, no, we have a challenge. The 

small cell, and there is an entity that is claiming that a small cell 

is 120 feet. I mean, there has to be respect for the standards that 

have been in place for 30 years. 

In our thought, you take a utility pole. You add 10 feet. You add 

some antennas. That is roughly 50 feet. And that is a good definition of a small cell. That and stature less than that we believe 

should be expedited in some fashion. 

But local control, responsible local approval is a good idea. A pet 

peeve of mine is I would love to see Congress fund the FCC more 

on the proceeding that they are doing on health. I can’t tell you 

how many very difficult hearings I have been through, hearings to 

get a single tower approved on a given night. And there is a tremendous fear among a lot of citizens who live near a tower application about the dangers of this, and there really aren’t. 

There is all sorts of data. But the FCC was studying that, starting in 2013. We would like, I, as a tower developer, and those who 

develop new towers would like to see more information updated by 

102 

the FCC on the safety of living within the vicinity of wireless infrastructure. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. Well, thank you, Mr. Murray. 

I am sorry for going over, Madam Chair. I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Ms. Matsui, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

I want to follow along on some of these siting concerns. We have 

heard that it often takes a long time for a broadband infrastructure 

company to gain the relevant approvals necessary to site the infrastructure on federal land. In addition, we have heard that lease 

terms are short for siting such infrastructure, resulting in the situation where broadband developers that site on government property are frequently renegotiating. 

And the discussion draft under consideration today seeks to increase some of the lease terms that some agencies offer. Do you 

think, asking Mr. Berry, this provision strikes the right balance? 

Mr. BERRY. I think definitely we need to address it. And I can 

tell you individual horror stories about a carrier that got approval 

for Mobility Fund II monies to build towers on a Park Service property, and the timeframe that the FCC set to actually build the 

tower expired before the Park Service would actually give them a 

license, a permit. Even though in one instance the federal entity 

asked the FCC to grant an extension, the extension wasn’t granted. 

So, we have those problems that constantly occur, and it would be 

very helpful to have a little more flexibility on both the federal entities’ sides. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. So, we need to ensure that we enable more 

timely broadband deployment then? 

Mr. BERRY. And another thing we are learning is that the master 

plans that many of these agencies deal with, like BLM, the Department of Interior, the Department of Defense, Forest Service, are 

20-year master plans. And so, how do you get in and chance a 20- 

year master plan when the agency says, ‘‘No, we are not going to 

really address that for another 5 years.’’? 

Ms. MATSUI. Oh, OK. 

Mr. BERRY. And I think they did that in an Executive Order. Ensuring that those types of services, i.e., wireless and telecommunications services, is an acceptable, approved activity on federal property will go a long way to helping some of these land managers 

that do want to find solutions. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. One of the discussion drafts that were offered 

today would create an inventory of federal property that could be 

used to help deploy broadband infrastructure. In addition, this 

draft would also permit local and municipal governments to add 

their existing facilities to the inventory, so they might be better 

utilized by broadband developers. 

This question is to Mr. Berry and Mr. Murray. Would your members be interested in having their infrastructure added to such an 

inventory? 

Mr. BERRY. I think many of our members would like to have the 

knowledge that their network is there. Obviously, you get into concerns about the type of facility or the type of access, and there are 

103 

different rules for different types of broadband services and mobility services. So, that would always be a concern. 

Ms. MATSUI. Sure. 

Mr. Murray? 

Mr. MURRAY. Yes. There are many small tower developers who 

are already in partnerships with non-private entities. In Fairfax 

County, for example, a competitor of ours has made an arrangement with the public schools. So, they have developed tower sites 

at public schools and replaced light poles, and that has worked 

beautifully. 

I will throw out that we at the Wireless Infrastructure Association are tremendously in favor of longer lease terms on these federal lands. I am local, and I welcome anyone in the room, if you 

want to see a tower site and visit an actual telecommunications 

tower, I will set the tour up. 

But, when you see a tower, you realize, holy mackerel, this thing 

needs to be here for a long time. It is a huge amount of steel. There 

are utilities coming in. There is fiber coming in. This is not something, ‘‘Oh, well, we’ll just move it somewhere else in 4 years.’’ I 

mean, there has to be long duration. 

Sorry for the time run. 

Ms. MATSUI. No. Is there currently coordination between federal 

and state and local governments? And would this discussion draft 

help foster this sort of cooperation? Anyone here? 

Mr. BERRY. There is some coordination, but not nearly enough. 

I think the legislation that you are considering would facilitate that 

greatly. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. Mr. Murray? 

Mr. MURRAY. The industry, the carriers have all sorts of holes in 

their network. This is, again, from the macro-side perspective. 

Ms. MATSUI. Right. 

Mr. MURRAY. And they hire consultants to go out and try to find 

places where they can plug these holes. So, the consultants are 

aware of this county is receptive; this other county is not. But the 

general perception, at least among my colleagues nationwide, is 

that the federal lands, I mean, good luck; I will see you in four 

years. I mean, there are so many hurdles, if you will. But I am not 

aware of good coordination between local, state, and federal. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK, fine. I have run out of time. So, I yield back. 

Thank you. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you. 

Mr. Olson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. OLSON. I thank the Chair. 

And welcome to our five witnesses. 

My first question will be for your, Mr. Carlson, and you, Mr. 

Berry. And this morning I want to empower you all. And so, we are 

going to trade places. 

Like many Americans, you are about to move to Texas. 

[Laughter.] 

You are coming there most at income tax zero and the cheap price for a gallon of gasoline, just around $2. You may move to 

Plano, Texas, Congressman Sam Johnson’s district. Sam is retiring. 

You want to run for Congress, join that massive fray that will happen November of 2018. 

104 

Plano is kind of urban, so a little different concerns there. But 

my question is, you are having a townhall. I am a constituent. 

Broadband is the issue. I will ask, ‘‘What can Congress do, what 

would you do to improve broadband access? What is the FCC’s 

role? And can you eliminate rules and other issues, as a Congressman?’’ 

So, Mr. Carlson, you first. 

Mr. CARLSON. Oh, yes, thank you for asking the question. 

Well, the first thing, you can see from my speech, that I would 

say needs to be done is the FCC needs to be encouraged or a bill 

needs to be passed requiring them to collect the proper data about 

what the coverage really is in Plano and the surrounding area, because I am sure Plano depends on its surrounding rural communities. It is a two-way street, right? Rural America supports the 

urban areas, and vice versa. So, that is the first thing. 

And then, I would want to find out whether or not the FCC had 

allocated enough funds to accomplish the job in terms of bringing 

urban quality service out to Plano and the area that surrounds it. 

And if the FCC had not contemplated enough funds to do that 

throughout America, including the great state of Texas, I would 

want to find out how we could get that funding, whether in the 

broadband or the infrastructure bill that is being talked about, bipartisan, which is a great thing, or otherwise. 

Because the job needs to get done. Broadband service is critical 

infrastructure for life in America today, in Plano, and in all communities like Plano throughout this great nation. 

Mr. OLSON. ‘‘Congressman,’’ Mr. Berry, your suggestions? FCC, 

Congress, and other things we connect? 

Mr. BERRY. Well, I am going to assume that Congressman Olson 

has already established that we need a new set of data at the FCC, 

and you fix that by the time I get there. 

But what I hope is that the other issue is that we will adequately 

fund the broadband deployment and broadband coverage in rural 

America. I mean, it is an issue of jobs and economic stability in 

rural America. If you want someone in the back 40 in Texas to be 

able to compete with somebody in Tokyo or Korea or in China, you 

have got to have access to connectivity and you have got to have 

an ability to experience and engage in the economy, the global 

economy that is going on. That is what is going to keep your constituents in their district and not have to move to LA. 

Mr. OLSON. Well, welcome, my friends, to Texas. Howdy, you all. 

[Laughter.] 

The last question, Mr. Carlson, I work for Texas 22. It is a suburban Houston district, mostly suburbs, but probably one-quarter 

agriculture. But they have good access to broadband. Ninety-two 

percent are served; 2.5 percent are underserved, and 5.6 percent 

are unserved. 

But I am intrigued by the cost savings for cities and towns that 

come from 5G services by adapting a ‘‘smart community’’. For instance, a Deloitte study found that the adaption of smart grid for 

5G could create $1.8 trillion in revenues for our economy. How do 

we educate our cities, both urban and rural, how to access this, because this is lots of jobs, lots of money? Any suggestions, Mr. Carlson? 

105 

Mr. CARLSON. Well, 5G is coming. I just had a chance to go to 

the Mobile World Congress. So, I would suggest that, if your city 

is big enough to fund a trip to next year’s Mobile World Congress 

in Barcelona, you take the appropriate leader or leaders of the city 

over to that Congress and you see what the reality is that is being 

talked about, because it is going to be coming in the year 2020 for 

commercial deployment for mobility. It is going to be real. 

It is already going to be in Korea in 2018 at the Olympics and 

in Japan in the Olympics in 2019. It will be here. It is mostly going 

to be an urban phenomena at the beginning, but it is going to be 

very important in increasing people’s speeds, so that downloading 

a movie or getting access to a big data file will be almost instantaneous. 

It is a wonderful development, and it needs to be spread throughout the country, but people need to be educated as to what its potentiality is. One way to do it is to call in the vendors, people like 

Ericsson, Nokia, Samsung. Call them in and they will be glad to 

make a presentation, I think, to the city leaders about what 5G 

could mean for their city. They all want to get into the smart city 

business. So, invite them in and have them pitch you on it. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you, sir. 

I am out of time. I yield back. Thank you so much. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. McNerney, you are next in the queue. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I was going to yield my place to Mr. Ruiz, Dr. 

Ruiz. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Dr. Ruiz, you are recognized to take his time. 

Mr. RUIZ. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Thank you, Mr. McNerney. 

I want to take a moment, step back, and highlight the human 

story behind the deployment of broadband infrastructure. Stories 

like that of the whole Indian tribe located in northwestern Washington State where the reservation and surrounding communities 

completely lack access to broadband internet; like the story of the 

Torres Martinez tribe in my district and eastern parts of the 

Coachella Valley in rural areas where they also lack access to 

broadband internet. 

For them, this means that students are forced to take a bus over 

an hour away to complete their mandatory testing. Local residents 

cannot take advantage of educational opportunities, such as online 

college courses and career development classes, and the tribal governments cannot access webinars and online technical assistance, 

resources which are vital to successfully applying for federal grants 

and programs. 

Unemployed individuals cannot access the internet for job opportunities. Hospitals cannot build their ITs and the Indian Health 

Services cannot provide care because they don’t have the internet 

support. And residents do not have access to the internet to learn 

about public health measures to better their health care. 

This is just one story, but part of a bigger picture where 

broadband deployment on tribal lands continues to lag behind that 

of the rest of the nation. And that is why today’s hearing is so important, because supporting broadband infrastructure on tribal 

land is a part of supporting our federal trust responsibility. 

106 

But we have a responsibility to do more than take testimony on 

this issue. We must act and pass legislation to help make access 

to broadband a reality for all. And that is why I introduced the 

Tribal Digital Access Act, to help close the divide throughout Indian country, and why I am very pleased that we invited the Saint 

Regis Mohawk Tribe today to speak on behalf of their tribe that 

has successfully deployed broadband in rural New York. 

So, this question is for Sub-chief Michael Connors. It is good to 

see you today, and thank you for taking the time to testify. 

The Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe has worked hard to provide 

broadband internet service to its members and now the surrounding community. What is the biggest challenge the tribe has 

faced in getting to this point and developing further? 

Mr. CONNORS. Thank you for having us today, Dr. Ruiz. 

Our biggest challenge has been the sustainability of the 

broadband operations on territory. We received the grant in 2009, 

and over the next several years it was deployed and the fiber was 

laid out on territory. In the past several years, we have learned 

that just being on territory is not a successful business model for 

us. We have had to expand off territory. 

We are able to provide a small amount of funding for some of the 

expansion, but we couldn’t do it all. That is why we got to apply 

for the New York State grants. We didn’t get round one, but we 

received round two. So, that off-territory expansion is coming in the 

future, and that will get us towards a sustainable business model. 

Mr. RUIZ. So, it sounds like a win/win situation where not only 

you can provide broadband for tribal members, but the surrounding 

non-tribal lands as well, where the incentives currently are not 

there to provide the broadband infrastructure. So, if we invest in 

tribal communities, the tribes will have broadband infrastructure 

and the neighboring communities will also have broadband infrastructure, is that correct? 

Mr. CONNORS. Correct. In our testimony, we talked about Lewis 

County and Clinton County. The counties are coming to us. Based 

on our success, they are coming to us looking for the expansion, 

and that is how we received the grants in Lewis County, because 

they were lobbying their own representatives in their area to further their expansion. 

Mr. RUIZ. Can you give me an example of how this has helped 

tribal members or the tribe in your area? 

Mr. CONNORS. Well, just some small examples are educational 

opportunities, economic development opportunities, and employment. In today’s world, education has all gone digital and online, 

and our students are being able to have their educational opportunities at home, something as small as emails going back and forth 

with the teachers at the schools. 

Mr. RUIZ. Thank you. 

There is a classroom in my district that has to print a YouTube 

video from home. Teachers do this and they show a YouTube video 

on sheets of paper and try to narrate what it is about. So, this is 

unacceptable in schools throughout our nation. 

Mr. Berry, can you shed light on some of your successful practices? I understand you have tribal members as part of your organiVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:57 Jun 20, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-15 CHRIS
107 

zation. Can you talk about how working with tribes has been a success for you? 

Mr. BERRY. Yes, and thank you for the question, Congressman. 

Yes. Yes, we do. We have several tribal carriers that are members of the CCA. We also have several carriers that specialize in 

providing not only rural, but services to tribal lands. And I think 

they have been very successful working with the tribes. 

Again, this is an investment opportunity, and many of the tribes 

understand that they have to get to that coverage area. I know 

that we talk a little about 5G all the time, but when you don’t have 

a signal and you don’t have coverage, your first priority is to ensure that you have the capability. 

And I think in the rural areas in the tribal lands they have successfully brought in services in economical ways. What you will 

learn is most of the rural and small carriers face the same challenges, whether it is on a tribal land or not. The 1996 act clearly 

identified reasonable, similar services should be the goal, and then, 

Congress has already stated that. 

I think tribal lands have for far too long have not had the resources directed, not only through the Mobility Fund, but through 

the other funds at the FCC. I think that is one area that we need 

to address. 

Mr. RUIZ. I think we can work in a bipartisan fashion to pass the 

Tribal Digital Access Act and get the resources that they need. 

Thank you. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Yields back. 

Mr. Lance, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Berry and Mr. Carlson, 5G is estimated by Accenture to bring over $67 million in GDP growth and 409 jobs to the district 

I serve over the next 7 years. However, I understand that, in order 

to realize these benefits fully, there will need to be considerable investment in physical infrastructure to deploy 5G small cells. In 

your expert opinion, how are the barriers to 5G deployment unique 

and how are they similar to the barriers we still face for 4G LTE 

deployment? 

Mr. BERRY. Well, first of all, thank you for the question. 

First of all, again, you have to have coverage. The second issue 

is, in a 5G world, you are going to have to have substantial requirement for backhaul. And getting back to either fiber or getting 

through a microwave link, or even using an LTE aggregated spectrum platform that you can use backhaul off your own network, it 

is going to be very, very difficult. 

And so, I hope that the infrastructure investment opportunities 

that have been talked about not only here on the Hill, but downtown, actually bring some more dollars to the table to build not 

only the backhaul, but build out the networks at the 4G LTE. Because that is going to be the building block for the 5G world. 

And I know that we talked about 5G for the cities, the smart cities. That is happening now in many areas. And if we can’t sufficiently build out the coverage in 4G LTE, we are going to have a 

very difficult time in rural areas. And some of your district in the 

far-western end does have some rural areas. So, I know that you 

are interested in that, too. 

108 

Mr. LANCE. Well, thank you very much. 

Mr. Carlson? 

Mr. CARLSON. Yes, I will just add to that. Well, first, let me reemphasize the fact that you need a base layer of 4G in existence 

before you can get the 5G built on top of it, because 5G is really 

a supplementary service that integrates well because the standard 

for 5G is being designed to integrate with 4G. So, we need the 4G 

service ubiquitous at a high-quality level and, then, layer 5G on top 

of it. 

But I would emphasize spectrum availability for 5G as a critical 

need. There has been some spectrum made available by the FCC, 

and we are certainly grateful for that, but there is more spectrum 

that needs to be made available, and made available on a basis 

where carriers can have confidence that they will have access to 

that spectrum over a longer period of time. 

As was noted by the other panelists, when you make an investment in building out a network, you need to have assurance that 

your investment will have a long life to it because the equipment 

has long lives, 10 years, 20 years in some cases where you are putting in fiber. So, we need licensing that is consistent with the timeframe of the investments we are making. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Murray, in 2009, the FCC used its authority to impose a 

shot-clock by municipal reviews of sitting applications, and that 

shot-clock was upheld by the United States Supreme Court in a 

2013 decision. Given that the shot-clock is now the law of the land, 

are you still experiencing delays in dealing with municipal authorities and, if so, what sort of problems are you encountering and how 

should we remedy them? 

Mr. MURRAY. Thank you, Congressman. 

Shot-clock has worked OK, not great. We have developed in 

northern Virginia and central Virginia, northern Virginia has, I 

don’t mean to be pejorative, but there are a lot of NIMBY households, and central Virginia there is a ton of history. So, I chose to 

develop towers in some tough areas. 

The shot-clock in northern Virginia, there are two or three occasions where my zoning attorney has said to us, ‘‘We’re held up. 

They’re not going to make the timeline. Do we want to grant them 

an extension?’’ And we can either be denied tonight or we can 

agree to an extension. So, it is sort of a gun-to-the-head thing. 

I think it, in general, has put localities, made them more aware 

that they can’t drag their feet forever, but there are still cases 

where we sort of have to agree to a deal that we don’t like in terms 

of extensions. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you very much. 

And, Madam Chair, I yield back 16 seconds. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I will tell you what; you might win the prize. 

Mr. Welch, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you very much. First of all, Madam Chair, I 

want to thank you for having this hearing, and our Ranking Member, Mr. Doyle. 

This question of rural broadband and infrastructure in rural 

areas is like incredibly important. And Mr. Latta and I, working 

together on the Rural Caucus, know that. 

109 

And I wanted to say a couple of things. Number 1, this is important not just for rural America. Rural America is on the ropes. 

Commodity prices are down, whether it is in coal country or it is 

dairy country, farm country, and rural America is vital for the 

strength of all of America. And we believe that or we don’t. 

But what is strong about rural America is when it has a solid 

local economy, the folks who have value of family, of community, 

of services, of building up the local fire department, of serving on 

the local bank, they have an economy that can work for them and 

they have that community cohesion that I believe this country 

needs. 

And that is true whether you are in Vermont or you are in Ohio 

or Texas. Rural America matters. We cannot have rural America 

without full commitment to the tools it needs to be successful. 

We have got some folks from Vermont here. We have got a company that absolutely is dependent on the infrastructure of the 

broadband. 

And the question for us, we agree on that in this committee, and 

you have been providing leadership on this. But I also think we 

have got to get serious on this where we get a commitment to real 

funding and real policies that are going to give these folks who are 

here and are committed to rural America an opportunity to be successful on behalf of the people we represent. So, we have got to get 

moving on this. 

And it is not going to happen on its own. If we need regulatory 

changes, we need investment, money, with public policy, my view, 

we have got to do it. We are not getting it done. We don’t even 

have an infrastructure plan before us to consider in Congress. And 

I think our committee should be taking the lead on conveying a 

sense of urgency that we have got to get moving. 

Now I just want to ask, I will start with you, Mr. Carlson, how 

would you define broadband that would be in the spirit of the 1996 

act relatively comparable, reasonably comparable to what we have 

in urban areas? 

Mr. CARLSON. Well, I can speak to mobile broadband. A recent 

study came out. It was dated the middle of last year. So, it is already a little bit obsolete, right, but not significantly obsolete. And 

that showed that across all of America that the broadband speeds, 

the mobile broadband speeds now are at 12.5 megabits per second. 

And as I indicated, I think those are growing about 15 percent a 

year. So, by the time the Mobility Fund II auction is concluded, you 

should anticipate that that standard across America, which includes rural areas. So urban areas are higher, is probably going to 

be 15 megabits per second. 

Mr. WELCH. OK. 

Mr. CARLSON. Megabits per second. So, any area that is significantly lower than that is going to be substandard. 

Mr. WELCH. OK. Ms. Hovis? 

Thank you. 

We have got to agreement on what the goal is. 

Ms. Hovis? 

Ms. HOVIS. When I think about this infrastructure, wired or 

wireless, a lot of it in my experience just comes back to fiberoptics. 

110 

None of this mobility, none of this wireless, and certainly not 5G, 

is possible without fiberoptics. 

So, I guess my answer to you, Congressman, is that whether it 

is a metropolitan area or a rural area, we need as much fiber infrastructure as possible, because faster wireless speeds won’t be possible unless we have the fiber. And the greatly escalating speeds 

on the wire-line side in metro areas, we are moving toward gigabit 

speeds in certain markets. 

Mr. WELCH. OK. I am going to have to stop you there. In just 

a few quick words, I only have 40 seconds left, starting with you, 

Mr. Murray, and going down, Mr. Connors and Berry. Success, 

your definition for rural America? 

Mr. MURRAY. I completely agree with the need for fiber. One 

thought I had—and it is in its infancy—is I am hearing from everybody we don’t know, there aren’t good standards, there isn’t good 

knowledge of what the coverage ought to be. Maybe what Congress 

should do—you are saying, how can Congress help? Maybe what 

Congress should do is insist that localities have better maps. Do 

the mapping that they, for whatever reason, need to report back up 

to where their infrastructure is. And that may be a way to get better maps. Without good maps, you cannot tell where the problems 

are. 

The issue I have is maps of tower sites. I get into a county and 

say, ‘‘Well, where are the other towers?’’ I say, ‘‘You’re the county’’. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you. My time is up. 

Mr. MURRAY. Sorry. 

Mr. WELCH. But I thank you. 

And I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Latta, you are recognized. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks again for 

having this hearing today. It is very, very informational. 

I also want to thank all of our panelists today for being with us 

today. 

As the gentleman from Vermont just mentioned, he and I serve 

on the Rural Caucus here in this committee. My area goes from 

urban to very, very rural. And so, when you are looking at rural 

America, as again has been mentioned, you have got safety issues, 

the small business issues. You have got agricultural issues. 

But we have also worked on the Internet of Things together. And 

so, we have been seeing things across the board as to how we can 

get this country moving and get this out there. 

But one of the other things about serving on this committee, you 

hear great things that are going to be happening. You are not looking at the end of the car. I remember I took driver’s ed a long time 

ago, and I can remember my teacher saying, ‘‘Don’t look at the end 

of the car because you’ve passed it. You’ve passed it.’’ 

And so, I know that a couple of years we were told that, by the 

end of this year, that worldwide we would have 1.6 mobile devices 

per capita across the globe, or about 6 or 7 in the United States. 

Recently, I saw a statistic that said we will have between 25 to 50 

billion interconnected devices by the year 2025, and that number 

is probably wrong. 

But, Mr. Berry, when I looked at your testimony, because, again, 

you brought up some statistics here, and again you cited a Cisco 

111 

report that said that the mobile data use grew 63 percent in 2016 

and 18-fold over the last 5 years. But, then, they also say that, 

when you go out looking over that horizon again in the next 5 

years, we are going to see another seven-fold increase. 

Question: from what you presented us right here, when you look 

at what you are facing out there, how do we get that 7-fold increase 

out there when we are moving, trying to get everybody connected 

out there, but also have the situation where you have something 

that looks like this? 

I am going to ask everybody real quickly, if I could, what would 

be your dream? I know, Mr. Carlson, you talk about data that the 

government needs to really have. But what would be your one desire or goal for us or the regulators that could help this problem 

right here? 

Mr. BERRY. Wow. I will note that, after you look at that, you 

wonder how in the heck we actually have a wireless network even 

built with those types of impediments. But the study, the Cisco 

study, a 7-fold increase on top of what would be an 18-fold increase. You are going to have to have more spectrum and you are 

going to have to have greater builds. 

With those types of impediments, you are going to come up to a 

roadblock, especially when the small cell site that we are talking 

about right here is treated like a tower. 

Mr. LATTA. What were we doing before we started it? 

Mr. BERRY. I think deem granted, deem approved, if not responsive from federal and state and local levels. Education is a big 

issue. If I were a local municipality and I wanted to make sure that 

my citizens were adequately served for a broadband product, I 

would actually put together a model plan to say, ‘‘Hey, come to my 

town because here is the deployment plan that we put together and 

here is what you can guarantee that we are going to get approved 

post-haste in 30, 60 days.’’ Investment is sort of like water; it is 

going to go to the point of least resistance. 

That is the type of investment that Mr. Carlson and other wireless carriers are going to have to make. Those are the types of predictable assurances that you are going to need at the federal, state, 

and local level. The federal level, I think you do have a lot to say 

about improving and streamlining that process post-haste. 

Mr. LATTA. Just real quickly because I have one minute left, Mr. 

Connors. 

