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

28–640 PDF 2018

S. HRG. 115–153 

INVESTING IN AMERICA’S BROADBAND 

INFRASTRUCTURE: EXPLORING WAYS TO 

REDUCE BARRIERS TO DEPLOYMENT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 3, 2017 

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

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts 

CORY BOOKER, New Jersey 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire 

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada 

NICK ROSSI, Staff Director 

ADRIAN ARNAKIS, Deputy Staff Director 

JASON VAN BEEK, General Counsel 

KIM LIPSKY, Democratic Staff Director 

CHRIS DAY, Democratic Deputy Staff Director 

RENAE BLACK, Senior Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on May 3, 2017 ................................................................................. 1 

Statement of Senator Thune ................................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Nelson .................................................................................. 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4 

Statement of Senator Capito .................................................................................. 42 

Statement of Senator Fischer ................................................................................. 48 

Statement of Senator Schatz .................................................................................. 50 

Statement of Senator Cortez Masto ....................................................................... 52 

Statement of Senator Cruz ..................................................................................... 55 

Statement of Senator Gardner ............................................................................... 57 

Statement of Senator Markey ................................................................................. 57 

Statement of Senator Peters ................................................................................... 59 

Statement of Senator Heller ................................................................................... 61 

Statement of Senator Klobuchar ............................................................................ 64 

Statement of Senator Blumenthal .......................................................................... 66 

Statement of Senator Moran .................................................................................. 69 

WITNESSES

Patricia Cooper, Vice President, Satellite Government Affairs, Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) .................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Larry Downes, Project Director, Georgetown Center for Business and Public 

Policy ..................................................................................................................... 14 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 16 

Brian M. Hendricks, Head of Technology Policy and Public Affairs for the 

Americas Region, Nokia Corporation ................................................................. 23 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 25 

Hon. Jeff Weninger, State Representative, Arizona House of Representatives . 32 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 34 

Hon. Gary Resnick, Mayor, Wilton Manors, Florida ............................................ 35 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37 

APPENDIX

Response to written question submitted to Patricia Cooper by: 

Hon. Jerry Moran ............................................................................................. 71 

Hon. Dan Sullivan ............................................................................................ 71 

Hon. Maggie Hassan ........................................................................................ 73 

Response to written questions submitted to Larry Downes by: 

Hon. Roger Wicker ........................................................................................... 73 

Hon. Jerry Moran ............................................................................................. 76 

Hon. Maggie Hassan ........................................................................................ 80 

Response to written questions submitted to Brian M. Hendricks by: 

Hon. Jerry Moran ............................................................................................. 83 

Hon. Maggie Hassan ........................................................................................ 85 

Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto .......................................................................... 87 

Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Jeff Weninger by: 

Hon. Jerry Moran ............................................................................................. 89 

Hon. Dan Sullivan ............................................................................................ 89 

Hon. Maggie Hassan ........................................................................................ 90 

Response to written question submitted to Hon. Gary Resnick by: 

Hon. Maggie Hassan ........................................................................................ 90 

(1) 

INVESTING IN AMERICA’S BROADBAND 

INFRASTRUCTURE: EXPLORING WAYS TO 

REDUCE BARRIERS TO DEPLOYMENT 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room SR– 

253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John Thune, Chairman 

of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Thune [presiding], Nelson, Wicker, Cantwell, 

Blunt, Klobuchar, Sullivan, Blumenthal, Fischer, Schatz, Moran, 

Markey, Cruz, Booker, Heller, Peters, Gardner, Hassan, Capito, 

Cortez Masto, Lee, and Inhofe. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, good morning. This morning our Committee meets again to explore ways to promote broadband investment and deployment. Before opening our discussion on infrastructure, I want to take a moment to welcome and thank our friends 

to the North for joining us here today. Our colleagues from the Canadian House of Commons serving on the Standing Committee on 

Industry, Science, and Technology, have joined us today to talk 

about how our two nations can learn from one another regarding 

improving broadband connectivity. The members of this committee 

extend a warm welcome to you, and we look forward to our continued dialogue on broadband policy. 

Improving our Nation’s infrastructure is a bipartisan goal that 

Congress and the administration share. In March, we heard from 

a diverse panel of witnesses who spoke of the issues facing our Nation’s infrastructure across several sectors of our economy. One of 

our witnesses, Shirley Bloomfield, speaking on behalf of NTCA— 

the Rural Broadband Association, offered insight about the benefits 

that stem from deploying and modernizing broadband infrastructure. As we all know, access to broadband is critical to everyday 

life and is a driving force behind much of the economic growth 

we’ve experienced over the last two decades. 

Particularly in areas like South Dakota, keeping up with the demand for access to broadband can be challenging. Rural communities unfortunately often lag behind their urban counterparts due 

to more challenging geographies and lower population density. To 

address this disparity, a major part of our continuing discussion on 

2 

improving the Nation’s infrastructure should include solutions to 

reducing any unnecessary hurdles to broadband deployment. 

As we look to potential solutions, we must be mindful of the tremendous investment made to deploy these services and look for opportunities to help cut through red tape. For example, many wireless carriers are already deploying next-generation small cells that 

are the size of a pizza box and thus reducing the need for larger 

towers and minimizing environmental impact. 

To help foster more deployment, we must ensure the regulatory 

regime in place is reflective of these advances in technology. Speeding up deployment will also come from eliminating unnecessary red 

tape and delays. As my colleagues from Alaska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and other northern states already know, in places like 

South Dakota, you are lucky if you have a 6-month window to undertake the hard work of deploying broadband infrastructure, 

whether that’s laying fiber, erecting towers, or building satellite 

Earth stations. This makes any bureaucratic delay in securing permits even more damaging in states like ours. 

In South Dakota, for instance, Golden West Telecommunications 

has to start the permitting process 1 to 2 years before it can begin 

putting fiber in the ground, and sometimes even that is not 

enough. 

In April 2015, Golden West began the process of securing permits 

to deploy fiber facilities in Custer, a mile-high city in the Black 

Hills with a population of about 2,000 people. Due to delays particularly from the National Forest Service, Golden West didn’t get 

the necessary approvals until this past November, some 18 months 

later. Well, on Monday, it was still snowing in the Black Hills. 

Nevertheless, after more than 2 years of waiting, Golden West is 

ready to start digging just as soon as the weather clears. In the 

meantime, a multimillion dollar project has been on hold, good jobs 

have been deferred, and valuable Internet service has been delayed. 

Today, I hope that we will explore ways to facilitate faster 

broadband deployment and avoid these unnecessary delays. We 

must be cognizant, however, of the role our local communities have 

in authorizing and managing the deployment of physical infrastructure. Many businesses serving these communities, like Midco in 

South Dakota, have developed great partnerships within their footprint, and we, as policymakers, want to encourage such relationships to thrive. 

A good starting point for addressing many of these issues is for 

the Senate to immediately take up and pass the MOBILE NOW 

Act, which this committee approved during our first markup in 

January. This bipartisan bill would streamline the process of applying for easements, rights-of-way, and leases for federally managed property, and would establish a shot clock for review of those 

applications. 

MOBILE NOW would also establish a national broadband facilities asset database listing government property that could be used 

by private entities for the purpose of building or collocating communications facilities. For all these reasons, it’s my hope in the 

coming weeks we’ll finally see Senate passage of the MOBILE 

NOW Act. 

3 

As Congress considers developing legislation to improve the Nation’s infrastructure, our discussion here today will help build a 

constructive record regarding America’s digital infrastructure. 

I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panel today, 

and I want to thank you all for your willingness to testify. 

I want to turn now to Senator Nelson for any opening remarks 

he may have. 

Senator Nelson. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This is an important topic. We have neglected our infrastructure 

for so long. And, of course, when we talk about infrastructure, it’s 

not just roads and bridges, it’s not just airports and seaports, it’s 

the expansion of broadband. And I’m particularly pleased that 

Mayor Gary Resnick, of Wilton Manors, Florida, is here with us for 

the second time, to provide a local perspective that is so important 

to this issue of expansion of high-tech broadband. It’s clear that 

we’re right here on the cusp of another leap forward in wireless 

communications. 

And also at the table this morning, a company, SpaceX. Companies like this are preparing to launch innumerable satellites that 

basically will cover communications for the entire planet—communications directly off of a satellite. So we’re going to have innumerable opportunities, terrestrial wireless companies are focused on 

deploying the next-generation 5G wireless service, and that will 

provide many consumer benefits and likely serve as the backbone 

for our increasingly connected economy. And then the more we’re 

connected, then the only thing we have to worry about, Mr. Chairman, is keeping the Russians out of all of our communications. 

So in looking at an infrastructure package, this Committee has 

already talked about the necessity of direct spending for broadband 

expansion. So we’re going to look today at whether there are other 

non-monetary measures Congress could or should take to improve 

our nation’s digital infrastructure. 

So, many of us at the Federal level to the State level to the local 

level around the country want Americans to benefit from the availability of robust wireless. Building these networks has always 

brought up a number of very sensitive issues: historic preservation, 

environmental concerns, state and local land use policies, tribal 

sovereignty, national security. And the advent of 5G brings with it 

networks that require installation of much denser wireless infrastructure made up of many more small facilities. So I hope that all 

of our stakeholders, including those represented here today, can 

work together to find ways to effectively balance all of these competing concerns. 

Now, with that said, I want to say something else about a different subject. The question many have asked me, following last 

week’s announcement by the FCC Chairman Pai, that he intends 

to roll back the Commission’s net neutrality rules, ‘‘Where,’’ they 

ask me, ‘‘do we go from here as lawmakers?’’ 

Well, I certainly believe American consumers deserve better than 

what the FCC Chairman is proposing. They need to know, the conVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:09 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\DOCS\28640.TXT JACKIE
4 

sumers, that we have their back, and they deserve certainty and 

finality when it comes to their essential right to a truly free and 

open Internet protected by clear, enforceable net neutrality rules. 

That lasting finality can only come from legislation, which the 

Chairman and I have been talking about for a couple of years, 

which is why this Senator has been open to finding a bipartisan 

solution on this issue. That solution cannot merely pay lip service 

to net neutrality, but it must include real protections for consumers 

and empower the FCC with flexible, forward-looking authority over 

broadband providers. Otherwise, we’re going to be in this ‘‘never 

never land’’ where the FCC will say something and then it will be 

tied up in the courts for years, and it will go from one court to another. 

If we could ever get a bipartisan legislative solution, then that 

solves the problem, but, of course, that’s not easy. Net neutrality 

legislation is not going to happen overnight, even when you have 

the kind of goodwill that the Chairman and I do, and the members 

of this committee do. The reality is that right now we’re facing that 

there are too many folks, from Chairman Pai to the stakeholders 

and lawmakers, that are dug in on a particular side of this issue, 

so it’s making compromise an impossible task. 

So this Senator is an optimist by nature, but it’s pretty clear to 

me that the climate just isn’t ripe at the moment for a legislative 

solution that would lead to real substantive legislation that could 

garner sufficient bipartisan support, but that doesn’t mean we 

shouldn’t be trying. And this Senator will continue to try. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Nelson follows:] 

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

Mr. Chairman, today we have another opportunity to talk about the importance 

of infrastructure to our economy, and in particular, the promise that comes with the 

next generation of wireless broadband. I am pleased that Gary Resnick, mayor of 

the great City of Wilton Manors, Florida, will once again join us today to provide 

an important local government perspective. 

It is clear that we are on the brink of a yet another leap forward in wireless communications. Companies like SpaceX are preparing to launch innovative global networks made up of hundreds of satellites in order to provide true high-speed, satellite-based broadband service. Terrestrial wireless companies are focused on deploying next-generation 5G wireless service, which will provide many consumer benefits 

and likely serve as the backbone for our increasingly-connected economy. 

In looking at an infrastructure package, this committee has already talked about 

the necessity of direct spending for broadband expansion. Today, we look at whether 

there are other, non-monetary measures Congress could—or should—take to improve our Nation’s digital infrastructure. 

Everyone—from those of us in the Senate to our mayors and local officials around 

the country—want Americans to benefit from the availability of robust wireless 

broadband. Building these networks has always brought up a number of very sensitive issues—from historic preservation and environmental concerns to state and 

local land use policies, tribal sovereignty, and national security. And the advent of 

5G brings with it networks that require installation of much denser wireless infrastructure, made up of many more smaller facilities. 

I continue to hope that all stakeholders, including those represented before us 

today, can work together to help us find ways to effectively balance the competing 

concerns about siting and construction of wireless facilities and consumers’ increasing demand for fast and reliable wireless broadband services. 

With that said, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

But before we do that, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to take a brief moment to address 

a question many have asked me following last week’s announcement by FCC ChairVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:09 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\28640.TXT JACKIE
5 

man Pai that he intends to roll back the commission’s net neutrality rules: Where 

do we, as lawmakers, go from here? 

I certainly believe American consumers deserve better. They need to know that 

we have their back. And they deserve certainty and finality when it comes to their 

essential right to a truly free and open Internet protected by clear, enforceable net 

neutrality rules. 

That lasting finality can only come from legislation, which is why I have been 

open to finding a true bipartisan solution on this issue. That solution cannot merely 

pay lip service to net neutrality, but must include real protections for consumers 

and empower the FCC with flexible, forward-looking authority over broadband providers. 

But I’m not naı ̈ve. I have always said that net neutrality legislation would not 

happen overnight—even between members of goodwill who are not afraid to roll up 

their sleeves and tackle the issue. The reality we’re facing right now is that there 

are too many folks—from Chairman Pai to stakeholders and lawmakers—that are 

dug in on this issue, making compromise an impossible task. 

Mr. Chairman, I’m an optimist by nature but it’s pretty clear to me that the climate isn’t ripe at the moment for any negotiations that will lead to real, substantive 

legislation that could garner sufficient bipartisan support. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Nelson. And try we will. I 

think it’s really important that Congress be heard from on this subject, and I think the actions being proposed by the FCC are, I believe, going to provide hopefully the necessary impetus for us to 

move forward with a legislative solution because, frankly, I think 

everybody here, we’ve batted this subject around a lot, realizes that 

the uncertainty created by constant lawsuits and changing administrations isn’t something that’s good for what has been a remarkable success story. 

And the Internet and all that it’s meant for our lives and our 

economy and the productivity that we see in the world today, we 

want to see that continued, we want to see that continued investment, and in order for that to happen, I think we’ve got to have 

certainty, and the best way to achieve that is through legislation. 

So I hope we can get there, and we’re certainly committed to that 

end, and I’m glad to hear the Senator from Florida indicate that 

he is as well. 

Let’s proceed to our panel. And I want to start with Ms. Patricia 

Cooper, the Vice President of Satellite Government Affairs at 

SpaceX. She will be followed by Mr. Larry Downes, the Project Director for the Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy; 

Mr. Brian Hendricks, who is the Head of Technology Policy and 

Public Affairs for the Americas Region for Nokia Corporation—this 

is a bit of a homecoming for Mr. Hendricks, who once served as the 

Committee’s Republican Staff Director for my predecessor, Senator 

Kay Bailey Hutchison—the Honorable Jeff Weninger, who is a 

State Representative from the state of Arizona and has been doing 

some interesting work in this field; and the Honorable Gary 

Resnick, who, as Senator Nelson mentioned, is the Mayor of Wilton 

Manors in Florida, and so we’re glad to have you back in front of 

this Committee. 

A great panel. We’ll start on my left, and your right, with Ms. 

Cooper. If you could confine your oral remarks to as close to 5 minutes as possible, it will enable us to get to questions, and we certainly want to give members of the Committee an opportunity to 

ask those. 

So please proceed, Ms. Cooper. 

6 

STATEMENT OF PATRICIA COOPER, VICE PRESIDENT, 

SATELLITE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, SPACE EXPLORATION 

TECHNOLOGIES CORP. (SPACEX) 

Ms. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Nelson, and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to participate 

in this important and obviously timely hearing. As this committee 

reviews barriers to broadband deployment, SpaceX appreciates 

your consideration of the capability that new U.S.-based satellite 

constellations operating close to the Earth can contribute to closing 

the digital divide. 

In addition to my opening statement, I have prepared a detailed 

written statement, which I have submitted for the record. 

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here today representing 

SpaceX. As you know, SpaceX has from its inception leveraged 

American innovation, technical savvy, and an upstart culture to 

provide the most advanced launch and spacecraft systems in history. 

With around 6,000 U.S.-based employees and a network of 4,400 

suppliers nationwide, we are proud to provide a dependable and affordable ride to space for NASA, the Department of Defense, and 

the most sophisticated communications satellite operators in the 

world. Our innovation in launch technology has focused on achieving the ‘‘holy grail’’ of space access, reusability, and at the end of 

March, we successfully conducted the world’s first reflight of an orbital-class rocket. 

Looking forward, we intend to leverage our 15 years of experience toward a broadband satellite constellation. We plan to design, 

develop, produce, launch, and operate a constellation of 4,000 satellites. These will provide high-speed, low-latency, and affordable 

broadband to the underserved and unserved populations throughout the United States and abroad. This is an ambitious but vital 

objective. 

This Committee knows well the broadband picture in our country 

today, with 34 million Americans without access to even basic 

broadband, 23 million of these in rural or remote areas, 41 percent 

of Americans living on tribal lands without broadband, and, importantly, more than half of connected Americans with only one available broadband service provider. 

Today’s hearing is about barriers to deployment, deploying 

broadband, in America. SpaceX believes that the next-generation 

satellite services will substantially alter the picture of broadband 

access and competition. My testimony will focus on the unique regulatory and spectrum-based barriers to bringing these systems online. 

Let me briefly describe the SpaceX satellite system and how we 

think it can contribute to the broadband challenge. Initially, the 

SpaceX system will consist of 4,425 satellites operating close to the 

Earth with deployments starting in the next 5 years. On each 

spacecraft, we will apply cutting-edge space technologies that allow 

for spectrum reuse. The satellites in space will connect to user terminals on rooftops with gateways interconnected with the terrestrial Internet. In doing so, we will be able to bring services to 

homes, schools, or businesses with just a rooftop terminal a bit 

larger than a laptop. 

7 

In short, adding a new user will just require minimal ground infrastructure, helping to address that last mile, and alleviating the 

common terrestrial challenges of siting, digging trenches, laying 

fiber, and dealing with property rights. 

So what hurdles do satellite systems face? First, regulations for 

these non-geostationary satellite constellations are in desperate 

need of modernization. The FCC has recognized this and is currently building a record to update the rules. We applaud this and 

encourage the Congress to monitor this effort and press for new 

rules that encourage innovation and reward spectrum-efficient constellations. 

Second, SpaceX is concerned that spectrum use policies limit the 

potential for large constellations in space. Here, we recommend the 

government make, as a priority, access to key spectrum bands for 

these systems. 

Third, we ask Congress to ensure technology neutrality when assessing broadband infrastructure initiatives generally. In the past, 

satellite was largely overlooked as a technology, even though it offers the widest geographic reach. Given the promise of the next 

generation of satellite broadband, we urge that satellite be qualified alongside their analogs with terrestrial and mobile systems in 

any broadband program. 

Finally, in order to deploy large constellations, launch regulations at both the FCC and FAA need to be reformed. These regulations were written when commercial launches were rare. With commercial launch, and now landings, increasing in cadence to twice 

monthly and eventually weekly, it’s time for an update. 

At the FCC, spectrum for commercial launches is licensed 

through multiple short-term temporary authorizations per launch. 

For the last 4 years, the FCC has been working to provide an allocation which would, in turn, streamline the licensing process. We 

encourage Congress to support the FCC’s launch spectrum rulemaking and press them to finalize it. 

At the FAA, regulations on commercial space launches also need 

to be modernized and streamlined. We applaud this committee for 

recently holding hearings on this issue, and we encourage you to 

continue efforts to ensure regulations keep pace with industry and 

not stifle innovation. We are excited about the promise our satellite 

constellation can bring. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to here 

today. I will be pleased to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Cooper follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PATRICIA COOPER, VICE PRESIDENT, SATELLITE

GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, SPACE EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES CORP. (SPACEX) 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Nelson, and Members of the Committee, 

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this important and timely hearing. 

As this Committee reviews broadband infrastructure investments, measures to 

streamline the regulatory process, and policy reforms to reduce barriers to expansion of broadband access in the United States, we are grateful that the Committee 

is considering the potential capability that a new generation of U.S.-based low-Earth 

orbit (‘‘LEO’’) satellite broadband services can contribute to connectivity. 

New technologies in space and on the ground, significant downward adjustments 

in satellite manufacturing costs, improved software and computing power, and dramatic reductions in the cost of space launch are all driving an era where large constellations of satellites orbiting close to the Earth can provide the high-speed, lowVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:09 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\28640.TXT JACKIE
8 

latency Internet service that many consumers have come to expect. Moreover, these 

systems offer the potential to provide reliable, high-quality broadband service to 

areas of the United States and the world that have been underserved or not served 

at all. Such systems can help alleviate the inherent challenges of providing highspeed Internet to rural and ‘‘hard-to-reach’’ areas. Here, the geographic reach of satellite systems may obviate the need to build out the so-called ‘‘last mile’’ that, due 

to costs, environmental regulations, property rights issues, and other regulatory obstacles, starves so many communities of reliable, quality Internet access. Because 

of the significant up-front cost of a global satellite system, there is an inherent incentive to connect customers, no matter where they are. The satellites can ‘‘see’’ 

them whether they are urban or rural, and the incremental cost of adding a rural 

customer to a satellite network is so much lower than adding that rural customer 

to a ground-based cellular network. 

Last November, SpaceX filed an application with the Federal Communications 

Commission (‘‘FCC’’) for a license to operate a new non-geostationary satellite orbit 

(‘‘NGSO’’) broadband Internet constellation, unveiling a development project we 

have been undertaking for nearly three years. While I will discuss some of the features of this system to help inform the Committee’s views with respect to the capabilities offered by next-generation broadband satellite constellations (see Section III), 

my testimony today will focus more broadly on the following policy areas, and potential barriers, to the expansion of broadband access in the United States: 

(1) The emergence of new technologies and cost structures that make large-scale, 

space-based broadband Internet services more viable today than ever before, 

and the potential such services could provide in expanding affordable access 

to high-speed broadband, including in rural, exurban, and suburban areas; 

(2) Efficient use of spectrum, and whether current regulatory frameworks provide 

the proper incentives for companies developing large constellations of satellites to invest in technologies that effectively share spectrum among these 

systems. The Committee should take proactive steps to encourage and reward 

companies that utilize and advance technologies that result in maximum spectrum sharing and efficiency; 

(3) The need to reconsider how current law, policy, and programs focused on expanding broadband access treat satellite systems, including a re-assessment 

of the potential data service and speeds offered, the application of ‘‘infrastructure’’ investments to space and ground systems, and subsidies for underserved 

consumers, school districts, rural health care providers, etc. for customer 

equipment. Here, it is timely to review how satellite broadband has improved 

and can contribute to the Nation’s connectivity goals, and how to incorporate 

such services into any national infrastructure initiative. 

(4) The need to streamline and modernize FCC and Federal Aviation Administration (‘‘FAA’’) regulations associated with commercial space launch, which 

today create barriers for emerging broadband satellite constellations from the 

United States, as well as degrade the U.S. space launch industrial base and 

its ability to be globally competitive. 

SpaceX has, from the beginning, leveraged American innovation, technical savvy, 

and an upstart, iterative culture to provide the most advanced launch and spacecraft systems in history. We are proud to have contributed to providing a dependable and affordable ride to space for NASA, the Department of Defense, and the 

world’s most sophisticated commercial satellite manufacturers and operators. Today, 

we are regularly conducting cargo resupply missions to and from the International 

Space Station (‘‘ISS’’) with our Dragon spacecraft, and next year, we will launch the 

first American astronauts from U.S. soil on an American rocket since the Space 

Shuttle was retired in 2011. 

SpaceX has restored the U.S. as a leader in global commercial satellite launch by 

percentage of market share. Looking forward, the company intends to leverage its 

fifteen years of experience in cost-effectively building and deploying large, complex 

space systems to support our broadband satellite constellation. With a vertically-integrated approach to this initiative—from design, development, production, launch, 

and operations—SpaceX is addressing many of the challenges that have stymied 

past attempts to achieve affordable, high-speed broadband from space. 

I. SpaceX Today 

Founded in 2002, SpaceX today is the world’s largest launch services provider, 

measured by missions under contract. We are an American firm that designs, manufactures, and launches rockets within the United States, with minimal reliance on 

foreign vendors or suppliers. SpaceX was founded with the express goal of dramatiVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:09 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\28640.TXT JACKIE
9 

1Federal Communications Commission, 2016 Broadband Progress Report, (January 28, 2016), 

GN Docket No. 15–191, available at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16- 

6A1.pdf. 2 Ibid. 

cally improving the reliability, safety, and affordability of space transportation. We 

have made that goal a reality. 

The SpaceX Falcon 9 launch vehicle has now successfully launched 32 times, all 

while achieving evolutionary but significant reductions in the cost of space launch. 

To achieve revolutionary reductions in launch costs, which will contribute to our 

ability to rapidly and cost-effectively deploy our broadband satellite constellation, 

SpaceX has focused on making our rockets reusable. Last month, SpaceX successfully launched and landed a previously-flown Falcon 9 booster, placing a high-value 

telecommunications satellite into orbit for SES, a global satellite operator. 

SpaceX has nearly 70 missions on manifest, representing more than $10 billion 

in signed contracts for a diverse and growing set of customers, including NASA, the 

Department of Defense, commercial satellite operators, and allied international governments. SpaceX has a healthy, robust business; as technology companies should, 

we invest much of our profits back into the company’s manufacturing and launch 

infrastructure and into advanced research and development, including satellite and 

ground system development. 

Meanwhile, we continue to push ahead on rocket technology developments and innovations as we advance toward fully and rapidly reusable launch vehicles; design 

and fly, with Dragon, the safest crew transportation system ever produced for American astronauts for NASA; and develop and produce the initial prototypes for our 

broadband satellite system for initial launch by the end this year. Critically, all of 

this innovation is occurring in the United States, creating jobs, advancing technology, and generating substantial economic activity. 

SpaceX maintains its manufacturing and engineering headquarters in Hawthorne, 

CA; a satellite system design and development office in Redmond, WA; a Rocket Development and Test Facility in McGregor, TX; and launch pads at Cape Canaveral 

Air Force Station, NASA Kennedy Space Center, Vandenberg Air Force Base, and, 

soon, a commercial launch site near Brownsville, TX. SpaceX maintains a network 

of more than 4,400 American suppliers and partners—an investment in the American industrial base when others are spending abroad. 

II. Disparities in Broadband Availability & Quality: A Market Opportunity 

SpaceX sees substantial demand for high-speed broadband in the United States 

and worldwide. As the Committee is aware, millions of Americans outside of limited 

urban areas lack basic, reliable access. Furthermore, even in urban areas, a majority of Americans lacks more than a single fixed broadband provider from which to 

choose and may seek additional competitive options for high-speed service.1

According to the FCC, thirty-four million Americans lack access to 25 megabits 

per second (‘‘Mbps’’) broadband service, and 47 percent of the Nation’s students lack 

the connectivity to meet the FCC’s short-term goal of 100 Mbps per 1,000 students 

and staff. As the FCC has noted: 

there continues to be a significant disparity of access to advanced telecommunications capability across America with more than 39 percent of Americans living in rural areas lacking access to advanced telecommunications capability, as 

compared to 4 percent of Americans living in urban areas, and approximately 

41 percent of Americans living on Tribal lands lacking access to advanced telecommunications capability.2

While more than twenty-three million Americans living in rural areas account for 

the majority of those who lack access, nearly ten million Americans living in nonrural areas also lack basic access to high-speed Internet service. As this Committee 

well knows, the U.S. lags behind other developed nations in both its broadband 

speed and in price competitiveness, and many rural areas are simply not served by 

traditional broadband providers due to the high capital expenditure required for 

last-mile infrastructure relative to low revenue opportunities. 