Mr. CONNORS. From a tribal land, we need to have the federal 

government respect the trust responsibility to consult with tribes. 

And decisionmaking, we need to sit at the decisionmaking table 

and be seen as partners in the decisionmaking process, not just a 

requirement to check off a box, but to be partners and to move forward in a positive manner as partners. 

Mr. LATTA. Mr. Murray? 

Mr. MURRAY. Yes. 

Mr. LATTA. Just real quickly. 

Mr. MURRAY. Just continue to encourage collocation on the 

macro-structures. Let’s define small cells. It is great that we have 

the visual aid here. That is not a tower. And I think opening federal lands will help in a lot of areas. 

Mr. LATTA. Ms. Hovis? 

112 

Ms. HOVIS. Congressman, a lot of the processes on that diagram 

with regard to local governments don’t really exist in rural communities. There is not a lot of that kind of process or fees or jumps, 

hoops you have to jump through, in rural communities. In rural 

communities the challenge is the economics just don’t attract private capital and we have to change that. 

Mr. LATTA. Madam Chairman, I see my time has expired. 

But, Mr. Carlson, I know I have written down on yours. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Go ahead, Mr. Carlson. 

Mr. LATTA. Again, Mr. Carlson? 

Mr. CARLSON. I would agree that the deem granted would be a 

great advance. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate it and yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Yield back. 

Ms. Clarke, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank our ranking 

member. I thank all of our panelists for their testimony here this 

morning. 

I would like to add another dynamic to the conversation coming 

from Brooklyn, New York. This question is directed to Ms. Hovis. 

We have heard a lot about the challenges with respect to rural 

America. I can certainly appreciate those challenges. 

One of my observations is that there is some disparity as well 

with deployment in urban environments. And I don’t want us to be 

under this impression based on generalized conversations about the 

fact that there are challenges for urban environments, particularly 

for a city like New York where we are severely behind in the deployment of fiberoptics. 

In the context of broadband, can you discuss how public/private 

partnerships can be used to bring affordable high-speed broadband 

to communities that are currently unserved and underserved? And 

I think it applies across the board. Because certainly in cities like 

New York where you have disparities based on socioeconomics, it 

is very similar to what people are experiencing in, say, tribal lands 

and perhaps also the urban environments. Would you share your 

thoughts with us? 

Ms. HOVIS. Thank you, Ms. Clarke. 

Yes, I totally agree. I see those kinds of challenges in urban 

areas all the time, in part, because there are certain urban neighborhoods that simply aren’t as well-served; for example, small business neighborhoods that may have the benefit of some old phone 

company infrastructure that might be providing some broadband, 

might be sufficient to service small business need, but there may 

not be cable infrastructure in that area because cable traditionally 

just went to residential areas. So, there is no competition. Pricing 

is high and service is not very good, exactly what you would expect 

in an environment where there is not competition. 

And residential neighborhoods will have the same kinds of challenges because private capital is upgrading networks in better 

neighborhoods. Where a public/private partnership can help there 

would be, if a city, for example, can build and lease its own infrastructure to the private sector and, thus, allowing private sector opportunity and competition in those neighborhoods, using some pubVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:57 Jun 20, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-15 CHRIS
113 

lic assets potentially, and if there are mechanisms for enabling and 

supporting and rewarding cities for that, rather than punishing 

them, then we can see ways that public and private would both 

benefit and we could fill some very substantial broadband gaps. 

Ms. CLARKE. Would say that tax incentives in and of themselves 

can fix this problem? 

Ms. HOVIS. Well, I don’t think so because, all other things being 

equal, the tax incentives will just make more lucrative the deployment patterns that already exist, which is that private capital— 

and this is not a pejorative statement—will flow to the places 

where revenues are greatest and build costs are lowest. And that 

doesn’t mean rural areas and that usually doesn’t mean very lowincome areas, either. 

Ms. CLARKE. Very well. 

Mr. Murray, you talked about 5G, Internet of Things, and the 

next generation of wireless networks. How can we ensure that 

some communities are not bypassed? What is needed to deliver 5G 

to urban and underserved markets as well? 

Mr. MURRAY. Well, small cells, I think I have a sense of Brooklyn, just thinking of your district. I have two children that live in 

Brooklyn. 

Ms. CLARKE. Everybody’s children live in Brooklyn. 

Mr. MURRAY. Yes, right. 

But my guess, from what I know about deploying a signal, is that 

small cells will play a huge role in a place like Brooklyn for decades to come. You have huge capacity problems, and small cells, essentially, bringing the antennas from 199 feet down to 40 feet. Put 

them on the corner of the building. 

So, I think to the extent every cell site needs fiber today, which 

is daunting to think about the mule dragging the fiber up in a 

rural area that Ted was referring to. But in a place like Brooklyn, 

I think you are going to end up with really good service because 

the carriers are densifying these networks. More fiber needs to be 

laid, obviously, but it is a good place for small cells. 

Ms. CLARKE. Are you confident, for instance, that wireless providers will be able to deploy small cell technology at a volume sufficient so as to provide universal coverage? 

Mr. MURRAY. I would expect so. What is the definition of universal coverage? 

Ms. CLARKE. To make sure that across the spectrum of communities that everyone is accessing. 

Mr. MURRAY. Yes. Again, Brooklyn’s greatest playing card in this 

whole game is density. You can put these inexpensive small cells 

literally on street corners. And to the extent you can connect fiber 

with them, you are going to have unbelievable service. 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you. Madam Chair, I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you. 

Mr. Long, 5 minutes. 

Mr. LONG. Thank you. Appreciate it. 

Mr. Carlson, to get ubiquitous coverage of 5G, it is going to take 

more than 300,000 small cells deployed across the country. And I 

saw an interesting story recently that suggested that the fees 

charged to small cells are increasing exponentially. In fact, in a 

Minnesota city, in the span of just three years, they increased the 

114 

fees for siting small cells from $600 to $7500. I appreciate that 

some cities and states find themselves in economic straits, but how 

do you make sure that siting application costs and management 

fees don’t become a deterrent to deployment? 

Mr. CARLSON. Well, I think it is an excellent question. I haven’t 

really thought about that question in depth. I think there needs to 

be answer to it, but I would respectfully ask that maybe we could 

get back to you with our thoughts on that, because it is a big challenge. 

Mr. LONG. It is. 

Mr. CARLSON. On the one hand, you have the right of the city 

to charge what it wants. On the other hand, you have the need of 

the carrier to deploy. Should you overcome the right of the city to 

charge what it wants? I would really like to think about the answer 

to that. 

Mr. LONG. If you will and get back to me, I would really appre- ciate it because it is from $6000 to $7500. I understand your point, 

but that is a little bit of an increase. 

Mr. CARLSON. Right. 

Mr. LONG. And let’s see, for Mr. Berry, in Japan, South Korea, 

China, and the EU, they are all working to regain a position of 

leadership in the wireless space. What has the benefit been of U.S. 

leadership in 4G and what would be lost if we don’t set the pace 

in the deployment of 5G services? 

Mr. BERRY. Thank you, Congressman Long. 

I think we have benefited greatly by the new jobs and new services and new technology that we have been encouraging and been 

able to deploy on the 4G LTE systems. I think if we are not the 

leader in the 5G system, the $22 million that Qualcomm said 

would be attached to 5G with $3.5 trillion may not be coming to 

the United States. It may be going to those other areas. And I 

would like to think that somebody in rural Missouri is just as innovative and has just as great a capability of being productive in a 

rural area in Missouri as they are in downtown Tokyo. 

And I would go back to your first question to Mr. Carlson. That 

is a huge problem, increasing the fees. This small cell site right 

here costs $6,000. If you are going to have to pay $7500 to put it 

in and also pay annual renewal fees on top of that, then that municipality is losing the opportunity to do just what you would like 

to do globally, which is be the leader in the 5G world. 

I think education is a huge issue there, and I think hearings like 

today go a long way to make that point. But they need to understand, if they look at it as a revenue stream, then they are not 

going to get the capabilities. And you have the legislation before 

you that tries to tie the value of the cost to the actual cost of the 

license and the license application review and the management of 

the right-of-ways. 

Mr. LONG. OK. Let me get one more in quickly here for you and/ 

or Mr. Carlson, whoever would like to tackle it. But in my front 

office here in the Rayburn Building I have a sign that says, ‘‘Bring 

back common sense.’’ And it is the most popular sign in my office. 

We can all agree that there is a digital divide between urban and 

rural America. It is imperative that we promote the deployment of 

broadband networks in rural, unserved areas like in my home state 

115 

of Missouri. However, to fix the problem, we need to correctly identify the problem. I think a common-sense first step we can take is 

correctly identifying where broadband is needed before spending 

the money. 

For you, Mr. Carlson or Mr. Berry, both of you talk about the importance of data and Form 477 in your testimony. In fact, Mr. Carlson, you make a great point when you say making smart, targeted 

investments begins with accurate measurement. 

My question is, what has the FCC done to improve its data collection and what more can they do? 

Mr. CARLSON. Well, my view is that we haven’t done nearly 

enough or I should say the FCC hasn’t done nearly enough. I am 

sure that they were well-intentioned when they originally designed 

that 477, but that was years ago and needs have become more apparent, more obvious now. And now, they need to improve that 

data collection process. 

We have volunteered for our company to provide that data on the 

urban quality level standard within weeks of the time that they 

would ask us for that. We believe that large carriers, most carriers, 

can provide similar data within a period of months. All they have 

to do is ask or, if a carrier won’t provide the data, to require it. 

It is not a big job. Most of the data sits on computers, and the data 

can be gotten easily. 

Mr. LONG. OK. I am way over time, but do you have anything 

real quickly on that? 

Mr. BERRY. I will do ditto on that. We strongly agree, and I really do hope that the FCC will address this immediately because the 

Mobility Fund II, which they just approved, over the next 10 years 

is going to spend $4.53 billion, not enough, but certainly not 

enough if you don’t have the data to know where to spend it. 

Mr. LONG. OK, thank you. 

Madam Chairwoman, I have no time, but if I did, I would yield 

it back to you. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I appreciate that. 

Ms. Eshoo, the time is yours. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and congratulations on your chairmanship of the subcommittee. 

I think that this hearing today is maybe not equal to importance 

as the nomination hearing for the Supreme Court, but I think it 

comes in as a close second because the subject matter is an essential for our country. It is an essential for our country. 

Broadband access is a basic necessity for full participation in 

modern life. It cuts across, as other members have said, as the witnesses have stated, that connectivity is an essential tool for education, for health care, for civic discourse, for opportunity in our 

country. 

Every time I heard the questions asked and the answer given, 

and the excellent testimony that was given, my heart sank even 

more because we have a patchwork in our country relative to not 

only access, but speed. Many years ago, the action was all about 

access. We have areas in our country that have no access. This is 

the second decade of the 21st century. These are technologies that 

Americans invented. So, I think we have a huge challenge, and I 

think that we need to in this committee advance this the way the 

116 

Telecom Act was advanced at another time. That was in 1996. That 

is now a long time ago. So, when we have 39 percent of households 

in rural communities have no access—no access, we are not even 

talking about speed—they have no access to a fixed broadband provider, I should add. 

So, I appreciate the good words that you said about my legislation, Dig Once. Congressman Long talked about common sense. My 

grandmother used to say, ‘‘The most uncommon of the senses is 

common sense.’’ 

Now, on January 24th, the House voted by a voice vote to pass 

H.R. 600, the Digital Gap Act, which would make it a policy of the 

United States to promote build once broadband policies to foreign 

governments. I think we should start at home. So, all of the evidence points to that. 

Of all of the recommendations that you have made, I just want 

to go one sentence from each one of you. Because what I am looking for out of this subcommittee is a package that is going to move 

us to where we need to land. 

So, starting with Steve Berry, one sentence, one item, what do 

you think you are top item is to get us to where we need to be? 

Mr. BERRY. Well, that is difficult, but I have got to start off with 

data. If you can’t measure it, you can’t fix it. 

Ms. ESHOO. OK, data. OK. 

Mr. Connors? 

Mr. CONNORS. Including tribes and respecting tribal sovereignty. 

Ms. ESHOO. All right. 

Mr. MURRAY. Continue to encourage collocation. 

Ms. ESHOO. OK. Ms. Novis? 

Ms. HOVIS. Enabling public/private partnerships. 

Mr. CARLSON. Collect the accurate data. 

Ms. ESHOO. OK. So, we have two out of five on data. Well, I appreciate that. 

I think, Madam Chairwoman, that with all of the knowledge that 

has been presented to us, the collective knowledge that we have on 

both sides of the aisle here, I really think that we need a package 

for the 21st century. We say the United States of America, except 

there are whole areas of our country that are left out. That is just 

not acceptable. Rural America, and in terms of tribes, it is shameful. It really is shameful that parents have to drive children I don’t 

know to where to see if they can pick up a signal, so that they can 

get their homework done. That is something that should be from 

other centuries, not this century. 

So, I will work with you to put a package together because I 

think this issue deserves it. And we are not going to progress economically or otherwise in our nation unless we can achieve the full 

benefit of the technologies that are there. Knowing whole parts of 

our country, whether they are underserved, whether they don’t 

have competition, where there is absolutely no access or that they 

are lacking speed, we need, I think, to put a package together. 

Otherwise, I think all of these parts, we are going to have hearings on all the different parts. But we know in medicine that you 

need to treat the whole body. And I think the body of this issue 

deserves our attention and that a package containing the top recommendations here is the way we need to go. 

117 

So, I thank you. It is worth staying here to hear what you all 

have to say, and we appreciate it. Thank you. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentlelady yields back. 

And that is why we are having the hearing and that is why we 

are working so hard to push broadband forward, as is the FCC and 

the President. All right. 

Ms. ESHOO. I ask, Madam Chairwoman, that this letter from 

Public Knowledge, with unanimous consent—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Without objection, yes. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you very much. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Flores, you are recognized, 5 minutes. 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Berry, in your testimony you mentioned the challenges that 

arise as networks move toward 5G and also toward smaller cells. 

And Mr. Long brought up one of those a minute ago that I thought 

was particularly noticeable related to the costs that some local governments imposed. Can you elaborate on somehow the other current barriers that exist and deployment will become more problematic as small-scale architecture becomes more prevalent? 

Mr. BERRY. Barriers in the sense of permitting or licensing or? 

Mr. FLORES. You see them now, based on the architecture that 

exists today of the various cell technologies. But, as small cell and 

5G become more prevalent, looking at the current barriers, how do 

you think they are going to become more problematic as you go to 

smaller and smaller cells? 

Mr. BERRY. Well, I think a lot of it goes right to the heart of 

those people that are responsible for managing the property and 

the land. They need to understand that this is an opportunity to 

not only expand a network, but get new capabilities and new services. 

One of our CEOs of one our companies said, ‘‘As we get to the 

5G world, it is a river of pennies.’’ The problem is that I don’t want 

to only have one or two of those streams of pennies; you need it 

all in order to be profitable. 

So, I hope that small cities, towns, counties, they will recognize 

that there is a small margin of profitability when you build out a 

network, even if you are using small cells. And you are going to 

have to use a lot of these, and you are going to have to bring it 

back to fiber as fast as you can. 

So, I think that recognizing that the benefit is actually in the 

services, in the economic activity that will occur because of this capability, is a lot more important than having a standard location 

that is inaccessible. 

And I would note that collocation, while we like collocation, there 

should not be collocation to the detriment of multiple locations. 

Mr. FLORES. Right. 

Mr. BERRY. And that is what is going to allow you to have competition in most of these areas. 

Mr. FLORES. Right. I think as soon as some of these cities begin 

to look at this as basic infrastructure for the community like a 

road, that they will be better off, instead of as a source for fees and 

permits, and so forth. 

118 

Mr. Murray, in your testimony you discuss the need to diversify 

wireless infrastructure with rooftop sites, small cells, distributed 

antenna systems, et cetera; also, with WiFi hotspots and traditional macro-cellular towers to promote spectral efficiency and to 

provide carriers with the capacity they need to meet increasing 

data demands on their networks. 

And so, my question is this: I think you sort of answered it in 

your testimony, but just to be clear, is there a danger in relying 

too much on one type of infrastructure technology? 

Mr. MURRAY. No, I don’t think there is. Mr. Carlson runs a network. I develop one type of infrastructure. And he has to take a 

look at 2018 and figure out what is the best return on his capital. 

And that might be 30 percent of his budget goes to small cells and 

60 percent to towers and the last 10 percent to DAS in a given 

area. 

So, all of these technologies are complementary. Small cells are 

new enough that we are still struggling to define what a small cell 

is. I mean, that is a small box. But if that small box is integrated 

on a 120-foot pole that was built without approval, local approval, 

then you have issues. 

Mr. FLORES. Right. 

Mr. MURRAY. But, no, it is going to be a heterogenous network 

going forward. The towers, the macro-sites, if you will, will dominate in rural areas because they just cover so much more. And 

there typically aren’t capacity problems in a place where there is 

a town of 5,000 and one main road. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. Thank you. 

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of time. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. McNerney, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

First, I want to direct my question to Mr. Carlson. In your testimony you discussed the benefits of investing in mobile broadband, 

but there is approximately 5.3 million veterans living in rural 

areas, accounting for about a quarter of all the United States veterans. Can you provide some examples about how investing in mobile broadband in rural areas would benefit these veterans? 

Mr. CARLSON. Yes. Thank you for the question. I haven’t thought 

about that, but, certainly, access to great medical care is something 

that veterans dearly need. We have had stories about veterans not 

getting the kind of access that they should have, and whether that 

is remote access in rural areas or it is access to the local clinic that 

may be some distance from where they actually live in the rural 

areas, would be a great thing. 

Of course, education for veterans, so that they can gain great employment opportunities in our society is another thing. So, continuing education and getting that access to continuing education 

at home, so they don’t have to drive some significant distance to 

go to school. Those kinds of things would be very important. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

All of the written testimonies show significant benefits to 

broadband, but I am concerned about the growing cyber threats 

that we face. I would like a yes-or-no answer, and then, I will drill 

back, if anyone wants to, from each of you on, would it be beneficial 

119 

to invest early in our cyber protection in the broadband planning 

and development? 

Mr. CARLSON. Oh, well, I can just comment on cyber. We are investing millions of dollars per year, and that has grown dramatically. It has probably grown 20–30 percent a year over the last several years, because we are worried about cyber attacks to our network. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So, the question is, how beneficial is it to make 

those investments early in the process as opposed to waiting—— 

Mr. CARLSON. It is very important for every company that is involved as a carrier to make investments today in cybersecurity and 

to get cooperation, even more cooperation than what we get today 

from the government informing us about threats that they see that 

we could, then, anticipate. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Carlson. 

Ms. Hovis? 

Ms. HOVIS. Yes, I agree, critical to do it soon. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. 

Mr. MURRAY. I agree. 

Mr. CONNORS. Definitely, it is better to invest early and get 

ahead of the problems before there is a problem. 

Mr. BERRY. I totally agree, and we would encourage best practices and better education on how we build and deploy networks, 

especially for the networks, but also for the consumers that utilize 

the network. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So, Mr. Carlson, it has been 2-and-a-half years 

since the National Broadband Map was updated. And I know you 

have spoken strongly on this, Mr. Carlson. But, Ms. Hovis, is having accurate data important for identifying geographical areas that 

are underserved or unserved? 

Ms. HOVIS. Yes, it is absolutely critical, and I spend a good 

amount of time on fixed broadband as well as on mobile, but I will 

agree with everything that Mr. Carlson said. 

And I would say the granularity of data is critically important 

as well. Because when we are seeing data only at a very high level, 

such that there is the implication that there is service throughout 

a community, when perhaps a small part of that community is 

served, but we don’t have the granularity to know who is and is 

not, can’t really make useful decisions about where to invest or 

where the needs are. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Would it also be helpful for public/private partnerships to have that granularity? 

Ms. HOVIS. It absolutely would because it would allow both parties to know where they should invest, where they might want to 

target their efforts, how the market is served or not served, so that 

they can understand market dynamics. But it also helps the public 

sector to understand where the needs are. 

So, for example, in many urban areas I work in, whole areas of 

small business concentration have almost no broadband or the 

small business services that are available are just a few megabits, 

which doesn’t fit the federal definition of broadband. We would 

want to know to target that, and you can’t find that out from the 

National Map at this point. 

120 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Are there specific types of public/private partnerships that would be beneficial in rural areas? 

Ms. HOVIS. Yes, we have seen some really interesting innovation 

around these kinds of partnerships. So, for example, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, in a very visionary, bipartisan effort, has entered into a public/private partnership with the consortium of private entities that are bringing private capital and full private execution, construction, operations, customer service, and so on, to a 

statewide initiative that will also open up new opportunity for 

other companies. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Too many questions, too little time, Madam 

Chairwoman. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Ms. Walters, 5 minutes. 

Mrs. WALTERS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would like to 

thank Chairman Blackburn for holding this important hearing and 

the witnesses for appearing before the subcommittee today. 

The impact of broadband in our everyday lives is significant, particularly in my home state of California, where wireless technology 

is growing at an explosive rate. In fact, over 41 million California 

residents access the majority of their high-speed broadband connections wirelessly. These numbers will continue to grow, which is 

why the deployment of 5G technology is so important to my state, 

and particularly in my district. 

In fact, the recent Accenture study mentioned in Mr. Murray’s testimony estimates that the wireless industry will invest $275 billion in communities across the country over the next decade to 

build out our next-gen 5G wireless infrastructure, which will support 3 million new jobs and contribute $500 billion to the economy. 

Over $200 million of that investment will incur in my district, creating over 2300 new jobs. 

Unfortunately, the current process to site wireless infrastructure 

is cumbersome and can impede 5G rollout, to the detriment of investment and job creation To that end, I would like to ask the 

members of the panel about the obstacles related to the current 

sitings process. 

Mr. Murray, as I just mentioned, the Accenture study you raised 

in your testimony highlights the significant broadband investment 

scheduled to take place over the next several years. The most obvious way to continue to encourage this type of investment in job creation would be to make significant changes to the sitings process 

for 5G infrastructure. And I know some of my colleagues have 

touched on this, but can you share any specific examples where the 

siting process has disrupted or discouraged 5G rollout? 

Mr. MURRAY. Well, 5G rollout is still sometime in the future. And 

I think we should also recognize that ‘‘5G infrastructure’’ is essentially layering new gear on top of the existing structure. So, in the 

case of a tower, a carrier is going to come back to that tower if they 

have 4G antennas and other gear on the top of the tower. They are 

just adding gear to that. 

So, it is not as if we need to build—we will need more small cells. 

We will need more towers. But it is not a unique type of infrastructure. It is just more of the same. 

I am not sure I answered the question, though. 

121 

Mrs. WALTERS. OK. No, that is fine. 

Mr. Berry, according to the chart submitted with your testimony, 

mobile infrastructure sitings require the involvement of at least 

four federal agencies and state and local requirements, which in 

California can oftentimes be more burdensome than environmental 

reviews. Is the process outlined by the chart a reasonable expectation of what carriers can face when seeking to deploy technology? 

Mr. BERRY. Yes, the chart, I assume you are talking about this 

chart here. I must say that it is actually not as inclusive a chart 

of what it actually would have been, had we had more paper. So, 

yes, it really boils down to whether the local community or land 

manager wants to cooperate with the carrier or the provider. From 

this chart, you can find 1,000 different boxes to put a ‘‘no,’’ ‘‘X’’ in, 

and make a carrier resubmit, reapply, do a new study. 

Unless you have this ongoing requirement that this is in our national interest, and it should be a priority to have services like this 

in our communities throughout the United States, I don’t think you 

are going to change the attitude. That is why I say, yes, it is structure and it is organization, but it is also local citizens and the communities need to decide, do we want the platform to be built so 

that we can have a 5G? And I think it really boils down to where 

there is a will there is a way. 

Mrs. WALTERS. What relief will the proposals that you outline in 

your testimony do to streamline the deployment process? 

Mr. BERRY. Well, I think having an entity that is responsible, 

and a federal, state, and local entity that you can contact that has 

an application, responsibility for the application, that will respond 

to you. Many of the land managers, at least many of our carriers 

say, ‘‘Listen, we would just appreciate a phone call back telling me 

the status of my application.’’ 

It should be a priority to receive and get the services into the 

economy. That is part of the missing piece of the puzzle, is how do 

we encourage those that actually have the authority at all levels 

to actually act on it. And I think that is why at the federal level 

the leadership starts there. And I think that that attitude can have 

an indelible impact on everyone else down the chain. 

Mrs. WALTERS. OK, thank you. And I am out of time. Thank you. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentlelady yields back. 

Mr. Engel, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Chairman Blackburn. 

As many of you know, New York City, which is my district, and 

the northern suburbs, are doing reasonably well when it comes to 

broadband access. New York has made the decision as a state that 

broadband access needs to be priority, and we have made the kind 

of targeted investments we need to build out access for New Yorkers, not just in New York City, but beyond. And you know that 

New York does have a number of rural areas. 

The biggest reason for the difference between my district and my 

colleague’s district isn’t a difference in need, but a difference in 

density. So, what we need, I think, is, then, something to make the 

buildout more economically attractive to areas that aren’t as dense 

as my district. And my district is relatively easy because so many 

people live so closely together. We have highrises and dense suburbs. So, it takes less cable to connect to people because they are 

122 

already so close together. The less dense the people are, the more 

towers and the more cable you need, obviously. 