At the same time, worldwide demand for broadband services and Internet 

connectivity continues to grow, with consumers increasing their requirements for 

speed, capacity, and reliability. The volume of traffic flowing over the world’s networks continues to skyrocket, with one vendor estimating that annual global Internet Protocol (‘‘IP’’) traffic surpassed the zettabyte threshold in 2016—meaning that 

10 

3 Cisco Visual Networking Index: Forecast and Methodology, 2015–2020, at 1 (June 6, 2016), 

available at http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/visual-network 

ing-index-vni/complete-white-paper-c11-481360.pdf; see also http://blogs.cisco.com/sp/happyzettabyte-day-2016. To fathom the volume of a zettabyte, if one byte is a litter, then a zettabyte 

is the equivalent of 7080 Pacific Oceans. See id. 4FCC, 2016 Broadband Progress Report. 5 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Rural Broadband Deployment: Improved Consistency 

with Leading Practices Could Enhance Management of Loan and Grant Programs, (April 2017), 

GAO–17–301, available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/684093.pdf. 6 Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development, ‘‘Open Statement from the Broadband 

Commission for Sustainable Development to the UN High-Level Political Forum (HLPF)’’ 

(July 11, 2016), available at http://broadbandcommission.org/Documents/publications/HLPFJuly2016.pdf. 

over 1,000 billion gigabytes of data was exchanged worldwide last year.3 By 2020, 

that figure is projected to more than double (reaching a level nearly 100 times 

greater than the global IP traffic in 2005), global fixed broadband speeds will nearly 

double, and the number of devices connected to IP networks will be three times as 

high as the global population. 

As consumer demands on speed and capacity continue to grow, disparities in access and competitive choice persist for many communities. Many consumers who 

have access to broadband today lack the multiplicity of choice that robust, competitive marketplaces tend to offer. The FCC has found that ‘‘only 38 percent of Americans have more than one choice of providers for fixed advanced telecommunications 

capability,’’ with only ‘‘13 percent of Americans living in rural areas having more 

than one choice of providers of these services compared to 44 percent of Americans 

living in urban areas.’’ 4

In large measure, the disparity in available service to rural and ‘‘hard-to-reach’’ 

areas is the result of the heavy, up-front capital expenditures necessary to achieve 

connectivity to these locations. Further, regulatory hurdles and the general pace of 

regulatory approvals in the U.S. associated with siting broadband infrastructure 

and securing environmental approvals continue to pose challenges. According to the 

Government Accountability Office (‘‘GAO’’): 

Access to affordable broadband telecommunications is vital to economic growth 

and improved quality of life across the country. In rural areas in particular, 

broadband can serve to reduce the isolation of remote communities and individuals. The provision of broadband Internet infrastructure and services in the 

United States is generally privately financed. However, rural areas can have attributes that increase the cost of broadband deployment, such as remote areas 

with challenging terrain, or make it difficult to recoup deployment costs, such 

as relatively low population densities or incomes. These attributes can decrease 

the likelihood that a broadband service provider will build out or maintain a 

network in a rural area. For these reasons, some rural areas lag behind urban 

and suburban areas in broadband deployment or service speed.5

Despite a diverse set of technology platforms currently serving the ever-growing 

demand for broadband, from terrestrial fiber and cable systems to mobile cellular 

networks and, to a lesser degree, space-based systems, many parts of the United 

States and the world lack access to reliable broadband connectivity. However, nextgeneration satellite systems operating in orbits close to the Earth, with innovative 

technologies to provide rapid data rates and minimal latency, may offer a way 

around this gap in broadband access in the United States. 

Beyond the United States, the United Nations Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development recently noted that 4.2 billion people, or 57 percent of the 

world’s population, are simply ‘‘offline’’ for a wide range of reasons—but predominately because the necessary connectivity is not present or not affordable.6 As the 

Committee knows, access to broadband and communications technologies are key to 

economic growth, social stability, access to healthcare, education, and basic services, 

particularly in lesser-developed countries. 

In numerous ways, satellite technology has long helped to alleviate inequities in 

the availability of communications services, in part due to its geographic reach. Historically, satellites first revolutionized the availability of international telephony, 

then pioneered global distribution of video content. More recently, satellite systems 

have introduced broadband connectivity for mobile platforms, such as aircraft and 

ships—establishing and supporting new markets and enhancing those businesses 

and their customer experience. 

11 

7Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, Application for Approval for Orbital Deployment and Operation Authority for the SpaceX NGSO Satellite System (November 15, 2016), Before the Federal 

Communications Commission, IBFS File No. SAT–LOA–20161115–00118. 8Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, Application for Approval for Orbital Deployment and Operating Authority for the SpaceX NGSO Satellite System (March 1, 2017), Before the Federal Communications Commission, IBFS File No. SAT–LOA–20170301–00027. 

III. SpaceX’s Proposed Satellite Architecture—Broadband from Space 

SpaceX plans to bring high-speed, reliable, and affordable broadband service to 

consumers in the U.S. and around the world, including areas underserved or currently unserved by existing networks. Other companies have also recently announced plans for large-scale broadband satellite constellations, with the FCC currently undertaking a processing round considering the applications of a number of 

potential licensees requesting authority to operate in the United States. 

For our part, we will apply cutting-edge space technologies and spectrum re-use 

approaches, while leveraging our unique space-based design, manufacturing, launch, 

and space operations experience. Specifically, technology advancements like dynamic 

beam forming and phased array antennas in space and on the ground, as well as 

optical inter-satellite links to establish a ‘‘mesh network’’ in space through which 

the satellites will communicate with each other, enhance the capacity and customer 

experience for broadband satellite service. 

Initially, the SpaceX system will consist of 4,425 satellites operating in 83 orbital 

planes (at altitudes ranging from 1,110 km to 1,325 km). This system will also require associated ground control facilities, gateway earth stations, and end user 

earth stations.7 Using Ka- and Ku-Band spectrum, the initial system is designed to 

provide a wide range of broadband and communications services for residential, 

commercial, institutional, governmental, and professional users worldwide. SpaceX 

has separately filed for authority to operate in the V-Band, where we have proposed 

an additional constellation of 7,500 satellites operating even closer to Earth. In the 

future, these satellites would provide additional broadband capacity to the SpaceX 

system and further reduce latency where populations are heavily concentrated.8

To implement the system, SpaceX will utilize the availability of significantly more 

powerful computing and software capabilities, which will enable SpaceX to allocate 

broadband resources in real time, placing capacity where it is most needed and directing energy away from areas where it might cause interference to other systems, 

either in space or on the ground. Because the satellites will beam directly to gateways or user terminals, the infrastructure needed on the ground—particularly in 

rural or remote areas—is substantially reduced, essentially addressing the ‘‘last 

mile’’ challenge and helping to close the digital divide. In other words, the common 

challenges associated with siting, digging trenches, laying fiber, and dealing with 

property rights are materially alleviated through a space-based broadband network. 

SpaceX intends to continually iterate and improve the technology in the system, 

something that our satellite manufacturing cost profile and in-house launch capability uniquely enables. The ability to modify service as necessary, as well as refresh 

the technology of the satellite system through iterative spacecraft design changes 

and phased, continuous deployment, is critical to meet rapidly changing customer 

demands and responsibly utilize spectrum. This approach will ensure that the system remains adaptable to existing and future customer demands. 

For the end consumer, SpaceX user terminals—essentially, a relatively small flat 

panel, roughly the size of a laptop—will use similar phased array technologies to 

allow for highly directive, steered antenna beams that track the system’s low-Earth 

orbit satellites. In space, the satellites will communicate with each other using optical inter-satellite links, in effect creating a ‘‘mesh network’’ flying overhead that will 

enable seamless network management and continuity of service. The inter-satellite 

links will further help SpaceX comply with national and international rules associated with spectrum sharing, which distinguishes our system from some of the other 

proposed NGSO constellations. 

Overall, SpaceX has designed our system to achieve the following key objectives: 

(1) Capacity. By combining the umbrella coverage of the LEO Constellation with 

the more intensive coverage from the VLEO Constellation, the SpaceX System 

will be able to provide high volume broadband capacity over a wide area. 

SpaceX will periodically improve the satellites over the course of the multiyear deployment of the system, which may further increase capacity. 

(2) Adaptability. The system leverages phased array technology to steer dynamically a large pool of beams to focus capacity where it is needed. As noted, optical inter-satellite links will permit flexible routing of traffic on-orbit. Further, 

the constellation ensures that a variety frequencies can be reused effectively 

12 

9 Updates to Parts 2 and 25 Concerning Non-Geostationary, Fixed-Satellite Service Systems 

and Related Matters, 31 FCC Rcd. 13651 (2016) (‘‘NPRM’’). 10 National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) Quarterly Program Status Report 

(March 2017), available at https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ntia_btop_31st 

_qtrly_report.pdf; and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service, Broadband Initiatives Program Final Report (December 2016), available at https://www.rd.usda.gov/files/reports/RUS_BIP_Status_FinalReportDec_2016.pdf.pdf. 

across different satellites to enhance the flexibility, capacity and robustness 

of the overall system. 

(3) Broadband Services. The system will be able to provide broadband service at 

fiber-like speeds, the system’s use of low-Earth orbits will allow it to target 

latencies comparable to terrestrial alternatives. SpaceX intends to market different packages of data at different price points, accommodating a variety of 

consumer demands. 

(4) Efficiency. SpaceX is designing the system from the ground up with cost-effectiveness and reliability in mind, from the design and manufacturing of the 

space and ground-based elements, to the launch and deployment of the system 

using SpaceX launch services, development of the user terminals, and enduser subscription rates. 

Later this year, SpaceX will begin the process of testing the satellites themselves, 

launching one prototype before the end of the year and another during the early 

months of 2018. Following successful demonstration of the technology, SpaceX intends to begin the operational satellite launch campaign in 2019. The remaining satellites in the constellation will be launched in phases through 2024, when the system will reach full capacity with the Ka- and Ku-Band satellites. SpaceX intends 

to launch the system onboard our Falcon 9 rocket, leveraging significant launch cost 

savings afforded by the first stage reusability now demonstrated with the vehicle. 

IV. Barriers to the Expansion of Broadband from Satellite Systems: Policy 

Recommendations for the Committee 

As the Committee considers policy action that could facilitate the expansion of 

broadband access in the United States, SpaceX respectfully offers the following recommendations for satellite infrastructure: 

Regulations for NGSO Systems Need Modernization. Congress should support the 

FCC’s ongoing efforts to modernize certain regulations relating to NGSO satellite 

systems, which were originally developed nearly two decades ago and in many cases 

are outmoded given modern satellite system technology and market conditions. For 

example, current FCC rules require an NGSO licensee to launch all satellites in its 

constellation within six years of receiving a license. While this may have been desirable in the past, this artificial timeline inhibits the organic growth of large satellite 

constellations, preventing them from growing with the market to respond to consumer demand. Instead, these systems should be allowed to grow more like cellular 

networks, where additional assets and updated technology are deployed over time 

to meet increased demand. 

Moreover, in the case of large constellations like SpaceX’s, the system is brought 

into operation with far fewer satellites, with additional satellites launched to add 

capacity and meet market demand as it evolves. As such, companies investing in 

a multi-year deployment strategy should not be penalized for enhancing their system over time. The FCC is currently conducting a rulemaking to modernize its satellite rules, especially those applicable to NGSO systems, which we hope will yield 

a regulatory regime more consistent with current market and technology realities.9

Should the FCC not proceed quickly in addressing these issues, the Committee 

should support waivers to ensure these innovative broadband systems are not artificially constrained. 

Next Generation Satellite Systems are Broadband Infrastructure and should be Included in any Infrastructure Legislation. The expansion of satellite broadband 

through U.S.-based constellations is, fundamentally, a national infrastructure 

project, even though many components of the infrastructure will be in space. In 

prior investment rounds and through funds like the Universal Service Fund 

(‘‘USF’’), satellite broadband was often an afterthought. For example, of the $6.9 billion awarded for broadband infrastructure through National Telecommunications 

and Information Administration’s (‘‘NTIA’’) Broadband Technology Opportunities 

Program (‘‘BTOP’’) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service 

(‘‘RUS’’), only approximately $100 million went to satellite systems, or less than 1.5 

percent of all funds appropriated.10 In many ways, this was the result of limitations 

13 

at the time on satellite capacity, high latency rates due to satellite distance from 

the Earth, and relatively slow data rates compared to terrestrial and mobile networks. It was also related to a general failure of imagination to make investment 

and subsidy structures applicable to satellite infrastructure and consumer hardware, since satellite systems have few ‘‘shovels in the ground.’’ 

However, as satellite-based broadband achieves speeds, latencies, and pricing 

equivalent to terrestrial and 5G wireless technologies, it becomes especially critical 

for Congress and Federal agencies to reconsider how these systems can participate 

in national infrastructure investment programs and other Federal initiatives to 

close the digital divide. Infrastructure associated with a satellite broadband system 

includes launch facilities, consumer terminals that are placed on homes or businesses, gateways that will be placed at potentially hundreds of Internet points of 

presence (‘‘PoPs’’) throughout the United States that are used to route traffic, large 

antennas to track and control the satellites in space, and satellite operations centers. The satellites themselves are essentially infrastructure in the sky, a network 

that is not dissimilar to cell towers or underground fiber. 

As such, SpaceX encourages the Committee to take steps to ensure that 

broadband satellite system infrastructure is duly captured in any infrastructure, incentive, or tax policy legislation undertaken to expand broadband access in the 

United States. Such an approach will not only ensure that Congress and regulatory 

agencies maintain a technology-neutral approach, but it will also ensure the U.S. 

Government and American consumers are positioned to benefit from the significant 

innovations and great promise of that satellite systems are poised to bring. 

Systems and Technology that Achieve Spectrum Efficiency Should be Rewarded. 

The new generation of broadband NGSO constellations holds incredible potential to 

bring affordable, fiber-like broadband services to underserved and unserved areas 

of the United States. Investment in advanced technologies that provide spectral efficiency and operational flexibility are necessary for NGSO systems to increase access 

to reliable, high-speed broadband connectivity. Unfortunately, not all operators have 

chosen to make the investment necessary to include many of these technologies in 

their proposed systems. As a result, some systems would not only make inefficient 

use of the spectrum they seek to use, but also may prevent other NGSO systems 

from efficiently sharing the available spectrum. 

As such, the Committee should ensure that the FCC takes steps to incentivize 

and reward efficient spectrum sharing. Spectrum sharing policies should ensure 

that all systems have equitable access to spectrum, avoid any warehousing of spectrum by non-operating systems, and incorporate sufficient flexibility to promote and 

accommodate spectrum coordination among operating systems. Given the advent of 

new space-based and ground technologies, spectrum sharing is most efficiently managed by using highly intelligent and flexible satellites, as this expands the range 

of potential sharing strategies available to the operators involved. 

Congress should encourage regulatory authorities to adopt rules that create incentives that encourage the use of spectrally-efficient technologies. Spectrum is a valuable and increasingly scarce resource, which must be shared by multiple satellite 

and terrestrial systems. Licensing inefficient NGSO systems, or granting such systems access to the U.S. market, not only imposes a burden on more efficient systems, but also undermines the national interest in promoting efficient usage of spectrum and maximizing broadband service to the public. Yet at present, the FCC has 

no mechanism for rewarding more efficient systems for their investment in advanced and spectrum-friendly technologies. If Congress wants to ensure that valuable spectrum resources are put to intensive and efficient use, it should encourage 

the FCC to implement policies that reward NGSO spectral efficiency when making 

public interest determinations. 

Spectrum Use Policy in the Ka- and V-Bands Should be Revised. SpaceX is concerned about FCC spectrum use policies that enable NGSO constellations, specifically in Ka- and V-bands. FCC rules effective today were written over a decade ago, 

and did not envision the potential of large constellations operating in low Earth 

orbit. As a result, these constellations are unduly restricted from using important 

segments of spectrum as compared to ground-based fixed systems. While the agency 

has granted waivers for NGSO systems to operate in parts of this spectrum on an 

unprotected, non-interference basis, this approach is not sustainable over the longterm, especially as these new systems come online. To partially remedy this challenge, FCC has released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (‘‘NPRM’’) that would 

make an additional 1.3 GHz of Ka-band spectrum available for NGSO use, a positive development that SpaceX encourages the Committee to support. In addition, 

FCC should further remove impediments to NGSO use of 4.5 GHz of V-band spectrum (37.5–40.0/50.4–52.4 GHz), a step that would make U.S. spectrum rules more 

consistent with existing international allocations for use. 

14 

11 Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission’s Rules for Federal Earth Stations Communicating 

with Non-Federal Fixed Satellite Service Space Stations; Federal Space Station Use of the 399.9– 

400.05 MHz Band; and Allocation of Spectrum for Non-Federal Space Launch Operations, (May 

9, 2013), ET Docket No. 13–115, RM–11341 (‘‘NPRM’’), available at https://apps.fcc.gov/ 

edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-13-65A1_Rcd.pdf. 

FCC Commercial Launch Spectrum Licensing Process Should be Streamlined. For 

four years, the FCC has been considering a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(‘‘NPRM’’) that would make available a limited range of frequencies in the Federal 

spectrum band that are commonly used for commercial launch available to the commercial sector on a co-primary basis.11 The FCC proposed moving away from approving commercial launch spectrum grants under Special Temporary Authorizations (‘‘STA’’), which are handled on an individual basis and remain in effect for a 

short period of time, to a more streamlined approach that reduces paperwork and 

regulatory burden. We encourage the Committee to support the pending NPRM, to 

enable the FCC to better manage spectrum allocations for commercial launch spectrum. This effort is a timely and important step for the Commission to adjust to 

the increasing cadence and complexity of launches and growth in number of U.S. 

launch service providers. 

FAA Commercial Launch License Regulations Require Modernization. Aside from 

issues relating to spectrum and broadband policy specifically, SpaceX is also working with this Committee, and others, through its Subcommittee on Space, on an important effort to modernize and streamline the FAA regulations governing commercial space launch. These regulations were promulgated in a time when commercial 

spaces launches were rare, and launch was primarily the domain of the U.S. Government. However, as the industry transitions from a pace of a few commercial 

launches per year to a launch per week, or more, in the near future, it is essential 

that FAA regulations be updated to avoid obstructing industry growth and innovation in the U.S. domestic commercial space launch industry. 

***** 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your invitation to testify before the Committee today. 

SpaceX looks forward to being part of the solution to expand access to high-speed, 

reliable, and affordable broadband Internet connectivity in the United States and 

worldwide. If we can answer any questions or provide any additional information, 

please contact Mat Dunn at mat@spacex.com. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Cooper. 

Mr. Downes. 

STATEMENT OF LARRY DOWNES, PROJECT DIRECTOR, 

GEORGETOWN CENTER FOR BUSINESS AND PUBLIC POLICY 

Mr. DOWNES. Well, thank you and good morning, Mr. Chairman, 

Ranking Member Nelson, and members of this committee. I am 

grateful for the opportunity to testify this morning before you on 

barriers to broadband adoption and deployment on an accelerated 

base, based in Silicon Valley, by the way. I am also the author of 

several books, on the information economy, innovation, and the impact of regulation on the speed and trajectory of technology innovation. 

Let me start with some good news. Twenty years into the Internet revolution, the U.S. continues to dominate global markets for 

disruptive innovation, in large part, because of farsighted bipartisan policies from this committee and others. If we stay this 

course, future investments will make possible a new wave of innovation in everything from autonomous vehicles to smart cities, virtual reality, on-demand manufacturing, artificial intelligence, 

among many others. 

But as the saying goes, the future is already here, it’s just not 

very evenly distributed. Driven by a combination of geographic, demographic, and educational factors, today’s digital have-nots are 

15 

characterized, not by their race, sex, or income so much as by 

where they live. Americans in rural and tribal lands, as well as 

seniors and those with less education, are now the groups disproportionately disconnected from our increasingly important digital conversation, and we are all worse off for their absence. 

To close that gap, and in the spirit of nonpartisan cooperation, 

Blair Levin and I recently reviewed the history of U.S. broadband 

deployment and developed eight specific recommendations for future infrastructure legislation. Levin, as this committee knows, directed the visionary National Broadband Plan, perhaps the most 

cost effective investment of the entire 2009 stimulus bill. 

Now, these recommendations are hardly original. Well, they 

probably are in terms of Blair, but none of them are controversial. 

And, happily, many of the best ideas would cost little or nothing 

in taxpayer dollars, but they do require your leadership to break 

longstanding logjams across government. 

In considering how best and most effective to close this remaining availability and adoption gap, my overall advice to this committee is to learn from the success and failure of previous Federal 

and local efforts, notably the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. 

The bottom line here is simple. Accelerating deployment and 

adoption of broadband infrastructure for disconnected Americans 

will require some Federal spending, but the spending needs to be 

done in a more focused and professional way than in the past to 

reach those who truly need help. And those efforts can be multiplied by encouraging the update of state and local processes, which 

in turn, will provide incentives for private investors to reallocate 

even more of their own capital in ways that ultimately benefit everyone. 

Let me just very briefly list our specific recommendations, which 

I describe in my written testimony in the record. 

Number one is to limit and carefully control direct investments. 

We suggest creating a broadband acceleration fund, but use it only 

in areas where there is currently no provider. We want to determine the need of subsidies on a per-area basis and have one agency, preferably the FCC, be the sole administrator. And we suggest 

using general appropriations to fund that program rather than increases to the universal service fee. 

Second is to severely limit ongoing support. We want to change 

the paradigm of small capital support with uncertain ongoing operating subsidies to one that strongly favors areas where initial capital would be sufficient to overcome excessively high costs, and then 

use reverse auctions to maximize the bang for taxpayer buck in 

those areas. 

And number three, extend ‘‘Dig Once.’’ This committee has already looked at this and has made great progress. We agree ensuring broadband conduit is installed whenever Federal roads are dug 

up for any reason, and to the extent possible, extending that policy 

to state roads and rights-of-way. 

Number four, address other unproductive barriers to mobile deployment. While local authorities, of course, continue to ensure 

public safety and other local interests, most of what slows down installation of new equipment promotes no public interest; in fact, 

16 

1Larry Downes is Project Director at the Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy. 

His books include Big Bang Disruption: Strategy in an Age of Devastating Innovation (Portfolio, 

2014), Unleashing the Killer App (Harvard Business School Press, 1998), The Laws of Disruption 

(Basic Books, 2009). 

quite the opposite. Treating small cell and tent installation on utility poles and buildings, for example, as if they were full-scale tower 

builds really serves no public goal. Shot clocks, uniform pole attachment policies, and other best practices should be established I 

think at the Federal level. 

Number five, reengineer government processes that hinder private investment. Many local processes for application review and 

inspection are ad hoc, creating unneeded delays and costs that hold 

back deployment for both wired and mobile builds of next-generation networks. These must be standardized. The problem is not 

local regulation so much as local process or really the lack thereof. 

Number six, make investments technology-neutral. Next-generation mobile networks and satellite-based solutions, as you just 

heard, they will be truly competitive in both speed and reliability, 

with fiber, cable, and copper hybrid technologies, which are also 

improving. So Federal programs, including Lifeline, should encourage development and deployment of all broadband technologies. 

Number seven, address non-financial causes of the digital divide. 

Availability in price have really largely been solved through public 

and private solutions. Surveys now consistently show that those 

who remain part of the digital divide, again, rural, senior, and less 

educated Americans, are unlikely to take broadband at any price. 

Public education about the relevance of broadband and training in 

basic computer usage may not cost much, but without them, any 

money spent will at least be partly wasted. 

And then, finally, use the bully pulpit to encourage digital wantnots. The National Broadband Plan laid out a vision of America’s 

broadband future, which has largely come to be, or will soon, but 

neither the White House nor the FCC communicated that vision to 

digital want-nots. The FCC should take an updated plan on the 

road along with startups and established companies who are making the vision a reality. 

Now, in Silicon Valley, this is what we call a win-win-win, and 

I’m happy to expand on any of these points and look forward to 

your questions. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Downes follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LARRY DOWNES,1 PROJECT DIRECTOR, 

GEORGETOWN CENTER FOR BUSINESS AND PUBLIC POLICY

Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson and members of the Committee, thank 

you for this opportunity to testify on barriers to accelerated broadband deployment. 

My name is Larry Downes. Based in Silicon Valley, I am Project Director at the 

Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy and the author of several books 

on the information economy, innovation, and the impact of regulation on the speed 

and trajectory of technology innovation. 

Summary 

Let’s start with some good news. Twenty years into the Internet revolution, the 

U.S. continues to dominate a global market for disruptive innovation, in large part 

because of far-sighted bi-partisan policies. In particular, broadband-related legislation over the last two decades—including the 1996 Communications Act, Section 230 

of the Communications Decency Act, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

17 

2Larry Downes and Paul Nunes, ‘‘Big-Bang Disruption,’’ Harvard Business Review (March, 

2013), pp. 44–56, available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2709801. 3 Blair Levin and Larry Downes, A New Digital Divide has Emerged—and Conventional Solutions Won’t Bridge the Gap, THE WASHINGTON POST, Oct. 14, 2016, available at https:// 

www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2016/10/14/a-new-digital-divide-has-emergedand-conventional-solutions-wont-bridge-the-gap/?utm_term=.882707eba100. See also National 

Telecommunications and Information Administration, Digitally Unconnected in the U.S. Who’s 

Not Online and Why?, Sept. 28, 2016, available at www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2016/digitallyunconnected-us-who-s-not-online-and-why; Monica Anderson and Andrew Perrin, 13 percent of 

Americans Don’t Use the Internet—Who are They?, Pew Research Report, Sept. 7, 2016, available 

at http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/07/some-americans-dont-use-the-internetwho-are-they/; Larry Downes, The Digital Revolution has not Reached All of Us, THE WASHINGTON POST, Aug. 31, 2016, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/ 

wp/2016/08/31/the-internet-revolution-has-not-reached-all-of-us/?utm_term=.dd4ffcefd9d9. 4See American Society of Civil Engineers, 2017 Infrastructure Report Card, available at 

http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/. 5 As the White House and Congress develop an infrastructure plan promised during the campaign, many, including Senators, House Members and mayors, are urging that broadband be 

included. See, e.g., Klobuchar, Capito, King, Heitkamp, Boozman Lead 48 Senators in Urging 

President Trump to Include Broadband in Any Infrastructure Initiative, January 31, 2017, available at https://www.klobuchar.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news-releases?ID=A5F09FAD-1223 

-4B0C-A058-80DDD0A9AF09; Letter to President Donald Trump, Jan. 30, 2017, available at 

http://welch.house.gov/sites/welch.house.gov/files/Telecom%202017.01.30%20Letter%20to%20 

Pres%20Trump%20re.%20broadband_0.pdf; Next Century Cities, Over 60 Mayors and Municipal 

Leaders Send Letter Calling on Congress to Include Broadband in Infrastructure Plans, 

March 1, 2017, available at http://nextcenturycities.org/2017/03/01/over-60-mayors-and-municipal-leaders-send-letter-calling-on-congress-to-include-broadband-in-infrastructure-plans/. 6 Blair Levin and Larry Downes, Should Broadband Be Included in the Trump Infrastructure 

Plan?, THE WASHINGTON POST, April 5, 2017, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/ 

news/the-switch/wp/2017/04/05/should-broadband-be-included-in-the-trump-infrastructureplan/?utm_term=.a1d904f5fcee. 

of 2009 and the Spectrum Act of 2012—have encapsulated some of the most successful technology policies ever adopted. 