So, I know we have talked some already this morning about the 

need for public support to make broadband buildout economically 

viable. And I appreciate that this subcommittee is all on the same 

page when it comes to the need to do that buildout. 

But the White House, and they have spoken about infrastructure 

investment before, has talked about using tax credits to try to improve the economics. My feeling is that direct investment would not 

only be more straightforward than tax credits, but do a better job, 

also, of bending the cost curve, which means it would be that much 

easier to hire the folks to build and maintain the towers and the 

cables while also bringing the internet and all the economic activity 

that comes with it to more of the country. 

Mr. Berry, let me ask you, based on your work, do you have a 

sense of how much a tax credit program would do to improve the 

economics? 

Mr. BERRY. I hesitate to give you a number because, quite frankly, I don’t know, especially all situations are different. And my initial impression would be straight tax credits, unless it is an accelerated tax credit or an immediate tax credit or a reduction in your 

out-of-pocket expenses, will have very little, will create very little 

incentive to build out in rural America. 

Quite frankly, I think it will be the same in urban/suburban 

America. What you need is lower-cost deployment opportunities for 

devices like this, like the small cells, and it is the service itself that 

is going to bring the economic opportunities to the constituent. 

I just think that there has to be some real money attached to the 

support, the subsidy. In many of these rural areas, the economic 

model to build out and provide these services is very strained. 

Mr. ENGEL. Let me ask you, in your written testimony you talk 

about direct predictable support. Can you explain what you mean 

by that and why do you feel it is so important? 

Mr. BERRY. Direct? 

Mr. ENGEL. Direct predictable support. 

Mr. BERRY. For example, under USF Mobility II, we have languished almost for 5 years, not knowing that we are going to have 

a Mobility II, not knowing how much money it is going to be. And 

when we had Mobility I, most of our carriers had spent the money 

out of Mobility I, built the towers, had to wait for over a year to 

get paid. 

So, their planning process of how do we expect to spend our 

money and eventually maybe get a return on our money is sort of 

unknown. And so, I think direct predictable support from a Mobility II that gives our carriers an opportunity to say, yes, I am going 

to go out there and build this and I know it can sustain the cap 

ex, the cost to build it, and I know it can sustain the op ex, i.e., 

the cost to continue to support that cell site or that service, is predictable. 

I think we need more. I think that, with this committee’s help, 

with good data and information there, you are going to find out 

where you can spend that extra $10 and maybe have a substantial 

impact. 

123 

Mr. ENGEL. Anybody else, with 33 seconds left, have any idea 

about this? Any difference of opinion or agreement? 

Mr. MURRAY. A quick thought is that, if there is less regulation, 

then the carriers can spend those monies on building out more 

sites. I mean, in the rural areas it is just a question of building 

more sites. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Ms. Brooks, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I am a former Deputy Mayor of Indianapolis. And so, I fully appreciate the importance of building out infrastructure in a community. Because if we invest, it attracts businesses and grows jobs, 

and so forth. 

And our legislature in Indiana is also embracing innovation and, 

in fact, is considering legislation that empowers the deployment of 

small cell devices to bring 5G buildout to Indianapolis. Because the 

city of Indianapolis is currently a test site for 5G, the buildout is 

attracting that 21st century infrastructure. 

And so, while I am learning more and I am a huge fan of 5G, 

what I am curious about, Mr. Murray, with respect to many state 

legislatures, I understand, including Indiana, are considering the 

type of legislation that would prevent municipalities from adopting 

burdensome and unneeded and local regulations that would impede 

the deployment of small cell technology necessary for 5G. Do you 

believe that that type of state legislation is needed to ensure the 

rapid deployment of 5G technology, and do you believe there is a 

continuing federal rule to ensure there are proper guideposts 

around local regulation for the placement of this type of technology? 

Mr. MURRAY. Yes, I think we are struggling as an industry right 

now in defining it. It is a matter of scale. Again, the Wireless Infrastructure Association believes, if we talk about height, it is 50 feet, 

and it is a limited number of antennas. That magnitude or less is 

a small cell. Anything larger is a tower that should go through the 

normal, responsible local review. 

WIA has model legislation that is a much longer version of what 

I just described. I think that legislation will be guidepost to states 

as each state wrestles with this question of how do we define this 

new technology. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Mr. Berry, last week another Energy and Commerce Subcommittee held a hearing on smart communities and the 

way technology can enable more efficient transportation systems, 

better policing, and so forth. Can you address what your members 

of your group are doing to partner with localities to enable cities 

like Indianapolis to leverage 5G technologies? 

Mr. BERRY. Thank you. 

Well, first of all, you have to get to the gigabit network if you 

are going to find yourselves in a 5G, even if it is testbed. So, it is 

the backhaul and the fiber that is the first requirement. And then, 

it is the deployment, not only the small cells, but the coverage. 

So, many of our carriers, U.S. Cellular included, are already 

doing testbeds for 5G. What do we have to do? Some of our smaller 

carriers have said, ‘‘Listen, Steve, my most difficult challenge is figVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:57 Jun 20, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-15 CHRIS
124 

uring out the business model for a small town or city when I have 

a No. 1 priority to get a 4G LTE VoLTE buildout. And then, how 

do I figure out how do you invest and build that 5G system that 

has a return on investment?’’ 

And so, they are reaching out to the communities. Many of the 

smaller carriers—like in Mr. Shimkus’ district, I think the largest 

town is 33,000. Well, they are going into those towns and they are 

saying, ‘‘What can we do together and how can we do it in an efficient, effective way, because we don’t have a lot of money?’’ 

So, that is educational process. That partnership process is absolutely critical. And I salute you and those in Indianapolis that have 

reached out and taken that very serious step of addressing deployment scenarios that may not be particularly popular in some 

venues. 

Mrs. BROOKS. In fact, I wanted to ask, then, maybe Mr. Murray, 

or back to you, Mr. Berry, when you have communities, what are 

the educational tools you are using? This is very, very complicated 

information to try to relay to whether it is city councils, state legislatures, and others. How are you educating people on these things? 

Mr. BERRY. It is a problem because you are right, this is extremely technical. There is more computing capability in your 

smartphone than put up the first Apollo 1 mission. So, it is very 

technical, but I think it is just a matter of working with the localities and sitting down in a forum that not only explains the growth 

and the economic opportunities, but also can explain what it will 

take in order to build that out. It is changing minds, and that is 

sometimes one of the more difficult things to do. But I think as 

they see the rest of the world moving very quickly in this regard, 

and they see economic growth and jobs attached to it, I think that 

is a pretty powerful message to be sending. 

Mrs. BROOKS. I agree. Yield back. Thank you. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Bilirakis, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it so very 

much. I thank the panel for their testimony today. 

Mr. Berry and Mr. Murray, in order to realize the full potential 

of emerging technologies, it is important for governments at all levels to make their permitting and regulatory process more efficient. 

Under the discussion draft, state and local governments may opt 

into the information database. What are the incentives for local 

governments to opt-in? And we will start with Mr. Berry, please. 

Mr. BERRY. Well, as we were just talking, I think the incentives 

are economic growth and job opportunities. But don’t forget 

mHealth, mobile health, and education, two huge drivers in most 

local communities, and the convenience that that brings to the 

table. And those communities, they are going to be bypassed if they 

don’t have a program or at least a methodology of addressing a 

buildout, and how do you accommodate an architectural buildout 

within a larger area. I think that is something that the state and 

local governments have to address. 

In my early years before I went to law school, I did city management, city planning and city management, and went to something 

easier. I went to law school. So, that is a tough job. It is a tough 

job. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Very good. 

125 

Mr. Murray, please. 

Mr. MURRAY. Yes, I will have WIA get something for the record 

on that. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. Thank you. 

Next, this is for the panel. In a prior hearing on these discussion 

topics, a witness testified he had experienced an unexpected fee of 

$30,000 on a project site on DoD management land. Is that representative of the unexpected cost you face related to fees? And are 

you given any notice by any agency that you may be subjected to 

a significant fee for a project? Or are you just handed a bill? Who 

would like to begin? We will start from here. 

Mr. BERRY. Well, I would just say that it is not unheard of to 

have troubles like that when you are trying to build out a network. 

It normally doesn’t happen exactly that way. You have some indication that you are not going to get the license or you are in the 

appellate process. 

But, again, I will refer to the chart here. As you go down and 

hit all the boxes and try to check off all the requirements, it can 

be a huge expense. With small carriers that are serving small rural 

communities, and they only have a limited footprint, they don’t 

have the resources. 

This chart was put together with a lot of time, effort, and energy 

from attorneys. Most of my small carriers don’t even have an attorney on staff. They may have a person they call an engineer. So, it 

is very, very difficult and could be cost-prohibited. 

Mr. MURRAY. We have worked sites through that—I don’t even 

know what is on that paper, but I know our process is very, very 

complicated to getting DS. 

I will say, Steve mentioned, you need to give the parties in each 

box some incentive. I think that the localities are getting it. They 

realize that there are tradeoffs. If you want these incredible services, well, maybe we will have to see a telecommunications structure on the horizon. Are we willing to pay that price? It is not a 

big price. But there are tradeoffs to it. I think that the municipalities are moving along. 

I agree with my colleague Joanne in that many of these issues 

are now sort of flow of capital. It is hard for us to build in rural 

areas right now because the carrier cap ex is so focused on 

indensifying the network in the urban areas. We, as a business, 

need a lead tenant and we need a second tenant. And the second 

tenants are just not there as readily as they were in the past because of this need to densify in the urban areas. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Has anyone else received a large, unexpected fee 

on the panel, similar to the $30,000 fee? 

OK, well, then, let me go on with the next question. I know I 

don’t have much time. I have 15 seconds. 

A followup: have you or your member companies ever created a 

feasible broadband proposal, only to abandon the project due to repeated and unexpected fees? And does the discussion draft address 

this issue? Who would like to respond on that from the panel? Yes? 

Mr. CARLSON. I can just comment that I don’t know the answer, 

but I know we have abandoned cell sites—— 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Yes. 

126 

Mr. CARLSON [continuing]. When the difficulty of getting them 

sited and agreed to by the local community was too much. I don’t 

know whether it was specifically fee-related, but we have had to 

abandon cell sites which we think was harming. And that abandonment we believe harmed those communities. 

Mr. MURRAY. We have absolutely had the same experience. In 

western Loudoun County, we had a whole network of sites that 

would have brought broadband to that whole community. In 2008, 

a whole network of sites was denied just on sort of unreasonable 

community opposition. We believe it was unreasonable and they 

still lack service. 

Mr. CONNORS. We were close to abandoning the project a few 

times based on putting the money out ahead of time, not based on 

the fees, but based on the cost of the project and waiting for reimbursements. Reimbursements from the grant had to wait sometimes 6–12 months, a couple of years. It was the upfront costs that 

were making it cost-prohibitive for a while. 

Mr. BERRY. And we have had members, several members have 

told me that they had to not only abandon sites because of expectations that they are not going to get a USF. You remember they cut 

the USF, the Universal Service Fund Mobility II funds in the last 

administration significantly. And some carriers actually went out of 

business because they are so small and their boards said, ‘‘We can’t 

sustain another 20-, 30-, 60-percent cut in reimbursements.’’ And 

they sold their operations. And so, for small carriers, that is always 

a concern. Are you going to build or overbuild your capacity? 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. All right. I am sorry, Madam Chair. Thank you 

very much. I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Collins, last in the queue. 

Mr. COLLINS. Oh, my, thank you, Madam Chair. 

I want to thank the witnesses here today. 

Just a little background. I have eight rural counties in upstate 

New York. We are talking Buffalo, Lake Erie, Lake Ontario. Four 

of my counties do not have acceptable broadband coverage. In fact, 

my ‘‘get out of jail free,’’ if somebody is on the phone, I just say, 

‘‘I’m up in Wyoming County now. I just lost my cell signal.’’ So, one 

of my counties I don’t even have cell coverage. 

Recently, Verizon turned down $170 million on broadband buildout in New York State. Fortunately, Ajit Pai, the new Chair of 

FCC, saw the rationale of keeping that money in New York, and 

one of the first things they did was designate that $170 million to 

stay in New York, but we will have to figure out exactly where that 

goes. 

So, Mr. Berry, part of my question for you. One of my neighbors 

in the shopping plaza at my district offices in Blue Wireless is a 

CCA member, very small, a very small provider. 

So, my thought goes around this: first of all, Congress does a lot 

of things. And rule 1 is do no harm. But, number 2, the FCC, now 

under Ajit Pai, will be doing a lot of regulations that I think will 

really benefit this topic today without legislative work by Congress. 

I guess the question I have got, in particular, is, in New York 

State, western New York, upstate, a desperate need for monies and 

buildout of broadband. What role do you think Congress plays 

127 

versus FCC regulations? Because, again, let’s not get ahead of ourselves here, and especially addressing someone like your fellow 

member, Blue Wireless, a smaller provider. I think in some cases 

they will step in where Verizon won’t. But to make sure we are not 

doing something in either way, FCC or Congress, to somehow cut 

these small guys, like your clients and my neighbor, cut them out 

of the process. 

Mr. BERRY. Blue Wireless is a great member. They also participate in our Device Hub, where we essentially put a consortium together to ensure that the small carriers can get the state-of-the-art 

devices at the lower costs through aggregation of acquisitions of 

handsets. So, they are one of the smaller carriers that are out 

there, really unique, making a unique imprint in their territory. 

Yes, I think what the FCC did here on the USF Mobility II was 

a real improvement. We are not out of the woods yet, though, on 

the data issue. We are going to have a challenge process, and the 

data is still not available. 

So, those carriers like Blue Wireless, MTCPs, and some of the 

other smaller carriers, are going to have to challenge the data that, 

Number 1, we know is incorrect. And they are going to have to 

spend a lot of money to make sure that the data that they submit 

is actually correct and for the FCC to make a decision on whether 

or not they are going to get access to USF funds. 

And so, Blue Wireless is courageous in the fact that they are out 

there competing with the larger carriers in a very small area and 

on a shoestring. So, I think some of the regulations that Pai is 

doing away with may help them just as much on reporting requirements and some of the other issues. 

But, on USF, that predictability of those funds is critical. And 

the next phase, once we finish the legacy, you know, the drawdown 

of the legacy, it is the new-build funds that they are going to have 

to challenge and they are going to have to be ready to fight for. 

Hopefully, we will help them fight for them. 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, I thank you for that because we all share the 

same concern going forward. We don’t have enough time to get into 

some of the delays. But I noted in your testimony the concern of 

2020 is still three years away, and we sometimes get frustrated 

with moving at a snail’s pace. But, you know, we can cover that 

another day. 

So, Madam Chair, I am going to yield back 48 seconds, so you 

can’t blame me for going over. Thank you very much. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I will accept that time back, and seeing no further members to ask questions, I want to thank all of our witnesses 

that are with us today. 

Mr. Berry, the ranking member and I were talking about the 

small cell site. What we would like to know is range of coverage 

for that cell site. It would be helpful to us going forward. And you 

can submit that to us for the record, if you would like. 

Mr. BERRY. OK. And I have got the specs for the cell site. One 

of my members, Nokia, provided it. So, I thank them. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. And if you will submit that for the record? 

And to all of you, thank you. You are dismissed. 

128 

We are going to quickly reset to the second panel, spend about 

2 minutes doing that, and then, move forward with the second 

panel. 

Votes are expected sometime between 1:10 and 1:25. 

[Recess.] 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. In the interest of time, we are moving forward 

with our second panel. I do want to welcome all of you back. 

The same format as with the first panel. You will each be given 

5 minutes for your opening statement. And Ms. Clarke and I have 

agreed that we will do 3 minutes for questioning per member on 

each side and, hopefully, move forward with this panel. We are 

thrilled that you are here. 

Mr. Darr, Mr. Bryan Darr, who is the CEO of Mosaik Solutions, 

and I think a Tennessean. 

Mr. DARR. Yes, I am. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. And we welcome you. 

And, Mr. James Stegeman, who is the president at CostQuest 

Associates, we welcome you. 

Mr. Stegeman, we will begin with you with 5 minutes. You are 

recognized. 

STATEMENTS OF JAMES W. STEGEMAN, PRESIDENT, 

COSTQUEST ASSOCIATES, INC. AND BRYAN DARR, CEO, 

MOSAIK SOLUTIONS 

STATEMENT OF JAMES W. STEGEMAN 

Mr. STEGEMAN. Good afternoon, Chairman Blackburn and Vice 

Chairman Lance, Ranking Member Doyle, and Members of the 

Subcommittee. 

My name is James Stegeman. I am President of CostQuest Associates. It is an honor to be here to discuss the status of broadband 

in the U.S. 

Let me first start with a brief introduction of my firm, CostQuest 

Associates. My company specializes in understanding costs, assets, 

and the geography of broadband deployment. We work with the 

largest ILEC, cable, and wireless carriers in evaluation of their 

networks. We work with a number of cities and states in understanding fiber deployment issues, and we have created both the 

economic model behind the National Broadband Plan as well as the 

FCC’s current Connect America cost model that is used to disperse 

over $3 billion annually. 

Now let me jump to the heart of my testimony today. Let me 

first focus on terrestrial coverage using the latest FCC 477 data. 

If we look at the nationwide map on the screen, 76.3 percent of 

homes have access to service with download speeds at or above 100 

megabits per second, what I refer to as ‘‘served’’. 13.6 percent have 

access to speeds between 25 and 100 megabits per second, or what 

I refer to as ‘‘underserved’’. And 10 percent of homes remain 

unserved with speeds under 25 megabits per second. It is an interesting picture that shows, while the majority of the population is 

served, the majority of the land mass is unserved. 

In the next chart I have summarized the coverage in your congressional districts. The blue represents the portion of your district 

129 

that is served. Orange represents what is underserved, and gray 

represents what is unserved. 

If we move to the mobility side, we used access to LTE as a basis 

to prepare the map you see now on the screen. This map shows, 

based upon the FCC’s current 477 data, that 10 percent of roads 

do not have access to LTE. Conversely, 99.5 percent of household 

appear to have LTE access. 

In my filed testimony, I have provided maps of both terrestrial 

and mobile coverage for your districts, in part to let you view the 

data, but to see if it lines up with your on-the-ground experience. 

With current coverage reviewed, I moved to the question of how 

do we encourage the expansion to all homes and roads. I will focus 

on what I believe to be the key hurdle, economic viability. And that 

is, commercial broadband networks may be too expensive to make 

a fair return for commercial entities. 

In the chart on the screen, I provide the estimate by state of 

building out new fiber networks in the non-served portions of the 

country using our cost model output. Nationally, the total is over 

$90 billion. In the next chart, I have broken out the capital requirements for each of your congressional districts. 

Now let’s move to the cost of wireless buildout for portions of the 

nation’s roads unserved by mobile LTE. My firm recently developed 

an estimate for the investment to build out wireless. The results 

show that bringing 4G LTE to the remainder of unserved roads 

would cost an estimated $12.5 billion in initial investment. 

And not to sit on our Gs, we also looked at cost of 5G. In the 

table on the screen, I provide a summary of the estimated upfront 

investment needed to deploy a meshed 5G network to the entire 

U.S. under a number of scenarios. 

Under the most aggressive deployment assumptions, with high 

demand and support for autonomous vehicles on all primary roads, 

$250 bill in capital would be required, of which $56 billion is for 

the underlying fiber network. 

I have focused my discussion on the coverage data provided by 

the FCC. While it is the best public source of coverage information, 

improvements could be made. 

On the terrestrial side, we have the issues that arise from the 

one-served/all-served nature of the data. With respect to mobility, 

my firm independently assessed the ground realities of availability 

and speeds in areas of South Carolina as compared to the 477 data. 

The map on the screen shows the results of the drive test in southeast South Carolina. The light blue shows the 477 coverage; the 

black dots show the locations where service was not available, and 

the red dots show locations where speed was under 4 megabits per 

second. As evident, this drive test does not comport with the reported coverage. In part, the conflict is driven by the lack of uniform standards for carriers to submit 477 data. 

As a final topic, a number of cities and states are looking to programs to expand broadband. New York, for example, established a 

broadband investment program to utilize $500 million to bring 

service to nonserved areas across the state. The size of the fund, 

along with the goal of achieving 100 megabits per second statewide 

by the end of 2018, make this program one of the largest and most 

ambitious of its kind in the country. By the end of 2018, they will 

130 

move their served percentage from 70 percent to well over 98 percent. 

In conclusion, my testimony focused on coverage, data, and estimates potential cost. While efforts to collect data, model, and understand these complex areas may be time-, labor-, and data-intensive, as with all my client work, we need to strive to collect and 

develop the best information to make informed decisions. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of James W. Stegeman follows:] 

131 


25494.107

TESTIMONY 

of 

JAMES W. STEGEMAN 

PRESIDENT OF COSTQUEST ASSOCIATES 

Before the 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

March 21, 2017 
132 


25494.108

Availability and Economics of Broadband in the U.S. 

Contents 

Introduction ... 

Broadband Geography, the State of Broadband Availability ...... . 

Terrestrial (non-mobile) .. 

Mobility 

Obstacles to deployment ................. . 

Mass scale commercial communication networks are expensive ..... 

. ................................. 2 

.3 

. ......... 3 

........... 8 

.. .............. 11 

. .... 12 

Understanding Costs is the Basis for A Rational Business Case to Expand Coverage .... . ... 13 

Broadband Coverage and Facility Data. 

South Carolina Mobile Broadband Coverage and Quality 

Addressing the Information Availability Gap ... 

Encouraging Build Out 

State and Municipal Government Involvement.... 

A Partial Inventory of State-Funded Programs 

Municipal Involvement .... 

Conclusion .. 

Appendix A: Maps of Broadband Speed Coverage by Congressional District... 

Appendix B: Maps of Roads Not Covered with LTE by Congressional District .. 

James W. Stegeman- 1 

. .. 19 

.... 20 

..22 

..... 22 

. ........ 23 

.23 

. ... 23 

. .. 25 
133 


25494.109

Availability and Economics of Broadband in the US. 

Availability and Economics of Broadband 

in the U.S. 

An assessment of current broadband coverage and costs, and an 

evaluation of the data available to inform decisions on advancing 

broadband across the U.S. 

Chairman Blackburn, Vice Chairman Lance, Ranking Member Doyle, and Members of the Subcommittee: 

My name is James Stegeman, I am President of CostQuest Associates. Thank you for holding this hearing 

and inviting me to testify. It is an honor to be here to discuss the status of Broadband in the U.S. 

In my testimony today, I will provide an assessment of current broadband coverage and costs and an 

evaluation of the data available to inform decisions on advancing broadband across the U.S. 

Introduction 

Let me first start with a brief introduction to CostQuest Associates. 

CostQuest Associates ("CQA") is the foremost leader in designing, developing and implementing economic 

models for the telecommunications industry. Through our information systems, data and services we 

deliver comprehensive solutions to a myriad of complicated business challenges. Our focus is on 

understanding the drivers of investments and costs and how this information can be used to allow business, 

government, and regulatory agencies to make informed decisions. 

Utilizing an "economic basis" we seek to thoroughly understand and capture the true drivers of a business' 

cost structure or proposed future plans. We approach our work from a unique perspective of examining 

complicated work processes and capital expenditures to better understand the nature of their cost and to 

model why a cost is produced and when that cost needs to be incurred. 

The team of telecommunications experts at CQA have developed, deployed and supported Network, UNE, 

Interconnection, Broadband, and Universal Service models around the world and have worked in and on 

most telecommunication regulatory issues. Examples include: 

Designed, developed and maintained the FCC's economic network model that was the basis of the 

National Broadband Plan 

Designed, developed and maintained the FCC's Connect America Cost model that is used to 

disperse over $3 billion annually 

Designed, developed and maintained profitability, universal service and interconnection models 

used in Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand and Bermuda 

• Designed, developed and maintained the Unbundled Network Element models used in various 

proceedings to set rates for competitive carriers 

James W. Stegeman- 2 
134 


25494.110

Availability and Economics of Broadband in the U.S. 

• Designed, developed and maintained the application used by USAC to review all fiber build 

proposals under the FCC's e-Rate program. 

• Reviewed for cost reasonableness all the bids in the New York Broadband reverse auction geared 

to providing 100M bps service in all areas of New York 

• Assisted various cities and states in reviewing the business case of fiber deployment 

Assisted the largest ILECS, the largest Cable, and largest Wireless carriers in the valuation of their 

networks 

... and more 

For over 17 years, the CQA team has bt>en at the forefront of Network Modeling, Economic Analysis and 

Regulatory Support. Our many satisfied clients include multinational corporations, governments, trade 

associations and industry regulators. CQA is a valued advisor because it can bring the breadth of applied 

experience, information, support, tools, techniques, and analysis so decisions can be informed. 

In short, my company specializes in understanding cost, assets, and the geography of Broadband 

coverage. As such, my testimony will describe the results of our analysis of coverage data, provide a 

review of costs and deployment issues, and describe innovative approaches to addressing the challenging 

economics of Broadband deployment. 

Broadband Geography, the State of Broadband Availability 

To have a clear understanding of Broadband Availability, we need to have a clear understanding of what 

we are comparing to. In the material that follows, I examine terrestrial (non-mobile) and mobile 

broadband coverage separately, using FCC information which is currently collected and made available. 

Terrestrial (non-mobile) 

As part of the Connect America Fund orders, the FCC currently defines benchmark, fixed location (nonmobile), broadband service as the ability to obtain service that provides a downstream bandwidth of 

25M bps 1

. The state of New York, in their current broadband auction defines "unserved" as access to 

service less than 25Mbps. This aligns with the FCC. However, New York adds in an "underserved" 

category for areas that have access to service speed between 25M bps and 100M bps. "Served" is defined 

as having access to speeds equal to or above 100M bps. I believe this New York distinction is informative 

to understanding broadband coverage nationwide and is consistent with measuring success under the 

FCC s National Broadband Goal No. 12 

Goal No. 1: At least 100 million U.S. homes should have affordable access to actual download speeds 

of at least 100 megabits per second and actual upload speeds of at least 50 megabits per second. 

1 Please see https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progress-reports/2015-broadband-progress· 

Please see page XIV in the FCC's National Broadband Plan available at https:Utransition.fcc.gov/nationalbro§9band-plan/national-broadband-plan.pdf 

James W. Stegeman- 3 
135 


25494.111

Availability and Economics of Broadband in the U.S. 

Using this New York classification, we can review the status of the terrestrial based, non-mobile provider' 

broadband deployment in the U.S. using the FCC's latest 477 data4

. Nationwide, 76.3% of homes have 

access to broadband service of at least lOOMbps, representing over 100 million U.S. homes. Regarding 

underserved homes, 13.6% have access to speeds between 25 and 100M bps, while 10.1% of homes 

remain unserved. The figure below provides a graphical depiction of coverage across the country. 

Nationwide Terrestrial (non-mobile) Broadband Speed Coverage COA 

Figure 1: Terrestrial Broadband availability across the U.S. 

3 For purposes of terrestrial service, I include copper, fiber and coax technologies identified for consumers. 4 For the analysis, I used the June 2016 data, which is the latest available and posted at 

https:Uwww.fcc.gov/general/form-477-resources-filers#block-menu-block-4. As presented, these data do not 

reflect affordability measures. 

James W. Stegeman- 4 
136 


25494.112

Availability and Economics of Broadband in the US 

The FCC 4 77 data allows a party to examine deployment all the way down to Census blocks, if desired. 

The table below provides the broadband speed coverage by state: 

Figure 2: Terrestrial Broadband Coverage in the U.S. based on FCC 477 June 2016. 

And for members of this Subcommittee, the figure below provides broadband speed coverage by 

Congressional District. 

James W. Stegeman- 5 
137 


25494.113

Availability and Economics of Broadband in the U.S. 

Congressional District Terrestrial Broadband Speed Coverage 

Congressional District Representative Ser.v.e.d UNDERserved UNserved 

CA Congressional District 18 Anna G. Eshoo -------------89:9% -------------··a:7% ---------------9.'4%1 

CA Congressional District 36 Raul Ruiz ~~~~~~~~~~~i~j~ ~~~~~~~~~~~:.~~~:i~ ~:::~~:::::~::I~~~ CA Congressional District 45 Mimi Walters 42.7% 5.7%! 

CA Congressional District 6 Doris 0. Matsui ------------93:2%- 2.7% --------------4:1%! 

CA Congressional District 9 Jerry McNerney ----------·-9s:ii% ---------------1.'o% -------------·o:s%1 

FL Congressional District 12 Gus M. Bilirakis -----------------··--· ---------------0.'6% ---------------6.0%] 

lA Congressional District 2 David Loebsack 78.8% ----------····sjo/; --·.··--------i6~1%i 

IL Congressional District 1 Bobby L Rush ------------97:1%. ---··--·------------- .............. is%·! 

IL Congressional District 15 John Shimkus ------------·;;:;:6% 0.7% ------------21.'7%1 

IL Congressional District 16 Adam Kinzinger -------------87'.'7% --------------().'5% ..... ..,. ...... 11.'8%] 

IN Congressional District 5 Susan w. Brooks -------------i'i7~8% --------------i7% ------------;-ii~s-%1 

KY Congressional District 2 Brett Guthrie -------------28:3%- ------------53:8% ------.-------i7:9o/~ 

LA Congressional District 1 Steve Scalise------------------------------------------ ---------------9:5%1 

Ml Congressional District 12 Debbie Dingell -~l 

MO Congressional District 7 Billy Long 20.9%! 

NC Congressional District 1 G. K. Butterfield 13.4%1 

ND Congressional District (at Large) Kevin Cramer ______ _?8.2~ ____________ 2:_~_% 7.8'%1 

~~ ~~~:;:~~:~~:: ~:~~~:~~ ~ L:~n~~::~~:: ---~~1ID:~--~:~~ ~::~: NY Congressional District 16 Eliot L. Engel --~·0% ___ _______2:9% "O.o%1 

NY Congressional District 27 Chris Collins __ ____l1.:.11'~--- 65.3% 3.3%! 

NY Congressional District 9 Yvette D. Clarke ______ _}_90.~ 0.0% ---~- O.O%J 

OH Congressional District 5 Robert E. Latta 71.7% 17.1%! 

OH Congressional District 6 Bill Johnson 44.2% 32:6% 23.2%1 

OR Congressional District 2 Greg Walden 72.9% - .. -..,....cS.8% ---2i3%J 

PA Cccgce•ioool "'""" M Mi<hoel f. Do"r- 99!J;! _:_ 0 0% - im•l 

PA Congressional District 6 Ryan A. Costello 98.5% 0.1% 1.4%! 

TN Congressional District 7 Marsha Blackburn -----~t?% -~ 3.6% . ~2%1 

~~ ~~~:;:~::~~:: ~::~~:~~ ~~ r!~~ ~~::~ -------------~~-~6i ------------c~Hi : ___________ _?_~~il VT Congressional District (at Large) Peter Weicht::::::::::):~~~?;-:::::::~:::]~~?; :::::::::::)I~~ Source: June 2016 FCC 477 Data ------------------------------------,~~'d~;;~'d-;;y~coAFigure 3: Congressional District Broadband Speed Coverage 

This Congressional District data is displayed graphically in the next figure. 

James W. Stegeman- 6 
138 


25494.114

Availability and Economics of Broadband in the U.S. 

Congressional District Terrestrial Broadband Speed Coverage 

100.0% 

90.0% 

80.0% 

70.0% 

60.0% 

50.0% 

40.0% 

30.0% 

20.0% 

10.0% 

0.0% 

~ ::; ~ "' "' ::: N "' "' "' N rl '1 ~ 

~ "' ~ ;:; ~ "' "' "' N ;!; "' ~ ::: N 

"' -g ~ t t rl rl t ~ -~ \i 'g t t N t t t N 

t t t ·" t u c t t " 5 E b ~ ~ ·.s :s ~ E ~ ~ ~ 5 b 

~ ~ g "' E ·c § E "' ~ -~ ·c 

~ ~ .~ .. 6 6 6 6 5 t; 

6 Ci ;5 a a Ci Ci Ci 6 5 Ci .§. Ci Ci 6 Ci Ci .§. 

§ ~ ~ ~ ~ " g 1 ~ " ~ " § ~ " " u " g " " c ~ ~ ~ § " ~ " " t § § § § § 5 a § a 0 

-~ .Q § § § ~ j .Q 

~ ·m , l -~ -~ ! ., 5 ·~ . , .. ·~ ~ -~ -~ 

§ ~ -~ ~ ~ ·o . i ~ ~ • ~ ~ ., "e1 -~ Ci 

~ ~ ~ ~ 

~ 1' ~ ~ ~ 

1' ~ ~ 1' 1' " 1' 1' ~ ~ ~ J 1' 1' ~ ~ " 5 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 § 8 8 1' ~ 8 8 8 1' 8 8 8 § 

8 8 8 ·~ 8 8 8 ., v L'i <! " =' ~ <:; :5 0 v z z > z z "' ~ z L'i f <! L'i v u: =' :1 2 z ~ > ,_ z 0 0 0 ~ >- ;::' X v 1' z z ,_ § 8 u 0 

z '> 

II Served li!l UNDERserved illl UNserved 

Source: June 2016 FCC 477 Data ·····-------------------------;,~r,"d~~~"d-"b¥:--C(fA 

Figure 4.· Congressional District Broadband Speed Coverage 

Maps of broadband speed coverage for the Congressional Districts represented by this Subcommittee are 

provided in Appendix A. 

Before !leave this section, I present additional views of the broadband coverage data to help identify 

what the root causes of non-coverage may be. 

In the figure that follows, I show coverage information based on the density of the coverage area. It 

appears, from this summary, that household density is a good predictor of the level of service to which a 

consumer may have access. 

James W. Stegeman 7 
139 


25494.115

Availability and Economics of Broadband in the U.S. 

Density Based Terrestrial Broadband Speed Coverage 

D..e.n.sit¥ SerYe.d UND.ERs.e!Ye.d UNs.e[\led 

Rural f----------s0.4o/;i-------ll:7o/o~-- 31-.9%1 }---------+------------ Suburbanl----~~.:.2%~! __ _E;_~~ ____ 2_.~ 

Urban !_ ___________ }_l:_?~L_ ___________ §}?b _____________ _?_,O~J 

Source: June 2016 FCC 477 Data -----·-------------------------·--·;;;~;;z~~~d"b"Y:ccfAFigure 5: Density Based Terrestrial Broadband Speed Coverage 

In the figure below, I look at the coverage differences between service in Tribal areas 5 versus non-Tribal 

areas. At this high level, Tribal area coverage is less robust than coverage outside Tribal areas. 

Tribal Land Terrestrial Broadband Speed Coverage 

Irihal ~ UNDERserved UNserved ,-------------------··-r-·--_-----------~------------------.o%1 

Yes< 56.7%: 10.3% 33~ 

NoL~==--j~.6~J----l3.§% -==--.2:?.?bJ 

Source: June 2016 FCC 477 Data 

-----------------------------------;;~;;;~~~-:/~;;:·c.aA· 

Figure 6: Tribal Land Terrestrial Broadband Speed Coverage 

Mobility 

As part of the upcoming CAF Mobility auction, the FCC considers access to LTE6 service as served. While 

this presents an objective measurement difference with our fixed service analysis, I believe this is an 

adequate measure of broadband availability as it indicates what today's consumers desire. However, 

there is the issue of how one defines the basis of coverage. 

Some have asked, is mobility coverage defined as service to homes and businesses or is coverage based 

on the roads we drive. My goal is not to identify which basis is ideal but rather provide information on 

both so that informed decisions can be made. 

Nationally, based on FCC 477 data, 99.5% of households have access to LTE, while 90.1% of roads have 

access to L TE. 

In the figure below, I show those roads in the U.S. that are not served by mobile LTE coverage. 

5 For this analysis, Tribal was defined using US Census TIGER 2010 American Indian Alaska Native, Hawaiian 

Homeland (AIANHH) designated Census blocks. 6 LTE stands for Long Term Evolution and represents what the industry refers to as 4G technology. 

James W Stegeman - 8 
140 


25494.116

Availability and Economics of Broadband in the US. 

Unserved Roads of all LTE and above Mobile Broadband COA 

Figure 7: Roads uncovered in by LTE 

James W. Stegeman - 9 

- Unserved Road 

1::::! State Boundary 

The brown line = nolserved by 

(33) ,, ~~=-,_~-.. ~ ....... ~.~~..._ .... ..,,..,_ 1 

Calli S<>IECO: FCC Form477 2015~mi:H!r\fl ·•••••c•.,..Jour e.r-~.-- ""'""""' £"'-

Tiger201CI;:ofqas 
141 


25494.117

Availability and Economics of Broadband in the U.S. 

AL 

AK 

AZ 

AR 

CA 

co 

cr 

DE 

DC 

FL 

GA 

HI 

ID 

IL 

IN 

lA 

KS 

KY 

LA 

ME 

MD 

MA 

Ml 

MN 

MS 

MO 

MT 

NE 

Figure 8. Road Percentage without Access to LTE Coverage 

Maps of roads not covered by LTUor each Congressional District for the members of this Subcommittee 

are provided in Appendix B. 

We also can look at LTE coverage by household percentages. In the figure below I show L TE coverage to 

households. 

James W. Stegeman 10 
142 


25494.118

Availability and Economics of Broadband in the U.S. 

AL 

AK 

AZ 

AR 

CA 

co 

CT 

DE 

DC 

FL 

GA 

HI 

ID 

IL 

IN 

lA 

KS 

KY 

LA 

ME 

MD 

MA 

Ml 

MN 

MS 

MO 

MT 

NE 

Figure 9: Household based L TE coverage 

Obstacles to deployment 

With an understanding of the aforementioned coverage data, I can now turn our attention to the 

expansion of coverage. In the National Broadband Plan, the FCC described issues that present an 

obstacle to deployment. These included: access to poles and conduit, access to middle mile transport 

and a host of other items. While these are critical to address, in the material to follow I focus on what I 

view as the key to broadband deployment: economic viability. That is, when-do the economics of 

deployment make sense for a commercial provider to invest their limited capital and operational 

resources. 

James W. Stegeman 11 
143 


25494.119

Availability and Economics of Broadband in the U.S. 

Mass scale commercial communication networks are expensive 

Commercial communication networks are expensive. Network infrastructure: telephone poles, cellular 

antennas, conduit networks, generators, and data centers are not cheap. The employees who design, 

engineer install, upgrade and maintain this plant tend to be highly skilled and well trained. 

In economic terms, these factors combine to make the cost structure of a commercial broadband 

provider highly fixed with lumpy investment. Put differently, when a provider starts build out, they do so 

in units of significant capacity. They can't add 1/8 of a cell tower, two streets in a subdivision, or Y, of a 

telephone pole. Much of the business challenge in operating a broadband network is understanding 

where the business case exists for network deployment and upgrades--identifying areas in which there is 

sufficient demand to make the capital and operational investment profitable. 

The National Broadband Plan used a simple diagram to illustrate what I describe as the hockey stick 

nature of costs. In this figure, you can see as population density decreases (left axis) the investment 

necessary to provide broadband services increases dramatically. The particular challenge we are now 

facing is in terms of deployment into the very steep portion of the cost curve. Different types of networks 

have different shapes-but they all tend to demonstrate that at the lowest ranges of density, the 

investment to serve a customer becomes extremely high. 

1l.QOO 

10.000 

1.000 

6.000 

.. ooo; 

3.000 

Mosto.... """""'tllosofun"""""CMSUSBlodts 

(lo-.. U50....--

Figure 10: The "Hockey Stick'' nature of network cost 

Funding the Future of Broadband 

Dol1$lly (lett axls) 

IOV .. tmentP!I(rigltta>IS) 

Gap 

u,_., 

6,500 

&.000 

5.500 

....., 

6,500 

.. ooo 

3.500 

lJ)OO 

3.500 

2,000 

1.500 

1.000 

500 

0 

Well informed decisions always include a look into the future far enough to ensure that the investments 

that are made in the near term are sufficient to meet forthcoming demand. It's a reasonable assumption 

that, as time moves, so will the definition of broadband. Indeed, practical uses of broadband technology 

will move beyond what we can even envision today. Knowing this, it is not possible to "future-proof' a 

network build as there will always be the need to meet future demand with infrastructure, software and 

James W. Stegeman 12 
144 


25494.120

Availability and Economics of Broadband in the US 

electronics that have not been conceptualized at this time. However, we know enough about bandwidth 

need trends to say with reasonable certainty that bandwidth requirements are growing exponentially. 

Existing and upcoming use scenarios (such as the growth in loT7 and the potential for autonomous 

driving) indicate that it would be foolish to ignore these forthcoming demands. Gigabit speeds will likely 

be the expected standard for both fixed and mobile broadband solutions in the not-to-distant future. 

What will achieving these speeds cost in real dollars? Equally important, what will be the costs in not 

achieving those speeds? 

Understanding Costs is the Basis for A Rational Business Case to Expand Coverage 

As a basis of the data to follow, CQA has developed a State Broadband Cost Model ("SBCM") that 

develops the capital requirements and cost of service based on a fiber to the premise {"ffip") service 

delivery. This FTip approach provides a service that is capable of providing 100M bps service and even 

Gigabit speeds. And from an economic standpoint, it represents the lowest total-cost approach if a 

carrier were to deploy new facilities today for 100Mbps service and above. 

Within the SBCM, we start with 160 million residential and business locations across the U.S. Our model 

then develops a network topology to connect each of these locations with fiber along the road network. 

From this network topology, we can identify the capital requirements (incorporating density and terrain 

drivers of costs) and resulting estimated monthly operational costs. 

As a first step to examining the cost to build out, we need to determine if there are business case issues 

to expand service to the non-served portions of the country. Using our SBCM output overlaid with the 

FCC's 477 coverage described earlier, I identify the average monthly cost8 for service broken out by the 

density of the area served in the following figure: 

Estimated Monthly Cost for Fiber Based Service 

D..e.nill¥ ~ UnderServed Un.S.erv.ed 

Ruralf'$"-47.67T $ ..... S6.S6 n---l01~6-6l 

Suburban t~:_j?..:§.~i_?- -3-2-l}_(l i $---~.05 J 

Urban[j_ __ ~_1.88 1 S .... ~:@_Jj_ ___ .?J.:§.?_i 

Source: CQA's SBCM 

Produced by: CQA 

Figure 11: Estimated Monthly Cost far Fiber Based Service 

From this, we see that unserved areas are higher in cost and can present a hurdle to investing in new 

networks. 

The question that flows from this is, if a carrier can find a business case to invest (this can include 

government funds or other forms of direct/indirect subsidy), what level of capital would be required? In 

the following figure, the capital requirements by density to build out service in the Underserved and 

Unserved port'1ons of the country based on SBCM are provided. These estimates are based on full fiber to 

7 loT stands for Internet of Things. 8 I have assumed that 80% of customers will take service to develop the estimated monthly costs. As one can 

imagine, if the carrier cannot achieve this level of customer uptake, the cost of monthly service for those who do 

take service will escalate. 

James W. Stegeman -13 
145 


25494.121

Availability and Economics of Broadband in the U.S. 

the premise deployment with an inclusion of all outside plant facilities, including poles and conduit 

systems9 If these facilities are already available or made available for a carrier, the impact could be a 

reduction in the capital estimates shown below. Nationally, the capital required to build out a fiber to the 

premise network in the Underserved and Unserved portions of the country is over $95 billion. 

Estimated Capital Requirements for Fiber Based Service 

~ UnderServed llnSe.rYed. 

Rura 1 [f~~j~j~~~~~ii~~?ii~T-I~~~~~~~~~~~!i~i~iz~] Su bu rba n ~_$ ______ ~} :J::J:?.,?.?.?,}~Q_J_$. ______ },!-.~-~'-~~?.,!:?.t:i .. l 

Urban ti_ ______ 846,65.Q,_!-J:~li .. _ .. .....1..?..~,3?-4,_~-~ 

Source: CQA's SBCM 

Produced by: CQA 

Figure 12: Estimated Capital Requirements for Fiber Based Service, by Density 

In the following figures and charts, I present the estimated capital requirements by State and for the 

Congressional Districts represented by this Subcommittee. 

9 Parties have referred to this type of cost as a "Greenfield" cost. That is, what is the cost if we assume we are 

building from scratch. 

James W. Stegeman- 14 
146 


25494.122

Availability and Economics of Broadband in the U.S. 

Estimated Capital Requirements for Fiber Based Service 

Figure 13: Estimated Capex by State far Underserved and Unserved portions of the country 

James W. Stegeman- 15 
147 


25494.123

Availability and Economics of Broadband in the US. 

Estimated Capita! Requirements for Fiber Based Service 

$10.000,000,000 

$9.000,000,000 

$6JIOO,OOO,OOO 

$5_\lOO,OOO,OOO 

$4,000,000,000 

$3.000,000,000 

$1,000,000,000 IIIII II IIIII. 1111!.1. II 111.111,1..1 

Figure 14: Capital Requirements by State for Underserved and Unserved areas 

james W. Stegeman -16 

Source: CQA 's SBCM 

Produced by:CQA 
148 


25494.124

Avmlobility and Economics of Broadband in the US. 

Estimated Capital Requirements for Fiber Based Service 

$900,000,000 

$800,000,000 

$700,000,000 

$600,000,000 

$500,000,000 

$400,000,000 

$300,000,000 

$200,000,000 

$100,000,000 

$- I I -I I I I I 

;:; - I I 

"' M 

·1' t; 

·c t; ;;; 

Ci a 

"' N "' :e N 1 "' :e :::; "" g t; rl t; 

~ rl t; t; t; rl .t! t; t; t:: t:: -~ t:: t:: t:: " t; t; -~ -~ ;: ·;: 

~ t; ·;: -~ -~ ·;: 

~ '.§ -~ ~ ;;; ;;; 

~ ;;; •;: -~ t; ;;; a Ci 0 i5 Ci Cl 0 0 ro 0 0 ;;; Ci Ci Ci 0 0 0 0 

~ ~ ~ ., ~ ., ., ., ;;; ;;; ;;; 

~ ;;; ;;; t:: ;;; ., ~ ;;; ., c c c c c c c c c 0 0 § .2 0 c § 0 0 0 0 0 ·;: 0 0 c 0 0 -~ -~ ~ -~ 0 -~ -~ -~ 0 

-~ -~ ;;; -~ -~ 0 0 -~ -~ 

-~ -~ -~ ~ -~ ~ 0 -~ -~ 

~ ~ 1':: 1:! 1: ~ 1: ~ :;], 6;, "" ~ "' "" 1:! 6;, 6;, g;> g;> 6;, "" "' ~ -;;; :;], ~ 1!' c c c c "' c c c c c 0 0 0 8 c c 0 8 0 c 0 0 0 0 8 c c 0 u u 8 8 u 0 0 u u 0 u u -~ u 0 u 8 < < < = v v z >- :'1 u 0 u z z u >- < u u ~ - ~ ~ - "' ~ 2 z !!< >- >- z u "' z z c 

8 

Cl 

z 

111 UnderServed Iii UnServed 

Figure 15: Capital Requirements by Congressional District for Underserved and Unserved areas. 

Finishing 4G L TE Deployment 

v v "§ ·.s Ci ;5 

~ ~ 

-~ 0 

"t?j 

1: 1: 

"" "' c c 0 0 u u 

:t: :t: 

0 0 

N 

I I 

::1 "' " N 

t:: t:: t:: ¥ rl "' t:: t; t:: E ·c ·;: ·c ;;; ;;; ·c .'J -~ 5 ;;; 0 Ci t; !§. 0 0 0 ;;; 

~ 

., ;;; -;;; -;;; t:: c c c 0 0 0 § c ·c 

-~ 0 -~ -~ 0 ;;; -~ 'tj -~ 0 1:! ~ "' "' :;], "' ~ !!< c c ~ "" "' 0 c 0 8 c c 0 u 0 u 8 0 -~ 

"' u ~ z u 

0 ~ 1- X X 1: 1- 1- 1!' 

0 

u 

1:;: 

Source: CQA's SBCM 

Produced by: CQA 

As mentioned earlier, almost 10% of the roads in the nation remain unserved by mobile broadband. This 

includes roads across many states, not just those in the West Clearly, a lack of economic viability in these 

areas has left them unserved by mobile carriers, large and smalL Factors that contribute to leaving these 

markets un-built include density, lack of middle mile networks to transport the traffic back from remote 

sites, difficult terrain and the high-cost of ongoing maintenance in places far-removed from the core 

network. 

James W. Stegeman 17 
149 


25494.125

Availability and Economics of Broadband in the U.S. 

CQA recently developed a high-level overview of the total estimated investment for all unserved areas 

across the U.S. 10 The Study included all costs related to building a 4G LTE network and maintaining that 

network over 10 years. The results show that bringing 4G LTE to the remainder of unserved roads in the 

U.S. would cost an estimated $12.5 billion in initial investment and another roughly $2.1 billion in annual 

operations and maintenance costs. An additional ~37,500 towers I sites would need to be deployed to 

support this ubiquitous 4G LTE coverage. Expected annual revenue in these areas would not be expected 

to exceed $240 million annually. This leaves the commercial viability of 4G LTE ubiquity far in the net 

negative territory. 

As with fiber build-out, the challenge of mobile broadband deployment in rural areas is a matter of 

creating a long-term business case in areas with sparse demand. While terrain and proximity to facilities 

play a role as gating factors to achieving a positive financial outcome for rural mobile carriers, user 

density is the single most important factor. CQA studied the costs of building and maintaining rural 

mobile broadband in February, 201611 . This study showed that, depending on the Average Revenue per 

User (ARPU), a 5-year breakeven for carriers falls somewhere between 800 and 1,200 subscribers per 

tower. This analysis is inclusive of roaming and other revenue that is shared across the network. Given 

that most counties in the rural U.S. don't approach 250 people per square mile, there is a clear challenge 

to produce a positive business case. The image below shows the breakeven point for a modeled provider 

with an ARPU of $52.50 per month. This chart shows the breakeven on a cash flow basis and for the 

overall business case. 