In response, U.S. network developers have built the world’s most extensive wired 

and wireless broadband infrastructure. Competing providers are now racing to build 

next-generation networks, including gigabit Internet over fiber, cable and hybrid 

networks and ultra-high speed 5G mobile networks. And in keeping with recommendations of the visionary 2010 National Broadband Plan, almost all of this 

new investment has been privately funded. 

Ubiquitous high-speed Internet has meant that every industry my colleagues and 

I have studied is in the midst of or about to be dramatically changed for the better.2

If we stay the course, future investments will make possible a new wave of innovation in everything from autonomous vehicles to smart cities, virtual reality, on-demand manufacturing, and artificial intelligence, among many others. 

But the broadband revolution has yet to reach some of our most at-risk communities and remote geographies. As science fiction writer William Gibson famously 

said, ‘‘The future is already here, it’s just not very evenly distributed.’’ Though we 

may disagree about the metrics for determining acceptable speeds, latency and technology platforms for what constitutes broadband service, no one can deny that a significant digital divide still exists in the U.S. 

Driven by a combination of geographic, demographic and educational factors, today’s digital have-nots are characterized not by their race, sex, or income but by 

where they live. Americans living in rural and tribal lands, as well as seniors and 

those with less education, are now the groups disproportionately disconnected from 

our increasingly important digital conversation. And we are all worse off for their 

absence.3

Though our public and utility infrastructure, which just received an overall grade 

of ‘‘D+’’ from the American Society of Civil Engineers,4 should clearly be the focus 

of the most urgent and sustained attention, there is also broad agreement that targeted Congressional action can accelerate the continued deployment and adoption 

of broadband technologies, closing what remains of our digital divide.5

In the spirit of non-partisan cooperation, Blair Levin and I recently reviewed the 

history of U.S. broadband deployment and developed eight specific recommendations 

for future infrastructure legislation.6 Levin, as this Committee knows, directed the 

visionary National Broadband Plan—perhaps the most cost-effective investment of 

the entire stimulus bill—and now serves as a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. 

These recommendations are hardly original—well, they probably are to Blair. But 

in any event, they are not controversial. Some of them have already been presented 

18 

7See, e.g., Doug Brake, A Policymaker’s Guide to Rural Broadband Infrastructure, Information 

Technology and Innovation Foundation (April 2017), available at http://www2.itif.org/2017- 

rural-broadband-infrastructure.pdf?mc_cid=4fb4705a17&mc_eid=98756dc702; Blair Levin and 

Carol Mattey In Infrastructure Plan, a Big Opening for Rural Broadband, Brookings Institution, 

Feb. 13, 2017, available at, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2017/02/13/in-infrastructure-plan-a-big-opening-for-rural-broadband/. 8See FCC, April, 2017 Open Commission Meeting, April 20, 2017, available at https:// 

www.fcc.gov/news-events/events/2017/04/april-2017-open-commission-meeting. (Statements of 

Comm. Clyburn, concurring) 9 H.R. 1—111th Congress: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

10See, e.g., Testimony of Ann C. Eilers, Principal Assistant Inspector General, DOC OIG before the House Energy & Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, Is the broadband stimulus working?, Feb. 27, 2013, available at https://www 

.oig.doc.gov/OIGPublications/OIG-13-017-T.pdf; Government Accountability Office, Recovery 

Act: USDA Should Include Broadband Programs Impact in Annual Performance Reports, June, 

2014 at page 22; Tony Romm, Wired to Fail, POLITICO, July 28, 2015, available at http:// 

www.politico.com/story/2015/07/broadband-coverage-rural-area-fund-mishandled-120601. 11See FCC, Contribution Factor and Quarterly Filings—Universal Service Fund Management 

Support, available at https://www.fcc.gov/general/contribution-factor-quarterly-filings-univer 

sal-service-fund-usf-management-support. 

to this Committee in response to your request for recommendations. Others have 

been offered in various forms by analysts across the political spectrum.7

Still more specific, common-sense reforms have now been proposed by the FCC 

in several infrastructure-related Notices approved without dissent at the Commission’s most recent meeting.8 Others, including freeing up critical radio spectrum currently licensed to the Federal Government, are part of the proposed MOBILE NOW 

Act. 

Happily, many of the best ideas would cost little or nothing in taxpayer dollars. 

But they do require your leadership to break long-standing logjams across government. 

In considering how best and most effectively to close the remaining availability 

and adoption gaps, my overall advice to this Committee is to learn from the successes and failures of previous Federal and local efforts, notably the 2009 American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act—the last major Federal investment in infrastructure rebuilding and expansion.9

Many of the broadband-related initiatives in the stimulus bill significantly improved broadband availability for those living in rural, mountain and tribal areas, 

where competitive private investment for ultra-high speed wired infrastructure remains difficult to cost-justify. But there is also little argument that, due not to cost 

but to poor management and unfocused objectives, far too much of the billions in 

stimulus dollars committed to this effort failed to help anyone.10

The bottom line is simple: Accelerating deployment and adoption of broadband infrastructure for disconnected Americans will require some Federal spending. But the 

spending needs to be done in a more focused and professional way than in the past 

to reach those who really need help. 

And those efforts can be multiplied by encouraging the update of state and local 

processes, which in turn will provide incentives for private investors to reallocate 

their own capital in ways that ultimately benefit everyone. 

Recommendations 

1. Limit and carefully control direct investments. Any direct infrastructure spending Congress approves should be targeted exclusively to the few remaining census tracts, mostly rural and tribal, where there is currently no competitive 

broadband service. Congress should consider setting aside a modest portion of 

its proposed infrastructure fund, say $20 billion, for a one-time rural broadband acceleration program. 

Network operators would be offered subsidies to build out in these extremely 

high-cost areas, with a requirement to use technologies with sufficient bandwidth to support substantial future growth, perhaps up to 100 Mbps speeds. 

Calculation of specific subsidies should be made on a per-location basis, determining as precisely as possible how much is needed to overcome otherwise prohibitive build-out costs. 

Funds for the acceleration program, moreover, should come from general appropriations rather than raising the already-unsustainable fees consumers pay 

into the Universal Service Fund, which today represents a 17.4 percent cost 

added to voice services.11

To avoid problems that plagued the Recovery Act’s scattered broadband initiatives, moreover, the acceleration program should be managed by one agency, 

19 

12See Blair Levin and Carol Mattey In Infrastructure Plan, a Big Opening for Rural 

Broadband, Brookings Institution, Feb. 13, 2017, available at, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/ 

the-avenue/2017/02/13/in-infrastructure-plan-a-big-opening-for-rural-broadband/. 13FCC, In the Matter of Connect America Fund Universal Service Reform—Mobility Fund, WC 

Docket No. 10–90. March 7, 2017, available at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch 

/FCC-17-11A1.pdf. 14See Letter from Government Accountability Office, June 27, 2013, available at http:// 

www.gao.gov/assets/600/591928.pdf. 15See, e.g., MOBILE NOW Act, S.19, 115th Congress (2017–2018); Broadband Conduit Deployment Act, H.R. [ ], 115th Congress (2017–2018). Similar provisions were proposed in the 

Streamlining and Investing in Broadband Infrastructure Act, S. 2163, 114th Congress (2016– 

2017). 16 A coalition of public policy think tanks wisely recommended at a recent hearing that the 

policy be expanded to state roads, and to all public rights of way adjoining roads. Available at 

http://docs.techfreedom.org/Letter_EC_Hearing_on_Dig_Once.pdf?ct=t%28PR_LabMD_Amicus_ January_20171_4_2017%29&mc_cid=87bf010f7a&mc_eid=fb2145b79f. 

with strict controls to help ensure troubled projects get attention (or cut off) 

sooner rather than later. Between the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Rural Utilities Service, and the FCC, there is consensus that the FCC does the best job at maximizing its deployment-related 

funds, and should be the sole agency responsible for the acceleration fund, albeit with added controls to reduce waste and abuse. 

2. Severely limit ongoing support. To date, Federal efforts to overcome the financial hurdles to deploying rural broadband infrastructure have suffered from a 

structural flaw. The FCC provides payments in the form of small ongoing annual subsidies, even in areas when all that was needed to overcome high infrastructure costs was an initial capital investment. Because of this approach, it 

can take years for providers to recoup their own capital investments, unintentionally encouraging operators to build piecemeal in rural areas, and to make 

decisions based on what providers believe the government will fund rather 

than on what consumers want. 

Future investments should avoid this error by offering instead carefully-calculated one-time subsidies. This will save billions in ongoing costs. While some 

truly high-cost areas will continue to need both start-up capital and operating 

support, the emphasis for any new rural broadband infrastructure spending 

should be on those locations for which capital alone can overcome the need for 

further government subsidy. This will deliver the most bang for scarce taxpayer 

bucks. 

After determining the optimal per-location subsidy needed, the government 

may find there are more providers willing to build in underserved rural and 

tribal areas than there are funds to support them. If so, the FCC should be 

authorized to run a reverse auction among competing providers to bid down the 

per-location cost.12

The FCC has already proposed such a solution to improve the efficiency of existing universal service programs, with the goal of letting market forces deliver 

‘‘the best deal available’’ to maximize limited funds.13

3. Extend ‘‘Dig Once.’’ Lack of coordination between broadband and other infrastructure projects wastes time and resources, particularly when roads are 

being built or maintained. It is essential that we fully embrace a ‘‘Dig Once’’ 

rule, requiring installation of conduits for broadband equipment whenever 

roads are being dug up for any reason. According to the Government Accountability Office, ‘‘Dig Once’’ can reduce the cost of deploying fiber under highways 

in urban areas up to 33 percent and up to 16 percent in rural areas.14

At least two bills circulating in Congress now would expand existing ‘‘Dig 

Once’’ policies.15 Dig Once should also be extended to state roads, and to all 

public rights of way adjoining roads.16

4. Address other unproductive barriers to mobile deployments. On the mobile side, 

the good news for local authorities is that 5G networks will rely not on macro 

cell towers so much as small cell sites, with small, low-power antennae that 

can be attached to existing poles and on buildings. 

There will, however, be an explosion of such installations, significantly increasing the pressure on local authorities to review and approve applications. To ensure U.S. dominance in 5G deployment, network operators will need authorities 

to use predictable criteria, reasonable and consistent terms, and proportionately quick time frames for review. 

20 

17 Robert McDowell, Clearing the Barriers to Critical Communications Infrastructure, Mobile 

Future (April 20, 2017), available at http://mobilefuture.org/clearing-the-barriers-to-criticalcommunications-infrastructure/ 18FCC, In the Matter of Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers 

to Infrastructure Investment, WT Docket 17–79 (April 27, 2017), available at http://transi 

tion.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0330/DOC344160A1.pdf?ct=t(PR_LabMD_ Amicus_January_20171_4_2017)&mc_cid=10c138d1f0&mc_eid=fb2145b79f; FCC, In the Matter 

of Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, WT Docket 17–84 (April 27, 2017), available at http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/ 

Daily_Business/2017/db0330/DOC-344161A1.pdf?ct=t(PR_LabMD_Amicus_January_20171_4_ 

2017)&mc_cid=10c138d1f0&mc_eid=fb2145b79f; City of Arlington v. FCC, 133 S.Ct. 183 (2013). 19See Larry Downes, U.S. Digital Infrastructure Needs More Private Investment, HARVARD

BUSINESS REVIEW, Oct. 14, 2016, available at https://hbr.org/2016/10/u-s-digital-infrastructure-needs-more-private-investment. 

Local authorities should of course retain the ability to ensure public safety of 

new equipment, but much of the sometimes permanent delay operators already 

experience in managing applications has little if anything to do with legitimate 

public policy concerns. As former FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell recently 

cataloged, investments are increasingly being held up by ad hoc or outdated 

processes, unrelated turf wars, and petty corruption.17

At a minimum, Congress should establish Federal guidelines to eliminate unnecessary bickering over pole attachments, especially for poles that are municipally-owned or owned by regulated utilities. To avoid rent-seeking behavior 

that grinds the process to a halt, we need cost-based attachment fees, ‘‘climbonce’’ policies, and basic rules about notice and contractor qualifications. Network operators should not be penalized in either time or money for replacing 

or upgrading small cell equipment—applications that are often treated as fullscale installations of new towers. 

The FCC has already begun the process of establishing more aggressive shot 

clocks and ‘‘deemed approved’’ rules, but Congressional action on these common-sense improvements would be easier to sustain over likely legal challenges.18

5. Re-engineer government processes that hinder private investment. Beyond pole 

and building access issues, both wired and mobile deployment is being held 

back unnecessarily by unproductive costs associated with dealing with slow 

and overly bureaucratic local governments. The problem is not so much local 

regulations as it is local processes—or often, the lack thereof. 

As Google Fiber’s unique approach to selecting its markets has shown, commitment to efficient permitting and deployment strategies by local authorities can 

prove decisive in which cities get new private infrastructure investment and 

which ones do not.19 Simply providing a single point of contact within a local 

government can make a big difference in both speed and cost of deployment, 

along with access to city property and streamlined zoning processes. If inspectors don’t show up when promised, moreover, an entire project can be stalled 

at enormous expense. 

Both municipal employees and installers would also save a great deal of time 

by moving from individualized permits to a single project-based permit. The individual permits repeat much of the same information, putting a strain on resource-challenged planning departments to evaluate redundant information, 

slowing down reviews with no benefit. 

Local governments must be cured of the bad habit of holding approvals hostage 

until broadband providers agree to pay for unrelated public works, such as repairing streets even where no work is being performed. This is an inefficient 

solution to local funding problems, one that disproportionately impacts costs for 

broadband consumers. 

Especially given the coming explosion of small cell deployments, there is widely-held consensus that outdated and overly bureaucratic local processes are 

particularly holding up deployment of mobile infrastructure, a problem that is 

guaranteed to get much worse if positive steps are not taken soon. 

A few years ago, I discovered first-hand just how chaotic and ad hoc local approaches can be. A mobile provider applied for permission to install a handful 

of new low-power antennae on existing utility poles in my small unincorporated 

Bay Area town—equipment needed to improve 4G LTE service in the hills just 

north of Berkeley. 

Though county officials were ready and able to review and decide on the applications on a professional basis, doing so took over a year, held up by free-forVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:09 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\28640.TXT JACKIE
21 

20See Rick Radin, Kensington Gives Partial Approval to AT&T Antennas, THE MERCURY

NEWS, July 31, 2013, available at http://www.mercurynews.com/2013/07/31/kensington-givespartial-approval-to-att-antennas/. 21 Richard Bennett, Wireless First: A Winning Strategy for Rural Broadband, High-Tech 

Forum, April 11, 2017, available at http://hightechforum.org/wireless-first-a-winning-strategyfor-rural-broadband/. 22See Doug Brake, A Policymaker’s Guide to Rural Broadband Infrastructure, Information 

Technology and Innovation Foundation (April 2017), available at http://www2.itif.org/2017- 

rural-broadband-infrastructure.pdf?mc_cid=4fb4705a17&mc_eid=98756dc702. 23Larry Downes, The Digital Revolution Has Not Reached All of Us, THE WASHINGTON POST, 

August 31, 2016, available at tps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2016/08/ 

31/the-internet-revolution-has-not-reached-all-of-us/. 

all hearings of unrelated committees and local advisory groups. These meetings 

were regularly derailed by the misrepresentations of outsiders who characterized the applications as being for new, full-size cell towers, upsetting and misleading residents for no good reason.20

These are especially frustrating and counterproductive inefficiencies, ones that 

represent some of the most unnecessary obstacles to accelerated broadband deployment. They must be resolved quickly. 5G networks, once deployed, will be 

truly competitive with very high speed and highly-reliable wired networks. 

They will not only provide underserved areas of the country with faster and 

cheaper broadband options, but will take the mobile computing revolution to 

the next level for all Americans, and at increasingly attractive prices. 

Best practices distilled from a long history of good and bad examples should 

be established at the Federal level and included in the infrastructure bill as 

conditions for local jurisdictions to receive Federal assistance. 

6. Make investments technology-neutral. For the most sparsely populated and geologically challenging parts of the United States, the economics of laying fiberoptic cable are unlikely to make sense any time soon, even with subsidies. So 

the question becomes not only what alternative broadband technologies are 

best suited to rural and mountainous regions, but how to encourage providers 

to continue developing and deploying them. 

In many rural areas, for example, fixed wireless technologies have proven 

themselves capable of providing high-speed last-mile connections to homes and 

businesses, with the promise of even better performance going forward. Satellite-based solutions have also matured, as have hybrid fiber/copper technologies using existing telephone lines.21

But up until now, Universal Service programs have either explicitly or implicitly favored wired technologies, for example by defining minimum broadband 

speeds above what is reasonably necessary or by setting latency standards in 

a way that intentionally excludes satellite-based solutions.22

No matter how the infrastructure bill provides for broadband in the remaining 

unserved locations, it should do so on a technology-neutral basis to encourage 

continued development of new options. 

7. Address nonfinancial causes of the digital divide. Though the focus of this 

hearing is on obstacles to deployment, I want to say a little about the equally 

important problem of adoption. Again, there is broad consensus on both the 

problems and common-sense solutions. 

As the most recent data from the Pew Research Project shows, we are winning 

the battle to reduce broadband cost for those least able to afford it. In addition 

to expanded Universal Service programs and the shift from voice to broadband 

for Lifeline and other programs, leading Internet providers, including Comcast, 

AT&T and, recently, Sprint, have expanded programs aimed at low-income 

families, signing up millions of new Internet users for roughly $10 a month.23

As the adoption gap narrows, however, we need new strategies that target different problems. Availability and price are no longer the most significant factors holding back the 13 percent of Americans who remain offline. Consistent 

with finding over the last decade, the Pew Research Center noted recently that 

only 19 percent of offline adults cite the expense of Internet service of owning 

a computer as a barrier. 

Instead, ‘‘[a] third of non-internet users (34 percent) did not go online because 

they had no interest in doing so or did not think the Internet was relevant to 

their lives.’’ Researchers reported. ‘‘Another 32 percent of non-internet users 

22 

24Monica Anderson and Andrew Perrin, 13 percent of Americans Don’t Use the Internet—Who 

are They?, Pew Research Report, Sept. 7, 2016, available at http://www.pewresearch.org/facttank/2016/09/07/some-americans-dont-use-the-internet-who-are-they/ 25 National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Digitally Unconnected in the 

U.S. Who’s Not Online and Why?, Sept. 28, 2016, available at www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2016/ 

digitally-unconnected-us-who-s-not-online-and-why. 26Following the Plan’s publication, the focus for policy leaders in and out of the FCC was on 

the spectrum crisis the Plan identified—alarms that Congress, the FCC, and network operators 

have so far responded to admirably. 

said the Internet was too difficult to use, including 8 percent of this group who 

said they were ‘too old to learn.’ ’’ 24

While income undoubtedly continues to play a significant role in non-adoption, 

in other words, many who remain offline wouldn’t use the Internet even if it 

were free. This conclusion was also reached by a recent NTIA survey, which 

found that over half of those who don’t have Internet service at home—again, 

largely rural and older Americans, and those with less education—say they just 

don’t want or need it.25

Part of this resistance comes from the fact that unconnected Americans don’t 

know how to use a computer or even a smartphone, let alone how to install 

and maintain networking equipment inside or outside their home. So whatever 

funding the infrastructure law provides for broadband will be wasted if some 

of that support isn’t directed to providing hands-on education and on-going support. Community groups and senior centers are natural conduits for these essential services. 

8. Use the bully pulpit to encourage digital want-nots. Given the Internet’s growing importance for education, health care, jobs, and civic engagement, there is 

also agreement that non-adopters are simply and tragically wrong in thinking 

broadband isn’t relevant to their lives. 

It is, therefore, incumbent on those of us already enjoying the benefits of the 

digital revolution to employ creative new approaches to convincing them to join 

us. Solving the training and support issues of the least tech-savvy users will 

go a long way to overcoming potent inertia, but it won’t fully answer the relevance problem. Digital want-nots also need to understand the value of getting 

online. 

These include the obvious benefits of connecting to family and friends and expanding entertainment options. But there are more fundamental ways emerging technologies, including the Internet of Things and smart homes and communities in particular can improve quality of life, especially for seniors hoping 

to age in place in their homes. 

Many of these benefits were vividly described in the later chapters of the National Broadband Plan, but neither the FCC nor the White House used the 

Plan effectively to promote a vision of tomorrow that would make getting online 

today irresistible.26

Public education about why the infrastructure bill is spending money on 

broadband will be critical to getting maximum value from any new investment. 

That effort should include, at a minimum, the White House and related Departments including those dealing with commerce, housing, health, energy and 

education. 

The FCC should be tasked with coordinating the public outreach, and for working with start-ups and established companies developing the most exciting and 

relevant applications and their respective trade groups in public-private partnerships. 

Much as organizations such as the Consumer Technology Association put on 

local trade shows for government officials, the FCC should develop visionary 

presentations about our broadband future. Then, the Commission should take 

it on the road, in the form of high-impact mini-trade shows, helping those who 

don’t believe in the value of connectivity see and hear first-hand what it is they 

are missing already and what’s ahead in the near-future. 

Following these basic recommendations will maximize the value of any taxpayer 

money spent on broadband infrastructure. Even more, these simple steps will help 

multiply government spending with continued private investment, accelerating efforts to close the digital divide and bring the least-connected parts of the country 

into our growing digital conversation. 

In Silicon Valley, that’s what we call a win-win-win. 

23 

I am happy to expand on any of these points, and look forward to your questions. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Downes. 

Mr. Hendricks. 

STATEMENT OF BRIAN M. HENDRICKS, 

HEAD OF TECHNOLOGY POLICY AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS 

FOR THE AMERICAS REGION, NOKIA CORPORATION 

Mr. HENDRICKS. Thank you, Chairman Thune, Ranking Member 

Nelson, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the invitation to share Nokia’s thoughts on how to encourage broadband deployment. As the Chairman mentioned, I am an alum of the Committee and had occasion to exchange notes with Senator Hutchison 

yesterday; she sends her regards to all of you. I also got the impression she thought this might be comic retribution for all the 

hearings I made her sit through. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HENDRICKS. So please be kind. 

We commend the Committee for your work on the MOBILE 

NOW Act. Nokia is very supportive of that legislation, particularly 

the spectrum provisions. We think that this and your continued interest in creating spectrum opportunities are important in building 

a foundation for investment in the technologies that will enable a 

truly connected society. 

The good news, as Professor Downes mentioned, is we have excellent broadband networks in the United States, they are just not 

deployed everywhere we want them, and they will require massive 

investments in order to evolve further in support of the use cases 

that we are contemplating for the connected programmable world. 

These include things like connected health care, intelligent transportation, and smart cities. 

As I note in my written testimony, the technical challenges we 

face in supporting emerging demands are considerable. We will 

need peak data rates to get much higher. We will need to drop latency, which is the delay in transmission in networks, to near zero 

to ensure that applications with no-fault tolerance, like autonomous driving vehicles and remote medical treatment will work reliably. The size and cost of the infrastructure we deploy must be 

smaller, while at the same time delivering higher functionality, 

such mobile edge computing and analytics. 

Tens of billions of dollars of investment is required in research 

and development and in the deployment of new infrastructure and 

software to grow capacity and coverage of our networks. Many different technologies, including Wi-Fi, multiple generations of wireless networks, and satellite must work together to form a comprehensive technology framework. 

The good news is there are hundreds of entities large and small 

willing to make this investment. We need to help assure that their 

intentions become the reality. We need to think very carefully 

about regulatory policies and understand their impact on the cost 

of deployment and the type of returns investors can realized on 

those deployed assets. 

Rational actors don’t make uneconomic investment. So key to encouraging investment will be ensuring an opportunity for innovaVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:09 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\28640.TXT JACKIE
24 

tive products, pricing, and new revenue sources. We need to avoid 

policy shocks that disrupt planned investment, such as making 

changes to the tax code, such as those proposed in the House. I 

mentioned this more extensively in my testimony, but the single 

greatest impediment to broadband infrastructure investment that 

this Congress could conceive would be to adopt limitations to interest deductibility. 

Many providers of broadband services use the debt market to finance their acquisition and deployment of technology, and tens of 

billions of dollars will ultimately drained out of that opportunity. 

We recognize that the tax reform you’re looking at is a comprehensive set of tradeoffs. We recommend highly that that not be one of 

them that you consider. 

We need to continue finding ways to improve access to Federal 

land and assets. Whether you’re a fan of shot clocks or would prefer other avenues to streamline the process, such as requiring 

agencies to permit multisite applications to allow for the reduction 

of duplicative impact studies and reduce legal costs, it’s clear more 

can be done. We’re encouraged by the Committee’s work in this 

area, and we follow the developments quite closely, including many 

of the ideas that Senator Heller has recently put forward. 

In addition, we need the FCC to move forward aggressively with 

its proceeding on siting challenges and to use its Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee as a place to bring together stakeholders, including industry, states, cities, and towns, to identify the 

best practices and a plan for replicating them in jurisdictions 

across the country. It would be beneficial for Congress to clarify 

and bolster the authority of the FCC, particularly as it relates to 

the range of structures and locations covered under Section 253 of 

the Communications Act and the reasonableness of fees and 

charges. We note there are several ways to do that, any one of 

which can greatly improve upon our recent experience. 

We should continue to refine programs within congressional and 

Federal purview that can assist with the affordability of certain infrastructure deployments and ultimately end-user connections. 

Nokia would like to see broadband as a focus in the upcoming 

infrastructure bill, and we would encourage you to prioritize funds 

toward early deployments of IoT verticals like smart city, connected 

and intelligent infrastructure, and connected health care. We think 

that doing so will help considerably with the demonstration of the 

value proposition to broadband consumers and improve adoption 

rates. Higher uptake is a key way to improve the business case for 

broadband deployment, particularly in rural areas. 

Finally, let me say that Nokia has frequent interaction with 

stakeholders across the country. As we worked in support of 

FirstNet’s outreach to states and to ascertain the availability of infrastructure for that massive undertaking, we learned a great deal 

about who is investing in broadband technology, the state of the infrastructure, and how investment decisions are made. 

As you consider ways to address the challenges of rural broadband deployment, I would encourage you to make sure you continue hearing from those that face those challenges most directly. 

They often do not have Washington offices, and they may come 

here once or twice a year, but co-ops, as one example, provide 

25 

broadband coverage to 40 percent of the Nation’s land mass with 

only 5 percent of its population. Understanding the solutions necessitates understanding the problems. We think they can offer some 

critical insights and should be part of this conversation. 

Thank you. I would be happy to answer any of your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hendricks follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRIAN M. HENDRICKS, HEAD OF TECHNOLOGY POLICY AND

PUBLIC AFFAIRS FOR THE AMERICAS REGION, NOKIA CORPORATION

Chairman Thune, Vice Chairman Nelson, and members of the Committee. Thank 

you for the opportunity to share Nokia’s thoughts about ways to encourage and improve broadband deployment in the United States. 

Nokia 

Nokia is a leading innovator in the technologies that connect people and things. 

With business activities in more than 125 countries, we are driving the transition 

to smart, virtual broadband networks and connectivity by creating one single network for all services. We are converging mobile and fixed broadband, IP routing and 

optical networks, with the software and services to manage all of these technologies. 

Supporting Nokia’s comprehensive connectivity portfolio is a world-class research 

and development program led by the award winning U.S. based Nokia Bell Labs, 

and with additional R&D centers in the United States, Europe, and Asia. Nokia invested more than $5 billion in R&D during 2016, adding to a portfolio that now exceeds 90,000 patents. Our researchers and engineers continue to develop technologies that will transform the way people and things communicate and connect, 

including: 5G wireless technology, ultra broadband access, IP and Software Defined 

Networking (‘‘SDN’’), Cloud applications, IoT and security solutions, data analytics, 

and sensor and imaging technology that will be widely utilized in IoT applications. 

Nokia is also a major facilitator of the emerging Internet of Things (‘‘IoT’’) market 

through our ‘‘ng Connect’’ program. With Nokia’s ‘‘ng Connect’’ program, we have 

built an ecosystem of more than 300 members including leading network, consumer 

electronics, applications, and content providers. The IoT community of the ng Connect program brings innovative companies together to collaborate on solution concepts, end-to-end prototypes, business models, and market trials that will unleash 

the full potential of the IoT. 

Broadband Deployment in the United States 

The United States is fortunate to have very good broadband networks, particularly with respect to wireless broadband. However, as noted by many researchers, 

in spite of considerable Federal and state policy efforts over the last decade, we have 

not been able to deploy truly high-speed broadband capability ubiquitously throughout the country. There are persistent, known challenges underlying this reality. 

Therefore, it is timely to take a fresh look at this issue as the Committee is now 

doing. Nokia commends the Committee for its work on the MOBILE NOW Act. This 

legislation, once enacted, makes critical changes to siting of infrastructure on Federal land with improved access to rights-of-way, and further directs the FCC and 

NTIA to work on a range of spectrum that is critical to mobile broadband development. We see this legislation as a critical step forward and urge its prompt passage. 

Importantly, Congress continues to hear about spectrum policy from industry 

groups. The reason is that the need for a predicable, flexible supply of spectrum for 

broadband use, across a range of bands, is a foundational element of the connected 

society. It is not a subject that can be addressed in one bill and then deprioritized. 

We encourage you, the FCC, and NTIA to continue your aggressive work on spectrum policy. 

We stand at a very important moment with a huge leap forward in technology 

applications and services emerging at a rapid pace. Once relegated to the confines 

of science fiction novels, ideas like autonomous driving vehicles are no longer distant aspirations. As we look at the near and mid-term, Nokia believes that there 

will be substantial advancement in the areas of connected health care, intelligent 

transportation and infrastructure, and Smart Cities among others. Augmented and 

virtual reality, machine-to-machine communication, remote diagnostic medicine and 

perhaps even a tactile Internet, with instantaneous feedback to a user enabling 

things like remote surgery, being among the possibilities. More of our learning, commerce, health care delivery, and daily living will take place via a broadband connection, making the availability of high quality, affordable broadband a necessity for 

modern living now more than at any time in our history. We have not fully adVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:09 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\28640.TXT JACKIE
26 

1See e.g., Comparisons of networks drawn from mobile subscribers at https://opensignal.com/ 

reports/2016/02/usa/state-of-the-mobile-network/. Industry figures vary, and in many cases 

suggest even lower latency figures that continue to improve as additional investment is made. 

dressed the so-called digital divide with current generations of technology, so there 

is a danger that the divide will not only persist, but could actually widen. If more 

commerce, learning, and quality of life enhancing activities like health care take 

place in a digitized context, and people in some areas of the country lack access to 

a connection, the divide between users in different geographies and socio-economic 

strata will grow. Fortunately, there are opportunities to engage this challenge. 

To place the technical challenges ahead of us in context, consider that Nokia believes that we will see a more than 10,000 fold increase in the amount of traffic 

on networks over the next 5–10 years resulting from deeper penetration and uptake 

of mobile broadband, dramatic increases in connected devices and machines, the expansion of the industrial Internet, and connected transportation and health care 

among other applications. On the mobile broadband side, we believe that in order 

to accommodate the increase in traffic and the sensitivity of many emerging applications like autonomous driving cars and connected healthcare, network peak data 

rates will need to increase to more than 10 Gbit/sec (gigabytes per second) with at 

least 100 Mbit/sec everywhere in the network. For perspective, reaching that type 

of peak data rate would require a jump potential a hundred or more fold from where 

we are today in many deployed networks. 

The massive increase in capacity, and in coverage, needed to create a network environment capable of the foregoing will require substantial investment in infrastructure, particularly small cells and distributed antenna systems to ‘‘densify’’ network 

deployments. Densification of networks is a core strategy to elevate capacity and capability of wireless networks in order to reach latency (delay in packet transmission) 

levels below 1 millisecond, which will be necessary for many future use cases. For 

context, reported latency rates in U.S. wireless networks during 2016 ranged from 

a low of 60 milliseconds in LTE networks to a high of 163 milliseconds in older 3G 

networks.1 These are fast networks, and they do a great job of providing reliable 

wireless broadband service to consumers that support the voice, text, and video 

services for which they were designed. But, it is clear that significant upgrades are 

needed to reach a reality where zero fault tolerance applications like autonomous 

vehicles can be widely deployed. 

Nokia view of 5G wireless network conditions and requirements 

The good news is that wireless carriers, large and small, in the U.S. are prepared 

to make the necessary investment and meet the challenge. In fact, broadband providers of all kinds including cable companies, utilities, municipalities, and cooperatives (which are an essential part of the rural broadband strategy) all stand ready 

to invest significantly in broadband infrastructure to support the foregoing vision 

of a connected society. However, the decisions made by regulators and legislators 

at the state level, and here in Washington will have a significant impact on their 

collective ability to deploy and continuously upgrade broadband infrastructure. 

Based on our experience as a major partner for companies and communities that 

deploy broadband technology, Nokia believes that there are three key things that 

policymakers need to be mindful of in fashioning regulatory and legislative actions 

if the true objective is to create an environment conducive to robust investment: 


503HENDR1.eps
27 

2See https://www.statista.com/statistics/283513/arpu-top-wireless-carriers-us/ 

(1) Regulatory policy impacts the ability of providers to monetize infrastructure 

investment and can be a major driver of costs and delays in broadband infrastructure deployment; 

(2) The relative health of the investment environment for broadband infrastructure is heavily influenced by regulatory activities as noted, but also by fiscal 

policy actions Congress may undertake such as an infrastructure bill and comprehensive tax reform; and 

(3) Emerging use cases are both a driver of broadband network requirements and 

consumer interest in, and adoption of the technology. Adoption rates are a key 

component of the business case for major infrastructure investment, particularly in rural and underserved areas. Industry and policymakers can do more 

to shape consumer expectations and uptake of the technology. 

Regulatory policy impacts 

Over the last several years we have seen a major focus on regulatory policies like 

privacy and network neutrality here in Washington. These are important issues 

with a real need for clear standards and rigorous, predictable enforcement to provide consumers critical protections. Unfortunately, they have also become a source 

of considerable uncertainty for markets. Nokia is not a broadband service provider, 

so when we look at issues like these it is to discern how rules and restrictions will 

shape the scope of our ongoing research and product development (such as research 

demand for additional computing power and analytics capabilities in our infrastructure solutions), and the market for broadband infrastructure more generally. And, 

there is a clear impact in our experience. 

In the case of the FCC’s now repealed broadband privacy rules, limitations on 

broadband service provider access to, and utilization of data that is routinely available to other technology companies in the ecosystem directly limited the capability 

of broadband providers to realize potential value creation opportunities in the future. And, that alters the value calculation that providers make in determining 

whether, and how much to invest in certain technologies. In the same way, the ex 

ante prohibition of innovative pricing models (for example fee based prioritization 

directly at the consumer’s direction) under the net neutrality rules, and the inclusion of a nebulous ‘‘general conduct standard,’’ in our judgment created a significant 

risk to broadband provider investment. The prohibition on new pricing options and 

the general conduct rule make any significant deviations from current practices in 

traffic management, data plan pricing, or creation of specialized services risky from 

a legal and regulatory standpoint. Those risks have been a regular discussion point 

between broadband providers and their suppliers, and have directly impacted product discussions including whether to continue developing specific features in new 

products and whether to move forward with specific deployment plans. Along with 

an observable decline in capital expenditures in the last two years, these developments are a clear indication of a negative impact on investment from the regulation. 

My purpose in raising these two issues, which I understand to be the subject of 

very passionate debate, is not to make a normative judgment about what the FCC 

did, or should do, or even what Congress should do. Rather it is to bring the conversation to a point where there is an understanding that regulatory choices directly 

impact the decision making of private actors, and ultimately how capital expenditure decisions are made. To put a finer point on this, we note that there is a frequent focus on profit and loss statements of telecommunications providers in these 

debates: wherein we hear that profits are healthy therefore investment will continue 

to happen and regulatory factors have not impeded capital deployment. In our experience, profit is frequently not an accurate, or at least not a complete, barometer 

of the health of the investment environment. Indicators like average revenue per 

user (ARPU) and return on capital employed (ROCE) are more tightly linked to the 

investment decisions of broadband providers because they are measures of how well 

a provider is monetizing prior capital investment and what the returns on planned 

investment will be. When policy shocks occur, they directly impact the forecasts that 

providers have relied on in making capital decisions, and those decisions are then 

altered. Since the adoption of the network neutrality order in 2015, the ARPU of 

all but one U.S. wireless carrier has declined as opportunities to introduce new 

sources of revenue were constrained.2

Whatever position one takes on the issues of privacy and net neutrality, and we 

take none here; restrictions on the ability to generate marginal revenue through certain innovative activities like data analytics and prioritization invariably impact the 

capital expenditure decision making because they limit the ability to fully and flexiVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:09 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\28640.TXT JACKIE
28 

bly monetize marginal infrastructure investment. There is a range of very reasonable opinion about these issues. Our hope is that as Congress considers these issues 

moving forward, it will do so with careful deliberation on how a legislative solution 

(which we strongly favor) will balance consumer protections with the impact to the 

capital decision making of the very providers we want to invest in improving 

connectivity. 

State and local: Regulatory issues at the state and local level will also impact the 

ability to deploy broadband infrastructure at levels necessary to realize the vision 

for a connected society. As I noted earlier, the next generation networks will depend 

on a massive deployment of new infrastructure. The need for this increased wireless 

infrastructure, and other necessary broadband infrastructure investment, has already reached a critical level. Unfortunately, Nokia has experienced first-hand the 

frustration of local coverage needs being thwarted by local siting practices. Common 

problems fall into several related, and overlapping categories, as follows: 

• Undefined laws and processes and/or a lack of personnel; 

• Redundant, fragmented procedures; and 

• Onerous and prohibitive fees 

In our experience, many jurisdictions have ill-defined processes for receiving and 

processing requests to site infrastructure. The lack of defined procedures leads to 

inefficiencies and haphazard results. We have found that jurisdictions that lack defined procedures are often not familiar with the legal landscape intended to remove 

barriers to deployment. As an example, although some larger cities are experienced 

with Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act, even those jurisdictions typically have not 

revised their processes to incorporate that law. Actions that qualify for 6409(a) 

streamlined treatment, nevertheless can be delayed by localities seeking modified 

lease terms, for instance, when attempting to negotiate a master agreement or franchise license prior to requesting regulatory siting approvals. Many local governments are using these master agreements as a substitute for a more comprehensive 

legal framework (effectively creating a de facto zoning ordinance via contract). 

The lack of clear procedures makes the application process much more difficult 

from the beginning—it can be hard to know where to even start—let alone ultimately obtaining the required authorization to move forward. It is therefore not surprising that jurisdictions that suffer from ill-defined, haphazard processes also lack 

the employee resources to process siting requests. We understand that local jurisdictions often face budgetary constraints, however, lack of employee resources exacerbates a number of other impediments. Each unnecessary extra step (or steps) in the 

process that should result in modest delays can clog the deployment pipeline entirely when coupled with a lack of government personnel. In most cases, the overwhelming majority of the time necessary to deploy a small cell has nothing to do 

with the process for acquiring the equipment, installing it, or connecting it to power 

and backhaul: it is time spent obtaining review and approval. 

In addition to process and personnel limitations, Nokia often experiences multilayered review processes involving several agencies within a jurisdiction. This leads 

to review and approval timelines that are not easily discernable from one authority 

or interdepartmental agency to the next. In one major city example, the process is 

fairly well defined, but involves three or four different phases, which occur in seriatim instead of concurrently. While review times should be in the 90-day range, approval often takes double that, layering delay on top of delay. Depending on the 

number of site applications that are under review with the government, at any 

given time, the timelines to approval for the initial application can challenge the 

viability of the entire deployment. 

Fees that are assessed for initial access, recurring access, and things like regulatory site inspections can threaten the economics of an entire deployment. Nokia, 

and our partners, have experienced site ‘‘inspection fees’’ of $3,000 or even $4,000 

applicable to each location. These per-location fees are particularly outrageous when 

put in the context of hundreds, or even thousands, of small cells planned for a single 

deployment. Many localities lack personnel to inspect individual macro-cell (large, 

frequently tower based) sites; so, the timeframes and expense that would be applied 

to small cell deployments under the current approval framework is a major concern. 

Notably, the $3,000–4,000 fees do not include other application fees and recurring 

fees associated with accessing the location. 

The fee problem is further exacerbated by an emerging cottage industry of third 

party consultants who see the complexities of citywide deployments as a business 

opportunity, becoming a middleman. The goal of the consultant is often not to maximize connectivity, but rather to maximize city revenues. Consulting agreements also 

frequently provide broad marketing and management services rights that include 

29 

revenue sharing options with the locality based on the lease terms that the third 

party is able to negotiate with the carrier. Nokia has recent experience with this 

problem. Consultants frequently enter the mix in preparation for major events that 

lead to short-lived local economic development initiatives. From a business perspective, a service provider may plan to build for the longer term, with infrastructure 

intended to benefit a community long after the event is over. Yet consultants often 

push for higher fees for these temporary high profile projects, and the result is we 

do not achieve the type of long-term economic development that would better serve 

residents and businesses. 

Once higher fees are charged due to an event-specific deployment, those rates 

then become precedent, and set a rate floor for future deployments, not just in that 

particular city, but also in other locations where the consultants are working. In 

multiple cities where Nokia has participated in preparations for a short-lived event, 

we have found the elevated fees to be prohibitive and backed away from participation only later to see those elevated fees cited by consultants to localities as a benchmark for other longer term deployment projects. 

Nokia certainly understands that thinly staffed localities would turn to such consultants with promises of generating additional revenue for city activities. And, 

there is some value in the temporary use of third parties to process applications and 

negotiate rates in reducing delays from personnel shortages, provided that the third 

parties have experience in the issues involved and are truly temporary to deal with 

the short-term expected surge in applications for small cell deployments. The risk, 

however, is that the ultimate beneficiary of this arrangement is the consultant, and 

the citizenry loses through less robust deployment and higher subscription fees 

needed to support the expensive rights-of-way fees the consultant extracts. The introduction of a new layer of participant, the contracted consultant, with their own 

profit motivations skews the charges assessed against network operators and equipment vendors even further from the ‘‘cost recovery’’ level. Taken with the sheer 

number of small cells and distributed antenna systems (‘‘DAS’’) that are planned for 

5G network densification efforts, the consultant-driven costs provide an almost insurmountable barrier to deployment in many jurisdictions. 

The use of consultants has moved well beyond the events context, and is now proliferating across a widening geography. As noted, these consultants have an incentive to drive up the fees assessed in each subsequent jurisdiction to leverage ever 

increasing fees for their own financial gain due to the nature of their retention 

agreement compensation terms. Each locality becomes the new benchmark for the 

next consulting contract, driving rates ever higher. Nokia believes that the FCC and 

Congress should view the hiring of such consultants to negotiate siting rates skeptically. This type of retention becomes counter to the objective of facilitating 

broadband deployment when win bonuses or other fee level based compensation are 

utilized. Nokia therefore has told the FCC in written comments to find that this 

type of compensation is not appropriate and may be a basis for applicants in impacted jurisdictions to obtain relief from the Commission. We have attached an example of marketing materials representative of the kind these consultants send out 

to cities as an exhibit. Revenue sharing and the maximization of revenues are featured prominently, to further our point. 

There are several additional challenges Nokia sees in the deployment of infrastructure, many of which have been noted to, and are being examined by, the FCC. 

These include: (1) total moratoria on deployments in some jurisdictions, (2) severe 

restrictions on the size of new equipment or the imposition of restrictions or new 

fees on modifications to existing deployments, and (3) utterly uneconomic per site 

access fees (initial and recurring charges) in many cases assessed on a per pole or 

point basis. Just some examples cited to the FCC in its previous proceeding looking 

at these issues: 

Moratoria: An Illinois city has denied all permits to locate small cells along ROWs. 

Another city in that state is refusing to process permit applications until it can 

enact a new ordinance on small cells. A Florida county has a moratorium blocking 

all ROW installations. There could be as many as 17 other city or county moratoria 

in Florida. 

Partial restrictions and arbitrary conditions: 

• Texas city is refusing to allow any wireless facilities in ROWs; 

• New Jersey city requires a public bidding process to attach facilities to utility 

poles but has failed to seek bids for more than six months; 

• Several California cities require providers to demonstrate gaps in service coverage as a condition of ROW access; 

30 

• Florida city limits the number of small cell installations (regardless of the number of providers) to 13 sites in one square mile; 

• Several Illinois jurisdictions impose minimum distance requirements of up to 

1,000 feet between small cell installations, even when the installations serve 

different wireless providers; 

• Other jurisdictions impose limitations on the height of poles that can house 

small cell infrastructure. 

Fee examples: 

• California city is demanding up to $20,000 in annual ROW fees. Two other California cities charge ROW fees per pole of over $1,000 per month and $2,300 per 

month respectively; 

• A Massachusetts city requires a $5,000 up-front fee before it will negotiate an 

ROW use agreement. Another city in that state is demanding a $6,000 per pole 

annual fee; 

• A Minnesota city is demanding a $6,000 annual per pole fee; 

• An Oklahoma city charges more than $2,500 per year per small cell; 

• A company that holds a contract with New York to manage wireless facilities 

is demanding fees of $9,000 per year for small cells; 

• The New Jersey Department of Transportation is requesting $37,000 per year 

per for each new facility located in state highway ROWs; and 

• The Virginia Department of Transportation charges $24,000 per year for each 

new structure in state highway ROWs. 

From Nokia’s perspective, it is quite clear that major Federal action is required 

to alleviate these barriers to deployment. The form of that action is no doubt going 

to be a contentious give and take with some preferring broad Federal preemption 

of state and local time, place and manner regulation and others suggesting we need 

to respect local autonomy. Nokia’s view is that neither extreme is a good policy solution. It is quite true that states and localities have an interest in public health and 

safety and the use of their local regulatory authority to advance those interests. 

However, it is also quite clear that many practices, including those that I have cited, 

are conspiring to create an environment that is deeply adverse to the Committee’s 

stated interest of broadband deployment. And, these practices are not isolated; they 

are spread across many states and localities of all shapes and sizes. So, what can 

be done about this? Nokia suggests the following: 

• Highlight the broad benefits to the public that will come with the densification 

of infrastructure deployments, things that are not possible today but can be a 

reality in a connected society. There is an excellent report from Accenture attached to my testimony that further highlights this; 

• Allow the FCC’s refreshed proceeding on these issues to proceed, and encourage 

the Commission to look at ways to highlight not just the practices noted above, 

but also best practices of local authorities. There are some that have been very 

forward leaning in streamlining regulatory processes. Some states have adopted 

comprehensive legislation and some localities interested in Smart City deployments have worked to streamline bureaucratic process. These should be examples that we highlight; 

Notably, while Nokia supports state level legislation, we do not believe that this 

is the optimal solution as a stand-alone strategy. Network deployments are not 

planned on a city-by-city, or even state-by-state basis. Uniformity, efficiency, 

and economic viability of broadband deployment likely require a Federal solution; 

• Congress should consider changes to the Communications Act, particularly in 

Sections 253 and 332 that further clarify and strengthen the FCC’s authority 

to provide a backstop to unreasonable local rules. Whether the result of the 

FCC’s process will be broadly applied shot clocks, fee limitations, and other restrictions, or more of a model template of practices backed by a case-by-case review and approval in the event of unreasonable and non-compliant practices, it 

is clear that something must be done. 

Investment environment 

While awareness of how regulatory actions can impact the incentive and opportunity to invest is crucial, these are not the only policy considerations currently before this Congress that could impact the future of broadband deployment in the 

United States. The House of Representatives will consider comprehensive tax reVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:09 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\28640.TXT JACKIE
31 

form, likely later this year, and two proposals in particular that are part of those 

discussions could have lasting negative consequences for broadband investment. 

First, there is a policy proposal to limit or even eliminate interest deductibility for 

businesses. Second, there is also a policy proposal to impose border adjustment (so 

called import) taxes. Each of these would have a major impact on the financial decision making of broadband providers. 

The House suggestion to limit interest deductibility is married to another proposal, to change the period of so-called ‘‘expensing’’ or depreciation such that companies could expense 100 percent of the equipment up front rather than depreciating 

it over a longer period (typically 5–7 years in our industry). It is important to note 

that while beneficial, the move to the 100 percent expensing model does not change 

how much money a company may receive in a tax benefit, it simply shifts the money 

into an upfront time period. Companies will get the same tax benefit as under current law, just faster. By contrast, limiting or eliminating interest deductibility would 

eliminate billions of dollars worth of current tax benefit (and therefore money available for investment) permanently. Put in very simple terms, any entity that relies 

primarily on debt instruments to finance capital expenditure would see their net 

cost of borrowing increase due to the loss of interest deductibility. And that means 

less dollars, billions of them, for broadband infrastructure deployment. 

Critically, there are many entities currently involved in providing broadband services, from cable companies and utilities to cooperatives and privately held telecommunications companies that borrow to build. And when they borrow they do not 

do so for a single deployment, they do so for each capital deployment be it for upgrades or expansion of their network to cover new areas. Therefore, the loss of interest deductibility will impact those companies each time they tap the debt market. 

For many of these providers, funding investment entirely out of current revenues 

is not an option, nor is tapping the equity market by offering additional stock for 

sale. Many are not publicly traded, and among those that are, some cannot realistically dilute the value of their stock by releasing more shares. Debt financing has 

emerged as a widely employed, rational business approach. Upending that through 

tax reform will drain tens of billions of dollars out of future investment in 

broadband networks across utilities, cooperatives, small and mid-sized telcos and 

many cable providers. While Nokia understands tax reform is a complex undertaking with many tradeoffs, we feel strongly this should not be one of them. 

There has likewise been significant discussion about the imposition of an import 

tax as much as 20 percent. As Congress considers tax reform, it is important to recognize how the current supply chain for broadband components and finished products is constructed. While the United States is home to many research facilities (including some of Nokia’s), software development centers, and even component manufacturing, it is also true that many of the thousands of components that make up 

broadband infrastructure solutions originate outside the U.S. Current ITA agreements and other exemptions have limited the duties assessed against these components, and the result has been lower cost equipment. If Congress imposes a border 

adjustment tax and/or eliminates the exemptions for electronics and broadband components, the result will be much higher prices for equipment either through duties, 

or through changes to supply chains to work around those country specific duties 

that impose higher costs. In turn, the ability of broadband providers to execute their 

broad deployment plans will be impacted. Again, we understand that tax reform is 

complicated; we are highlighting the impact to the stated equity of the Committee 

to improve broadband deployment. While the tax code is not a current barrier to 

deployment, it could quickly become so if members are not cognizant of the impact 

of these proposals. 

Use cases and adoption 

In today’s world, we cannot have a discussion on how to encourage and improve 

broadband deployment in the United States without taking into consideration the 

growing Internet of Things (‘‘IoT’’) ecosystem and the transformation of the global 

economy into the Digital Economy. These are fundamental to demonstrating value 

and generating enthusiasm among consumers that will further encourage adoption 

of broadband technology. A core consideration of broadband deployment in rural 

areas is how many potential users will actually adopt and use the technology if network investment is undertaken. It is a key metric in the business case for deployment, and industry must do a better job of both developing the use cases that create 

interest and value for consumers, and raising awareness of the same. 

The growing demand for connectivity and the digitalization of our day-to-day activities will require policy makers to think differently. At Nokia, we are working to 

build proven IoT use-cases around the world, particularly in the digital health, 

transportation, public safety, and smart cities areas. For example, Smart City useVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:09 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\28640.TXT JACKIE
32 

cases require expertise that spans many different fields including finance, planning, 

transport, energy, safety, telecommunications and more. They also require publicprivate partnerships (PPPs) that embrace all of these different dimensions. The IoT 

smart city concept, as other verticals, is a holistic and layered framework that addresses the needs of multiple aspects of smart city projects and allows cities to use 

urban data to boost economic competitiveness, and build more effective, workable 

solutions to many city challenges. Along the way, we have seen numerous challenges including some of the regulatory issues I cited previously and others: difficulty in figuring out how to replicate and scale IoT Smart City solutions to different sized cities; layers of stakeholders; lack of technical expertise at the local 

level; and very challenging procurement environments. 

Solutions 

1. Encourage Increased Innovation and Investment: policies should seek to encourage innovation and investment through such tools as: collaboration with 

industry, academia, and other key stakeholders; empowering CIOs and senior 

city government leadership; R&D investment across vertical sectors; and review of existing laws and regulations before adopting new ones; 

2. 5G wireless networks will be a key element in realizing the Internet of Things’ 

promise—Congress can enable test beds in the U.S. Infrastructure—The Federal Government should make additional spectrum available for mobile 

broadband, implement effective spectrum management programs, and 

incentivize investment in network infrastructure; 

3. Public-Private Partnerships—The Federal Government should incentivize the 

use of public-private partnerships as a means to accelerate IoT development 

and adoption, and U.S. global leadership; 

4. Funding IoT/connectivity: As Congress considers an infrastructure bill and future funding legislation, we are mindful of the challenges. However, to the extent funding may be available either through redirecting current program activities or creating new ones, Nokia suggests: 

» Funding local government efforts to implement connected technologies and 

services; 

» Funding large-scale national pilot projects for smart cities that focus on integrating multiple smart city applications with scalable and replicable solutions; 

» Establishing national challenges with prizes to spur the development of IoT 

applications with high social or economic impact; 

» Funding R&D for key underlying technological challenges relevant to the 

Internet of Things, such as improving cyber security and reducing power consumption. 

We are supportive of many existing Federal programs such as the FCC’s CAF program, the rural utility service and others (even those we think need reform). To the 

extent Congress considers an infrastructure bill, we are supportive of additional 

funding through grants or tax policy that can lead to additional, targeted broadband 

infrastructure investment. But, to be clear, in an environment of scarce fiscal resources we believe priority should be given to the priorities we listed. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before the Committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hendricks. 

Mr. Weninger. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF WENINGER, STATE 

REPRESENTATIVE, ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Mr. WENINGER. Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and 

members of the Committee, it is a true honor to be speaking here 

to be speaking to you today. 

As mentioned, my name is Jeff Weninger. I’m a State Representative in Arizona. And I, along with my colleagues, especially Senator Fann and Senator Smith, passed and got signed by the Governor, House Bill 2365 this year, which did a lot of things that are 

33 

being talked about, shot clocks, and just created a great environment we think going forward. 

Today, you can look down any crowded street in America and, at 

a glance, see multiple people, young and old, looking at their 

smartphones or tablets, following online maps, checking Instagram, 

Snapchat, or Facebook, watching YouTube or Netflix, videochatting 

on Skype or FaceTime, or accessing one or more countless apps. My 

mother lives in a retirement community. She used to have a wired 

Internet connection with a desktop computer. Last year, she got rid 

of it, and now she sits in her chair for a couple hours a day in the 

living room and accesses Facebook and e-mail through her 

smartphone. 