Opex Break 

Lvell Point 

Opex + Mtre 

Brc.ak Even Point 

Figure 16- Breakeven Anafysisfor a modeled Rural Carrier 

S Year Break 

l:ver: Point 

10 See https://www.costquest.com/uploads/pdf/2017 /cs 4g-unserved-areas.pdf 11 See https:(/ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/60001518777.pdf 

James W. Stegeman 18 
150 


25494.126

Availability and Economics of Broadband in the U.S. 

Costs of 56 Deployment 

Although parts of the country remain unserved by 4G, there has been much recent discussion about 5G 

mobile deployment. While the standards for 5G technology are still being worked on, questions abound. 

When is SG coming? How will it mesh with the existing 4G macro network? How much new 

infrastructure will be needed to support a fully ubiquitous 5G meshed deployment? 

My firm developed a model earlier this year to estimate the upfront investment needed to deploy a mesh 

5G to the entire U.S., to cover all roads, buildings and homes12. The resulting report gives a glimpse into 

the costs of deploying SG at different standards of demand and use, specifically to meet a 50Gb per user 

monthly demand and for the support of autonomous vehicles. The most robust scenario of meeting the 

high threshold for demand, while also supporting autonomous vehicles estimates an initial investment of 

$250 billion 13 It is important to note that a significant portion of this initial investment is the fiber 

backhaul required to connect all the SG cell locations. 

Study Description User Total 

Demand investment 

Figure 17- 5G Deployment Costs by Demand and Use Case 

Broadband Coverage and Facility Data 

In the material above, I described the coverage and cost of expansion based on information we have 

today. Much of that information framework-how we analyze the world of today-came from a data 

needs assessment developed as part of the National Broadband Plan. As we conceive the future, we 

need to examine what data and tools we have today and will need in the future to make sure that the 

information framework can support future goals and policy objectives. 

For example, can the mobile broadband data provided in the 4 77 be improved; can we improve on the 

one-served, all-served approach of the 477 data collection; would access to broadband infrastructure 

data help our understanding of costs and help carriers expand in the market? Before I examine those 

questions, let's review where we are today. 

12 See https://www.costquest.com/blog/news-and-events/our-work/the-Sg-mobile-ubiquity-pric~ 

13 As with the Fiber build estimate, this value is a Greenfield value that does not account for existing deployments. 

James W. Stegeman 19 
151 


25494.127

Availability and Economics of Broadband in the U.S. 

Understanding what areas are covered by broadband is a formidable task. The cost and complexity of the 

data challenge is driven by the level of detail incorporated. 

Beginning in 2009, under the direction of NTIA, States and State grantees assembled a comprehensive 

data set of terrestrial and mobile broadband availability at the Census block 14 level. My firm collected 

and assembled this data in four states. 

After the close of the NTIA program 15, the FCC Form 477 data collection filled this data requirement 

Carriers now submit broadband deployment information at the Census block level every 6 months. The 

FCC has been publishing the non-confidential portions of the carrier's 477 filing on a more or less periodic 

basis. 

Beyond the constant questions of data accuracy, there is a need for more granular broadband coverage 

and infrastructure information to help improve our decisions. Currently, 477 coverage standards allow a 

Census block to be identified as served as long as one location in that block has access to service- what 

has been referred to as the one-served, all-served assumption. On the infrastructure side, there is no 

public FCC source for the location of all poles, conduits, fiber routes, cell locations and other important 

broadband network components. 

As efforts to understand broadband availability gaps and efficiently targeting public funds have become 

more sophisticated, those efforts are frustrated by the potential one-served, all-served assumption 

inherent in the current 477 data and the lack of infrastructure data. 

In a way, broadband data collection efforts are becoming a victim of their own success. In our own work 

with the State of New York, I have seen the issues that arise from the one served all-served assumption of 

477 data. My sense is that as more organizations attempt to micro- target availability gaps, the more 

troublesome the one-served, all-served assumption embedded in the Census block level data collections 

becomes. Plainly put, when a home-owner is looking for service what matters to them is the status of 

their house not the status of the Census block. 

South Carolina Mobile Broadband Coverage and Quality 

On the mobility side, our efforts drive testing South Carolina mobile coverage show a difference between 

the carrier-submitted 477 mobility coverage and the experience of traveling in a car and trying to 

download data. 

CQA independently assessed the ground realities of availability and speeds of mobile broadband in South 

Carolina. First, we developed drive test scenarios for assessing mobile Broadband coverage. Then, 

RootMetrics® conducted the drive tests16 under our direction. Finally, we analyzed the data and arrived 

at the following conclusions: 

"A Census block is the smallest unit of area that the US Census bureau enumerates population and housing units. 

The area of a Census block varies considerably between Urban and Rural areas. 

15 Data collection by State grantees for the National Broadband Map began in 2010 and ended in 2015. See; 

https://www.broadbandmap.gov/about 

16 See https :/ /www .costquest, com/bl og/ case-studies/ gis-a nd-mapping/south -carolina-mobile-broadbandperformance-study 

James W. Stegeman- 20 
152 


25494.128

Availability and Economics of Broadband in the U.S. 

Network reliability, when viewed as the ability to connect to a network and transmit or receive 

mobile data, differs a great deal inside and outside of Census Designated Places (cities and towns). 

Successful connection rates and throughput speeds are generally lower outside of city and town 

boundary limits. 

Network reliability across road classifications differs a great deal as well. Connection rates, signal 

strength and throughput are all lower on roads that are not within primary travel corridors between 

population centers. 

Throughput speeds are generally much lower in areas with lower population density. 

The FCC's Form 477 data on mobile network availability, while helpful when trying to understand 

general presence of mobile providers, does not appear to accurately represent customer 

experience with respect to access and use of networks. Many areas that are shown as covered by 

mobile providers in the 477 data may be completely unserved or served at speeds below what 

would be reasonably considered as broadband (i.e., at least 4Mbps down). 

Neither of the FCC's methods for displaying mobile broadband service areas, the Centroid 

approach or Actual Area approach, allow users to accurately measure customer experience against 

likely paths of travel. 

The map below shows drive test results in southeast South Carolina. The red dots on the map indicate tests 

below the 4Mbps downlink, while the black dots are where the tests failed to connect to a network. The 

blue shading on the map indicates 4G LTE mobile broadband coverage according to the FCC 477 data. 

!Legend 

I I • Slllay_Z •. AilNULLTflhtmJ 

~tudy _2_R. egionai_Benchmarking 

ilna!TeetoL_Mbp• 

l

i. :::.::::::: 

'1000·~00i57:1J 

I ~ tS00·1~o.oo(~~l 

L __ ~S F.ort!!.i?I.~!I-~_B!ocks. SO%C~~.IL.2:>--~_::::,__~::.E~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Figure 18: Reg10naf Benchmarking Throughput Results w/477 Overlay 

James W. Stegeman- 21 
153 


25494.129

Availability and Economics of Broadband in the US. 

The issues with the mobility data, whether collected through the Form 477 program or with other 

publicly available data, appears to be the lack of standards by which a carrier can claim coverage. 

Addressing the Information Availability Gap 

One way to address the data gaps within the 477 data would be to modify the data requirements and 

collection. For example, the collection for non-mobile networks could be re-oriented to ask providers to 

submit data on what level of coverage is uniformly available in the reported area. A carrier could also 

indicate not simply which block is "served" but what portion of the block is served (e.g., 100, 75, 50, 25 

percent of the block is covered by the claimed speed). 

A second way to address the information gaps for all providers is to collect or request from providers 

their facility information. By facility, I mean the location of antennas, poles, manholes, electronics and 

copper/fiber cables necessary for providing broadband service. With a transparent database of facilities, 

finding those area in a broadband gap areas would become faster and more accurate. 

Specific to the mobility collection, the data could be improved by adopting standards for data submitted 

to the 477 process. The 477 data for mobile providers does not provide any public information regarding 

what the speed is, the quality of the signal, or how the carrier developed the deployment information. 

From the public data, we do not know what standard each carrier is using for assuming propagation of 

signal and the signal strength as measured in the ratio of power in decibels per milliwatt (dBm). This and 

other issues are described in our South Carolina Mobile Broadband Performance Study17 

As I mentioned above, the more detailed understanding we have on the accurate availability of 

broadband, the more efficient we can be at understanding and targeting efforts to close the gaps. But, as 

a small business owner, I am well aware of the costs involved in data collection and verification. The 

tension that exists between the need for more information and the cost of producing that information is 

real. This is a problem that will not be solved overnight. 

Encouraging Build Out 

Earlier I described the cost hurdles to expanding broadband coverage in the country. In addition, there 

are other issues beyond cost that are likely holding back deployment. Working at multiple 'levels' in the 

communication industry allows me to interact with many participants. In this way, I have seen several 

exciting and innovative approaches to addressing these collective challenges. 

While the FCC has implemented the Connect America Fund (CAF) to address some of the financial viability 

issues, I will not cover the FCC CAF program today. Rather, in the material to follow, I will look at some 

state and municipal approaches to expand the conversation on what has and can be done. 

17 See pages 19 23 https://www.costquest.com/blog/case·studies/gis-and-mapping/south·carolina·mobile· 

broadband-performance-study 

James W. Stegeman 22 
154 


25494.130

Availability and Economics of Broadband in the U.S. 

State and Municipal Government Involvement 

Several States have established funds that can used for the initial capital investment, or to support the 

ongoing operations and maintenance of broadband networks over time, or both. 

A Partial Inventory of State-Funded Programs 

Colorado, Delaware, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, Vermont, 

Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin, as examples, all have funding programs to support infrastructure 

investment in largely unserved areas. Most of these states have relied on publicly available information, 

such as the FCC Form 477 data, to support their decisions regarding where funds would be spent. Many 

of these states found the need to supplement that data with locally collected information on availability, 

and estimations on costs, to support an even more efficient spend of public funds. 

The material below focuses on two State programs. 

New York 

Governor Cuomo, with the support of the New York State Legislature, established a broadband 

investment program to deliver $500 million in investment to unserved and underserved areas across the 

State. The size of the fund, along with the goal of achieving statewide broadband access by the end of 

2018, make this program the largest and most ambitious of its kind in the U.S. This multi-phased program 

is being carried out by Empire State Development (ESD) in a manner that calls on deep analysis of data, 

including geospatial and cost data, to efficiently spend funds using a reverse-auction model. Phases I and 

II of the program have committed funds in-excess of $340 million, including private matching funds, to 

more than 125,000 locations (housing units and business/organization locations). For this project, ESD's 

use of various forms of data represents the quintessential example of leveraging information for an 

informed, efficient allocation of resources. 

While I may have a bias from having the honor to work on the program, the New York program is an 

innovative and successful approach that will expand terrestrial coverage of 100M bps to well over 98% by 

the end of next year. 

Wisconsin 

During 2016, the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin awarded 17 Broadband Expansion Grants. The 

grant awards amounted to $1.5 million in total, and provided funds for 4 business-oriented and 13 

residential projects in 17 different counties, passing over 4,500 locations. When completed, the projects 

will provide improved broadband service to more than 270 business and 7,100 residential locations in the 

state. The Public Service Commission used availability and bandwidth data they collected to target funds 

to the areas of greatest need. Less than $350 of public money was spent per location to bring services to 

unserved areas in 2016. Additional matching funds from broadband providers and from County and Local 

government were spent on each grant project. 

Municipal Involvement 

Municipalities, large and small, have become involved in broadband-related public works projects in 

recent years. There are a growing number of public-private partnership and ownership models for 

municipal government to choose from. I'll focus the discussion on our work with the City and County of 

San Francisco. 

James W. Stegeman- 23 
155 


25494.131

Availability and Economics af Broadband in the U.S. 

San Francisco 

The City and County of San Francisco have put a considerable amount of thought and analysis into 

publicly-supported broadband solutions. There is the assumption among many stakeholders in San 

Francisco that full FTIP deployment to all corners of San Francisco will not happen without some form of 

government intervention. With that in mind, the Budget and Legislative Analyst's Office and the 

Department of Technology engaged CQA and others in conducting an analysis of the economic viability 

and risks for different public, private and public-private partnership (P3) funding options for fiber 

deployment. 18 All viable approaches to ownership were assessed for their costs, cost recovery, risks and 

ability to close the digital divide. The image below gives a glimpse into that analysis. One of the keys for 

San Francisco to move closer to a solution is having accurate data on costs, demand and existing 

infrastructure. 

Model Public Model Public-Private Partnership Private 

Model 

Build out Utility- Demand- Concessionaire, Dark fiber, Demandapproach Based Driven Utility -Based Demand- Driven Driven r--- -- Cost to City $$$$ $$$ $$$$ $$ $ 

- Risk to City 1'1'1'1' 1'1'1' 1'1' 1'1' 1' 

Reduction in .IQ.I:J-'(J -'()JQ -'()~-f) -f)-'() -t digital divide 

-- -- Gigabit speed 

to all premises :.9:9:.9:.9 :':)\9 :':):':):.9 :.9:9 :.9 at affordable 

prices 

F1gure 19- City and County of San FranCISco BLA Report, 3/15/16 

18 See http :Us fbos.org/ sites/ de fa ult/fi les/Fi leCenter /Documents/55 324-BLA. M u n iG igabit FiberFinanceO 31516. pdf 

James W. Stegeman- 24 
156 


25494.132

Availability and Economics of Broadband in the U.S. 

Conclusion 

I have worked in the telecommunication industry for over 25 years. There have been drastic changes in 

both technology and regulation. It is one of the most dynamic industries in the world and it has been an 

exciting industry in which to be involved. 

My testimony today focused on coverage data and estimates of potential cost to build out and maintain 

broadband. While high-speed communications is exciting, the underlying data and analyses are less 

glamorous; for example, I have never been asked at a cocktail party to explain the hockey stick nature of a 

cost curve. 

While efforts to model and understand this information may be tedious, cumbersome, time and data 

intensive, we need to make every effort to collect accurate information and analyze that information in a 

way that contributes to a wise and efficient allocation of resources. In short, as with all my client work, we 

need strive to collect the best information to help make informed decisions. 

As I mentioned previously, we are at a stage in which we are becoming victims of the success of prior 

efforts. To continue moving forward I urge members of the Subcommittee to consider the following: 

1. No decision is perfect, but better decisions result from better data, solid analysis and rigorous 

debate. If we want to make good decisions about tomorrow, we need to assess today' s data 

limitations. 

2. We build our network cost models not as an absolute of the future, but to have an understanding 

of what could drive costs and potential economic viability of a service build. My core belief in 

building these network economic models is that to better understand economic viability and the 

costs/benefits of service there needs to be a thorough and quantitative understanding of the 

business case. 

3. Technologically we are in a position to leverage information from a number of disciplines to 

potentially lower the costs of broadband networks. That information-location of 

shared/sharable ducts, open tower spaces-needs to be reasonably open and available to 

everyone. In short, parties should be aware of what is available, and the costs involved in using 

the infrastructure should be predictable and fair. 

4. Policy decisions should be targeted to the smallest areas practicable. The granularity of data 

sources will drive the level of policy that can be reasonably defined. If we can't target policy to 

specific places, we risk impacting areas that require no intervention and ignoring unserved or 

underserved segments that appear to be served. 

The challenge ahead to expand coverage to all citizens will be challenging and costly. But to keep the 

pain and cost to a minimum, we must be informed in what we do using the best tools and data we have. 

Thank you for your time today. 

James W. Stegeman- 25 
157 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Darr, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF BRYAN DARR 

Mr. DARR. Thank you. 

Good morning. My name is Bryan Darr, and I am the President 

and CEO of Mosaik Solutions, previously known as American 

Roamer. 

I want to thank Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, 

and the fellow members of the Subcommittee on Communications 

and Technology, for the opportunity to speak with you today. 

Expanding and accelerating broadband deployment requires reliable information. Without trusted data about coverage gaps, we 

will not stimulate private sector investment, advance toward the 

goal of universal service, expand broadband into more rural areas, 

or maintain the competitive broadband market we see today. 

Since I founded Mosaik in 1988, our sole mission has been to 

produce reliable data about wireless network coverage and performance. Almost 30 years later, we are still a small business. We 

have less than 50 employees and we are still based on Memphis, 

Tennessee. But we offer some of the most accurate insight into network coverage and performance available in the market. 

More simply put, we tell our clients where they can reasonably 

expect to have access to a variety of mobile networks and how reliable wireless networks are at any given point in the United States 

and much of the rest of the world. 

Mosaik has supported part of the FCC’s recurring informational 

needs for many years. The FCC uses our CoverageRight datasets 

in its annual competition reports and other policy and regulatory 

decisions. 

Mosaik and its competitors stake our reputations on supporting 

the products and services we provide to our clients. Despite healthy 

competition and increasingly sophisticated data analysis among 

private sector network analysis companies, the FCC has sought to 

displace this industry by mandating use of its own data analytic 

tools. 

In 2013, the FCC elected to expand its Form 477 to mandate that 

carriers provide information directly to the Commission. In some 

cases, the FCC uses its in-house data to the exclusion of all other 

sources. 

The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau recently stated that its 

Form 477 coverage data is ‘‘the best available data we have today.’’ 

It is not. The Form 477 mobile broadband coverage data is flawed. 

First, there are no defined specifications for what radio-frequency 

conditions or methodologies are required. Second, the FCC’s data 

is out-of-date almost as soon as it is filed. Form 477 data is too infrequently updated and has too large of a time gap between reporting date and release date. 

For example, mobile network coverage data as of December 2015 

was released in September 2016, a lifetime in this fast-moving industry. During this 9-month period alone, a national operator radically expanded the population served with its LTE network while 

another more established operator added thousands of square miles 

158 

of rural LTE coverage. That is precisely why Mosaik’s LTE network 

coverage datasets are updated monthly. 

Relying exclusively on antiquated or inferior government-mandated data threatens to frustrate mobile broadband deployment 

and harm American consumers. And the FCC’s decision to exclude 

other types of data threatens to crowd out private investment from 

U.S. companies, including Mosaik, that compete to provide similar, 

and we believe far superior, products about network coverage and 

performance. 

These private companies, responsible for much of the innovation, 

have provided gains in predicting and understanding network 

availability. Our measurement capabilities must keep pace with 

changing developments. Operators are testing innovative strategies 

to improve coverage in urban areas. As the number of households 

with landline telephone service continues to decline, improving indoor network availability and performance will prove a priority for 

municipalities and public safety organizations. 

New technologies offer promising solutions to these issues. We 

commend the FCC for recognizing the importance of data-driven 

decisionmaking. When measuring the availability of broadband to 

consumers, the FCC should take into account all sources, especially 

as providers embrace newer technologies to improves network quality. 

That holistic approach is consistent with longstanding executive 

branch policy which directs agencies to rely on the private sector 

when feasible. Here, policymakers can greatly augment the quality 

and depth of their data and at a cost equivalent to a handful of cell 

sites. When government agencies embrace the capabilities of private companies, instead of competing with them, taxpayers can 

spend less money and benefit from sound policymaking, based on 

more accurate and timely data about network coverage and performance. 

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

[The prepared statement of Bryan Darr follows:] 

159 


25494.133

Statement of 

Bryan Darr 

President and Chief Executive Officer 

Mosaik Solutions 

Before the 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

"Broadband: Deplqying America's 21st Century Infrastructure" 

March 21, 2017 
160 


25494.134

Good morning. My name is Bryan Darr, and I am the President and Chief Executive Officer 

of Mosaik Solutions, previously known as American Roamer. I want to thank Chairman Blackburn, 

Ranking Member Doyle, and the fellow members of the Subcommittee on Communications and 

Technology for this opportunity to speak with you. 

Broadband deployment is a bipartisan national priority. But expanding and accelerating 

broadband deployment requires reliable information and data-driven decision making. Without 

trusted data about coverage gaps, underserved populations, network speeds, and other indicators, we 

will not stimulate private-sector investment, advance toward the goal of universal service, expand 

broadband into more rural areas, or maintain the competitive broadband market we see today. 

Since I founded Mosaik in 1988, my company's sole mission has been to produce reliable 

data about wireless network coverage and performance. Almost thirty years later, we're still a small 

business-we have less than 50 employees and we're still based in Memphis, Tennessee, but we 

offer some of the most accurate insight into network coverage and performance available in the 

market. We like to describe Mosaik as a business intelligence company with deep 

telecommunications domain expertise. More simply put, we tell our clients where they can 

reasonably expect to have access to a variety of mobile networks, and how reliable wireless networks 

are at any given point in the United States and much of the rest of the world. 

Having founded Mosaik during the infancy of the wireless industry, I continue to be 

impressed and often amazed by the advancements in network service quality and seemingly neverending innovative uses for broadband services by consumers, enterprises, and entrepreneurs alike. 

I'm also proud of our longstanding and constructive relationship with the Federal Communications 

Commission-we have supported part of the FCC's recurring informational needs for many years. 

The FCC uses our CoverageRight datasets in its annual competition reports and other policy and 

regulatory decisions. Improving wireless customer experiences was the mission when I started 

2 
161 


25494.135

Mosaik, and through near constant innovation and investment, Mosaik continues with the same 

mission today. During our almost three decades serving clients, we have developed competencies 

that span geospatial analytics, graphic design and data visualization, software engineering, cloudbased big-data management, and mobile application development. 

Mosaik and its competitors stake our reputations on supporting the products and services 

we provide to our clients. Today, consumer devices collect millions of daily measurements 

providing granular information about the quality of mobile networks. This data is absolutely 

required to understand network quality in over eleven-million census blocks. It is equally important 

in rural, high-cost areas that remain underserved. Mosaik is currently leading a research and 

development effort with one of the largest fleets in the United States to radically expand available 

information about mobile network quality. I am confident other private companies are making 

similar investments. 

Despite healthy competition and increasingly sophisticated data analysis among private 

sector network-analysis companies, the FCC has sought to displace this industry by mandating use 

of its own data analytic tools. In 2013, the FCC elected to expand its Form 477 with the lviodernizjng 

the F(.'C Fom1 417 Data Program Order to mandate that carriers provide information directly to the 

Commission. In some cases, the FCC uses its in-house data to the exclusion of all other sources. 

The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau recently stated that its Form 477 coverage data is "the 

best available data we have today."' 

It's not. 

The Form 477 mobile broadband coverage data is flawed. First, there are no defined 

specifications for what radio-frequency conditions or methodologies are required. Second, the 

'Jon Wilkins, Mobility F'tmd II: Improving the Data rf7e Use to Identi.fj & Close Mobile Cowrage Gaps, FCC 

Blog (Sept. 30, 2016), h!J;f1s://www.fcc.gov/news-events/blog/2016/09 /30/mobilit;y-fund-iiimproving-data-we-use-identify-close-mobile-coverage. 

3 
162 


25494.136

FCC's data is out of date almost as soon as it is filed. Form 477 data is too infrequently updated and 

has too large of a time gap between reporting date and release date. For example, mobile network 

coverage data as of December 2015 was released in September 2016-a lifetime in this fast-moving 

industry. During this nine-month period alone, a national operator radically expanded the 

population served with its LTE network while another more established operator added thousands 

of square miles of rural LTE coverage. That's precisely why Mosaik's LTE network coverage 

datasets are updated monthly. 

Relying exclusively on antiquated or inferior government-mandated data threatens to 

frustrate mobile broadband deployment and harm American consumers. And the FCC's decision to 

exclude other types of data threatens to crowd out private investment from U.S. companiesincluding Mosaik-that compete to provide similar and, we believe, far superior products about 

network coverage and performance. These private companies are responsible for much of the 

innovation that has provided the gains in predicting and understanding network availability. 

We can do better. To assist policymakers in how they make broadband funding decisions, 

we should overlay traditional datasets with wireless infrastructure information, including tower assets 

and fiber optic availability, as well as on-the-ground network coverage and performance testing. We 

should also evaluate novel key performance indicators or derivatives, such as verified coverage, time 

spent per network, and human and agricultural density data, among many others. 

And our measurement capabilities must keep pace with changing developments. Operators 

are testing innovative strategies to improve coverage in urban areas. As more households with 

landline telephone service continue to decline, improving indoor network availability and 

performance will prove a priority for municipalities and public safety organizations. New 

technologies present promising solutions to these issues. The amount of data needed by 

4 
163 


25494.137

policymakcrs to make informed decisions will continue to increase-as will a better means by which 

to consume, analyze, and understand that data. 

We commend the FCC for recognizing the importance of data-driven decision-making. 

When measuring the availability of broadband to consumers, the FCC should take into account all 

sources-especially as providers embrace newer technologies to improve network quality. That 

holistic approach is consistent with longstanding executive-branch policy, which directs agencies to 

rely on the private sector whenever feasible. Here, policymakers can greatly augment the quality and 

depth of their data-and at a cost equivalent to a handful of cell sites. When government agencies 

embrace the capabilities of private companies instead of competing with them, taxpayers can spend 

less money and benefit from sound policymaking based on more accurate and timely data about 

network coverage and performance. Let's make sure we use the best of what the private sector has 

to offer. 

Thank you and I look forward to answering your questions. 

5 
164 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman for the testimony. 

And I will begin the question-and-answer and will give myself 3 

minutes to begin those questions. 

Mr. Stegeman, let’s talk about the 2009 Recovery Act. RUS approved 297 broadband infrastructure projects funded by stimulus 

dollars, totaling $3.5 billion. Yet they had no data tracking where 

the funding went and did not have accurate maps of areas to target 

in advance of awarding those grants. As a result, instead of benefitting the expected 7 million Americans as was promised, the program has served approximately 213,000 households and 15,000 

businesses. 