Hearing this, it’s not hard to understand that mobile data usage 

is skyrocketing. According to Cisco, in 2016 alone, U.S. mobile data 

traffic grew 44 percent, and it’s expected to grow fivefold from 2016 

to 2021. Big events cause people to use their mobile devices even 

more. At the Phoenix Open golf tournament in February of this 

year, for just one carrier, mobile data use was equivalent to 26 million selfies. That same carrier had a 60 percent increase with 

roughly the same amount of people from the very year before at the 

tournament. 

All this is the fun stuff, but mobile devices are critical to more 

serious matters. According to Pew Research Center, 40 percent of 

cell phone users said they found themselves in an emergency situation in which having their phone with them helped, and the FCC 

reports that 70 percent of 911 calls are from wireless phones. My 

father lives in Tucson, and only has a wireless phone. He does not 

have a wired phone or a landline. In the last year, he has had to 

call 911 twice for an emergency. For his sake and the sake of all 

Americans, it’s critical that these devices work when we need them 

the most. 

While these phones, tablets, and apps seem magical, they don’t 

run on magic, they run on hardware and software connected to antennas and ultimately fiber-optic cables, and all of this is installed 

on towers and poles and in underground conduits. In other words, 

they require infrastructure. And more and more of that infrastructure will be in the form of small cells which are placed on utility 

poles, street lights, signs, bus shelters, and traffic signals, and are 

designed to blend into the existing environment. 

FCC Chairman Pai recently said, ‘‘The future of wireless will 

evolve from large macro cell towers to include thousands of densely 

deployed small cells operating at lower power.’’ These small cells 

are necessary to meet today’s customers’ needs, but they’re even 

more important for the next generation of wireless networks, 5G. 

We’re meeting today’s needs and preparing for that future in Arizona, where we just passed a landmark bill that promotes needed 

investment in small cells while ensuring the appropriate level of 

local control. Arizonans will know that when they want to use the 

mobile devices, the infrastructure will be there to support them. 

You may have heard that sometimes there are conflicts between 

wireless carriers, cities, and towns, over how and where these 

small cells will be built, but in Arizona, we have the support for 

the bill from the industry players and also from the municipal association, the Arizona League of Cities and Towns. 

34 

How did we get there? Simple. We had many productive discussions about how to address the concerns of the cities and towns and 

others while ensuring the right policy framework for investment. 

The bill ensures that there is a uniform statewide policy for wireless carriers to get the necessary permits and agreements from Arizona cities and towns, and those cities and towns are able to ensure that small cells meet their local codes for public safety, design 

standards, and concealment requirements. If the wireless carrier 

wants to attach to municipal poles, like street lights, the bill ensures that carriers will pay appropriate fees for that attachment. 

In summary, I’m very proud that Arizona’s new bill is a great example of how the state, cities, towns, and industry can all work together to meet a shared goal of ensuring that the needs and demands of citizens for broadband networks will be met. 

And as I’m efficient and believe in shot clocks, I think I finished 

just in time. 

[Laughter.] 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Weninger follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF WENINGER, STATE REPRESENTATIVE, 

ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Today, you can look down any crowded street in America and, at a glance, see 

multiple people, young and old, looking at their smartphones or tablets—following 

online maps, checking Instagram, Snapchat or Facebook, watching YouTube or 

Netflix, videochatting on Skype or FaceTime, or accessing one or more of countless 

apps. My mother lives in a retirement community. She used to have a wired Internet connection with a desktop computer. Last year she got rid of it and now sits 

on her chair in the living room and accesses Facebook and e-mail through her smart 

phone. Hearing this, it’s not hard to understand that mobile data usage is skyrocketing. According to Cisco, in 2016 alone, U.S. mobile data traffic grew 44 percent, and is expected to grow 5-fold from 2016 to 2021. 

Big events cause people to use their mobile devices even more. At the Phoenix 

Open golf tournament in February, for just one carrier, mobile data use was equivalent to 26 million selfies! That same carrier had a 60 percent increase in data usage 

at the tournament in 2017 compared to 2016. 

All that is the fun stuff, but mobile devices are critical to more serious matters. 

According to the Pew Research Center, 40 percent of cell phone owners said they 

found themselves in an emergency situation in which having their phone with them 

helped, and the FCC reports that 70 percent of 911 calls are from wireless phones. 

My father lives in Tucson and only has a wireless phone. In the last year he has 

had to call 911 two times in an emergency. For his sake and the sake of all Americans it is critical that these devices work when we need them most. 

While these phones, tablets and apps seem magical, they don’t run on magic, they 

run on hardware and software connected to antennas and ultimately fiber-optic cables, and all of this is installed on towers and poles and in underground conduits. 

In other words, they require infrastructure, and more and more of that infrastructure will be in the form of small cells, which are placed on utility poles, street lights, 

signs, bus shelters and traffic signals and are designed to blend into the existing 

environment. 

FCC Chairman Pai recently said that ‘‘The future of wireless will evolve from 

large, macro-cell towers to include thousands of densely-deployed small cells, operating at lower power.’’ These small cells are necessary to meet today’s customer 

needs, but they are even more important for the next generation of wireless networks—5G. 

We’re meeting today’s needs and preparing for that future in Arizona, where we 

just passed a landmark bill that promotes needed investment in small cells while 

ensuring the appropriate level of local control. Arizonans will know that when they 

want to use their mobile devices, the infrastructure will be there to support them. 

You may have heard that sometimes there are conflicts between wireless carriers 

and cities and towns over how and where these small cells will be built. But in Arizona, we had support for the bill from the industry players and also from the municipal association, the Arizona League of Cities and Towns. 

35 

How did we get there? Simple, we had many productive discussions about how 

to address the concerns of the cities and towns and others while ensuring the right 

policy framework for investment. The bill ensures that there is a uniform statewide 

policy for wireless carriers to get the necessary permits and agreements from Arizona cities and towns, and those cities and towns are able to ensure that small cells 

meet their local codes for public safety, design standards, and concealment requirements. If the wireless carrier wants to attach to municipal poles, like street lights, 

the bill ensures that carriers will pay appropriate fees for that attachment. 

In summary, I am very proud that Arizona’s new bill is a great example of how 

the state, cities, towns, and industry can all work together to meet a shared goal 

of ensuring that the needs and demands of citizens for broadband networks will be 

met. 

The CHAIRMAN. Nicely done. Thank you, Mr. Weninger. 

Mr. Resnick. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GARY RESNICK, MAYOR, 

WILTON MANORS, FLORIDA 

Mr. RESNICK. Good morning, Chairman Thune, Ranking Member 

Nelson, and members of the Committee. I am Gary Resnick, Mayor 

of the City of Wilton Manors, Florida, and an active member of the 

National League of Cities and the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors. And I want to thank both 

NLC and NATOA for their support with my testimony and their 

support with these issues over the years. 

In addition to my public service, I am an attorney with the law 

firm of GrayRobinson and head up our broadband practices group, 

and I want to thank you for the opportunity again to share our perspectives from local government leaders across the country. 

I also want to thank the Committee, and in particular Senator 

Nelson—we Floridians are very lucky to have you representing us, 

sir—for calling attention to the importance of broadband deployment. As both an elected official and the past Chair of the FCC’s 

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee, I can assure you that no 

one cares more about competitive broadband choices than local governments. We are not just regulators, but we are large consumers 

and understand how important reliable, competitive broadband is 

for our local economies and our residents. 

As with other new technologies over the years, the incredible success in rolling out broadband has made it a disruptive technology. 

It challenges the resolve of all stakeholders, including local governments and industry members, to remain cooperative partners. If 

we, as a nation, will succeed in providing all businesses and residents from Miami, Florida, to Miami, Texas, with excellent, affordable, reliable service, local governments and service providers must 

remain cooperative partners, and Federal support for that partnership is essential to deploying successfully the infrastructure needed 

for broadband. 

For years, cities and towns like mine have worked proactively 

with both service providers and infrastructure companies to support broadband technology. As city leaders, though, we must also 

balance other important needs of our communities. Our current 

policy framework supports us in that role, and that’s why 

broadband service and infrastructure has been able to expand so 

rapidly. 

In my community of Wilton Manors, we have supported both 

service providers and infrastructure companies, including allowing 

36 

the use of public property, and we, along with many other local 

governments, are updating our codes to support access for small 

cell technology in our public rights-of-way. We have even attempted, in conjunction with transportation construction projects, 

to deploy broadband infrastructure for use by the industry. However, currently, Federal and state policies prohibit us from doing 

so. 

When local governments do restrict broadband infrastructure, 

trust me, there are very good reasons, particularly when dealing 

with requests to install facilities in the public rights-of-way. We are 

stewards of the public rights-of-way. Our codes exist to ensure that 

the rights-of-way remain safe for all who are impacted by their use, 

including our first responders, utilities, the traveling public, and 

adjacent property owners. We cannot sacrifice these other important interests for one particular use. 

There are some concerns with managing the public rights-of-way 

that are more important to us in Florida than perhaps in other 

areas. We pay a price in Florida to live in paradise, with severe 

hurricanes, storms, flooding, and lightning strikes. Any public 

works director will tell you that with these environmental challenges, it makes absolute sense to construct utilities underground. 

Not only does this improve aesthetics and increase property values, 

it provides much reliable utility service and allows first responders 

and residents to use streets during and after these emergencies 

rather than waiting sometimes days or weeks until downed power 

lines are cleared. 

Taxpayers in many communities throughout the state have approved referenda to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to underground existing overhead utilities, including recently the town of 

Palm Beach. The same reason for not favoring overhead utilities 

applies to broadband infrastructure that may be located in the 

rights-of-way. 

In addition, in Florida, it is vital for our Department of Transportation and cities and counties to maintain what’s known as 

‘‘clear zones’’ adjacent to roads. Our roadways often border waterways, and the only safe way to pull off a road to avoid an accident 

and not get submerged, is to have no fixed facilities along such 

roads. Clear loans—clear zones—excuse me—are essential for public safety, not only in Florida, but I understand in communities 

that suffer from heavy snows and ice as well. 

My reasons for discussing these concerns is to show that our 

local codes address very practical issues. There is no one-size-fitsall solution. Local regulation is the only system that works. Unfortunately, there are proposals on the table now that would preempt 

and minimize cities’ roles and reduce our ability to ensure the safe, 

responsible deployment of infrastructure. Federal policies that preempt local authority to support certain technologies or competitors 

risk producing winners and losers. These industries are very competitive. If it suddenly became cheaper, faster, easier for a company 

to deploy its technology, it would create unfair competitive advantages. 

Finally, if Congress preempts local authority over public rightsof-way, local taxpayers would be forced to subsidize the broadband 

industry. Much of the dialogue occurring in the states and at the 

37 

FCC would allow wireless providers to attach their equipment to 

government-owned light poles for as little as $15 per year. These 

are very expensive. My city just spent over $210,000 to install new 

light poles, and it would not be fair for our taxpayers to pay for 

this public property to be used virtually for free. As a Mayor, if I 

give business such perks, my constituents would expect a great 

deal in return. 

We have several policy recommendations for the Committee that 

are more dealt with in detail in my written statement. First, the 

Federal Government should prioritize local decisionmaking on infrastructure. Second, Congress should tackle Federal barriers to infrastructure deployment. The MOBILE NOW Act goes a long way 

to doing that. Third, Congress should allow local governments to 

use every tool in its toolbox. And, finally, we should consider appropriate education for broadband users. Our first responders are constantly reminding residents that they cannot text to 911 or post an 

emergency on social media instead of calling 911. 

In conclusion, on behalf of the NLC and NATOA and the City of 

Wilton Manors, I wish to thank the Committee for inviting me to 

participate in this hearing today. America’s local governments are 

committed to supporting Congress and increasing broadband deployment. And I look forward to any questions you may have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Resnick follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GARY RESNICK, MAYOR, WILTON MANORS, FLORIDA

Good morning, Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson and members of the 

Committee. I am Gary Resnick, Mayor of Wilton Manors, Florida, having served on 

the Commission for over 18 years and Mayor since 2008. I am also a long-term 

member of the National League of Cities (NLC) and the National Association of 

Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA). The National League of Cities 

is the Nation’s oldest and largest organization representing local elected officials in 

America’s cities and towns. NLC represents 19,000 cities and towns of all sizes 

across the country. The National Association of Telecommunications Officers and 

Advisors is the premier professional association that provides support on the many 

local, state, and Federal communications laws, judicial decisions, and technology 

issues impacting the interests of local governments. The cities and towns in your 

states are very likely members of NLC and NATOA. 

I currently serve as Vice Chair of NLC’s Information Technology and Communications Committee. In addition, I have served on the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Intergovernmental Advisory Committee for eight years including as 

Chair from 2014 through 2016. The IAC provides guidance to the FCC on a broad 

range of issues important to state, local and tribal governments including cable 

franchising, public rights-of-way, facilities siting, universal service, broadband access and adoption, and public safety communications. More locally, I have served 

on the Board of Directors of the Florida League of Cities for 14 years and have 

chaired various committees for the Florida League addressing communications policies and issues. My background as an attorney with the Florida firm of 

GrayRobinson, representing businesses and local governments for over 20 years in 

connection with such communication issues, and my role as Mayor, has afforded me 

a unique opportunity to work effectively with public and private entities, and local 

citizens, focused on improving communications services. 

I want to thank the Committee for calling attention to the importance of 

broadband deployment in our communities by holding this hearing and appreciate 

the opportunity to provide the unique perspective of local governments and our role 

in promoting broadband deployment. I want to particularly thank Senator Nelson 

not only for his focus on this issue, but for his excellent service for all Floridians— 

we are truly fortunate to have him represent us. 

No one wants broadband deployment and competitive broadband choices more 

than local governments. We understand the opportunities that broadband presents 

for our local communities and our residents in terms of public safety, economic deVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:09 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\28640.TXT JACKIE
38 

velopment, healthcare, entertainment and education. We are not only regulators of 

broadband infrastructure and services, we are also large consumers of broadband 

services, and sometimes even providers. In Florida, for example, the City of Gainesville has been a provider of high speed broadband service for commercial entities 

for many years. For years, communities of all sizes around the Nation have taken 

innovative steps to increase the deployment of broadband infrastructure, both wired 

and wireless, while balancing our health, safety, and welfare concerns. 

Local Successes in Broadband Infrastructure Deployment 

Local governments like mine have been active partners for years now in ensuring 

that their residents and local businesses have access to competitive broadband 

choices. Siting broadband infrastructure in Florida has and is working very well. 

Both wired and wireless services have been deployed efficiently and effectively in 

communities throughout our state. While there are some areas where certain 

broadband wireline providers have not extended their fiber, local governments including my City have worked with service providers to encourage such build out of 

entire communities, usually with success. 

With respect to wireless broadband infrastructure, local governments generally 

process applications for wireless facilities in an efficient and expeditious manner not 

only for the benefit of their residents, visitors, and businesses, but also for their own 

benefit, as wireless services are important for local governments’ own communications needs. We appreciate the many benefits of expanded access to broadband options. In fact, many local governments are now actively working to deploy conduit, 

fiber, towers, and other communications facilities themselves, particularly in conjunction with construction projects in the rights-of-way and on public property, or 

are planning these for future projects. The goal of these projects is to encourage providers to offer advanced wired and wireless broadband services throughout our communities. 

Cities realize that the smart deployment of infrastructure must carefully balance 

the needs of our industry partners with the public health, safety and welfare concerns of communities. Wireline broadband infrastructure has been built out, with 

wireline broadband service available throughout Florida, and indeed throughout 

most of the country, largely because of local governments managing their franchising authority in a responsible manner. 

Similarly, the reason why wireless services and infrastructure for macro tower 

sites have expanded so rapidly in Florida is because local governments have enjoyed 

broad home rule authority to adopt appropriate land use regulations to make siting 

decisions that work best for their communities and applicants. Most local codes afford government staff sufficient ability to work with communications providers and 

infrastructure companies in a way that serves the industries’ needs while addressing local land use, public safety and other concerns within their authority. This is 

particularly important with respect to installing communications infrastructure in 

the rights-of-way, since Florida local governments are precluded under current State 

law from entering into agreements for the installation of facilities in the rights-ofway. The relatively recent requests to install small cell and micro cell technology 

infrastructure in the public rights-of-way has created new challenges as well as opportunities for local governments. 

First, we should understand what we are talking about in terms of this infrastructure. I have met on numerous occasions with both providers of wireless service and 

infrastructure companies that do not provide service but install and manage equipment to lease to providers. We should understand that the term ‘‘small cell’’ does 

not refer to the size of the facility, but according to industry engineers, refers to the 

distance that the signal will reach and can be used to provide service only to small 

areas. The industry has described this infrastructure as ‘‘the size of a pizza box,’’ 

but the type and size of such infrastructure varies greatly with some companies 

looking to place towers that are 120′ tall in the rights-of-way, while other providers 

seek to site relatively small antenna sites of 6 cubic feet or less that could be collocated on existing light or utility poles. The small cell infrastructure to be located 

in the rights-of-way also includes equipment cabinets that may be as large as 28 

cubic feet or bigger than most refrigerators in our homes. Thus, the infrastructure 

to be located in the rights-of-may not be anything like a pizza box but may be more 

like a pizza delivery vehicle located adjacent to a 120′ tower, much bigger than anything else in the rights-of-way. In addition, because small cell facilities reach only 

small areas, the industry will look to locate a lot of such facilities particularly in 

densely populated areas, with each provider needing its own facilities since antennas and equipment cabinet are not shared by providers. Thus, some cities may be 

facing as many as 10 or more sites on one block to accommodate all carriers’ small 

cell networks. Many local governments that have comprehensive policies in place to 

39 

address macro towers and infrastructure on private and public property have not 

been faced previously with requests to locate this volume and size of infrastructure 

in the rights-of-way and thus, have to consider appropriate policies. 

Some cities around the country, such as the City of San Antonio, have worked in 

consultation with providers to develop master agreements for the placement of such 

infrastructure in the rights-of-way. The City entered a master license agreement 

with Verizon which served as a model for other providers, to allow access to city 

rights-of-way and to attach equipment to certain city-owned structures for an 

agreed-upon fee schedule. The City found that this proactive agreement allowed 

Verizon and others to increase coverage and capacity, benefiting both the providers 

and customers, while allowing the City to protect important safety and land-use concerns, including the City’s unique historical aesthetic character. 

In Florida as well, there are many examples of local governments working 

proactively with the broadband communications and infrastructure industries to 

support deploying infrastructure. The City of Tampa has worked diligently to support expanding communications capabilities for its residents and businesses. The 

City allows wireless infrastructure on commercial buildings, and the City has leased 

numerous public properties for the installation of infrastructure for both wireless 

carriers and wireless infrastructure companies. The City also hosts over 190 free 

Wi-Fi hotspots and thousands of subscriber-based Wi-Fi hotspots, creating a dense, 

reliable network for residents and businesses. The City has committed extensive 

capital and resources to handling rights-of-way registration and permit applications 

in a timely fashion, ensuring that infrastructure is developed with minimal disruption to city streets or business operations. 

The robust deployment of broadband infrastructure has occurred under existing 

state and Federal communications laws that recognize the important role of local 

governments and preserve local land use authority while balancing the needs of the 

industry so that communications services are not effectively prohibited. I have met 

with many members of the infrastructure industry who candidly have stated that 

the reason they are seeking access to public rights-of-way as opposed to private 

property is that access will be quicker, especially if various state bills pass that 

mandate that local governments grant permits within a short time frame, and 

cheaper since private property landlords will require rent. From a technical standpoint, the industry has stated that there is no reason that they cannot locate small 

cell technology on public or private property outside of the public-rights-of-way. The 

communications laws were never intended to ensure that either the infrastructure 

or wireless carrier industry has the cheapest and quickest route available to deploy 

infrastructure. I would caution that such policies in new communications laws 

would harm competition and discourage innovation. 

Important Considerations in Local Regulation 

Local governments have a duty to their taxpayers to protect and manage public 

property and public rights-of-way for the benefit of all users. The public rights-ofway typically are not owned by local governments, but rather are held in public 

trust for all users of the rights-of-way, including government employees and first responders, public utilities, businesses and the travelling public. In addition to transportation, utility, public safety and land use concerns, we have other valid concerns 

with managing the rights-of-way, including ADA, environmental, economic development, property value, aesthetics, encouragement of collocation versus new installations, and costs for management and maintenance. Local regulation is vital to ensure that the important interests of both residents and competitive industry users 

of public resources are protected. This regulation actually protects the long-term viability of the industries in question. For example, if a tower company installs a tower 

in the rights-of-way without sufficient regard to building codes or safety of the traveling public and persons are injured or killed, no cost cutting or regulatory preemption will save that company. Appropriate local regulations that protect important interests are necessary to maintain viable provider and infrastructure industries. 

Local regulations of wireless infrastructure in Florida did not come about in a vacuum. Rather, most localities have adopted land use codes that are consistent with 

Florida and Federal statutes and regulations after considering input from the affected industries and other stakeholders. For the most part, local governments in 

Florida have approved infrastructure siting applications as long as there did not 

exist a land use reason to deny such application. Many local governments, including 

my City, are actively updating their codes to reflect the relatively new small and 

micro cell technologies that are seeking to be sited in public rights-of-way. 

Local governments in Florida also have unique concerns in managing the deployment of such infrastructure in their communities. More hurricanes, tropical storms, 

cyclones and lightning strikes occur in Florida than any other state in the Nation. 

40 

In the past ten years, 38 of these storms have made landfall in Florida, causing 

deaths and billions of dollars of property damage. In response, communities around 

the state have worked hard to make their communities more resilient, by requiring 

that new utilities be constructed underground, and asking taxpayers to pay to underground existing overhead utilities. The residents of the Town of Palm Beach recently approved a referendum for the Town to spend tens of millions of dollars to 

underground utilities throughout the Town. Florida communities know very well 

that constructing utilities underground offers many advantages: utility service is 

more reliable, particularly in storms and lightning strikes, maintenance of utilities 

and rights-of-ways is less costly, there is greater safety for the travelling public, 

community aesthetics are improved and property values increase. Further, when 

there are catastrophic storms, first responders and residents gain much faster access to streets, without having to wait often several days to address downed utility 

lines. These reasons that support utilities being constructed underground apply 

equally to communications infrastructure in the rights-of-way. 

In addition, many Florida roads border waterways and canals. Ensuring that the 

rights-of-way adjacent to roads remain clear is a priority of our State’s Department 

of Transportation as well as counties and municipalities. This is essential for drivers 

to pull safely off the road or to avoid accidents without submerging their vehicles. 

State Departments of Transportation and local governments often have such ‘‘clear 

zones’’ for public safety, requiring that no fixed objects be placed in the rights-ofway or that such areas are not constantly under construction to locate and to maintain facilities. I understand from talking to my colleagues in other states, including 

South Dakota, that there are similar protections in place in states that are subject 

to freezing ice and heavy snow storms for the safety of the travelling public. Constant construction and permanent facilities in the public rights-of-way would be just 

as hazardous in such communities. 

Avoiding One-Size-Fits-All Federal Preemption 

A one-size-fits-all Federal preemption scheme, either as a result of FCC regulations or new Federal legislation, cannot adequately take into account the diverse 

and particular needs of communities from state to state. In Florida, under current 

law, local governments are not able to negotiate and to enter into agreements with 

communications providers for access to the rights of way. My city for example, could 

not enter into the type of agreement that San Antonio entered with Verizon. Our 

only authority to address our valid concerns with use of our rights-of-way while accommodating the needs of communications providers is through our codes. Federal 

preemption of local governments’ codes could leave Florida counties and cities without a way to address our vital interests that Federal courts have determined are 

lawful areas for us to regulate under Federal and Florida law. Because of Florida’s 

unique law with respect to local control over rights-of-way for communications facilities, the FCC and Congress must be very cautious about interfering with local authority. There could be unintended consequences that would be harmful to the communications and infrastructure industries as a result of inappropriate Federal action. 

The Federal Government should also be careful not to pick winners and losers 

through law or regulation. Both the service provider and infrastructure industries 

have become extremely competitive, not just in Florida but around the country. 

Making it easier, faster, or less costly for a particular technology, competitor, or 

type of infrastructure to be deployed will create significant competitive advantages 

and harm viable competitors. If Congress or the FCC encourages particular technologies, it will remove incentives to develop better technology. For example, 

prioritizing the deployment of ‘‘small cell’’ wireless infrastructure, which covers only 

a small area of service may have negative consequences. Affording these technologies advantages under Federal law could limit the deployment of technologies 

that would provide greater coverage and be less physically impactful on our environments. 

Local regulations may actually incentivize advances in technology. For example, 

local government regulations that require collocation if feasible before a new tower 

can be constructed, have encouraged the industry to adopt better methods to collocate more facilities on existing towers and structures and have led to safer tower 

practices and more efficient use of infrastructure resources. Local needs for hidden 

or stealth infrastructure have led to the development of new kinds of smart street 

furniture and advances in infrastructure camouflaging. 

The Federal Government must also not ask taxpayers to subsidize these industries to boost one type of infrastructure over others. Preemption of local fees or rent 

for use of government-owned light and traffic poles, or fees for use of the rightsof-way amounts to a taxpayer subsidy of wireless providers and wireless infrastrucVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:09 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\28640.TXT JACKIE
41 

ture companies. There is no corresponding benefit for such taxpayers such as requiring the broadband industry to reduce consumer rates or offer advanced services to 

all communities within a certain time frame. While it could be said that the benefit 

is that the wireless provider industry will deploy 5G for consumers, there is certainly no requirement being discussed. Further, it is hard to find a public benefit 

by giving special concessions to an infrastructure industry that does not provide 

service to consumers, but earns revenue by constructing, managing and leasing infrastructure. Light and traffic poles paid for by taxpayers are not cheap. My City 

has had the occasion as part of roadway improvement projects to purchase many 

new lights poles over the past several years. In 2016, we purchased 22 new poles 

for Dixie Highway at a cost of $5,340 per light pole. Total cost of installation with 

directional bore, conductors, conduit, distribution system, etc. was $209,350. In 

2012, we purchased 34 new light poles for a project on Powerline Road at a cost 

of $4,357.70 per pole and total cost of installation of $249,277.30, and in 2010, a 

similar project for installing 51 new light poles on Wilton Drive cost $344,756.90. 

Many of the industry advocates argue that the industry should be allowed to use 

such light poles for free or for as little as $15 per attachment per year. Why should 

our taxpayers pay for the infrastructure to be used by these for-profit companies? 

The onus is on Congress to negotiate on behalf of the American public, and if it offers handouts to industry, it must negotiate something tangible in turn that improves service for consumers—not just promises or predictions of increased competition in the future. As a Mayor, if I were negotiating to provide perks for certain 

businesses, I would certainly be expected by my constituents to get a good deal for 

them in turn. 

In addition, during my years serving on the IAC, we devoted substantial attention 

to broadband adoption and why roughly 20 percent of the Nation’s households do 

not subscribe to broadband. Certainly access to broadband figures into this, particularly in rural and tribal areas where carriers have refused to construct infrastructure because of relatively low returns on the capital investment. However, what the 

IAC and the FCC have realized is that for many residents, broadband is simply not 

affordable. Local governments, including my City, have worked hard to make 

broadband available to such residents, often through Federal programs such as 

CDBG, by setting up community centers, schools and libraries and free Wi-Fi in 

parks and government buildings where residents can obtain free access to 

broadband as well as education on how to use and not to use broadband. In any 

discussion about supporting infrastructure, we should not lose sight of the ultimate 

goal of having affordable broadband available for all residents. 

Policy Recommendations for the Committee 

To ensure that all Americans have reliable access to affordable, truly high-speed 

wireless broadband, local governments through NLC and NATOA have proposed a 

number of actions the Federal Government can take to increase competition and the 

reach of broadband. 

• Prioritize Local Decision-making on Infrastructure—In addition to avoiding further Federal preemption of local police powers, Congress and the FCC should 

encourage further local input in Federal decision-making processes. The FCC’s 

recently-formed Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee, or ‘‘BDAC,’’ is 

tasked with advising the FCC as to state laws and local ordinances to address 

small cell infrastructure deployment. However, I and my local government colleagues around the country have concerns since only one member out of 29 on 

the Committee is a local government official. With all due respect, the other 

members of the committee have never voted on a local government ordinance. 

More local government representatives should be appointed to this body. 

• Tackle Federal Barriers to Infrastructure Deployment—This Committee has already taken numerous steps to speed wireless broadband deployment through 

the bipartisan MOBILE NOW Act. By freeing up Federal spectrum, streamlining access to Federal lands, building a database of available infrastructure, 

and implementing common-sense dig-once policies for Federal construction, the 

Committee is helping to eliminate obvious barriers to deployment in Federal 

systems. Congress could go further, particularly as it considers comprehensive 

infrastructure legislation, to ensure that Federal transportation dollars and 

other Federal funding programs are not restricted in a way that prohibits the 

inclusion of conduit or dark fiber in state and local government projects. For 

example, my City recently completed a multimillion dollar improvement on 

Dixie Highway largely with Federal transportation funds. When we wanted to 

install conduit underground as part of that project, we were told the funds were 

restricted and we could not do so, even if we wanted to pay the extra labor and 

42 

material costs for the conduit installation. We have a larger project commencing 

next year and would like to install conduit. Federal infrastructure funding programs should recognize that broadband infrastructure is a necessary part of 

bridge, tunnel, and roadway projects. The IAC completed a Wireless Report at 

the request of the FCC last December, which is maintained on the FCC’s 

website. One of the things we realized, surprisingly, is that the FCC does not 

maintain remotely complete data as to macro towers that may be available for 

collocation. The IAC recommended that it would be a good practice for local governments and the FCC to maintain such information to collocate wireless communications facilities more easily. 

• Allow Local Governments to Use Every Tool in the Toolbox—We need every tool 

in the toolbox to ensure our residents can have access to affordable, modern 

broadband and do not wind up subsidizing the provider and infrastructure industries without obtaining significant benefits in return. That means allowing 

local governments to implement innovative policies like dig-once, which reduces 

the cost of underground broadband infrastructure, or touch-once, which minimizes the time and disruption necessary to add new broadband providers to existing utility poles. In addition, we should have the ability to negotiate with the 

broadband industries. Verizon approached the City of Fort Walton Beach, FL 

to obtain access to government property including government infrastructure in 

the public rights-of-way. The City entered into an agreement with Verizon that 

afforded the access it needed and also provided substantial benefits for the City 

and its residents including market rates of over $2,000 per attachment. My City 

as well has negotiated for the use of public property in exchange for benefits 

that accrue to my City’s residents. Virtually all local governments have entered 

into similar arrangements. Allowing local governments and industry members 

to work together to reach win wins is by far the best state and Federal policy. 

Cities also need the freedom to develop municipal broadband networks, if appropriate, without outright or effective preemption that limits competition. Smaller 

and rural communities that have successfully developed partially or wholly publicly owned networks have found this option to be a critical lifeline in a market 

that does not allow private providers to realize a sufficient return on investment 

to serve these communities. As broadband has become a necessary component 

for cities to retain talent and attract business, denying them this option ensures 

that they will continue to experience ‘‘brain drain’’ and fewer economic opportunities. 

• Education—Finally, while we all support the goal of making broadband available for everyone, as policymakers we should be considering appropriate education on how to use and not to use broadband. We all know that broadband 

should not be used for certain purposes, such as identity theft, bullying, and 

other inappropriate but available uses. Also, not all broadband content is appropriate for all users. Many cities are educating residents on broadband. For example, my City and others often remind residents that posting something on 

social media is not a substitute for calling 911 in an emergency. First responders do not monitor social media. In the IAC, we often discussed the social responsibility that should accompany the technology, but those issues were not 

really within the FCC’s scope. Perhaps they are within Congress’s. 

Conclusion 

On behalf of the City of Wilton Manors and my colleagues with NLC and NATOA, 

I want to thank the Committee for inviting me to participate in this hearing today. 

I offer the ongoing assistance of local governments as you examine ways to increase 

broadband deployment responsibly across our Nation. I urge you to view local governments as strong partners in ensuring that broadband services are available to 

all Americans. 

Thank you again. I look forward to any questions you might have. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA 

Senator CAPITO [presiding]. Thank you. I just made a meteoric 

leap to the Chair’s chair. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CAPITO. It’s so nice to be here. Well, thank you. And I 

want to thank Chairman Thune. Obviously we were just called for 

43 

a vote. He has gone to vote, and he has yielded me the time to 

make my statement and ask some questions. I’m not going to reiterate all the benefits of broadband. I’m from West Virginia, a state 

that has challenges that many of our states have. 

I appreciate Ms. Cooper’s testimony when she references the 

GAO Report that says states’ access to affordable broadband telecommunications is vital to economic growth and improved quality 

of life for the country. So we need to have it easily accessible and 

to try to help those areas who have been unserved. 

So today I want to announce I am going to be introducing a bill 

called the Gigabit Opportunity Act, which builds on Chairman Pai’s 

idea and vision of ‘‘gigabit opportunity zones.’’ It seeks to expedite 

the deployment of broadband in low-income rural areas. And in the 

GO Act, the FCC would be directed to release a framework to 

streamline broadband laws in states, counties, and cities. There are 

a myriad of different hoops that have to be jumped through, but 

once adopted, I think Governors would be able to nominate portions of their states’ low-income areas as ‘‘gigabit opportunity 

zones.’’ So I hope my colleagues on both sides will join with me to 

get the flexibility and the streamlining of existing regulations. 

Mr. Downes, in your testimony, you mentioned the unintended 

consequences of unfocused investments, and you mentioned the 

stimulus package in 2009. Certainly, in West Virginia we had a 

major investment, and we’re still 49th in deployment. Encouraging 

broadband has been difficult—you know, not having the competition that we need, the burdensome regulations obviously are holding us back. 

What suggestions besides what you have in your written statement would you put forward for future investments if and when we 

get to an infrastructure package that includes broadband? You 

mentioned $20 billion, and you mentioned that FCC should be in 

charge rather than having the three different pockets. Would there 

be anything else you would add to that statement? 

Mr. DOWNES. Yes. And thank you. And I had an opportunity, 

Senator, to look at your draft legislation, and it was very encouraging, so I hope it does move forward. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

Mr. DOWNES. So obviously we know that some of the broadband 

stimulus money was spent better than others. And I think one of 

the things we learned even from all three different bureaus is that 

we have to watch these projects more closely and more professionally, frankly, and make sure that when we make a loan or we 

make an investment to a private party to do an infrastructure bill, 

we can’t just leave it alone, we have to watch them. Because a lot 

of these projects got into trouble, some of the contractors were not 

very experienced, and they just were allowed to go on and spend 

money and deliver nothing. So I think much more professional 

management, and as I say, so far the FCC did the best job, but 

they could use a lot of help as well. 

Senator CAPITO. One of the areas I’ve struggled with is the way 

that broadband deployment is reported and measured. For instance, if you have the census tracts, you can have an entire tract, 

and if you serve one person or one household in the census tract, 

then that census tract is considered ‘‘served’’ in some reporting. Do 

44 

you have a concern as well as to the actual data that we’re receiving as to who is getting this service and who isn’t? 

Mr. DOWNES. Yes, I do. I agree that the measurement by census 

tract is obviously not the best. And it goes the other way, too. You 

start to see things that look like they’re unserved based on, sort of, 

the criteria that the FCC and others use to determine what constitutes broadband, how much latency is allowed, and so on. That, 

frankly, has excluded satellite up till now. So I think we can do a 

much better job of pinpointing just where the real problems are. 

But, as you know, we already have a pretty good idea of the 

unserved communities and the underserved communities and 

where they are, and that should be the focus. 

Senator CAPITO. Do you find, though, a bit of a disconnect into 

what your definition of underserved might be; for instance, the 

CAF-II money is going to providers to go to underserved and 

unserved areas? And I’ve been pushing, at least in my state, to 

make sure that we go to unserved because it doesn’t really do as 

much good, I don’t think, to up somebody’s speed before somebody 

even has availability of the service. Do you have a comment on 

that? 

Mr. DOWNES. Yes, no, I completely agree. The unserved communities ought to be the focus certainly of any actual Federal spending. In fact, that should be the exclusive focus. And we should use 

this reverse auction process once we figured out what the real investment requirement would be to get over the high cost to find the 

least cost provider and do it in a way that maximizes the public 

spend. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

And, Mr. Weninger, I would like to say our state and our Governor just signed a broadband bill under kind of controversial circumstances, so I want to take an opportunity to thank him, Governor Justice, for signing it and the legislatures that put it into effect. And I’ll be interested to see how it compares with what you 

all have done in Arizona. So thank you for being here today to 

bring that forward. Thank you. 

Mr. WENINGER. Thank you. 

Senator NELSON. Ms. Cooper, this is exciting. You’re going to put 

up 4,000-plus satellites, you’re going to cover every part of the 

globe. Tell me how you’re going to get along with those that put 

the pipes down that run into the houses. Are you directly competing against them or are you going to cooperate with them and 

concentrate in the areas that they can’t serve with 5G? 

Ms. COOPER. Thank you, Senator. The constellation we’re planning to build will cover the globe pretty equally. So the service will 

be available globally where we can manage our landing rights and 

develop our capacity on space. 

The business we plan to develop is meant to go direct to consumers, those consumers who seek to subscribe we would seek to 

serve. We are still several years away from deploying that service. 

I would expect that there would be significant uptake in areas that 

have no service now, but we also expect in areas where there are 

relatively few consumers with choice that we would be a new competitor entering the market. That I think is a question that will unfold in the years as we become closer to service rollout. 

45 

Senator NELSON. OK. More competition. 

Mr. Mayor, you have testified that you don’t want the Feds to 

mess around with the state and local regulations related to the expansion of broadband. So explain more in detail, what do you think 

about the FCC rulemaking that they are considering? And if they 

adopt what they’re considering, what impact is that going to have 

on the agreement states and cities have already made on wireless 

siting? 

Mr. RESNICK. Thank you, Senator Nelson. The success in rolling 

out broadband over the years has been made possible by the current framework of local regulation. Macro towers have been deployed effectively throughout the entire country. Virtually everybody around the country has access to wireline broadband, also 

made possible through local regulation. 

The FCC’s proposed NPRMs to potentially preempt local authority would have, I think, devastating effects on the industry and on 

the choices available for consumers. What local regulations show is 

that a one size does not fit all, it’s not possible, and it also tends 

to pick winners and losers. 

If we create incentives or give special treatment for small cell, 

which by the way is not small. There has been a lot of talk about 

small cell. That term refers to the size of the coverage, it doesn’t 

refer to the size of the facilities. Some of our communities have 

been approached by companies wanting to put 120-foot poles in the 

rights-of-way accompanied by refrigerator-size equipment cabinets. 

They are not small. They just provide service over a very small 

area. So that’s the term, ‘‘small cell,’’ it means the size, the distance of the service that it can reach, not the size of the facility. 

They are definitely not the size of pizza boxes. 

But companies like SpaceX that want to innovate with new technology should be encouraged, and if we adopt policies that preempt 

local authorities solely to encourage more small cell facilities being 

built in our rights-of-way, what’s it going to do for innovation? It’s 

going to discourage innovation, it’s going to favor one competitor 

over the others, and it’s going to basically create winners and losers. So that type of policy that would preempt local regulation 

would not be a very good model to follow. 

The local regulations, however, have encouraged innovation. For 

example, local governments can require collocation as opposed to 

building new towers. That does encourage innovation because the 

industry has to become more creative about how to obtain the signal as opposed to just building new towers everywhere. Also, there 

is innovation now where there is technology that can use actually 

manhole covers to provide the same type of coverage that small cell 

technology provides. Local governments can require stealth and 

camouflage requirements with respect to this technology. If the 

FCC preempts those types of local initiatives, it’s going to discourage innovation, it’s going to hurt certain competitors that are entering the business, and we don’t think it’s appropriate. 

Senator NELSON. OK. Madam Chairman, I’m going to go vote, 

and I will ask them to hold the vote for you until you can get there. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

The Chair is back, so I will—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Feel free to keep going. 

46 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CAPITO. I need to go vote. 

The CHAIRMAN [presiding]. Thank you. Thank you for your patience and your indulgence. And Members of Parliament from the 

north, thank you for being here. You get to witness what is our experience when we have votes going on in the middle of hearings. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. So thank you for being here. 

Let me pick up. I know that there have been a few questions 

asked already by my colleagues, but as I made clear in the situation in Custer, South Dakota, that I mentioned in my opening remarks, unnecessary bureaucratic delay in securing permits wastes 

time and deprives consumers of critical services. 

So, Mr. Downes, in our efforts to streamline deployment, we 

don’t want to step on local interests or discourage experimentation, 

but we do want to identify where logjams exist, like along the lines 

of what we’re experiencing in Custer in South Dakota, that serve 

no public interest. And so the question is, can you comment on 

your findings with regard to some of the practices that you’ve found 

wasteful? 

Mr. DOWNES. Sure. So, thank you, Senator, for the question. I 

don’t think that this is an all-or-nothing or it’s not black-and-white. 

I think there are lots of things at the local level that are specific 

to the locality and also we’ve seen I think an example of the buildout of Google Fiber and now other gigabit fiber services. We see 

what happens when localities are incentivized to experiment. Their 

competitive spirit gets up and they start to discover a lot of things 

about their practices that don’t make sense or just don’t fit in that 

environment, and they get rid of them. And certainly as we move 

into 5G, we’re going to see a lot of communities saying, states and 

localities saying, ‘‘We want 5G. We want to be leaders in this innovation. It’s an opportunity for economic growth. And we’re going to 

experiment in ways that we can to get it in as quickly as possible.’’ 

At the same time, there is a lot that’s wasteful. I live in an unincorporated community in Contra Costa County in California. The 

county people are very efficient, they’re very professional, they 

have their rules and regulations, but as soon as there is even a 

hint of a new antenna going up on an existing utility pole, we’ve 

got all sorts of, sort of, ad hoc local authorities and people who get 

involved in the process, and that’s usually where the delay is coming from. They don’t know what they’re debating about. They think 

they’re talking about a full tower install when they’re not, and 

that’s just part of what drags things out. As I say, it’s not the regulations, it’s the lack of uniform process, even just having the inspector show up when he’s supposed to. If they don’t, then we can 

have very expensive delays for no good reason. 

So I think there is that kind of waste that’s easy to get out, and 

I think that’s really what the FCC is getting at in the latest 

NPRM, not to foreclose local interests. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me direct this one, if I might, to Mr. 

Weninger. And by the way, congratulations on the Bill 2365 that 

you had passed in Arizona. Your bill was aimed at streamlining infrastructure policies at all levels of government to pave the way for 

the deployment of next-generation wireless services to the people in 

47 

your state. It’s particularly noteworthy, I think, that your bill 

earned the support of the League of Arizona Cities and Towns. And 

so I’m wondering what lessons we can learn, as Federal policymakers, from how state and local authorities in Arizona worked together to speed the deployment of next-generation services. Maybe 

you can talk about your legislation, how you worked out and 

reached out to and created a sort of integrated approach among all 

the levels of government in your state. 

Mr. WENINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, the inner workings of that was about 20 stakeholder meetings that were very intense in the beginning and did get heated. But once we figured out 

what each side really wanted, what the industry wanted, and what 

the local governments wanted, it got easier. 

The local governments were concerned about some of the things 

brought up here: concealment, aesthetics, public safety. So we addressed those and gave a lot on that. 

The industry is very concerned with price and speed, so the shot 

clocks. We instituted and settled on a 75-day shot clock, and essentially about $200 total when you added up the $50, the $50, and 

then a $100 fee. 

But I think it’s important within that framework, that with the 

shot clock, if you look at some of the things that were happening 

before, we had Verizon took 3 years to get nine master lease agreements in place with nine different cities. And when you have these 

companies coming in and putting forward millions and millions of 

dollars in infrastructure, and you have hundreds of cities and 

towns that have all different rules, all different fee structures, 

you’re never going to be able to keep up with technology, you’re always going to be behind, and you’re always going to have people 

who are lacking. 

We all came together, but one reason we did all this is because 

there were some people who were dragging this process out. One 

city has put up 71 of these, and in every case, they said they had 

to have an inspector, they were charging thousands of dollars, they 

were essentially charging the same amount, inspections and everything that you do for the large cell towers, and in all 71 cases of 

those poles, they made the company replace them anyway. So the 

company had to buy them a brand new pole and had to wait for 

6 months to a year to ever even get it up. 

But in the end, and I will submit it to you that the Arizona 

League of Cities and Towns was great to work with, but this was 

not a conservative organization. But we worked hard with them 

and we figured out what both sides wanted and needed, and in the 

end, they weren’t just neutral, they supported the bill, which, 

again, got out of the legislature unanimously out of both houses, 

and the Governor signed. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hendricks, again welcome back to the Committee. I notice you have something at your feet, and I’m told it 

may be a small cell. So maybe you could tell us a little bit about 

that piece of equipment and show us what you brought with you 

today. 

Mr. HENDRICKS. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. And I think it’s particularly important, given Mayor Resnick’s comments moments ago 

about small cells not being small. 

48 

This is a fairly typical Nokia small cell. [Witness displays case 

demonstrating size.] They come larger. They also come as small as 

a drink coaster. They come with capabilities to transmit from a few 

meters up to a few kilometers on the basis of the particular technology and software that is on board. 

One thing that is, I think, very important to understand, as our 

friend from Arizona was just outlining, about how regulatory costs 

impact deployment. Not even taking some of the more outrageous 

examples that we have seen, a $3,000 site inspection fee to put this 

on a pole, $2,500 a month—or $2,500 initial charge for the attachment, $1,500 a month in return charges, makes this a $22,000 enterprise just in regulatory costs to get it put on a pole. That doesn’t 

include labor, that doesn’t include getting power to it or backhaul 

to it, or the costs of going through the regulatory process. 

So if we were to deploy, again, fairly modest, 200 of these in a city, that’s $4.5 million in cost just to get it on a pole and keep it 

there for a year. We think that we need to do considerably better 

than that. We’ve also seen—and I outline this in my testimony— 

some great partners. Nokia has great partners with communities. 

We serve 30 or so municipal broadband systems. We’re a major 

partner in the FirstNet project that will be building the wireless 

network. 

So we have great experience and great partners, but we also 

have encountered extraordinary problems jurisdiction to jurisdiction, some places that have no process at all, so that you don’t 

know where to begin, some places where five agencies will be involved in seriatim looking at the application, the costs and fees 

that are associated here. The advent of third parties who have been 

coming in to negotiate on behalf of cities for these agreements have 

sprouted up kind of like crabgrass in the spring, and they have revenue-sharing arrangements with the city that are designed to extract as much as possible for the cost of placing these facilities. All 

of those things take the cost of the deployment well beyond, in 

many cases, what makes the project viable. And the timelines are 

also an issue. So—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. We appreciate that. 

Senator Fischer. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Representative Weninger, you talked about some of the changes 

that Arizona has recently made with your bill regarding wireless 

broadband deployment. The Nebraska legislature is working on legislation to ensure the infrastructure necessary for these new technologies is available. 

In the broader context, what do you see is the role of states in 

working with Federal, local, and also private entities to reduce the 

barriers to broadband deployment? 

Mr. WENINGER. Thank you, Senator. One thing I thought was interesting as I was coming here was looking over one of your bills, 

which was kind of mapping out Federal and government facilities, 

and I thought that was interesting because in a lot of these more 

rural communities and different parts, there is a lot of times govVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:09 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\28640.TXT JACKIE
49 

ernment infrastructure and government buildings and government 

workers. Sometimes in our communities, they’re the largest employer in some of those rural communities. So I thought that was 

important. 

But, yes, I think the states always—hopefully we can work with 

you like we worked in Arizona with the cities to help get this done. 

It’s just—I keep coming back to this, and I like using real world 

examples—it’s just so important for everybody, rural, and low-income neighborhoods, and everywhere else. I mean, when I go back 

to my hotel tonight, using data, I’m going to FaceTime with my 

daughter and be able to talk to my daughter pretty much in real 

time like I’m there. 

I mean, technology is advancing so quickly, and I’m one who embraces it and thinks it’s amazing, and anything we can do for you, 

as a state, or to work with the Federal Government or Nebraska, 

I think, is a good thing. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you. And Mr. Downes and Mr. Hendricks, as we look at new technologies, for example, the Internet 

of Things, that’s going to require obviously smaller facilities, and 

those have differences with the current, as you just showed us 

some of the smaller cell capabilities that we have available now. 

When we’re looking at these new technologies, how different are 

the siting policies going to be from the large towers? And how are 

we going to educate stakeholders to be able to deal with this both 

at the state and the local level about the importance that we have 

these rational siting ordinances? How are we going to move ahead 

on this? 

Mr. HENDRICKS. The first thing I would say, Senator, and thank 

you for the question, is earlier we heard about the major deployment successes we’ve had on broadband in the past, particularly 

with wireless. Interesting, when I was here on the Committee and 

we worked on a major piece of legislation, we passed comprehensive reform to macro cell tower siting, that streamlined things, and 

the evidence from the field is considerable, that that was a major 

component in very fast deployment of 4G LTE technology. 

So the lesson learned there is when you have rational policies 

that help to eliminate huge differences place to place, you can get 

ubiquitous deployment quickly. We think that’s true here also, but 

we also think that when you’re talking about adapting your local 

ordinances to accommodate densification of a network with small 

cells, that may be hundreds and hundreds of deployments in a city, 

you can’t look at it from the perspective of requiring an individual 

application for every small cell site. You need to allow things like 

multisite application so that you can take care of it at once, and 

you can reduce impact study consequences and costs, and you can 

have one site selection fee assessed instead of $3,000 per small cell. 

So we do have to change the way we think about these deployments because there is a major difference between a $400,000 

macro tower, with everything including a diesel generator that is 

deployed there and the small cell that I just showed you. 

Senator FISCHER. And the small box, right. 

Mr. Downes, did you have anything to add? 

Mr. DOWNES. Yes, I would just add that one of the things that’s 

going to be also important about 5G deployment is this is going to 

50 

be a technology that’s going to evolve and change very rapidly, and 

so it’s also going to be important not to penalize providers when 

they upgrade equipment or change equipment. If that’s treated as 

a brand-new install, that will slow things down inordinately and 

obviously discourage better, faster, cheaper service. 

Senator FISCHER. So you would think at the Federal level, we 

also need to be aware that changing technologies will require us to 

have a different view of the regulations that are in place? 

Mr. DOWNES. Yes, I think so. Again, what I would suggest is just 

learning from the local, the best practices, put that into legislation, 

that is, the minimum standard, obviously leaving locals to play 

with opportunities or other kinds of experimentation beyond that, 

but just have a baseline of sort of minimum requirement for flexibility. That’s really going to help everybody. 

Senator FISCHER. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. DOWNES. Thank you. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Fischer. 

Senator Schatz. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII 

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

scheduling this hearing on broadband infrastructure deployment. 

Improving people’s access to the Internet is critical to economic and 

social development, but it also matters what kind of Internet people have access to. 

So just very briefly, Chairman Pai is making a mistake with repealing the Open Internet Order, which will undermine the Internet, as we know it. The Internet is not broken, and there is no constituency to repeal the Open Internet Order. 

My first question is for Ms. Cooper. I found your testimony fascinating. Satellite Internet is often associated with low speeds, high 

latency, high prices. You have asserted that SpaceX essentially 

changes the paradigm. How? 

Ms. COOPER. Thank you, Senator. We have a couple ideas. First, 

we want to bring the satellites closer to Earth. By bringing them 

closer to Earth, the latency required in the system to get the satellite back to the Earth is reduced considerably. Our system, we 

think, will have latencies below 35 milliseconds, whereas traditional satellite services are in the hundreds of milliseconds. That’s 

important for some kinds of applications, but not for everything. 

The next problem is being able to offer speeds and sort of capacity that are comparable to what you would see with fiber services 

today. For that, we propose to build many satellites that have multiple satellites in view, and they’re highly intelligent satellites. 

They can focus their beams at very small areas, allow them to 

reuse the frequencies that they have very efficiently. That allows 

us to serve more customers with higher speeds and adapt our capacity where the demand rises and falls. 

We are also, I think, uniquely situated because we’ve got this 

heritage of applying real innovation to manufacturing, both to the 

spacecraft, we’ll be developing satellites that have not been seen 

51 

before, and deploying them using the reusable launch capability 

that can help us not only deploy quickly but also more cheaply. 

So our goal is to provide fiber-like services at market-prevailing 

prices with a different construct of a satellite architecture. 

Senator SCHATZ. You noted in your testimony that in the last 

broadband infrastructure program satellite received less than 2 

percent of stimulus money. What led to that? And how do you 

think we need to change in whatever we do next? 

Ms. COOPER. I would answer that in two ways. The first is, I 

think satellite architectures need a little bit of conceptualization to 

make them parallel to their terrestrial counterparts. A satellite terminal looks a lot like a cable modem in sort of its function. It’s on 

the consumer premise. If there’s a program that encourages or offsets the cost at the consumer’s home for the equipment they need 

to get Internet, there is no reason why you couldn’t include a satellite equivalent. A gateway is equivalent to a router or a switch 

or a POP, it’s part of the network equipment. 

I think in the past, being able to apply those to the spacecraft 

themselves was a conceptual construct that we just never got to. 

So that was part of the hard work to do, is just to say this is a 

different kind of architecture. It needs to be sort of aligned with 

what terrestrial is. 

The second is that the satellite services need to be equivalent to 

the kinds of services that anyone would get in other kinds of areas 

that are served with other technologies, and that’s incumbent on us 

to provide. 

Senator SCHATZ. Does the statutory framework allow for the FCC 

to do this, or does this require legislation? 

Ms. COOPER. I think it will be determined by what program it 

is that we’re talking about. We would like to work with you on it. 

Senator SCHATZ. OK. Mr. Hendricks, of the regulatory challenges 

that you’ve discussed today, what would you recommend that the 

Committee work on? 

Mr. HENDRICKS. Well, I think in the long run, as both Chairman 

Thune and Ranking Member Nelson mentioned, the net neutrality 

issue is one that is a big challenge. I get in the current climate how 

difficult the conversations are, but we’ve been running on this regulatory hamster wheel for about 10 years now, and we’ve gone 

through several iterations of stop, start, stop, start. 

As a technologist, which is what Nokia does, those kinds of regulatory shocks change dramatically the product development that we 

are doing where you assume you can do things like analytics and 

look at application-specific prioritization, and then, poof, you can’t. 

And so Congress settling once and for all what it believes the 

FCC’s authority is and how that authority should be operationalized is a very preferable solution, I think, for most administering. 

I’m maybe a little more optimistic that we can get there because 

I think there’s a lot more we agree on than not. I think that’s an 

area. 