So, as we talk about broadband expansion, how do we avoid this 

kind of misdirection of funds from happening in the future and 

moving forward? 

Mr. STEGEMAN. It is a great question because, as you look at 

those funds that were deployed, I think, in part, they were pushed 

out quickly without an examination of all the available data. There 

was a lack of data at that time to understand really what was 

needed in those areas, and there was a lack of information on the 

followup from that deployment, so that you really didn’t know what 

was deployed, so that competing carriers, other interested parties, 

may know what is available and what is not available. 

So, I think a big driver to make things successful is to make, one, 

information available to all parties. So, where is broadband infrastructure available? If public funds are used to help deploy those, 

that information and location of that should be made available. 

We should also have information about where demand is and 

where unserved portions of the country are. In part, that is why 

I provided those maps, so you get a sense of what is available at 

the FCC, so that we can understand how to improve the data to 

make better and more informed decisions. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Darr, do you have a thought on that? 

Mr. DARR. Well, for starters, the vintage dates on what was 

being collected on a state-by-state level were not the same. Ultimately, as the data was collected up and assembled at a national 

level, what we ended up with was inconsistency in time that the 

data was captured. 

There was also a lack of direction in terms of what standards 

should have been used. As we heard the earlier panel talk today, 

talk earlier today, about defining standards so that what is being 

reported is apples to apples——is rather critical. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Let me come to you with one other question, 

and I am almost out of time on this. You talked a little bit about 

overlaying the traditional coverage with wireless. How can that be 

beneficial to infrastructure development and what are the type 

problems to expect when you start that overlay of a wireless with 

the traditional? 

Mr. DARR. So, we think a layered approach is critically important 

to understanding really what is going on. All networks, as they are 

being engineered, start with a predictive model, an RF model, that 

says we think this is the area that is going to be served by putting 

up this cell site at this height, at this spectrum. 

But, as you encounter real-world situations, interference from 

buildings, trees, whatever it may be, you have issues with some of 

165 

that. And the traditional method of going out and testing those networks has been drive testing, and that is still an extraordinarily 

important part of how the operators judge the performance of their 

networks. 

But we now have millions upon millions of devices in the field 

that are capable of collecting more information and trending over 

time. But you only get this type of information and we will call this 

crowdsourcing, although it can be a larger explanation—you will 

only get this where there is a crowd. And so, you get very good information, lots of information from Brooklyn, but you don’t get very 

good information from rural Iowa, as Mr. Loebsack was suggesting 

earlier. 

So, you do need this layering effect in order to be able to capture 

that. Where you have specific issues that need more directed testing—and drive testing provides an excellent way of doing that—but 

you have to see it holistically. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, and my time has expired. 

Mr. McNerney, for 3 minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I thank the Chair. 

Mr. Darr, in your written testimony, you mention that the Form 

477 mobile broadband is flawed. Is there one change that would 

improve it? For example, improving the frequency that the reporting is required? 

Mr. DARR. I think there are two, actually. And the frequency 

would be one, but how to capture that data, how to process that 

data, normalize it, and put it into a system that it can be utilized 

and analyzed is part of what takes that time. And that expertise 

does exist in the private sector today. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Would you say that the Form 477 fixed 

broadband data is also flawed? 

Mr. DARR. We concentrate primarily on the wireless data. I 

would be happy to have some of our other experts answer that as 

a followup. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Stegeman, you mentioned that there are categories unserved, 

underserved, and served. Why do you believe that that distinction 

is important? 

Mr. STEGEMAN. There are a number of reasons. Part of that category came from our work with the state of New York in which 

they were looking at deploying and making sure all consumers had 

access to 100-megabit service. 

If you look at the FCC’s current definition of broadband service, 

it is 25 megabits or less. If you look at the National Broadband 

Plan, the No. 1 goal of the National Broadband Plan was to make 

sure all citizens had access to 100-megabit service. So, there are 

kind of the two points on the extreme. That in-between is what we 

kind of think of as an underserved potential that may be less expensive to exploit and get up to the 100-megabit service. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. Very good. 

You also mentioned that Form 477 has an assumption that you 

call ‘‘one-served/all-served’’ assumption, and that it has a flaw in it 

that could overestimate the number of homes served by high-speed 

internet access. Could you explain how the one-served/all-served 

assumption works and how we might address the problem? 

166 

Mr. STEGEMAN. Yes. First, the FCC collects information at the 

census block level. There are about 11 million census blocks in the 

U.S. They are non-standard shapes. They can be as small as a city 

block, but they can be, also, as big as multiple miles. 

When a carrier reports their 477 data, they can identify a census 

block as served. So, you assume the whole thing is served if just 

a single customer in that census block is served. So, when you get 

out into rural areas with these bigger census blocks, it may be the 

edge of a census block is served, one customer, but the rest of the 

area is under- or unserved. 

So, it makes an issue from the aspect of, one, you can’t recognize 

that these customers don’t have access to service and, two, you 

can’t institute programs to address them because you have no 

knowledge. So, to address that concern, what you could either do 

is require providers to supply additional information as to potentially what percentage is served or, also, potentially providing 

street segments that are served. So that you can understand kind 

of the dimensionality of that service within that census block. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Very good. Well, respecting my time limitations, 

I will yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Shimkus, for 3 minutes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. I will be very short. But you had no 

time left, Mr. McNerney; you ran out. 

Having said that, mapping as a key. I like the map if you were 

here for the opening statements. We have to have a national standard. Obviously, you highlight three different speeds, I think, and 

then, we use the map to focus on unserved and underserved areas. 

That is what my goal would be, is to direct resources, whether it 

is hard-line data, fiberoptics, or cellular. It depends and every area 

is going to be different. 

I looked at this closely, and I wish I would have grabbed you beforehand because this data is 2016. When you have got these colors, what year is that? 

Mr. STEGEMAN. That is the latest available data from the FCC. 

It is June of 2016. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. I would just highlight that the way—and I am 

not trying to put you on the spot—but it is just the district that 

you have for my district is from the 2002 district lines. So, I would 

update the congressional district lines to current to help us figure. 

Because about one-third of, well, actually, about two-thirds of this 

isn’t in my district. So, we have got to have confidence in our maps, 

whichever ones we are using. 

Mr. STEGEMAN. No, I understand. My staff informed me before 

I got here today that we used an older version. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Right. That is OK. 

Mr. STEGEMAN. But we can file a new version. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. That would be helpful. And I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Ms. Clarke, 3 minutes. 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

This question is for Mr. Stegeman. As you may know, I represent 

the 9th Congressional District of New York, and broadband deployVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:57 Jun 20, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00170 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-15 CHRIS
167 

ment is key to creating jobs and attracting businesses to my district in the state of New York. 

Ms. Stegeman, one of the programs you cited in your written tes- timony as being particularly instructive is New York’s $500 million 

program being carried out by the Empire State Development Corporation. Can you explain what, in your view, makes that program 

so innovative and successful? And are there lessons that we can 

learn from the New York program that could be applied at the federal level? 

Mr. STEGEMAN. Yes, I would be happy to. It has been an honor 

for me to work on the program. It is an innovative approach in 

which federal or state funds have been identified to help build out 

unserved areas. 

The way it is approached is it is a reverse auction. So, actually, 

it is a competitive bidding on unserved areas across the state, and 

multiple providers can come in and bid on those areas, and the 

lowest bid wins. So, it is an efficient use of state funds and it is 

a way for incumbent carriers to bid on expanding out services in 

their footprint at a lower cost than maybe a competitor. So, it protects the incumbent if they want to bid and potentially have a cost 

advantage of billing out. And it is statewide in that it is addressing 

the issues. 

So, it is one of the few states that I have seen that has made 

a vast expansion of broadband deployment. As I said, by 2018, 

there will be well above 98 percent of customers or homes in New 

York that will have access to 100 megabits or more. So, it is a pretty expansive program. 

Ms. CLARKE. And that cuts across the rural, suburban—— 

Mr. STEGEMAN. Across the full state, yes. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. All right. Mr. Johnson, 3 minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I am going to continue to beat a little dead horse today, I fear, 

a little bit. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. 

Mr. JOHNSON. In Appalachia, let me just give you some statistics 

to kind of set the stage for my question. Broadband coverage, 25 

megabits per second or more, in my district, 60.5 percent. That is 

34 percent below the U.S. median district and over 5 percentage 

points less than geographically-similar districts. Looking at hightech sector workers, half of the U.S. median district, almost half of 

economically-similar districts—and there is no wonder because we 

don’t have access out there and it is really hard. 

So, one of the problems we have got is data collection. Mr. Darr, 

we have got limited funding to do this kind of work. Data accuracy 

is so critical. Today there are parts of my district, for example, that 

barely register on GPS. God knows, I have tried to travel it and 

get to places. 

Can you talk about the unique challenges of data collection in 

rural America and why Form 477 data is inadequate to collect this 

information? 

Mr. DARR. Well, certainly. Thank you for the question. 

Form 477 data is collected from the operator’s predicted RF patterns. And this has been the accepted way of doing things all along. 

But in the early days all we were worried about was voice. Can you 

168 

make a phone call or not? And now, what we are worried about as 

much as voice, if not more, is data. What is an acceptable signal 

out on the edges of the network to, say, push through a text message or notify someone that they have an e-mail? It is very different from being able to download a video. It is very different, indeed. It takes a great deal more throughput to do that. 

And so, when the operators define an area as being covered, and 

you go out there and find that it is not covered to your satisfaction, 

it doesn’t mean that they are not telling you the truth, but it does 

mean that you can’t necessarily do what you want to do with the 

service. 

Being able to better define what areas have a certain level of 

service I think is extraordinarily important in determining ultimately that. And we think being able to capture that information 

from devices in the field is the only affordable way to be able to 

reach all of the country. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. Madam Chairman, I will yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Flores, 3 minutes. 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate this discussion. 

Mr. Stegeman and Mr. Darr, how long do you think it would take 

to compile a comprehensive map, an accurate map, of broadband 

coverage, given that the data has already been collected and given 

the capabilities of companies such as yours? 

Let me go a different direction first before you do that. It seems 

to me like you have talked about one of the challenges of creating 

accurate maps and you point out the lack of standards related to 

what constitutes coverage. What is the right standard to use? Because I think that is how we get to our map question really. 

Mr. STEGEMAN. That was primarily addressed at the mobility 

coverage. So, when mobility providers provide their coverage, as 

Mr. Darr talked about, they provide potentially what their either 

(a) marketing maps look like or (b) they are just projective of what 

that coverage is. There are no standards on decibel loss, on the 

quality of the signal. There is no stated standard on what the minimum megabits are in that coverage. It is, basically, please provide 

us a map of your 4G coverage. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. 

Mr. STEGEMAN. And that is what you do. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. But, in order to get to the right standard, what 

should we do to develop that standard? 

Mr. DARR. Defining—and I would leave the ultimate number up 

to RF engineers, but neg 85 was mentioned earlier, I will say that. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. 

Mr. DARR. It is a good way of putting everybody on more of a 

level playing field. But seeing where that extended coverage is is 

also important as well. It should not be dismissed. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. 

Mr. DARR. But it should be recognized that, in order to have a 

specific minimum anticipated quality of service, that a standard 

should be put in place. 

Mr. FLORES. So, assuming that we get this standard in place, 

how long do you think it would take to create the map based on 

169 

your capabilities, the data we have to describe those areas, to describe the quality of our broadband coverage nationwide? 

Mr. DARR. The majority of operators have this data internally. 

They use it for their own planning purposes, for their own technical 

support requirements. So, a lot of this data is already there. It may 

need to be reconfigured a bit to specifically meet the needs of the 

requirements at hand, but it could be done, I think, in a relatively 

short period of time. Again, that is the predicted coverage. 

When you are talking about taking measurements out in the 

field, planning and executing drive testing, the four areas of specific interest are going to take some time. And I would leave that 

question up to Mr. Stegeman. 

As far as collecting information from devices, you could, by encouraging the public to share information about what is happening 

on their device and getting a better idea of what the actual consumer and device experience is, can give you a large trending information set. 

Mr. FLORES. We have gone past my time. Mr. Stegeman, if you 

get a chance, can you supplementally answer that question to the 

committee? 

Mr. STEGEMAN. Yes. 

Mr. FLORES. I mean after this. I have run past my time. Thank 

you, Madam Chair. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman. 

As you all can see, this is an issue that our members care about 

tremendously. And I would ask that you remain open to answer 

questions by writing in—Mr. Stegeman, you just had the one from 

Mr. Flores—as we complete our record on this today. 

This does conclude our Q&A portion. And before we conclude, I 

do ask unanimous consent to enter the following letters into the 

record: a letter from the Satellite Industry Association, a letter 

from Rocket Fiber, from American Cable Association, a letter from 

the CTIA, and a letter from Century Link. Without objection, that 

letter will be entered into the record. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. And pursuant to committee rules, I remind 

members that they have 10 business days to submit additional 

questions for the record. And I ask that witnesses submit their responses within 10 business days of receipt of those questions. Seeing no further business before the committee today, without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:23 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN

High speed Internet access has made communications and commerce easier than 

ever before and the importance of broadband in America’s economy cannot be understated. In order to guarantee that all Americans—including folks living in rural 

areas like my district in eastern Oregon—have access to the tools they need to succeed in the 21st century economy, our policies must reflect our commitment to deploying the physical infrastructure of broadband. 

Last Congress, this subcommittee took a thoughtful approach to identify barriers 

to broadband infrastructure deployment and examined proposals that would eliminate them. I know Chairman Blackburn’s leadership on this issue will lead to a 

comprehensive approach that will help bring broadband to the unserved parts of our 

country. 

170 

As Chairman Blackburn has said, broadband is the infrastructure of the 21st century. I stand ready to work with my colleagues to ensure that broadband is included 

in any infrastructure package that moves through Congress. But as we look to expanding our national investment in broadband we cannot do so without reliable 

data. Unfortunately, too often our data is insufficient and investments are not targeted where they can do the most good. Until we know where broadband is and 

where it is not, we will continue to make the same mistakes that have slowed rural 

buildout for years. This subcommittee spent a lot of time in the 112th and 113th 

Congresses living with the consequences of bad data as we investigated the 

Broadband Stimulus programs. And the Universal Service Program has long suffered from a lack of good data. This has lead to inefficient investment and more 

than a decade of work by the agency and USAC to stamp out bad actors and to recover from bad investments. We must not repeat the mistakes of the past or double 

down on inefficiencies. 

I commend Chairman Blackburn for expanding on our work from last Congress 

with a focus on improving mapping data. We must ensure that every dollar—whether from private investment or directed through our federal programs—is invested 

where it is needed most. I’m also glad to see Ms. Eshoo’s ‘‘Dig Once’’ bill has made 

a return this Congress. I think that this is smart policy and will help spur 

broadband deployment across the country. 

Without access to a high-speed Internet connection our businesses and constituents are inherently at a disadvantage in the 21st century. We must work to connect 

these underserved areas of the country and our work to achieve that objective continues today. 


25494.001

FCC Form 477 

LTE Broadband Cov

All Mobile Operators 

Data Release as of Sep. 30

Coverage Data as of Dec. 

i:.i!ii map ELEMENTS
172 


25494.002

Public 

The Hon. Marsha Blackburn 

Chairman 

Committee on Energy & Commerce 

Subcommittee on Communications & 

Technology 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Hon. Greg Walden 

Chairman 

Committee on Energy & Commerce 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

March 21, 2017 

The Hon. Michael Doyle 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Energy & Commerce 

Subcommittee on Communications & 

Technology 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Hon. Frank Pallone 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Energy & Commerce 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, Chairman Walden, and Ranking Member 

Pallone: 

As Congress considers how to best address the challenges of closing the digital divide, it is 

critical that efforts to promote new deployment and investments in broadband infrastructure 

encourage both widespread access to broadband, as well as competitive, affordable connectivity. 

Many families, particularly in rural and low-income communities, don't have access to broadband 

at all, and even consumers in wealthy or densely populated areas consistently lack competitive 

choices. It is essential that our nation's infrastructure policies effectively deliver greater broadband 

deployment and access for all, more broadband competition and choice for consumers, and lower 

prices for essential connectivity. 

Broadband access is a basic necessity for full participation in the modern life. Connectivity 

is an essential tool for economic opportunity, education, healthcare, and civic discourse. The 

importance of broadband infrastructure is a settled question; today, the key issue for Congress, the 

Administration, and the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to address is how to ensure 

affordable, reliable access for all Americans, to expand economic opportunity for all. Broadband 

access is an issue for all underserved communities, whether geographically or demographically 

underservcd. Last year, the FCC found that 39% of households in rural communities have no access 

to a fixed broadband provider. 1 Broadband access is also lacking in high-density urban areas. For 

example, just last year the National Digital Inclusion Alliance found that 21% of census blocks in 

Detroit and Cleveland had access to speeds no greater than 1.5 Mbps - far slower than any modern 

1 Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable 

and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Improvement Act, GN Docket No. 15-91, Broadband 

Progress Report, 31 FCC Red 699, 736 1[86 (2016) ("2016 Broadband Progress Report"). 

1818 N Street NW • Washington, DC 20036 • T: (202) 861-0020 • F: (202) 861-0040 

www.publicknowledge.org 
173 


25494.003

definition ofbroadband.2 The bulk of those census blocks were low-income inner city 

communities 3 

In addition to the Jack of broadband availability in rural and low-income areas, many 

Americans also lack access to affordable connectivity where there is deployment. Often, high prices 

are a result of a lack of competitive options for consumers to choose from. According to the FCC, 

61% of U.S. households have at most one provider for fixed broadband. In rural communities, the 

problem is even more pronounced- only 13% of households have more than one choice of 

broadband provider.4 The fixed broadband marketplace is not serving the needs of consumers, and 

lacks any semblance of competition for more than half of all Americans. A direct result of this lack 

of meaningful competition is that consumers pay inflated prices for broadband access - at least $60 

billion annually, and approximately $250 billion over the past five years, according to the 

Consumer Federation of America 5 

While high prices have driven robust rates of return on capital investment for broadband 

providers, they have not led those providers to invest those profits into deployment to mral, 

unserved, and underserved communities. Although broadband providers may promise that high 

prices and profits will fund expansion and infrastructure investment in mral and low-income areas, 

the market has failed to deliver on those promises, leaving millions of Americans on the wrong side 

of the digital divide. 

From small towns to the densest inner cities, the broadband industry is not serving everyone. 

The free market does not function without competitive pressure providing consumer choice, driving 

down prices, improving quality, and incentivizing innovation. Americans literally cannot afford to 

wait any longer. Every year that goes by without access is a year without reading supplements for a 

low income third grader; or a year without remote health care access for veterans; or another year of 

entrepreneurs leaving small towns for opportunities in a major city. While millions wait on the 

wrong side of the digital divide, giant broadband and media companies continue to consolidate the 

market under the control of two or three companies without providing solutions for those who are 

left behind. 

2 National Digital Inclusion Alliance, "Access from AT&T" Not Available to 1.5 Mbps Households, Sept. 5, 2016, 

https://digitalinclusion.org/blog/2016/9/5/access-from-att-problem/ (last visited Feb. 27, 2017). 

3 See National Digital Inclusion Alliance and Connect Your Community, AT&T's Digital Rcdlining of Cleveland, Mar. 

I 0, 2017, https:l/digitalinclusion.org&)Qg/2.<LL7l9.:2Ll.!li!ill~::iligitl!!:redlining-of-cleveland/ (last visited Mar. 20, 20 17) 

(finding FCC Form 477 data show "22% of Cleveland Census blocks were reported by AT&T to have maximum 

residential download speeds of 3 mbps or less. 55% had maximum download speeds no greater than 6 rnbps. The 

comparable percentages for the rest of Cuyahoga County were 12% and 24%, respectively."). 

4 2016 Broadband Progress Report, at 736 ~ 86. 

5 See Mark Cooper, Consumer Federation of America, Overcharged and Underserved: How a Tight Oligopoly on 

Steroids Undermines Competition and Harms Consumers in Digital Communications Markets x, 4, 104, 172 (2016), 

)llip:/ I consumerfed.org/wp-conten t/uplQ"'dJiao !6/12/0vercharged-and-Underservec!,ru!f (finding that a typical 

household pays approximately 25% more for telecommunications services than they would in a competitive market, 

totaling about $45 per month ($540 per year) per household, and $60 billion per year across all households). 

2 
174 


25494.004

There is no silver bullet policy that alone wilt close the digital divide by making broadband 

available and affordable for all. Instead, policymakers and regulators should pursue an "all of the 

above" strategy to promote deployment, competition, and affordable access. These policies should 

include, but not be limited to: 

easing access to physical infrastructure to speed deployment, such as requiring dig once and 

one touch make ready polices, as well as streamlining access to federal lands and assets; 

pre-empting state laws that make it difficult for communities to self-provision broadband 

service or enter into public-private partnerships to connect communities; 

making broadband availability data more accurate and easily accessible through maintaining 

the National Broadband Map and requiring improved reporting and accuracy in FCC Form 

477 data; 

reforming the contribution mechanism for the Universal Service Fund to include a broader 

range of services; 

addressing the high cost of backhaul to wireless towers, base stations, and cell sites paid by 

competitive and rural wireless providers; 

speeding the availability of additional spectrum for mobile broadband services, including 

licensed, unlicensed, and shared spectrum in low, mid, and high-band frequencies; 

fully implementing the 2016 Lifeline Modernization Order and standing up the National 

Eligibility Verifier to encourage provider participation and bring additional competition and 

choice to low-income subscribers in the Lifeline program; 

and ensuring that technology transitions and network upgrades bring affordable, reliable, 

high-quality services to all Americans, even those in communities that may not 

economically support multiple service providers. 

* * 

The lack of competition and consumer choice, and the high prices being charged to those 

who do have service, is both a drain on the pocketbooks of average families, and a barrier to the 

economic success of those who happen to live outside a fixed broadband service area. The market 

has not addressed these problems. Policymakers must prioritize broadband availability and 

affordability to make meaningful progress toward closing the digital divide. It is time for Congress 

to craft meaningful, effective, and inclusive policies to promote competition and foster buildout 

where the free market has failed to provide affordable connectivity. 

Sincerely, 

Christopher Lewis 

Vice President 

Public Knowledge 

3 
175 


25494.010

March 20,2017 

The Honorable Marsha Blackburn 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce 

The Honorable Michael Doyle 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Re: Broadband: Deploying America's 21st Century Infrastructure 

Dear Chairman Blackburn and Ranking Member Doyle: 

The Satellite Industry Association (SlA)1 commends the House Subcommittee on 

Communications and Technology of the Committee on Energy and Commerce for holding 

an important hearing to address broadband and its deployment as America's 21st century 

infrastructure. 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. 

Today, the satellite industry directly 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 as well as construction, design and 

' SIA 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; One Web; SES Americom, Inc.; Space 

Exploration Technologies Corp.; SSL; and ViaSat, Inc. S!A Associate Members include: ABS US Corp.; 

Artel, LLC; Blue Origin: Digita!Globe Inc.; DRS Technologies, Inc.; Eutelsat America Corp.; Global Eagle 

Entertainment; Glow link Communications Technology, Inc.; Hughes; lnmarsat, Inc.; Kymeta 

Corporation; L-3 Electron Technologies, Inc.; 03b Limited; Panasonic Avionics Corporation; Planet; 

Semper Fortis Solutions; Spire Global Inc.; TeleCommunication Systems, Inc.; Telesat Canada; 

TrustComm, Inc.; Ultisat, Inc.; and XT AR, LLC. 
176 


25494.011

operational jobs, among others2. The satellite industry is continuing to add additional 

highly skilled jobs in design and manufacturing, including new plants to construct fleets of 

non-geostationary orbit broadband satellites and the development of commercial launch 

complexes that will help carry this important communications infrastructure to orbit. 

Indirectly, the satellite industry supports hundreds of thousands more jobs, connecting 

small and large U.S. businesses with customers everywhere in the world. 

The satellite industry's 2015 estimated revenue was $89 billion. This figure of course does 

not reflect revenues from businesses made possible by our services, services which, like 

satellites themselves, are not always apparent. But satellites remain a pillar of the U.S. 

telecommunications infrastructure, enabling the American economy in ways consumers 

might not be aware, such as supporting smartphone app transactions, to use just one 

example. 

We receive many qualitative benefits from satellites because of their ubiquitous coverage, 

which enables competitive and cost-effective broadband service even in rural and remote 

areas. 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 high-quality and cost-effective solution for 

broadband services, is playing an increasingly important part in spurring broadband 

delivery and competition and 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 deploy. These services are available directly to the consumer, 

covering all 50 states and delivering broadband offerings up to 25 megabits per second 

(Mbps), and higher in the future, comparable to terrestrial services. Satellite broadband is 

also used by business and government enterprises, for both fixed and mobile purposes, 

using a range of spectral bands to deliver assured access to broadband communications. 

Further, satellites are providing critical backhaul Internet connectivity to local Internet 

Service Providers and community institutions in remote locations. 