I think we’ll have to take a wait-and-see approach to what happens after—if the FCC carries forward with net neutrality NPRM 

that was put forward. You will then again have, by virtue of the 

reclassification of broadband services, a common privacy framework that applies to all services. It’s a reasonable conversation at 

52 

that point to have about whether or not you think what the FTC 

framework does is the right framework for everyone, but then at 

least you’re back on a technology-neutral standing. So Congress 

may have an opportunity to look at that as well. 

And I think I identified mostly what I thought were things you 

shouldn’t do or that you have to be very cautious in doing, particularly as you consider things like tax reform because I think those 

challenges are going to be difficult to overcome. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Schatz. 

Senator Cortez Masto. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and 

Ranking Member. So I’m from Nevada, and we have challenges like 

everyone else with respect to access to rural broadband. So I’m 

very excited to hear and have this discussion today. And so thank 

you for all being here. 

Mr. Hendricks, you made a number of references in your testimony to smart cities, and this is an area that I’m very interested 

in working on, and I’m glad you raised it. I’m curious, did you partner with a community under the DOT challenge last year? 

Mr. HENDRICKS. I would have to check. I don’t recall doing that. 

One thing I will say is I think Nevada has been probably the most 

forward-leaning customer that we have dealt with in our discussions. It is very clear, from the Governor to the legislature to the 

Members of Congress, that there is an interest in making Nevada 

an attractive place for tech investment, and we’ve had a lot of fabulous conversations with cities about doing smart city deployment 

kind of work. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. And this is why I bring it up, and I’m 

grateful that, Mayor, you’re here as well as a representative. I’ve 

worked in state and local government, and I think there is an opportunity at the Federal level to help incentivize local, state, private sector to come together down a path. And I think in Nevada 

our future is in technology and in promoting technology, and you 

see that happening, and that’s why I bring up the smart cities. 

This is an issue that I’m interested in looking at Federal dollars 

to help incentivize communities to really go down this path, both 

rural and our urban areas. And I’m curious if that’s something that 

you would be interested in seeing in the future as well. 

Mr. HENDRICKS. Yes, I think very much. In my testimony, I described that. I think to the extent that there will be funds available 

for fiscal activities in an infrastructure bill and in other contexts, 

Nokia very much would like to see priority given to those verticals, 

including smart cities. 

And I think there’s an opportunity there. One of our biggest challenges isn’t dealing with unreasonable cities, it’s dealing with cities 

that may not have a process at all. And so you can condition participation and receipt of some of those dollars on adoption of a comprehensive zoning ordinance for these kinds of things to facilitate 

it. So there are some incentives that can be built in that I don’t 

53 

think have to be punitive in their nature. But we very much support funding for those kind of verticals. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. And so because I only have a short 

amount of time, and I would love to hear also from you, Mayor, as 

well as Representative Weninger. And let me add this to the discussion, because of my background in working in local and state, 

there are often times when what you do—and you talked about 

zoning issues, infrastructure issues, you know your community better than everyone, and not every community is the same. 

Mr. HENDRICKS. Right. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. And when we’re looking at going down 

the path with Federal legislation and what we need in this space, 

I want to make sure that we, at the Federal level, are coordinating 

and listening with our local governments, our state governments, 

and the private sector in each community. But I find, as I jump 

into this area, there are too many organizations that are out there, 

and nobody is talking or communicating. 

I know that we have a Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee created by the FCC Chair as well as the Broadband Opportunity Council and a number of other committees, who are all focused on addressing and solving these issues we are currently facing, and these various committees each have the same intent, but 

have vastly different makeup, and they’re not always talking and 

sharing the same data. 

Would it be simpler if we just designated a lead Federal agency 

that really focused on addressing and bringing in those local governments and state governments and the private sector to address 

these issues? Or I would be curious about your thoughts on how 

we make sure we have that level of vertical communication and 

that we’re all sharing information to the benefit of our communities 

and the technology that we want to promote. 

Mr. WENINGER. I can go real quick. 

Senator, you make some great points. And I, too, come from—I 

was a city councilman, and now where I’m at, at the state legislature, so I kind of see all sides of it including I own restaurants, so 

I’ve gone through zoning and different things. I think one of the top 

problems is that there is this old paradigm of you have this break 

between the electeds and then you have the people who are in the 

zoning department, who definitely—I mean, they fought us the 

hardest, but the electeds wanted it. 

I guess it’s different then from what the Mayor is saying, because 

they don’t want to have every council meeting and have somebody 

down there, you know, the place fills up because they’re putting up 

a large macro cell tower, and so they like this kind of being off 

their plate. But I think you make a great point on the smart cities 

part because also too often cities always think that everything in 

the Planning Department has to be paid for by fees. And I’ve never 

believed that because you zone a Walmart or whatever, and you 

have sales tax coming in that’s generating money for the city to 

pay those salaries. 

And the amount of money and just on the Internet of Things that 

can be generated just for private business, but then not only that, 

for the cities, through smart cities, through efficiencies, they’re 

going to save money where they don’t have to go check every water 

54 

meter or the trash can kind of things that are coming is enormous, 

I mean, and that’s just going to get bigger. 

So, yes, if there can be some organizations speaking with one 

voice, or the Senate and the Congress speaking with one voice, and 

interact with the cities, I think it’s just kind of an education process of breaking these old paradigms and how business has been 

done for so long. 

Mr. RESNICK. Senator, first of all, I do appreciate your comments, 

and you’re right on. Actually, my father lived in Nevada for 20 

years, and I spent a lot of time there, and I’ve seen some of the 

communities that have excellent broadband service, and other communities in Nevada, and in Florida as well, that don’t have the 

competitive choices that we all deserve. 

There are a lot of barriers now that have nothing to do with local 

regulations, but unfortunately these are programs that have been 

in place for many, many years, particularly by the Federal Government, that do prohibit innovation and deployment of technology. 

For example, there are communities, including mine, that are undergoing major roadway construction projects using Federal dollars. When my city undertook a several million dollar roadway construction project on Dixie Highway, which is a major road through 

my city, we wanted to install conduit, very simple. We just thought 

it would be used by the industry for broadband purposes, and if we 

can install it as part of this construction project, pay the labor and 

extra material costs, which were minimal, then this would be a 

win-win. But the Federal funds that were funding that construction 

project prohibited us from doing that. 

And that exists with respect to a lot of Federal programs as well 

as a lot of state programs. A lot of times we’re doing these construction projects with state dollars, and you can’t use those funds 

to support dark fiber and conduit, which is silly really. And so 

those are some of the things that we should look at eliminating. 

With respect to the committees and which organizations should 

take the lead on coordinating all of these efforts, it just seems that 

right now I think some organizations have a goal in mind and then 

set up a committee to reach that goal without really wanting to go 

through an honest process unfortunately. 

We’re very concerned, for example, the FCC’s Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee, which I think my colleague here is on, 

but I think that committee’s goal is to adopt or suggest local ordinances for cities and counties to adopt to support the deployment 

of broadband technology. The problem is there is only 1 out of 29 

members on that committee who’s a local official, so the local officials are going to be very skeptical about anything that that committee comes out with. 

And another committee of the FCC, the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee, which I chaired until 2016, the Governor of Connecticut is the Chair of that committee, and she requested that the 

FCC appoint somebody from the IAC to serve on this Broadband 

Deployment Advisory Committee, but that did not happen. 

So I know the National League of Cities is working now with industry members, with stakeholders from counties, from states, and 

they’ve created a task force to try and come up with basically an 

education package for local officials around the country, and I’m 

55 

sure that they would be willing to work with any stakeholders in 

this area to support broadband deployment in a more effective way. 

You look at municipal broadband as well. There are communities 

that the only way they will get broadband service is if the municipality makes the investment. In Florida, as well as in states 

throughout the country, that is prohibited. So you have some policies in place, either on a state and on a Federal level, that prohibit 

the type of investment that local governments want to make to 

make sure that their residents do have access to competitive 

broadband choices, but are prohibited from doing so by existing 

policies. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Great. Thank you very much. 

And thank you for allowing me to go over. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Masto. 

Senator Cruz. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to each of 

the witnesses for being here and joining us at this hearing today. 

Mr. Downes, there was some discussion earlier today about the 

FCC and the regulation of the Internet. As you know, the Internet 

arose in a very light-touch regulatory environment, and, indeed, 

much of the reason why we’ve seen such incredible free speech and 

free enterprise and opportunity is because innovation did not require prior approval from Federal Government regulations, but, 

rather, the Internet has been a haven for freedom. 

That changed 2 years ago when the FCC for the first time asserted its authority to regulate the Internet as a Title II public utility, treating the Internet under an authority that was designed in 

a very different context some 80 years ago and not designed with 

the Internet in mind. 

In my view, that decision was lawless, it was a power-grab from 

the FCC, and it was profoundly dangerous for a Federal regulatory 

agency to assert the authority to regulate pricing in terms of service on the Internet. One of the great virtues of the Internet has 

been innovation without prior government regulation. Chairman 

Pai has wisely stated his intention to reverse that lawless powergrab. 

Could you tell this Committee, Mr. Downes, in your judgment, 

what are the benefits to ensuring that the Internet remains in a 

light-touch regulatory environment without Federal regulators demanding preapproval before innovation? 

Mr. DOWNES. Sure. Thank you for that question, Senator Cruz. 

So in my filings on the 2015 Order, I shared your view that, net 

neutrality aside, the principles aside, the real issue was public utility reclassification, and that was my chief concern with the 2015 

Order. I don’t think we have to look any further than some of our 

counterparts, particularly in Europe, where permissionless innovation has not been the starting point. 

And in my research on disruptive innovation, what we find is 

that because the speed of change, particularly with digital technology, but you know lots of other technologies, genomic technologies and materials technologies, the pace of change is so rapid, 

56 

in a good way, that even the best intended regulatory oversight can 

unintentionally get in the way. 

And my view was that the reclassification of public utility was 

a very dangerous move in that regard in that it could have led to, 

as you say, rate regulation and other kinds of things that were 

there, now forbeared from, but could have been unforbeared from 

in some future administration. So I shared that concern and I continue to share that concern. 

Senator CRUZ. And I will commend you for introducing the word 

‘‘unforbeared’’ to this Committee. That may be a first, but indeed 

it is a danger well to be worried about. 

Let me shift to a different topic. Mayor Resnick, earlier this year 

our committee held a hearing on examining ways to improve our 

Nation’s infrastructure, and at that hearing, I asked witnesses if 

deploying small cell networks employing 5G wireless technology 

could serve as an important component to improving infrastructure. 

The Mayor of Miami Beach, Philip Levine, responded by saying, 

‘‘Whether it’s telecommunications or bridges or tunnels and roads, 

Congress could appropriate a trillion dollars, but nothing will ever 

get done because the process is absolutely broken at the permitting 

level. I don’t care if it’s telecom or a new road, the process is broken. It’s not even about the money. It’s about the process. It needs 

to be streamlined. We’re in a race with the rest of the world. We’re 

all wearing handcuffs and weights. It’s priority number one, and I 

see it as a Mayor.’’ 

Do you agree with Mayor Levine? Is the process at the permitting level a major barrier to effective infrastructure deployment? 

Mr. RESNICK. Well, thank you, Senator. And actually Mayor Levine and I are good friends, and his city is—— 

Senator CRUZ. I figured that was the case. 

Mr. RESNICK.—a friend of mine, and they’re dealing with tremendous issues in Miami Beach, including sea level rise and flooding 

and having a good chunk of their property basically underwater as 

opposed to waterfront in a couple years, as is my city. So we’re all 

dealing with a lot of challenges. 

I don’t think permitting is broken. I think with respect to this 

new technology, as I stated in my remarks, it’s a disruptive force. 

We haven’t had experience dealing with it before. We need to educate our staffs and local officials throughout the country on how to 

properly deal with the technology. 

We are in the process now in Florida, and actually Miami Beach 

was one of the first in Florida to do this, we are updating our local 

codes to address the new technology, particularly for access to our 

rights-of-way because that hasn’t occurred before. But there is 

nothing in place now that would prohibit the deployment of new 

small cell technology in our rights-of-way, and we are moving forward to support that technology, we just need some more education 

and, frankly, a little bit of time to update our codes. 

The bill that, for example, passed in Arizona will go a long way 

in doing that, but we are also very concerned with preemption because there are other communities that have achieved this through 

agreements. For example, San Antonio, Arizona, is considered a 

model around the country for having an excellent agreement with 

57 

Verizon that then has been used by that city and others as models 

with other providers around the country. 

If the Federal or state government preempts local jurisdiction 

with respect to these issues, they will prohibit us from entering 

into those types of win-win agreements with the providers. So we 

have to be cautious about basically preempting local authority and 

discretion as well because then you’ll preempt these types of winwin scenarios that can be achieved. 

Mr. WENINGER. Mr. Chairman, could I possibly address that real 

quick? 

Senator CRUZ. In a brief moment, yes. 

Mr. WENINGER. OK. Yes. I just respectfully disagree. Our legislation puts a 75-day shot clock, puts normal fees, and I went through 

earlier some just really crazy year-long processes. We had nine 

master agreements done by Verizon that took 3 years to get done. 

Technology is passing you by, by that point. And I just think this 

infrastructure is critical. 

We did it unanimously in Arizona. There’s a way of getting it 

done where you still protect those local rights, but allow them to 

deploy this technology in a very efficient, fast manner. We also did 

batching to where if they do have a problem, they come in batches 

of 25 that they’re putting in, if they do have a problem with two 

or three of those, they can take those out and the process goes a 

little longer, and then the others are moving efficiently through the 

process at that time. 

Senator CRUZ. Very good. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CORY GARDNER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO 

Senator GARDNER [presiding]. Thank you. 

Senator Markey. 

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. I think 

we all agree that investment in broadband infrastructure has broad 

bipartisan support, and there’s a simple reason. Obviously it’s the 

engine of innovation in our society, a job-creating machine, it’s chaotic, it’s entrepreneurial, it goes right to the enterprise identity of 

our country, but we always have to try to strike a balance. 

And so in 2015, the broadband companies, the wireless companies, invested $87 billion in new infrastructure upgrades. That’s 

great, and that’s what we want, but at the same time, one half of 

all venture capital in the United States went to software and Internet-specific startups, that is, companies which rely upon net neutrality to guarantee that they can reach all 320 million people in 

America for the business model that they are trying to create. So 

that’s a nice balance: $87 billion in infrastructure upgrades, half of 

all venture capital goes into software and Internet-specific 

startups. Perfect balance. 

So my question is, Do each of you believe in a free and open 

Internet? Yes or no? 

Ms. Cooper? 

58 

Ms. COOPER. We are not yet a service provider. And we expect 

that we’re going to be subject to the rules of the Commission when 

we do provide service in a few years, and we expect that the rules 

are going to have many twists and turns as Congress, the Commission, and the courts continue to look at this. 

Senator MARKEY. So yes or no? Yes, you do? You believe in a free 

and open Internet? 

Ms. COOPER. We’re not yet an Internet service provider, sir. 

Senator MARKEY. Oh, I see. OK. Well, let me just say that I have 

a document here from 800 innovators, startups, businesses from all 

50 states, 800 of them, who have sent a letter calling for the retaining of the net neutrality rules so that they will be able to continue 

to be job creators in this environment. And that’s the tension here, 

because in the absence of a guarantee, you can’t raise the money 

from the venture capitalists in order to reach their customers if you 

are going to be dependent upon the broadband carriers to be able 

to provide the services. 

So to the extent to which we all agree that there should be more broadband, there should be, and $87 billion of investment says 

we’re heading in that direction. To the extent to which new companies want to get in, we shouldn’t have laws to prohibit them from 

getting in at the city and town level. They should be able to get 

in. They should be able to provide the services. Broadband companies don’t like that either. They want to shut down that kind of 

competition, there’s no question about it. 

What they also want to do, broadband companies, is they want 

to, kind of, monetize the privacy of Americans. And we just had a 

successful effort by the Republicans to pass a congressional review 

act repeal of the privacy laws that had been built by the FCC into 

law in order to protect consumers so that you could not sell their 

information if permission was not received from a consumer. 

Do each of you believe that there should be a protection of privacy, that a broadband provider actually is required to provide so 

that you have to receive permission before you can sell that information? 

Mr. Resnick. 

Mr. RESNICK. Well, Senator, actually when I was Chair of the 

FCC’s Intergovernmental Advisory Committee, we took up these 

issues, and we supported unanimously the net neutrality order as 

well as the privacy rules that were put in place. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. Yes. 

Mr. Weninger. 

Mr. WENINGER. Senator, respectfully, this really isn’t my wheelhouse. 

Senator MARKEY. OK. That’s fine. 

Mr. Hendricks? 

Mr. HENDRICKS. Although not a service provider, we do absolutely support consumer privacy protections, just not the ones the 

FCC had adopted. 

Senator MARKEY. Mr. Downes. 

Mr. DOWNES. Yes, I agree. The framework that the FTC has used 

for years, which is opt-in, has worked extremely well—I’m sorry, 

for opt-out, which has worked extremely well. What the FCC wanted to do was opt-in, and I don’t think that was a good idea. 

59 

Senator MARKEY. Yes. Ms. Cooper. 

Ms. COOPER. As we design our constellation, we are committed 

to building a system that can protect the privacy and security of 

our customers. 

Senator MARKEY. Yes. Well, obviously the problem with opt-out 

is that, by definition, they’ve got all your information and they’re 

using it unless you opt-out, whereas with opt-in, they’ve actually 

got to come to you and say, ‘‘May I have your permission to use 

all of the financial data that our company has gathered about you, 

health care data about your daughter searching for information 

about anorexia at age 13, that you have to get their permission, the 

family permission, before you start selling that information to 50 

companies that might want to start advertising right there on that 

site toward that 13-year-old girl. So there’s a big difference between opt-in and opt-out. 

The FCC I think had it right. OK, people are buying this service, 

the broadband service. It’s expanding dramatically. Privacy is now 

basically for sale across our country. And these are the most sensitive pieces of information about a family that can be obtained. So 

we’re going to have to just continue to have a national fight over 

this issue because I think it’s as fundamental an issue as we have 

in our country. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator GARDNER. Senator Peters. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN 

Senator PETERS. Thank you, Senator Gardner. And thank you to 

all of our panelists today for your testimony. 

It’s in my mind, before we embark on any kind of comprehensive 

infrastructure package, we need to have a real complete picture of 

the landscape that we’re dealing with. And as many of you know, 

this committee passed the MOBILE NOW Act last January, which 

I think was an important step, one step of what will be many steps 

to help that and facilitate that knowledge. 

One provision of the bill that would establish a database of Federal communications facility installations, in fact, I sponsored an 

amendment to that provision, which would require agencies to help 

states and localities contribute to this database with information 

about their own broadband assets. Having the database include 

Federal, local, and state data certainly will make it more comprehensive and a better tool for stakeholders to make these kinds 

of decisions. 

However, this database only covers assets owned by Federal, 

state, and local governments. We still face challenges in understanding and mapping the scope of private assets, although sometimes it can be even easier to deploy broadband on private lands. 

And I believe private and public should seek to constantly learn 

from and help one another. And so the Federal Government should 

do everything possible certainly to streamline, but also needs private cooperation to understand how we can act more quickly. 

So, Mr. Resnick, my question is to you. A report last year by the 

FCC’s Intergovernmental Advisory Committee, which, of course, 

you chair, found that the FCC lacks the data on the location of 

60 

wireless towers and other facilities, the providers who use each 

tower, and other information that would streamline local and Federal decisionmaking. 

So if you could take a moment and describe further the challenges that we face with collecting this data and creating the comprehensive map necessary for broadband service. And then also in 

your work, if you have seen any models that would be helpful in 

dealing with the situation? 

Mr. RESNICK. Well, thank you, Senator. I do appreciate the question. And that is correct, that was an important component of the 

report that the IAC issued in, I think, December 2016, so it’s recent. 

We were actually quite stunned and surprised that the FCC did 

not have data as to what facilities were out there that would be 

available for collocation for providers to use. We just assumed this 

is an agency tasked to do this, and they’re all specialists, and they 

spend a tremendous amount of time researching the industry and 

researching what facilities are existing, and they don’t have any of 

this information. 

And because there are several reasons. One, not all towers are 

required to be registered. There is only actually a very small percentage of towers that are required to be registered. It has to do 

with the location and the size of the towers. And often even the industry doesn’t know what facilities are out there that might be possible for collocation. 

There are some local governments that have in their local codes 

mandated that all providers and infrastructure companies register 

their facilities with the local governments. And there’s usually no 

fee for such registration or a nominal fee just to cover the administrative costs with maintaining that database, and that has been 

useful, both for regulators and first responders who need to know 

where these facilities are as well as for the industry members that 

are looking to collocate equipment on these facilities. So I think 

that would be incredibly helpful throughout the entire country. And 

I’m sure National League of Cities and other government organizations could work with their partners to try and come up with models that might be appropriate for the Federal Government to look 

at. Thank you, sir. 

Senator PETERS. I appreciate that. Any other panelists that 

would like to comment on that? 

Mr. HENDRICKS. Just very briefly, Senator, I would say that I 

agree. Nokia is a major provider of the infrastructure and a partner in the FirstNet project that’s going forward. We saw firsthand 

that it’s very difficult sometimes to know what assets were out 

there, both land mobile radio towers, private towers, and other 

things, what state of readiness and whether they have been hardened. 

That information, in our experience, exists in various places. 

There are system integrators that build networks for companies. 

There should be a model where we can cooperatively share that information and improve the picture, I think. 

Senator PETERS. All right. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. COOPER. I would just like to add more generally that the 

knowledge of any transmitter is a valuable piece of information, 

61 

particularly as you expect different technologies to share spectrum, 

to operate, and co-exist. Whether that’s the method that’s applicable for every technology maybe remains to be determined, but I do 

think that the knowledge of locations is an important piece of the 

prospect of spectrum efficiency and sharing. 

Senator PETERS. I appreciate it. Thank you so much. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DEAN HELLER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA 

Senator HELLER [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Peters. 

Mr. Chairman, I think I yield myself 5 minutes. Thank you. 

There’s a lot of temptation sitting at this seat to make a lot of decisions, but the biggest temptation is this muffin that’s sitting right 

here in front of me. I’m quite sure you had that set up. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator HELLER. Anyway, I want to thank the panel for being 

here and taking time. A lot of good insight, a lot of good history, 

and I certainly know that this is an issue that’s very important to 

my state, and I certainly appreciate the other Senator from Nevada 

that was here earlier and her questioning, and I know this is just 

as important to our Chairman here in South Dakota, as it is in the 

state of Nevada. 

But I want to share real quickly, briefly, a success story that we 

have in the state of Nevada, and it’s an electric company called 

Valley Electric Association. It’s located in a small city just outside 

of Las Vegas called Pahrump. Most people do think of it as just an 

electric company, but they have a great story about their recent 

success in broadband deployment. 

They partnered with a company out of Las Vegas called Switch, 

and I’m certain most of you are familiar with Switch, where they 

were able to run a 1-gig fiber option line from Las Vegas to Reno. 

I don’t know that I’ve heard of any other 1-gig fiber optic highways 

that run nearly 500 miles through some of the smallest rural communities that we have in the state. And I would argue that there 

aren’t even urban areas in the state of Nevada that have this kind 

of access for their schools or hospitals and even some of their residents. 

But Valley Electric helped engineer this path. They prepared the 

poles. They submitted the applications to get all this done. And it’s 

because they saw a bigger picture. And this invitation that I had 

to spend time with them, they went through this, and the success 

that they were able to see. They do know this, that if communities 

don’t have broadband, the people will leave, and that has been a 

concern for the rural portions of our state. You can’t operate a 

school, you can’t operate a hospital, or a business. We have communities in our state that you can’t even swipe a debit card because 

they don’t have access. 

But the fiber route that they prepared is like a highway. And 

most of you are aware of this, you need off-ramps. And so they’re 

building those broadband off-ramps, and they’re facing some serious barriers. So they have the fiber, but it’s the off-ramps now that 

are causing the problems, and they’re problems that mostly come 

with the Bureau of Land Management. 

62 

Sandy Valley, Nevada, is a good example. They already have the 

electric lines that were permitted into that valley, they just need 

to add the cables for broadband, and that’s taken 10 months filing 

the application, and yet after 10 months, they still do not have approval. Federal agencies like BLM are hamstringing private companies that are using their own money to invest and expand infrastructure into places no one else wants to expand. 

Valley Electric will face the same challenges in Amargosa Valley; 

Beatty, Nevada; and every rural town that D.C. has probably never 

heard of, but ones that most of us have visited at one time or another in our own states. 

I believe that people in these communities deserve broadband, 

and Valley Electric told me that the delayed applications from the 

Federal land agencies is the number one barrier to broadband deployment. So I have legislation I’m working on with the Chairman 

that will streamline the Federal permitting process. 

Mr. Hendricks, you mentioned that in your testimony. And I appreciate your comments, and most important, to ensure that there’s 

a shot clock that these Federal agencies have to abide by. 

And, Mr. Weninger, you mentioned that in your own legislation 

back in Arizona and the difference that that made. I agree with 

you and believe that we should do that at the next level, which is 

our level. 

So I guess I want to start with Mr. Downes and ask if these Federal agency complaints that I get from the state of Nevada, are 

they common across the country, the eastern and the western portions? 

Mr. DOWNES. Yes. Thank you, Senator. And the funny thing is 

I think—my understanding is that much of the fiber infrastructure 

for California is actually built just on the Nevada side of the border 

because the California people made it even more difficult than in 

Nevada. 

So there’s no question that a lot of these delays have no public 

interest value whatsoever. And, again, shot clocks, even the shot 

clocks that exist right now in wireless, they’re very generous in 

terms of how many days that they are. And I think, yes, certainly 

in the western United States in the intermountain region, where 

obviously most of the land or much of the land is federally owned, 

not surprisingly, the complaints you hear most are about Federal 

management. 

Senator HELLER. Mr. Downes, is this an issue of process or is it 

an issue with resources, or is it just an accountability issue that 

we’re dealing with, with some of these agencies? 

Mr. DOWNES. Well, it’s some of all of those. It really depends on 

who you’re talking about and where you’re talking about. In a lot 

of cases, there are no processes. In a lot of cases, certainly there 

is resource constraint as well. Obviously, Federal agencies, as well 

as municipalities, they don’t really have competition per se. So if 

you’re not getting your permits done as quickly as you would like 

from them, it’s not like you’re going to go somewhere else to get 

them. And I think that’s actually where the solution comes in. 

As I say, the best incentive is to buildup sort of competitive spirit. And we saw how Google did that so brilliantly in the initial rollout of Google Fiber, getting all those cities to compete, not by offerVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:09 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\28640.TXT JACKIE
63 

ing money, not by offering tax incentives, but by offering to streamline their processes, a single point of reference, give access to city 

buildings and other property. 

And I think as the states and the localities start to recognize the 

real economic opportunity that 5G and next-generation wired Internet provides, you’re going to start to see more of that, that these 

locations will say, ‘‘We want that development here, we want to be 

leaders in that,’’ and they will suddenly discover just how much 

better a job they can do even given the resource constraints that 

they have. 

Senator HELLER. Yes, but my problem when I talk about process 

is with the government agencies themselves. It doesn’t matter—Nevada is 110,000 square miles. It doesn’t matter which community 

I go to, they will tell me that their BLM office is the worst when 

it comes to dealing with that, and I’m going to guess that it’s true 

in any other state that I go to. But right now, I’ll tell you that 

Pahrump believes that the office in Las Vegas is the worst in the 

country because they can’t get these applications through. 

How do we hold these agencies accountable? 