Because of high-quality satellite broadband services, approximately two million customers 

nationwide are enjoying speeds that meet and exceed the FCC's definition of broadband 

service at reasonable rates, no matter where they are located. This includes the 14% of 

consumers that currently are not served by terrestrial broadband. Commercial satellite 

operators, that have already invested billions of dollars in the construction and deployment 

2 In 2015, there were 72,041 jobs associated with consumer, fixed, mobile, and Earth observation satellite 

services; 17,951 jobs associated with satellite manufacturing; 48,010 jobs associated with the launch 

industry, and 75,668 jobs associated with ground equipment manufacturing, installment, and services. 

The total number of satellite-focused jobs in the U.S. was 213,670. Data retrieved from the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, 41

h Quarter 2015. 

Satellite Industry Association -1200 18'h Street, N.W., Suite 1001, Washington, D.C. 20036 

Tel: +1 202 503-1560 Email: info@sia.org SIA Website: http:/ /www.sia.org 

2 
177 


25494.012

of high throughput satellites, offer service to those consumers today. SIA agrees with the 

Subcommittee that, in order to serve the last unserved households, it is important to 

understand where broadband is available today. Accordingly, SIA supports continued 

funding to keep up to date the National Broadband Map. 

With the addition of multiple high throughput, high speed broadband satellites this year, 

the Satellite Industry anticipates 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, and many of these satellites will be 

launched from the United States, we will see the creation of additional U.S. domestic design 

and manufacturing jobs, as well as construction jobs to build the supporting terrestrial 

infrastructure. To this end, since it takes years for a satellite network to be designed and 

constructed, these high-skilled jobs are often in place for many years and provide global 

leadership in state-of-the-art technology innovations. These jobs are in addition to the 

employees located in the United States that operate and maintain these networks on a dayto-day basis. 

We continue to see the benefits of satellites in providing communications on-the-move, 

making broadband service available wherever we take our mobile devices. Aeronautical 

and maritime high throughput communications are largely facilitated by satellite 

broadband connectivity to aircraft and ships. The sector is growing to keep pace with 

demand for broadband connectivity for avionics, ships' operations, and Internet access for 

passengers on-board airlines and cruise vessels. American companies design and 

manufacture antennas that serve both fixed and mobile satellite broadband applications, 

representing another layer of U.S.-based, high-skilled employment and critical 

infrastructure development. 

It is also extremely important to note the critical nature of the service that broadband 

satellites provide, and the necessary use of radio frequency spectrum. In addition, satellite 

broadband also supports critical safety and national security missions. Satellite capabilities 

enable our military's ability to project power in the air, on land, and at sea both unilaterally 

and in cooperation with allies. Satellite broadband communications, both commercial and 

military, provide agile connectivity and efficient mission control capability to our forces 

and operations in the continental U.S., Hawaii, and U.S. territories and possessions, as well 

as in 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. 

Satellite Industry Association- 1200 18<h Street, N.W., Suite 1001, Washington, D.C. 20036 

Tel: +1202503-1560 Email: info@sia.orgSIA Website: http://www.sia.org 

3 
178 


25494.013

All of these satellite capabilities depend upon radio frequency spectrum availability and 

heavily factor into the Department of Defense's decisions concerning future force structure 

and concepts of operation. From individual special operations teams to large scale theaterlevel air, land and sea operations, none of these would exist as we know them today 

without the command and control support 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. Hand-held terminals, portable Very Small 

Aperture Terminal (VSAT) antennas, and temporary fixed installations can all be 

introduced into a post-disaster environment to provide support to relief efforts and enhance 

recovery efforts. For example, in some portions of New York City, satellite broadband 

provided the only connectivity for months after Superstorm Sandy while the terrestrial 

infrastructure was rebuilt. 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 cost-effectiveness. 

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. And the First Responder 

Network Authority (FirstNet) is likely to rely in part upon satellite communications in 

order to meet the geographic coverage needs of its nationwide public safety broadband 

network. 

The satellite industry is today investing tens of billions of dollars to innovate and increase 

broadband connectivity in the United States 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 220 Gbps, and constantly increasing. Many in the industry are 

investing in and designing terabit capacity geostationary satellites that will provide orders 

4 

Satellite Industry Association -1200 18"' Street, N.W., Suite 1001, Washington, D.C. 20036 

Tel: +1 202 503-1560 Email: info@sia.org SIA Website: http:/ /www.sia.org 
179 


25494.014

of magnitude capacity increases and resulting consumer broadband benefits, remaining 

competitive with terrestrial offerings. 

In another highly-anticipated advancement in the industry, hundreds of new high 

throughput (non-geostationary) satellites will soon join existing operators in Low-Earth and 

Medium-Earth orbits to provide additional high speed broadband at low latency levels. 

Existing high throughput satellites already support the delivery of 3G and 4G services, as 

well as enable global machine-to-machine communications. Future satellite fleets will be a 

part of a system architecture that delivers new SG, loT, and intelligent, connected 

transportation services to consumers. 

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 broadband technologies 

should not be taken for granted. They depend upon government policies that are 

technology neutral, whether that is in regard to access to spectrum, funding, or addressing 

deployment barriers. 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. 

We would welcome the opportunity to answer any questions or provide you with any 

additional information you may deem necessary. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Tom Stroup 

President 

Satellite Industry Association 

Satellite Industry Association -1200 18"' Street, N.W., Suite 1001, Washington, D.C. 20036 

Tel: + 1 202 503-1560 Email: info@sia.org SIA Website: http: I I www .sia.org 

5 
180 


25494.015

The Honorable Greg Walden 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515-6115 

The Honorable Marsha Blackburn 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515-6115 

March 21, 2017 

ROC(5T F I 8 E R" 

RE: Comments on Discussion Draft of Broadband Deployment Legislation 

Chairman Walden and Subcommittee Chairwoman Blackburn; 

Thank you for holding this House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications 

and Technology hearing entitled "Broadband: Deploying America's 21" Century Infrastructure." We 

applaud the Committee for tackling the very important issue of barriers to broadband deployment 

throughout America and appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback on the topic. 

Rocket Fiber is a Detroit-based residential and commercial internet service provider founded by 

three young entrepreneurs, Edi Demaj, Marc Hudson and Randy Foster. Since 2014, Rocket Fiber has 

been on the cutting-edge of redefining Detroit's traditional manufacturing economy as a digital 

economy and has been a leader in bridging the largest digital divide of any major American city. 

In less than three years, Rocket Fiber has successfully constructed 30+ miles of urban fiber optic 

network that provides gigabit internet services in hundreds of buildings, servicing thousands of clients 

in downtown Detroit. Our flagship gigabit offering is up to 100 times faster than the current residential 

average connection, facilitating the upgrades necessary to bring Detroit up to speed as an emerging 

technology and innovation hub. Rocket Fiber's infrastructure investment has also served as a catalyst 

to encourage new investment in broadband services by Detroit's incumbent internet service providers. 

Rocket Fiber's experience demonstrates the value to residents and businesses alike that can be 

realized when barriers to competition and innovation are reduced or eliminated. 

Rocket Fiber is part of the Quicken Loans Family of Companies located in Detroit, Cleveland, 

Scottsdale, and Charlotte that share the same culture and philosophy of innovation and exceptional 

client service. The Family of Companies, which have 17,000 team members in Detroit, weave the 
181 


25494.016

ROC(5T F I 8 £ R" 

threads of what we call our "Isms" to make each of our communities better places in which to live, 

work and play. 

Having built a new telecom entrant from the ground up in Detroit, we are uniquely familiar with 

many of the challenges related to the deployment of broadband infrastructure in the United States. To 

continue deploying brand-new fiber optic and wireless infrastructure in the city and as we look to 

expand beyond its limits, it is crucial to find solutions that reduce, remove or streamline any regulatory 

barriers in the wireline and wireless network deployment process. 

Due to the diversity of Detroit, whose 143 square miles range from a dense urban core to a vast 

and sparsely populated network of neighborhoods, our team has learned how to operate in a variety of 

deployment environments, each with a different set of broadband needs. Through this experimental 

work, Rocket Fiber has partnered with some of the top wireless manufacturers to deploy new and 

unreleased technology and is keenly interested in the topic of spectrum allocation. In addition to 

continuing fiber optic deployment, Rocket Fiber is now experimenting with innovative backhaul and 

last-mile wireless solutions, in the licensed, lightly licensed and unlicensed spectrum. 

Recently, Rocket Fiber renegotiated pole and conduit agreements with three separate entities 

within Detroit, including the local utility company, the City of Detroit itself, and a State of Michigancreated authority that oversaw the rebuild of Detroit's public lighting grid. These conversations 

culminated in a streamlined process for pole attachment that cut the implementation time line by more 

than half and which set a new standard that the utility company adheres to on all new deployment 

projects. Through this multi-year effort, Rocket Fiber not only cut through the regulatory red-tape that 

was impeding our mission, we also influenced local policy in a way that promotes future competition in 

the industry and ultimately benefits the citizens and businesses of Detroit. Each negotiation presented 

a new challenge to overcome, and the process served as a valuable case study on pole attachment 

regulatory reform. 

DISCUSSIOI\I_I)J~8FIS FEEDBA_CK 

We support the Committee's goals in the discussion legislative drafts on broadband 

deployment being considered. Any efforts to implement legislation to encourage the efficient 

deployment of broadband infrastructure and reduce the existing regulatory hurdles to leveraging the 

federal government's vast existing assets will serve to benefit the public good. In our experience, 

legislation mandating the "future-proofing" of federally funded highway construction projects by 

requiring installation of broadband conduit is particularly important. Rocket Fiber benefitted from 

such forward thinking by having the opportunity to work cooperatively with the QLINE light rail project 

to ensure that broadband conduit and a "dig once" approach were key components of that significant 

infrastructure project in Detroit. 
182 


25494.017

ROC(5T F I B E R' 

Today's hearing serves as an important step to tell the troubling regulatory and infrastructure 

story on broadband deployment. Rocket Fiber is committed to working with this Subcommittee and 

the full Committee to advance important broadband deployment solutions in line with 21st Century 

challenges. Should you like to discuss these ideas in more detail, please do not hesitate to contact us. 

Sincerely, 

Marc Hudson 

Chief Executive Office & Co-Founder 

Rocket Fiber LLC 

Edi Demaj 

Chief Operating Officer & Co-Founder 

Rocket Fiber LLC 
183 


25494.018

1\" AMERICAN CABLE ASSOCIATION 

Matthew M. Polka, President and CEO 

Direct Dial: 412~922~8300, Ext, 14 

E-Mail: mpolka@americancable.org 

The Honorable Marsha Blackburn 

Chairman 

March 20, 2017 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515-6115 

Dear Chairman Blackburn: 

The American Cable Association (ACA) represents nearly 700 small and mediumsized cable operators, rural telephone companies, and municipally-owned providers that 

have spent more than $10 billion to deploy high-performance broadband networks to 

almost 20 million U.S. homes. As such, ACA members have a great interest in your 

Subcommittee's hearing tomorrow, "Broadband: Deploying America's 21st Century 

Infrastructure," and these providers believe they have much to contribute as you develop 

infrastructure policies and legislation. ACA's smaller providers are prepared to invest 

more and create thousands of jobs to meet their residential, business, and institutional 

customers' demands for even more robust nerw-orks. But, building highMperformance 

networks is very expensive, especially in the smaller communities and rural areas that ACA 

members serve, and many government policies or private sector actions impose significant 

additional costs, thereby delaying, if not halting, new network deployments. In a recent 

letter to the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Ajit Pai, a copy of which 

is attached, ACA recommended a series of proposals to address these concerns, which 

include the following actionsFacilitate Access to Critical Infrastructure for Broadband Deployments. 

Despite government actions over the years to facilitate access to public and private poles, 

ducts, conduits and rights~of~way, ACA members continue to face substantial barriers, 

which deter their network deployments and which deprive consumers of access to more 

robust broadband services. Congress should step in to ensure broadband providers can 

obtain access to and use of this critical infrastructure quickly and at just and reasonable 

cost. 

Connecting Hometown America 

875 GREENTREE ROAD * 7 PARKWAY Ci.'NTER. SUITE 755 * PITTSBURGH, PA 1522()-3704 

;' 412.922.8300 '412.922.2110 ,,. www.americancable.rng 
184 


25494.019

In Unserved Areas, Provide Targeted Support Efficiently for Broadband 

Deployment. In high~cost areas, broadband providers may not find it economical to build 

robust networks using private investment alone. Here, government needs to provide 

support, but in doing so, it should ensure the areas arc unserved and that support is 

distributed as fairly and cost efficiently as possible, 

Reduce the Overall Regulatory Burdens on Smaller Providers. Despite having 

fewer resources than larger providers, ACA's smaller providers often are subject to the 

same regulations. Moreover, the sheer mass of regulatory burdens, even when each may be 

small, greatly taxes smaller providers. Accordingly, Congress must ensure burdensome 

regulations are not imposed on smaller providers at the outset and that regulatory 

requirements are reviewed regularly to determine whether they are unwarranted and 

unduly burden smaller providers. 

Rebuilding America's infrastructure is at the forefront of ACA's policy agenda. ACA 

members understand what it takes to accomplish this task, and they are prepared to invest 

to get the job done. By adopting and implementing the policies set forth here, the federal 

government will enable these providers to do so more quickly and more efficiently. 

Matthew M. Polka 

President and CEO 

American Cable Association 

Attachment: March 7, 2017 Letter to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit 

Pai from Matthew M. Polka, President and CEO, American Cable Association 

Cc: Ranking Member Doyle 

Members, Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 
185 


25494.020

Matthew M. Polka, President and CEO 

Direct Dial: 412-922·8300, Ext. 14 

E-Mail: mpolka@americancable.org 

The Honorable Ajit Pai 

Chairman 

AMERICAN CABLE ASSOCIATION 

March 7, 2017 

Federal Communications Commission 

445 12'h Street. SW 

Washington, DC 20554 

Dear Chairman Pai: 

Thank you again for inviting the American Cable Association ("ACA") to meet in 

January to discuss bridging the digital divide. You clearly understand and appreciate the 

important role that small and medium-sized providers of broadband, video, and phone services 

play in meeting the needs of residents and businesses and enabling economic gro'Nth in smaller 

communities and rural areas. Because you have made deploying broadband to all Americans a 

priority, I want to give you additional background on ACA's members and their activities in the 

market and describe measures that would further propel their infrastructure investments and 

provision of innovative services. 

Over the past four decades, the communications market in the U.S. has evolved into a 

complex and massive ecosystem with many players. In addition to the well-capitalized, large 

service providers like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Charter, there are nearly 700 small and 

medium-sized cable operators. rural telephone companies and municipally-owned providers who 

make up ACA's membership. These smaller providers have spent billions of dollars over the 

past decade to deploy high-performance broadband networks to almost 20 million homes in US 

markets and seized opportunities to: 

• Deploy high-performance broadband networks and services in rural areas. The 

20 I 0 National Broadband Plan 1 identified providing rural broadband as one of the great 

infrastructure challenges of the 21st century. Despite the high costs of building networks 

in sparsely populated areas, ACA members have met that challenge. Millions of 

customers served by ACA members in these areas rely on networks that were built only 

with private capital, allowing the government to focus its limited resources where most 

needed. 

1 Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan, Federal Communications Commission, Chapter 8 (2010). 

Connecting Hometown America 

875 GREENTREE ROAD * 7 PARKWAY CENTER. SUITE 755 * PITTSBURGH. PA 1522(}3704 

, 412 922.8300 · 412 922.2110 < www.aml'ricantatlte.org 
186 


25494.021

• Bring competition and choice to urban areas. ACA members provide cable and 

broadband services to more than five million homes in urban areas, challenging larger 

operators and giving consumers greater choice in services and price. 

• Provide services to community institutions and small businesses in small 

communities and rural areas. ACA members provide high-speed Internet access, 

private data networks, and multiline voice products to tens of thousands of community 

institutions and nearly one million small businesses in small communities and rural areas. 

Despite these accomplishments, smaller providers continue to face unique and substantial 

:narket challenges and need carefully balanced government policies to ensure they can serve 

;heir customers and communities. ACA therefore encourages the Commission to pursue the 

following policies: 

Promote Broadband Investment. Although ACA 's members continue to invest in their 

networks, especially in small communities and rural areas, policymakers can do much to 

facilitate further investment and ensure all Americans are served. ACA therefore calls for the 

Commission to: 

4.pply a Light Regulatory Touch to the Provision of Broadband Internet Access Services. for 

years, the Commission correctly classified broadband Internet access service as an information 

service, declining to impose traditional utility regulation. The results of this light-touch 

regulatory approach were impressive: Internet Service Providers ("ISPs")- including smaller 

providers- invested hundreds of billions of dollars, edge providers flourished, and consumers 

received higher speed and more reliable service at lower prices. This "virtuous cycle," however, 

ended in 2015, when the Commission abruptly reversed course, reclassifying the service under 

Title II and imposing utility-style regulation.2 This change harmed smaller providers most of all, 

making them think twice before launching innovative services and eating up their limited 

resources to comply with unwarranted regulations. Nowhere in the record was there evidence 

that smaller providers would, or even could, harm end users or edge providers. Yet, they were 

subject to virtually all of the burdensome requirements the Commission imposed on [SPs. 

Accordingly, the Commission should: 

• Reverse the re-classification decision and tailor any future Open Internet regulation to 

ensure smaller providers are not burdened by onerous requirements that do not address 

any material harm. In this regard, ACA appreciates the Commission's recent decision to 

relieve smaller ISPs from the burdens of the enhanced transparency requirements.::' 

• Reconsider the Commission's Broadband Privacy Order. 4 The privacy order unfairly 

imposes greater privacy responsibilities on lSPs than those imposed on other Internet 

2 Protecting and Promoting the Open internet, Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order, 30 

FCC Red 5601 (2015). 3 Small Business Exemption from Open Internet Enhanced Transparency Rules, Order, GN Docket No. 14-28, FCC 

17-17 (rei. Mar. 2, 2017). 4 Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services, Report and Order, 

31 FCC Red 13911 (2016). 
187 


25494.022

actors, including the largest edge providers that have as much, if not more, access to 

similar consumer data. These burdens fall most heavily on smaller ISPs. 

• Continue the light~touch regulatory approach for competitive providers of business data 

services, including by allowing competitive providers to offer services as private carriers 

and not be subject to unreasonable complaints should they offer services as common 

carriers. 

Address Barriers to Broadband Deployment. Despite numerous government actions to address 

problems providers face in accessing poles, ducts, and conduits and rights-of-way, ACA 

members continue to experience substantia! barriers, which raise the cost of- and slow- their 

network deployments. The Commission thus should address concerns about the cost and timing 

of access to poles, ducts, and conduits. It also should remove barriers state and local 

governments impose On providers seeking to access rights-of-way and other government-owned 

infrastructure. You have already put some of these issues at the top of your agenda, and ACA 

looks forward to working with you in pursuing your Digital Empowerment Agenda and as the 

Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee undertakes its work. 

Provide Targeted Support to Encourage Broadband Deployment in Unserved Areas, Even with 

light-touch regulation and the elimination of unnecessary or unreasonable barriers to broadband 

deployment, broadband providers may not find it economical to serve the highest-cost areas 

using private investment alone. Where areas arc truly unserved, the government should provide 

support, and it should do so as fairly and cost efficiently as possible, including by establishing 

competitively neutral processes. The Commission has taken a series of steps to achieve this aim 

with its adoption and implementation of a competitive bidding process for the distribution of 

Connect America Fund Phase II support for unserved areas. 5 Having a competitively neutral 

process that maximizes participation is especially valuable because it would allow smaller, 

experienced broadband providers to have equal opportunities to bring their expertise and 

capabilities to bear to deploy networks in unserved areas. 

Additionally the Commission should refrain from adopting policies that would effectively 

encourage uneconomic entry into broadband markets where broadband is already being 

provided. ACA thus welcomes your proposal to remove the Charter merger condition requiring 

overbuilding in areas served by other providers offering high-speed serviee.6 

Modify or Eliminate Unwarranted and Onerous Regulations, Particularly for Smaller 

Providers. Because regulations often have a disproportionate impact on small businesses, the 

Commission should regularly review them and eliminate those that are unwarranted and unduly 

burden smaller providers. Such review should include the following, at a minimum: 

5 Connect America Fund eta/., WC Docket No. 10~90, Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, FCC 17~ 

12 (rel. Mar. 2, 2017). 6 Applications of Charter Communications, Inc., Time Warner Cable Inc., and AdvancejNewhouse Partnership for 

Consent to Assign or Transfer Control of Licenses and Authorizations, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 31 FCC 

Red 6327 (2016). See also Media Bureau Seeks Comment on PetiUonfor Declaratory Ruling Filed by National 

Cable& Telecommunications Association and American Cable Association, MB Docket No. 16~126, Petition for 

Declaratory Ruling ofNCTA and ACA (filed Mar. 7, 2016). 
188 


25494.023

• As recommended in ACA 's reply comments in the Biennial Review proceeding, the 

Commission should modify the de minimis exemption from universal service 

contributions to exclude smaller providers from the obligation; revise downward the 

VoiP safe harbor, repeal unnecessary traffic study requirements, modify the Form 477 

filing requirements to permit smaller providers to file annually instead of semi-annually, 

and modify the definition of "covered provider" to raise the subscriber line threshold so 

that it covers long distance voice providers that make the initial long distance call path 

choice for more than 250,000 domestic retail subscriber lines.7 

The Commission should grant the ACA/NCTA Petition for Declaratory Ruling on 

Electronic Notices.s 

• The Commission should adopt the relief requested in the Sun Valley Radio Inc. and 

Canyon Media Corporation Petition for Rulemaking, which seeks to allow all providers 

subject to the EEO requirements to only use Internet sources to meet Commission EEO 

recruitment requirements.9 

The Commission also should table or significantly scale back proceedings that have the 

potential of imposing significant burdens on smaller entities, including rulemakings examining: 

Broadband Network Outage Reporting; 10 EAS Reform; 11 Video Description Expansion; 12 

Accessible Emergency [nformation/Video Description Expansion; 13 and User Guide Access to 

Closed Captioning Display Settings. 14 ACA appreciates that the Chairman has already taken 

steps in this regard by withdrawing the proposed Set Top Box Order from circulation. 15 

Adopt Process Reforms to Ensure New Regulatory Requirements are Appropriate for 

Smaller Providers. The Commission too often focuses on issues driven by major providers and 

their customers, while considering us mere afterthoughts the impacts of its decisions on smaller 

7 2016 Biennial Review of Telecommunications Regulations, WC Docket No. 16-132, Reply Comments of the 

American Cable Association (filed Jan. 3, 201 7}, 

8 Media Bureau Seeks Comment on Petition for Declaratoty Ruling Filed by National Cable 

&Telecommunications Association and American Cable Association, Public Notice, 31 FCC Red 3595 (2016). 

<J Media Bureau Seeks Comment on Petition for Rulemakmg Seeking to Allow the Sole Use of Internet Sources for 

FCC Et:O Recruitment Requirements, Public Notice, 31 FCC Red 13182 (2016); see also Media Bureau Seeks 

Comment on Petition for Rulemaking Seeking to Allow the Sole Use of Internet Sources for FCC EEO Recruitment 

Requirements, MB Docket No. 16-110, Comments of the American Cable Association (filed {an. 30, 2017). 

lil Amendments to Part 4 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Disruptions to Communications, New Part 4 of 

the Commission's Rules Concerning Disruptions to Communications, and The Proposed l:.'xtension of Part 4 of the 

Commission's Rules l?egarding Outage Reporting to Interconnected Voice Over Internet Protocol Service 

Providers and Broadband Internet Service Providers, Report and Order, Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, and Order on Reconsideration, 31 FCC Red 5817 (2016). 11 Amendment of Part 11 of the Commission's Rules Regarding the Emergency Alert System, Wireless Emergency 

Alerts, Not1ce of Proposed Rulemaking, 31 FCC Red 594 (2016). 

12 Video Description: Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 

2010, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 31 FCC Red 2463 (2016). 

n Accessible Emergency Information, and Apparatus Requirements for Emergency Information and Video 

Description: Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of2010, 

Second Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 30 FCC Red 5186 (2015). 

H Accessibility of User Interfaces, and Video Programming Guides and Menus eta!., Report and Order and 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 28 FCC Red 17330 (2013). 15 Expanding Consumers' Video Navigation Choices eta!., Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 31 FCC Red 1544 

[2016). 
189 


25494.024

providers and their customers. ACA therefore recommends the following process reforms to 

provide greater assurance that the Commission accounts for the unique nature of smaller 

providers: 

• The Commission should revisit its compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

("RF A"). which requires the agency to examine the burdens that its proposed rules may 

have on smaller providers, especially since the agency has been repeatedly criticized by 

the Small Business Administration for its failure to do so. 16 Accordingly, the 

Commission should conduct a formal review of how it complies with the RFA and take 

steps to address problems. 

• The Commission should phase-in regulatory obligations for smaller providers. If the 

Commission does not grant smaller providers an exemption or waiver from a new 

regulatory obligation, it should defer their compliance fOr at least one year from the date 

the regulations take effect for larger providers, 17 except where smaller providers do not 

request such a deferral or where the Commission does not have authority to provide such 

a deferraL 

• The Commission should streamline the filing and consideration process for waiver 

petitions by smaller providers, including by committing to act on such petitions within a 

reasonable period of time or deem such waiver requests granted. 

The Commission should adopt Commissioner O'Rielly's recommendation that it embrace 

the Administration's Executive Order creating regulatory refOrm officers and agency 

regulatory reform task forces. 18 

Modernize Video Regulation to Spur Broadband Investment and Deployment. For small 

and medium-sized multichannel video programming distributors ("MVPDs"), the video 

marketplace is at best challenging and at worst a losing proposition. Many make little to no 

profit on traditional cable service but remain compelled to offer it because consumers continue to 

value receiving broadband service bundled with video service. Most importantly, the broken 

video marketplace is acting as an impediment for these providers to continue to make 

investments in their broadband service. 19 ACA, therefore, recommends the Commission 

undertake the following: 

16 See, e.g., Independent Agency Compliance with the Regulat-ory Flexibility Act, Prepared by M!croeconomic 

Applications, Inc. for the Small Business Administration, at 34-60 (May 2013), available at 

https://www.sba.goy/sites/defaultlfi!es/rs410tot.pctf;. Letter from Darryl L DePriest, Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy, and Jamie Belcore Saloom, Assistant Chief Counsel, Small Business Association, to Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary, Federal CommunicaUons Commission, MB Docket No. 16·42 (nled Jun. 6, 2016); Letter from Darry! 

L. DePriest, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, and Jamie Belcore Saloom, Assistant Chief Counsel, Small Business 

Association, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 16·106 (filed 

jun. 27, 2016). 17 In the case of regulations requiring approval pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, the date should be 

the date on which the regulations would take effect following such approval. 16 Commissioner Michael O'Rielly, Taking Stock of FCC Paperwork Burdens, FCC Blog, Mar. 3, 2017, 

bttps: //www.fcc goy /news-events /blog /2017/03/03 /taking-stock-fcc-paperwork-burdens. 

lg Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a 

Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of 

the Telecommunications Act o/1996, as Amended by the Broadband Dala Improvement Act, GN Docket No. 14-
190 


25494.025

• Amend the program access rules to enable the principal buying group used by small and 

medium-sized cable operators to purchase cable programming to avail itself of the same 

protections under the program access rules enjoyed by larger MVPDs, as Congress 

intended.20 Prompt action on this matter- which has been pending since 2012- will 

become even more important should the Department of Justice approve the merger of 

AT&T and Time Warner Entertainment. 

• Complete the pending retransmission consent rulemaking that Congress directed rhe 

Commission to initiate in 2014 to examine the good faith rule's totality of the 

circumstances test2 1 and the rulemaking examining comprehensive refonn of the good 

faith rules that the Commission initiated in 2011.22 

• Act cautiously in considering the requests of broadcasters in their Petition for 

Reconsideration in the UHF Discount proceeding23 and their Petition for Reconsideration 

of the Quadrennial Media Ownership Review/Local Television Ownership Ru!es24 to 

ensure that changes in the broadcast mvnership rules do not increase the leverage that 

broadcasters have over smaller MVPDs. 

• Act with deliberation regarding broadcasters' request to transmit their signals in ATSC 

3.0. In particular, the Commission should prevent broadcasters from forcing cable 

operators to carry new channel offerings and services made possible by use of this new 

transmission standard, which could reduce cable operators' ability to offer higher speed 

broadband or displace independent programming offerings.25 

• Address the problems of bundling by large programmers that have been raised in the 

Commission's Diverse and Independent Programming NPRM.26 

• Revise the Commission's regulatory fees so that cable operators and IPTV providers are 

not paying higher regulatory fees than Direct Broadcast Satellite providers to support the 

126, Reply Comments of the American Cable Association on the Notice ofinquiry on Immediate Action to 

Accelerate Deployment, Appendix (filed Apr. 6, 2015). 20 Revision of the Commission's Program Access Rules et aL, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 27 FCC 

Red 12605 (2012). 21 lmplementation of Section 103 of the STELA Reauthorization Act of2014, Totality of the Circumstances Test, 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 30 FCC Red 10327 (2015). 22 Amendmentofthe Commission's Rules Related to Retransmission Consent, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

26 FCC Red 2718 (2011). 23 Amendment of Section 73.3555(e) of the Commission's Rules, National Television Multiple Ownership Rule, MB 

Docket No. 13~236, Petition for Reconsideration of! on Media Networks and Trinity Christian Center of Santa 

Ana, Inc, (fi!ed Nov. 23, 2016). 24 2014 Quadrennial Regulatory Review· Review of the Commission's Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other 

Rules Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Actof1996, eta/., MB Docket No.14~50, Petition for 

Reconsideration of the National Association of Broadcasters (fl!ed Dec, 1, 2016 ); Petition for Reconsideration 

of Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. (filed Dec. 1, 2016). 

zs Authorizing Permissive Use of"Next Generation" Broadcast Standard, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MB 

Docket No. 16-142, FCC 17-13 (rel. Feb. 24, 2017). 26 Promoting the Availability of Diverse and Independent Sources of Video Programming, Notlce of Proposed 

Rulemaking, 31 FCC Red 11352 (2016). 
191 


25494.026

work of the Media Bureau in administering MVPD regulation when all these providers 

impose roughly the same burdens on the Bureau and gain roughly the same benefits. 

Facilitate Private/Public Partnerships for Addressing Public Safety and Homeland Security 

Matters. ACA members are committed to protecting the security of their customers and 

communities. Like larger providers, they work to protect customer information and their own 

businesses and networks, and they carefully and reasonably apply their limited resources, 

whether financial, employee or otherwise, to these complex and ever-changing risks. It is critical 

that they have the flexibility to meet these challenges and use their limited resources effectively. 

Active engagement through public-private partnerships is preferable and more effective than 

regulatory mandates, which reduce necessary flexibility. To that end, ACA has been represented 

on the Communications Security, Reliability and lnteroperability Council for many years to help 

ensure that we are engaged on these issues, that the perspective of small providers is considered, 

and the work product is helpful. It is also why ACA joined the Communications Sector 

Coordinating Council at the Department of Homeland Security in 2015. 

ACA encourages you to continue to address cybersccurity without mandates, including 

by modifying or eliminating the rules in the Broadband Privacy Order providing for more data 

breach notifications on top of what is already required under the laws of 47 states. And so ACA 

applauds the Commission's recent action to grant an interim stay of compliance with the new 

data security rules contained in the Broadband Privacy Order.27 

### 

ACA and its members appreciated working with you as a Commissioner. We look 

forward to your term as Chairman, and working on the issues outline above and others that may 

arise under your tenure. 

Cc: Commissioner Mignon Clyburn 

Commissioner Michael O'Rielly 

Matthew M. Polka 

President and CEO 

American Cable Association 

27 Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services, Order Granting 

Stay Petition in Part, WC Docket No. 16-106, FCC 17-19 (rcl. Mar. 1, 2017). 
192 


25494.027

ctia·· 

Everything Wireiess 

Meredith Attwell Baker 

March 21, 2017 

The Honorable Marsha Blackburn 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Mike Doyle 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC, 20515 

Dear Chairman Blackburn and Ranking Member Doyle, 

As the Communications and Technology Subcommittee holds its hearing entitled 

"Broadband: Deploying America's 21st Century Infrastructure," CTIA wants to applaud 

the Committee's focus on wireless infrastructure and share for the record specific 

legislative concepts that will help drive the migration to next-generation wireless 

networks called 5G, solidifying our international leadership in global wireless services. 

IMPORTANCE OF SG. To meet the demand for everything wireless, we are enhancing 

today's 4G networks and preparing for 5G. 5G will unlock substantial innovation and 

investment, transforming every sector of our economy. Specifically, 5G will provide a 

network that will be five tirnes rnore responsive, 10 tirnes as fast, and will connect 100 

tirnes more devices. Thanks to 5G, wireless providers will make our lives safer, enabling 

breakthrough innovations around remote health care delivery/surgery, connected 

vehicles, as well as energy, education and other key parts of our lives. Deloitte has 

found that 5G will save over 20,000 lives every year on the roads, and save hundreds 

of billions in health care savings alone every year. 

5G will also fuel significant economic growth in the U.S. In fact, Accenture estimates 

that with 5G comes more than 3 million new jobs, wireless industry investment of $275 

billion, and $500 billion to our economy over the next decade (see attached 

infographic). The network deployment build of 5G will involve 10 to 100 times more 

antenna locations than 4G. These cells are small- the size of a pizza box and over 

300,000 small cells will have to be sited around the country in the next few years. 

CONGRESS' KEY ROLE. The rules and regulations for wireless infrastructure are typically 

decades old, put in place when 200-foot tall cell towers miles apart were the norm. 

These regulations serve as barriers to 5G innovation. In detailing the great promise of 

5G, Accenture noted the need for government siting reform to ensure we lead the 

world in 5G. Accenture rightly concluded that the "cities and towns which are first to 

1400 16th Street, NW Suite 600 · Washington, DC 20036 www.ctia.org 
193 


25494.028

facilitate the wireless infrastructure evolution will see the greatest benefit." Legislators 

in Ohio, Kansas, and Virginia (on the Governor's desk) have jumpstarted significant 

investment in their states with new rules for wireless networks. 

Congress also has an important role to play as our nation's wireless siting rules are a 

mix of national and local requirements. Key legislative reforms-most recently the 

Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act-helped unlock the massive investments 

the wireless industry has made to improve and expand broadband networks. In only 

seven years. wireless carriers have invested $200 billion to roll out 4G services to over 99 

percent of our nation's population. The realization of 5G networks will require new 

infrastructure rules for new networks. We are hopeful this Committee will act in a 

bipartisan way to modernize our nation's siting laws for tomorrow's networks. 

KEY REFORMS. We need to update the rules for tomorrow's challenges by addressing 

the access, cost and process issues that face us today in towns as well as on federal 

lands. The best part is Congress can help create 3 million new jobs without any new 

federal funding outlays. All Congress needs to do is update its access rules to reflect 

tomorrow's technologies and opportunities. CTIA recommends the following changes 

to (I) provide greater access for next-generation investment (2) reduce the costs of 

tomorrow's new networks, and (3) modernizing the siting process to reflect our new 

network design. 

1. PROVIDE GREATER ACCESS 

Enhance Access to Municipally Owned Poles & ROW. 5G will allow wireless carriers 

to utilize street lights, telephone poles and other existing infrastructure. Today, 

wireless carriers do not have the same access to municipally owned facilities as they 

do "investor-owned utilities," including poles, ducts, conduits, and rights of way. 

Legislative Remedy. Remove the exemption for access to municipally owned 

poles and rights of way and define "pole" more broadly to include street 

lamps and light poles. Specify that shot clocks apply to requests to municipal 

sites. 

Improve Federal Siting. The Federal government controls 46% of the land in 11 

western states. It's important to standardize and modernize the process and 

tirnelines for obtaining rights-of-way to federal lands to expand service to rural 

America. 

Legislative Remedy. Modernize Federal siting applications and processes, 

including reasonable shot clocks and deemed granted remedies. 

2. REDUCE COSTS 

Set Reasonable Application Fees & Right of Way (ROW) Management Rates. As 

small cells are installed around the country to deploy SG, there is a need to ensure 

municipalities are not charging discriminatory monopoly rents that will significantly 

slow the speed of deployment. All rates and fees should be related to the actual, 

direct, and reasonable costs incurred by a municipality. 
194 


25494.029

Legislative Remedy. Require application fees and management rates to be 

limited to the actual, direct, and reasonable costs incurred by a municipality 

relating to the granting. processing or management of the ROW. 

3. MODERNIZE PROCEDURES 

Reduce and Harmonize Existing Shot Clocks. Today's existing shot clocks were 

established in 2009 to site large 200-foot cell towers. Today, with small cells having 

Jess visual and physical impacts on a community, shot clocks should be modernized 

to reflect this new reality. Specifically, shot clocks should be harmonized for all nonsubstantial requests to 60 days, regardless of whether an antenna has already been 

approved. Additionally, shot clocks for substantial new build requests should be 

reduced to 90 days. 

Legislative Remedy. Harmonize the Section 332 shot clocks to match the 

existing 60-day shot clock in Section 6409[a) for non-substantial 

collocations and reduce the existing 150-day shot clock for substantial 

new build requests to 90 days. 

Expand "Deemed Granted" Remedies. To prevent long. multi-year delays, 

enacting "deemed granted" remedies, following the expiration of a reasonable 

shot clock. allows the rapid deployment of 5G infrastructure and services. There 

have been many instances where a jurisdiction fails to act on a pending 

application. leaving the provider with no existing remedy but lengthy litigation. 

Legislative Remedy. Provide a "deemed granted" remedy as a backstop 

to judicial relief in Section 332 to avoid delays and costs when a 

jurisdiction fails to make a timely decision. 

Right Size Small Cell Obligations. Pizza box-sized small cells do not pose the same 

visual or physical concerns as large cell towers. The FCC has already taken steps 

to modernize environmental and historical reviews of small cells, but statutory 

changes are also needed. Existing rules are based on 200-foot macro towers, so 

even nonintrusive small cells are considered a "federal undertaking" for historic 

review, and a "major federal action" under environmental review. That process is 

misplaced given form factor of small cells. 

Legislative Remedy. Exclude small cells from what is considered a "federal 

undertaking" for historic review under NHPA, or a "major federal action" 

for environmental review under NEPA to speed deployment of 

broadband and reduce deployment costs. 

Common Forms. In 2012, Congress required the GSA to develop standard forms, 

fee schedules, and master contracts for the siting of wireless facilities. These forms 

and master contracts should be adopted by Federal agencies for siting wireless 

facilities on federal property. 

Legislative Remedy. Require federal agencies to use common forms for 

siting wireless facilities on federal property. 
195 


25494.030

Dig Once. "Dig once" helps lower the cost of laying new fiber by making it 

unnecessary to tear up the streets every time a company wants to reach new 

facilitates. Dig once would require that broadband conduits be installed on 

federally funded highway construction projects. According to the Federal 

Highway Administration, this can cut broadband costs by up to 90%. 

Legislative Remedy. Institute dig-once proposals that can help create 

efficiencies in laying new fiber. 

We look forward to working with this Committee on a broad infrastructure agenda to 

create new 5G jobs and economic opportunity. 

Regards, 

Meredith 

~~ Attwell Baker 

President and CEO 
196 


25494.031

51i NEXT liENEAATIDN WIRELESS WILL 

FROM SMALL TOWNS TO BIG CITIES, 

ALL COMMUNITIES WILL BENEFIT FROM 5G 

SG-powered Smart City 

solutions will produce 

Sovrce: Accenture 2017 

I 

Reducing 

Energy Usage 

Decreasing 

Traffic Congestion 

Lowering Fuel Costs 

ctia Everything'" , ,, ? *''"" W1reless 
197 


25494.032

March 21, 2017 

Congressman Marsha Blackburn 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

House Energy and Commerce Committee 

Chairman Blackburn, 

Thank you for the Subcommittee's continuing interest in federal policies that promote expanded 

investment in broadband infrastructure and elimination of regulatory barriers to deployment. As 

you know, broadband access can be a valuable tool for creating jobs and economic opportunity, and 

any unnecessary costs and delays associated with the federal permitting and rights of way process 

can pose a drag on the digital economy, especially in rural communities where the cost to provide 

service is already greater. 

The discussion draft bills circulated by the Subcommittee on communications infrastructure and 

conduit deployment both address challenges that CenturyLink has encountered as we have 

expanded and maintained our communications network. For example, the provisions to streamline 

Department of Interior and Forest Service processes for communications infrastructure, especially 

for modifications of networks in existing rights of way, would help speed deployment in western 

states where both agencies are responsible for extensive land holdings that must be crossed to 

reach some communities. The streamlining of Historical Preservation and NEPA review 

requirements track bipartisan recommendations from past reform efforts and will help make it 

faster and less expensive to access federal lands without sacrificing worthwhile public interests. 

Finally, the conduit deployment provisions could be especially helpful where fiber upgrades must 

cross bottleneck facilities, such as bridges or tunnels, where only one practical route is available. 

Thank you for your leadership and attention to broadband infrastructure issues. We are 

encouraged by the Subcommittee's discussion drafts and stand ready to serve as a resource as you 

advance this important legislation. 

Cc: 

Congressman Mike Doyle 

Ranking Member 

Q/~:2£(J7 Vice President C / 

Federal Government Affairs 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 
198 


25494.005

QITI 

March 20, 2017 

Congresswoman Anna Eshoo 

241 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Congresswoman Eshoo, 

On behalf of the Information Technology Industry Council, I commend you for your long record 

of leadership on issues of importance to the technology sector, and working to ensure the 

benefits of technology can be realized by all. A key part of that is to ensure all Americans have 

access to robust, high-speed broadband connectivity. Unfortunately, still today, not all states 

and localities are taking the steps necessary to remove barriers to broadband deployment. For 

these reasons, we strongly support your draft legislation, the Broadband Conduit Deployment 

Act of 2017. 

Internet connectivity is essential today, just as electrification was in the last century. The internet is a 

necessity for education, government services, public information, commerce, and countless other 

opportunities. To get to universal coverage in the U.S., we must ensure basic policies are in place to 

promote and ease deployment of next generation broadband networks and infrastructure. By 

requiring an evaluation of the necessity of broadband conduit, maintaining an inventory of conduit 

availability, and codifying other policies that will ease broadband deployment, the Broadband 

Conduit Deployment Act of 2017 takes an important step toward enabling greater broadband 

network availability, quality, connectivity, and choice for American consumers. 

On behalf of ITI, we thank you again for your work on this draft legislation, and your continuous 

work to make high-speed broadband ubiquitous. Please consider us a partner as the Broadband 

Conduit Deployment Act of 2017 is introduced and moves through the legislative process. 

Sincerely, 

~-v~~ Vince Jesaitis 

Vice President, Government Affairs 

Information Technology Industry Council 

1101 K Street. NW Suite 610 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

(202) 73 7- 8888 I www.itic.org 

1 
199 


25494.006

Hon. Greg Walden 

Chairman 

Energy and Commerce Committee 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2185 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Hon. Marsha Blackburn 

Chairman 

Communications and Technology 

Subcommittee 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2266 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Hon. Frank Pallone 

Ranking Member 

March 20, 2017 

Energy and Commerce Committee 

U.S. House of Representatives 

237 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Hon. Michael Doyle 

Ranking Member 

Communications and Technology 

Subcommittee 

U.S. House of Representatives 

239 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

RE: Hearing on "Deploying America's 21st Century Infrastructure," March 21, 2017 

Dear Chairmen Walden & Blackburn, and Ranking Members Pallone & Doyle, 

We commend you and the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology for holding this 

hearing. Telecom policy is ripe for decisive, bipartisan action, particularly on broadband 

deployment. While Americans may differ on their views of how to regulate the Internet, we should 

all agree: better, faster, cheaper and more competitive broadband benefits everyone. 

There is no one-size-fits-all solution to deployment challenges. Rural towns in Kansas pose different 

obstacles than the hilly streets of San Francisco. But, historically, American broadband policy has 

been too focused on managing scarcity when we should be working to increase the supply of 

bandwidth and Internet access at affordable prices. 

Promoting broadband deployment at all levels of government will require diligent coordination 

among diverse stakeholders: neighborhood organizations, city councils, state houses, federal 

agencies, tribal governments, companies, and, ultimately, the taxpayers. 

While there is no silver bullet, two proposed bills would create the right framework for better 

broadband deployment: 

1. Rep. Anna Eshoo's (D-CA) Broadband Conduit Deployment Act of 2017 requires the U.S. 

Department of Transportation, in coordination with the NTIA and FCC, to evaluate the 

"anticipated need in the next 15 years for broadband conduit" under hard surfaces in 

federally funded road projects. Where need is found, contractors will be required to install 
200 


25494.007

broadband conduit as part of the covered road project. A similar Dig Once provision was 

included in the Streamlining and Investing in Broadband Infrastructure Act introduced 

by Sens. Klobuchar (D-MN), Gardner, (R-CO), and Daines (R-MT) last Congress. 

2. Sen. john Thune (R-SD)'s MOBILE NOW Act, among other things, requires state 

transportation departments, as a condition of receiving federal highway funding, to 

establish processes for coordinating access to federal rights of way in order to make it 

easier to install conduit or fiber under, or alongside, federal highways, as well as aerial or 

wireless infrastructure in rights of way along roads. 

Dig Once. All three bills would enable smarter use of public assets for broadband deployment. "Dig 

Once" conduits are as basic and uncontroversial as tech-related legislation gets. There is no reason 

why governments should dig up roads without installing broadband conduit for a miniscule fraction 

of the total cost of the dig. Failure to implement Dig Once means more construction, more 

disruption, and much higher costs for private providers- who may simply decide not to deploy in 

an area where the economics don't work. The tiny cost of installing conduit (about 1 o/o in added 

costs) pales in comparison to the taxpayer burden of unnecessary digs, traffic congestion, and the 

opportunity cost of not having high-speed networks that both help support public services and 

grow the economy.' 

A study by the GAO' showed that "Dig Once" policies can reduce the of the cost of deploying fiber 

under highways in urban areas by 25-33% and by roughly 16% in rural areas.' These cost 

reductions add up to enormous savings in the context of multi-million-dollar builds. More 

importantly, whether to deploy a new network (or upgrade an existing network) is always a 

microeconomic question decided on the margins: even relatively small cost reductions could be 

decisive as an incumbent or potential new entrant attempts to obtain the capital necessary to 

deploy broadband to a particular area. With minimal expenditure of taxpayer funds, governments 

can greatly expedite deployment simply by adopting Dig Once policies- and gradually recoup 

those investments by leasing conduit to private providers. 

Rights of Way. "Dig Once" is only part of the solution. The overall goal should be to make better use 

of federal and state rights of way for broadband deployment. Dig Once should not be limited to 

conduits installed under hard surfaces (like asphalt); it may be more useful and cheaper to install 

conduits in the rights of way alongside highways in the course of a road project. The rationale 

underlying Dig Once- it makes sense to coordinate among multiple users, and accommodating 

potential future users in a single conduit also applies to publicly owned rights of way: it also 

1 john Eggerton, Reps. Eshoo, Walden Introduce "Dig Once" Bill, Broadcasting & Cable (Oct. 22, 2015), 

http: //www.b roadcastingcable.com /news /washington /reps-walden-eshoo-introduce-dig-once-bill/145196. 2 Susan A. Flemming, Planning and Flexibility Are Key to Effectively Deploying Broadband Conduit through 

Federal Highway Projects, Government Accountability Office (June 27, 2012), 

http: //www.gao.gov /assets/600 /591928.pdf 3 Google Testimony at 4, available at 

http://docs.house.gov/meetings!IF/IF16/20150722/103745/HHRG-114-lF16-Wstate-SiingerM-20150722.p 

l!f 
201 


25494.008

makes sense to coordinate multiple parties when they want to put up new poles, or use existing 

poles, or to use currently "dumb" infrastructure like highway lamps to support new antennas. 

Federalism. All three bills are respectful of federalism; neither supersedes state or local 

decisionmaking. States and localities will maintain primary responsibility for managing their own 

road projects and broadband deployment efforts. But just as federal highways have been the 

lifeblood of American transportation, they will be the backbone of the Internet. Making highway 

rights of way more useful for deployment is critical to connecting the millions of Americans who 

live in rural small towns, in very low density areas along highways, and on tribal reservations. 

* 

We look forward to working with the Committee and other stakeholders who share our goal of 

stimulating deployment so that all Americans have more options and better service at affordable 

prices. 

Sincerely, 

TecbFreedom 

Information Technology and Innovation Foundation 

Niskanen Center 

R Street Institute 
202 

Æ 


25494.009

TlAOMUNt.ORG 

March 20, 2017 

The Honorable Anna Eshoo 

U.S. House ofRepresentatives 

241 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Congresswoman Eshoo: 

The Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA), the leading trade association for global 

manufacturers, vendors, and suppliers of information and communications technology (ICT), 

applauds your continued leadership in promoting legislation, the Broadband Conduit 

Deployment Act of 2017, that would provide our nation with huge long-term infrastructure cost 

savings while accelerating the deployment of high-speed broadband service. 

TlA strongly supports this legislation, which provides a common-sense proposal for evaluating the 

need to install broadband conduits when highways are built, reducing the need to dig up and repair 

roads. A large portion of key "middle-mile" telecommunications networks - including backhaul 

networks that connect wireless cell towers -run along highways. The Federal Highway 

Administration has estimated that 90 percent of the cost of deploying fiber-optic cable connectivity 

along roadways is associated with digging up and repairing the road- a cost which this proposal 

would reduce. 

Additional benefits to installing conduits during road construction projects will be the reduction 

in deployment time of next generation mobility communication technologies, cost savings for the 

new national public safety broadband network, and the facilitation of other Intelligent 

Transportation Systems (ITS). 

For more information, please contact Dileep Srihari at 703-907-7715 or by email at 

dsrihari@tiaonline.org. TIA thanks you again, and we look forward to working with you on these 

important issues. 

Best regards, 

~~ ? 

Cinnamon Rogers 

Senior Vice President, Government Affairs 

Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) 

TELECO!IlMUHICATIONS 

INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION 

1320 It C .. lih•u,. Road, Suite 200 

Arlington VA, 22201, USA •1.70U07.7700 MAIN 

•1.703.907.7727 FAX