Mr. DOWNES. So my experience, Senator, is certainly more at the 

local and state level, not with the BLM and other agencies. But, 

you know, you control the power of the purse, and that’s where you 

can hurt them or get them where you want them. Again, minimum 

requirements for how quickly they deal with things, and penalties, 

I suppose, to the extent that Congress can implement them, for the 

agencies that just don’t follow the rules that they’re set up to do 

with their reasonable rules. 

Senator HELLER. Now, Mr. Weninger, you served with my sonin-law in the legislature. 

Mr. WENINGER. Yes, yes, I did. And I know your daughter. 

Senator HELLER. Have you solved these problems in Arizona, the 

problems that we’re seeing in Nevada? What processes did you go 

through, not only for your own legislation, but what did you do to 

overcome—because you have as much public lands as we do, at 

least close? How were you able to overcome some of these Federal 

agencies and able to implement some of the programs that you’ve 

been successful at doing? 

Mr. WENINGER. It’s difficult. Basically, ours probably isn’t going 

to affect the BLM land. We will still have to deal with that. But 

one thing we did on the legislation, we put a shot clock within the 

shot clock. So you have to tell us within 20 days whether or not 

the application is complete or not because we don’t want you running clear up to 70 days and say, ‘‘Well, no, we don’t have everything.’’ But then that’s within the 75 days, so it’s not in addition 

to. And so I think that helps a lot. 

But we have the same problems you do. I think somebody else 

mentioned, it’s because so much of our land is Federal land that 

we’re kind of held captive by that in the West. 

Senator HELLER. Thanks for the question. I sit in the Chair, so 

I get to go 8 or 9 minutes, right, Mr. Chairman? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator HELLER. Ms. Klobuchar. 

64 

STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. All right. Thank you to both of you, and 

thank you. I apologize for being late. We had a Judiciary Committee hearing with FBI Director Comey, so I’ll try to use the same 

tone with all of you that all the other Senators were using in that 

hearing. I’m just kidding. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. So I have been pushing hard for a competitive agenda for this country, and I am so glad that we launched 

the Senate Broadband Caucus, which includes myself, as Chair, 

and Capito, King, Heinrich, and Boozman. And I really see 

broadband as the infrastructure challenge of our time. 

My favorite story of the week was hearing when I was in northern Minnesota about a cancer doctor who for years when he 

couldn’t be at the hospital and he would be sent something at home 

about a patient in some kind of urgent situation, he would have to 

go to the McDonald’s parking lot to look at X-rays. OK, this happened in northern Minnesota in a pretty mid-sized town, not a 

small town. So those are the kinds of things we’re encountering. 

So we’re pushing hard to get funding, whether it is changes to 

the universal service fund, whether it is this major broadband infrastructure discussion that we’re having, and I’ve gotten both Secretary Mills and Secretary Chao to commit that it should be part 

of any infrastructure package. We’re hoping we hear from the 

White House about specific infrastructure package. The Senate has 

a package that’s a trillion dollars with a major Internet component. 

And I just think we need to get this done. 

So I’m going to start with something more specific, and that is, 

I’ve advanced broadband legislation to make deployment easier by 

requiring transportation and broadband providers during construction to just dig once, and this legislation passed the Commerce 

Committee in the MOBILE NOW Act, it passed in January. 

Mr. Downes, you testified that ‘‘Dig Once’’ policies can reduce the 

cost of deploying fiber under highways in urban areas by up to 33 

percent and up to 16 percent in rural areas. Would those kind of 

savings make some high-cost areas more economical to serve? 

Mr. DOWNES. Absolutely. And thank you, Senator Klobuchar. It’s 

good to see you again. 

So, look, I can’t think of any reason, and I can’t find anybody 

who doesn’t agree with the idea of ‘‘Dig Once.’’ It really just makes 

so much sense. And those numbers that I gave in my testimony 

came from the GAO. I think they’re quite solid. So absolutely, we 

bring down the cost by putting that conduit in place. Then we can 

put the fiber in. It can only be to a benefit. I can’t think of any 

reason not to do it. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Thanks. Something else, I just keep 

looking for ways to show, especially some of our urban friends, that 

the gap that we’re seeing is in rural areas. And yet cost of living 

in rural areas are lower. There are reasons we want to have people 

just live throughout our country and not just in congested areas. 

And we also have a lot of cool businesses being developed there, 

and that has been the heart of our economy, the way we’re able to 

65 

develop small businesses and then they grow, but they can’t without broadband. 

I was actually at one business in a small town where there is not 

good enough broadband, and she’s up to 25 employees. She makes 

chains for chain jewelry. She has to have her sales staff located 100 

miles away or so in Fargo because they have Internet there, and 

so then she’s able to communicate with them by phone. 

So Senators Capito and Sullivan and I have introduced this bill 

to conduct an analysis of the effects of broadband deployment and 

adoption in the U.S., asking the Commerce Department to do that. 

Mr. Resnick, with your experience with the National League of 

Cities, would better economic data help mayors and other community leaders make the case for investing in broadband deployment? 

Mr. RESNICK. Thank you, Senator. Yes, absolutely. We’re always 

trying to measure the economic development effects of infrastructure. It’s not something that a lot of local governments are easily 

accomplished to tackle. And so if the Federal Government could 

support that effort, absolutely. If we could show the benefits of 

broadband technology in terms of our economic development, I 

think it would encourage investment, not only by local governments and state governments, but also probably by the private sector as well. Thank you. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Thank you very much. 

This one is for you, Mr. Hendricks. Broadband infrastructure deployment can often be hampered by slow and redundant permitting 

processes, particularly when it comes to infrastructure siting on 

Federal lands. For those rural and tribal residents living near Federal land, this inefficient process can be the difference between living in an unserved community and modern broadband access. 

I’ve been working to streamline this process, and there are some 

provisions in this MOBILE NOW bill I just referred to that would 

improve permitting and encourage deployment on Federal lands by 

developing a common form for applications and establishing a clear 

point of contact with Federal agencies. 

Could you talk about some of the primary obstacles that the 

broadband service providers that your company works with face 

when trying to deploy broadband infrastructure on Federal lands? 

Mr. HENDRICKS. Well, to be fair, I think we have much more experience when it comes to deploying in city centers, but we do obviously work with providers across a range of jurisdictions. You’ve 

noted several provisions in the MOBILE NOW Act. By the way, we 

fully support all of those provisions that you have put in there. 

Shot clocks, response times, the requirement for individual applications for individual cells as opposed to figuring out a way to aggregate and consider multiple sites at a time, which also requires 

you to do multiple impact studies, those things begin to layer in 

cost. And so we certainly support the idea of shot clocks and taking 

a look at other ways to incentivize, perhaps even making clear to 

BLM and others that, ‘‘You have this authority. Use it or lose it. 

You know, at some point, we’re going to deem granted some of 

these applications if you don’t give the proper attention to them.’’ 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Very good. I note that most of the rest 

of my questions, they say, ‘‘Senator Nelson asked this,’’ ‘‘Senator 

Cortez,’’ so I will not use the usual Senator theme of just being reVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:09 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\28640.TXT JACKIE
66 

dundant anyway, and I will turn this over to Senator Blumenthal, 

my colleague. Thank you, all of you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. I, too, will 

try to avoid being redundant. I know you’ve been asked a lot of 

questions about net neutrality and some about broadband privacy. 

The threat to net neutrality and privacy on the Internet I think are 

two of the most profound challenges we face. They’ve been set back 

in recent weeks by Republican colleagues, by pronouncements from 

Chairman Pai, and by President Trump, which, in my view, have 

undermined essential values of both privacy and open Internet that 

are key to investment in broadband. 

According to a recent study by the Pew Research Center, 91 percent of adults agree or strongly agree that, quote, ‘‘Consumers have 

lost control of how personal information is collected and used by 

companies.’’ Another study found that nearly half of American 

Internet users avoid online activities, including online purchases 

and civic activities due to their security and privacy concerns. That 

apprehension on the part of Americans certainly inhibits investment in broadband, in infrastructure, in all of the communications 

technology that is vital to our future economically, not to mention 

in quality of life. 

So let me ask you, Mr. Hendricks, do you think that these 

threats to privacy are good for investment in the Internet, or, on 

the contrary, are obstacles? 

Mr. HENDRICKS. One of the things that Nokia, as a technologist, 

thinks a lot about is where we will be in the next 5 to 10 years 

with the Internet of Things and the connected programmable 

world. And we talk a lot about trustworthiness as an important 

metric for people in uptake and use of those technologies because 

more and more of those technologies are going to require you to put 

more and more of your physical, financial, and personal life at risk. 

And so it is something that we think a great deal about. We are 

constantly talking in the design of our products, how do we make 

them more secure by design? How do we incorporate privacy protections? And I think we’ve contributed a lot to the policy conversation in town about how you do that. 

I think the one thing that I hope comes out of our participation 

in that debate is we think that it is a good thing to talk about enhanced privacy protections regularly. Our big concern with what 

the FCC did was that it began to make distinctions between sectors 

of this ecosystem who could use information one way and not another. 

And so I think our concern is let’s take a fresh look at how we 

can potentially improve privacy protections across all sectors because we don’t yet know how this marketplace is evolving. Service 

providers are becoming content providers, edge companies are become service providers. We have to make sure that we develop 

these protections robust but technology-neutral. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, I’ve introduced a bill, it’s called MY 

DATA, the Managing Your Data Against Telecom Abuses Act, 

along with Senator Udall. It endeavors to protect this data by enaVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:09 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\28640.TXT JACKIE
67 

bling the public sector and the government to be more effective in 

protecting this kind of data and enhancing confidence in exactly 

the systems that you just mentioned. The legislation ensures that 

the FTC’s jurisdiction in the Internet ecosystem includes 

broadband providers, a loophole that now exists in the current law. 

And I hope that members of this panel and the companies and interests you represent will support this legislation because I think 

it’s important to your interests, the public’s interests, the industry’s 

interests, and restoring consumer privacy and data security across 

all Internet platforms. So thank you very much for being here 

today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. 

It has been a great discussion, and we really do welcome and appreciate your input. I think this lends a lot to the conversation that 

we’re having about the best way to increase a more rapid deployment of this technology across the country so that we can pursue 

not only high-speed Internet services and broadband in areas of the 

country that don’t receive it today, but as we look at 5G and everything we need to do to stay ahead of the curve there, we want to 

get there first, and that requires obviously an awful lot of work at 

every level of government. And so we’ve heard from several state 

and local leaders today as well as those that are working in the industry to make all this happen. 

A final question just to close it out, in MOBILE NOW, as you 

probably know, we address some of the issues regarding deployment and Federal agencies. I’m wondering if there is anything that 

Congress can do to get folks to work together in delivering 

broadband services to our communities in a reasonable amount of 

time in addition to what we’re doing with respect to the Federal 

piece of this in the MOBILE NOW bill? So any final pieces of advice or suggestions as we try to move quickly in putting policies in 

place and creating conditions that are favorable to the build-out 

that we need to see? 

Yes, Ms. Cooper. 

Ms. COOPER. The frequencies that are enormously valuable—K 

band, Ka band, and V band—the rules for many of these frequency 

bands that will carry next-generation broadband services, including 

by satellite, are immature and, in some cases, out of date, and it’s 

very important to ensure that as those rules and allocations are 

considered, that the technologies that can reach Americans with 

broadband are considered as part of those allocations. We consider 

satellite to offer real promise for broadband access, and we want 

to make sure that in those bands, satellite services are considered. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DOWNES. Senator, I would just add, I know we weren’t talking specifically about spectrum today, but obviously, as you know, 

the most valuable now spectrum that’s available that’s underutilized or unused is held by Federal Government agencies, and we 

need to do a much better job of offering the right kinds of incentives, the right kinds of carrots and sticks, to get some of that either shared or freed up for next-generation applications. 

Mr. HENDRICKS. I would add to that, Mr. Chairman. I’m sure 

that Members of the Senate are tired of hearing of the spectrum 

68 

issue because it seems like every year you get a wish list from industry about doing spectrum things. 

As technologists, the reason that spectrum remains an important 

and critical topic on an ongoing basis is because the more bands 

that are made available to us, as researchers and developers of the 

technology, the more flexible the infrastructure is that we can develop for carriers of all size, rural ones, large ones. Different bands 

with different characteristics have different deployment scenarios. 

So continuing to work on spectrum—and you’ve been excellent— 

is a core priority. So passing MOBILE NOW is a great step because 

of the 3-gigahertz spectrum that is in there, but I would encourage 

you to keep thinking and keep working on those spectrum issues 

because the more options you give us, the better the solutions we 

can develop will be. 

The CHAIRMAN. It does seem like almost every issue that comes 

in front of this committee comes back to that issue of, how do we 

get more spectrum? So thank you. 

Mr. Weninger. 

Mr. WENINGER. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I think you’re off to 

a great start. And obviously I’m pretty proud of the legislation that 

a big team of ours put together, and if you use any of that on a 

national level, I think that would be incredible. 

I think some people just don’t realize how quickly some of these 

companies and apps are scaling. And so I think it’s very tough for 

the cell phone companies to predict, and they just need to keep 

building. I own restaurants, and right now food delivery through 

an app is exploding. We have four different companies that we do 

it through, and it’s adding onto our revenue every day. 

Also in my district, we have four different autonomous vehicle 

companies working in my district, which is mainly Chandler, and 

that’s going to be on the same platform. And these things are coming so fast that if we don’t really hurry this up, we’re going to be 

left way behind the eight ball. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thanks. 

Mr. RESNICK. And, Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the hearing today and for inviting us to participate. I would just request 

that local governments be part of the process in developing these 

policies. Ultimately, if facilities are going to be deployed, whatever 

type of facilities, from the small device that my colleague here 

showed you—I was actually going to bring a model of the 28-cubicfoot cabinets that another company wants to install on our rightsof-way, but I couldn’t get it on a plane. And I was going to have 

a blow-up model of it brought in, but that wouldn’t have probably 

worked very well. 

But, so they’re not always so small. There are other—that’s the 

problem with advances in technology, it’s not all the same, and 

local governments have to deal with these different types of technology that are now looking for access to the rights-of-way. I do not 

want a 28-cubic-foot refrigerator sitting on the sidewalk in front of 

my house, no offense. I don’t think you would want that either. So 

we do have to be part of the process to come up with solutions. 

And I do want to support, though, the comments that some of 

your Senator colleagues made today. There does need to be confidence in the technology. Broadband is a great technology, but it 

69 

can be used for inappropriate purposes. I think every local government in the country by now has had a data breach, and they’re tremendously disruptive. When our data is breached by somebody accessing our databases, our employee records, our customer records, 

tremendous impacts. The City of Fort Lauderdale shut down for 3 

days because its internal data was breached. 

So I think there does need to be greater confidence in the technology so that these inappropriate uses of broadband do not occur, 

and I think that would go a long way to support adoption. Thank 

you again. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MORAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS 

Senator MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I detected a groan when I 

walked in the room—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MORAN.—not necessarily by the witnesses, but by others, 

and including you. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I thought I had my mike turned off. Sorry. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MORAN. So I will submit my questions in writing, Mr. 

Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Thank you, Senator Moran. That was 

not a collective groan about you, but nonetheless, we appreciate 

that. We’ll make sure that your questions are answered for the 

record. 

And I would just say to our witnesses, again thank you for being 

here. And we will keep the hearing record open. You will get questions for the record, and if you could respond to those as quickly 

as possible, we usually like to try and get that closed out within 

a couple weeks’ time, that would be most appreciated. 

So with that, thank you again, and we’ll continue this conversation/discussion. Hopefully it will lead beyond just a discussion, but 

really substantive steps forward in terms of how we address these 

issues and try and find that balance that was discussed today, 

work with the various entities of government to streamline, expedite, and make it easier to get this technology out there and all the 

benefits that come with it. 

So thank you. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:16 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(71) 

A P P E N D I X 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. JERRY MORAN TO

PATRICIA COOPER

Question. As your written testimony states, next generation satellite systems have 

vastly improved their capacity, lowered latency rates, and met equivalent pricing to 

their terrestrial broadband-providing competitors in recent years. 

Can you explain the importance of taking a ‘‘technology-neutral approach’’ in any 

comprehensive infrastructure or tax legislative package considerations by this Congress and Federal regulating agencies? 

Answer. SpaceX sees great potential for constellations of satellites operating close 

to the earth to deliver reliable, high-quality broadband service to consumers 

throughout the United States, including those areas that have been underserved or 

not served at all. However, programs to encourage broadband infrastructure buildout and service adoption often don’t capture satellite technology. 

By covering the entire globe, such constellations can overcome the ‘‘last mile’’ 

connectivity challenges such as terrestrial build-out costs, environmental regulations, property rights issues, and other regulatory obstacles. The satellites can ‘‘see’’ 

customers, no matter where they are, whether urban or rural, at the same nominal 

incremental cost to add any customer for broadband service. 

The deployment of U.S.-based satellite broadband constellations are, fundamentally, national infrastructure projects, even though they are private-sector driven 

and many components of the infrastructure will be in space. Although satellite constellations have different network elements than traditional ground-based networks, 

such as fiber, fixed wireless or mobile broadband, we urge Congress and the Administration to ensure that the nation’s programs and incentive tools for broadband infrastructure build-out are extended to space-based constellations. Given heightened 

Congressional and Administration emphasis on rural high-speed Internet access and 

broadband infrastructure, the time is ripe for Congress and Federal agencies to reconsider how satellite-based systems can participate. 

Beyond defining the network elements that qualify for programs, other program 

requirements can unintentionally exclude satellite-based solutions. For example, 

grant programs that require technical support in every county where service is offered are unworkable not only for satellite broadband providers, but for any regional 

or national service provider. The National Broadband Mapping system, too, should 

capture data about satellite-based broadband services made available nationwide. 

This would not only enhance the understanding of our broadband landscape, but 

also provide a more accurate basis for shaping future broadband programs designed 

to expand broadband access for all citizens. 

SpaceX encourages the Committee to ensure that satellite-based broadband infrastructure is considered and genuinely captured in any infrastructure, incentive, or 

tax policy legislation undertaken toward expanding broadband access in the United 

States. Such an approach will ensure that Congress and regulatory agencies consider all technology platforms available to deliver broadband to American consumers. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. DAN SULLIVAN TO

PATRICIA COOPER

Question. During the hearing, we talked a lot about the need to streamline the 

infrastructure permitting process for next generation technology, especially for deploying 5G technologies. In many parts of Alaska, however, there still is no 

connectivity, and the most realistic solution for many of these places is communications brought to them by satellite. 

a. Ms. Cooper, what opportunities does satellite technology bring to rural communities, such as in Alaska, for receiving broadband? 

72 

b. What deployment barriers does the satellite industry face in deploying these 

new technologies, and what solutions do you propose, specifically where can Congress help in reducing those barriers? 

Answer. Satellite-based Internet infrastructure can bridge the broadband access 

challenges that many rural and remote American communities face. SpaceX is developing a broadband constellation that will offer high-speed, low-latency, affordable 

broadband services to consumers across America, regardless of where they are. The 

service will include continuous broadband coverage for Alaskans even in the northernmost areas of the state, following the deployment of satellites in a specific nearpolar orbit. The SpaceX system, which will begin deployment in 2019, is designed 

to offer fiber-like speeds at a competitive price direct to consumers. This means that 

consumers throughout Alaska—even in Arctic latitudes—will have available the 

same competitive broadband services, with speeds, latencies, and pricing equivalent 

to terrestrial, using the same SpaceX laptop-sized user terminals that will be offered 

elsewhere in the Continental U.S. By removing the ‘‘cost-per-mile’’ construct of 

connectivity, satellite constellations operating close to the earth can make high-quality, low-latency, affordable broadband to consumers who have never been connected, 

and also inject competition to those who are served currently by only one provider. 

More could be done to enable the development and deployment of this sort of 

Internet infrastructure in space, and more Americans could be have access to 

broadband. 

1. Overhaul outmoded and inefficient regulatory processes for the launch services 

needed to deploy satellite constellations. The Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) regulations governing commercial space launch should be streamlined 

and modernized to keep pace with more frequent commercial launches anticipated in support satellite constellations and overall industry growth. Similarly, 

the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should act on its long-pending 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (‘‘NPRM’’) designed to formalize co-primary allocations of Federal frequencies already commonly used for commercial launch. 

Such an allocation would allow the FCC to streamline and expedite licenses 

for commercial launch spectrum as the cadence and complexity of U.S. 

launches grows along with the deployment of satellite constellations. 

2. Build in rewards for satellite systems that are built for spectrum efficiency. Advanced spacecraft and ground technologies yield high levels of spectral efficiency and operational flexibility, yielding greater capacity to reach more 

unserved Americans with reliable, high-speed broadband. Highly intelligent 

and flexible satellites also can interoperate with multiple similar systems, 

while still protecting existing space and terrestrial networks, adding to the 

competitive marketplace. Unfortunately, not all such proposed systems are 

making the needed technology investments for efficient use of spectrum, in effect hampering sharing of available spectrum compared to other more adaptable constellations. At present, the FCC has no mechanism for rewarding more 

efficient satellite systems for their investment in advanced and spectrumfriendly technologies or penalizing those systems that do not. Congress and the 

FCC should encourage rules that incentivize and reward use of spectrally-efficient satellite systems and technologies, with the goal of equitable access to 

spectrum, preventing spectrum warehousing by non-operating satellite systems, and promoting and accommodating multiple satellite constellations that 

can coordinate and operate while serving American consumers. 

3. Ensure that any broadband infrastructure or incentive programs are technologically neutral, allowing satellite broadband alternatives to qualify. This 

means finding parallels between elements of satellite and terrestrial networks 

so that satellite-based solutions can qualify for national infrastructure investment programs and other Federal initiatives to close the digital divide. Beyond 

defining the network elements that qualify for programs, other program requirements can unintentionally exclude satellite-based solutions. For example, 

grant programs that require technical support in every county where service 

is offered are unworkable not only for satellite broadband providers, but for 

any regional or national service provider. The National Broadband Mapping 

system, too, should capture data about not only enhance the understanding of 

our broadband landscape, but also provide a more accurate basis for shaping 

future broadband programs designed to expand broadband access for all citizens. 

73 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. MAGGIE HASSAN TO

PATRICIA COOPER

Question. It’s clear there is major interest in improving access to broadband and 

the way we deploy broadband services. This national goal transcends party lines, 

and I’m pleased to be a part of this committee where I can work with colleagues 

on both sides of the aisle to make improvements. I would like to hear from you all, 

what is being done, and what more should be done to ensure rural Americans are 

not left behind as technology evolves and innovations emerge. Rural America is 

more complex and difficult to connect for many reasons, but every American should 

have the opportunity to reap the social and economic benefits of broadband 

connectivity. What are your thoughts? 

Answer. Satellite-based Internet infrastructure can bridge the broadband access 

challenges that many rural and remote American communities face. SpaceX is developing a non-geostationary satellite orbit (‘‘NGSO’’) broadband constellation that 

will offer high-speed, low-latency, affordable broadband services to consumers across 

America, regardless of where they are. The SpaceX system, which will begin deployment in 2019, is designed to offer fiber-like speeds at a competitive price direct to 

consumers. By their nature, the satellites ‘‘see’’ end-users from their position in lowEarth orbit, regardless of whether they are urban or rural, at the low incremental 

cost of simply installing a roof-top terminal. By removing the ‘‘cost-per-mile’’ construct of connectivity, satellite constellations operating close to the Earth can make 

high-quality, low-latency, affordable broadband to consumers who have never been 

connected, and also bring a competitive offering to those who are served currently 

by only one provider. 

More could be done to enable the development and deployment of this sort of 

Internet infrastructure in space, and more Americans could be have access to 

broadband. 

1. Satellite-based broadband networks should be captured in any infrastructure, 

incentive, or tax policy legislation undertaken to expand broadband access in 

the United States. Such an approach will not only maintain a technology-neutral approach to infrastructure, but also position American consumers to benefit from the significant innovations and nation-wide connectivity of next-generation satellite-based broadband. 

2. The regulatory framework for NGSO satellite constellations is outdated and incomplete. The Committee should promote decisive updates in Part 5 and 25 of 

the Commission’s Rules that clarify how constellations must share spectrum 

with each other efficiently, and enable incremental deployment of the constellations to track with emerging demand. This should include regulatory incentives 

which encourage the use of spectrally-efficient technologies in satellite broadband constellations. At present, the FCC has no mechanism for rewarding 

more efficient systems for their investment in advanced and spectrum-friendly 

technologies. 

3. In order to provide needed broadband connectivity, such satellite constellations 

will also require multiple launches to deploy the satellites into space. Congress 

should strongly encourage the FCC to finalize its long-pending rulemaking to 

allocate spectrum for commercial launch services. This effort is a timely and 

important step for the Commission to adjust to the increasing cadence and 

complexity of launches and growth in number of U.S. launch service providers. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. ROGER WICKER TO

LARRY DOWNES

Question 1. An essential part of reducing barriers to broadband deployment and 

increasing investment in broadband infrastructure is having an accurate understanding of what areas across the United States remain underserved or unserved. 

As you mentioned in your testimony, previous efforts to provide service to underserved or unserved areas have resulted in wasteful spending and overbuilding. 

a. What can Congress and the FCC do to ensure that Federal investments in 

broadband infrastructure are going to areas that are truly underserved or unserved? 

b. How can we standardize data collection processes to ensure that we have an 

accurate understanding of what areas remain underserved or unserved by mobile 

broadband coverage? 

74 

1See FCC, National Broadband Map, available at https://www.broadbandmap.gov/. 2See FCC, 2015 BROADBAND PROGRESS REPORT, GN Docket No. 14–126, January 29, 2015, 

available at https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progress-reports/2015- 

broadband-progress-report. 3Statement of Chairman Roger Wicker, Senate Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, 

Innovation, and the Internet, hearing on June 20, 2017, available at https://www.commerce 

.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings?ID=628B02EB-3D8D-4356-B0E9-5F4BC4B5A312. 

Answer. There are several gaps in the data available on broadband deployment. 

The National Broadband Map has not been updated since 2014, and the FCC has 

no current plans to update it.1

A second overarching problem is the misguided decision the agency made in 2015 

to change the definition of broadband to a 25 Mbps download speed and a 3 Mbps 

upload speed.2 Even today, these speeds, though admirable goals, are much greater 

than what is actually needed by consumers to enjoy nearly all Internet services, including the streaming of high-definition video. 

As a result of these failings, data suggesting where and for whom broadband access in the U.S. is incomplete may be highly misleading. That in turns means that 

upcoming decisions both at the FCC and in Congress on how to deploy additional 

resources to close what remains of the digital divide may be driven by faulty analysis, leading to poor decisions and, ultimately, a failure to provide assistance where 

it is truly needed. 

These problems need to be addressed before any future decisions on taxpayer resource deployments are made. The National Broadband Map should be updated and 

a sustainable process for keeping it current adopted. The FCC should also revisit— 

using technical rather than political criteria—its definition of what download and 

upload speeds constitute ‘‘broadband,’’ or even whether speed should be sole basis 

for defining broadband service. 

At a more nuts-and-bolts level, there are other well-known issues with how the 

FCC and other government agencies determine and report broadband availability 

and performance. As you noted last week at a hearing on the Universal Service 

Fund and Rural Broadband Investment: 

Inadequate data collection methods are also one of USF’s challenges, leading to 

an inefficient distribution of funds to truly underserved and unserved areas. To 

address this issue, I recently joined Senator Manchin in introducing the ‘‘Rural 

Wireless Access Act,’’ which has the support of several of my colleagues, including Senators Schatz, Fischer, Klobuchar, Moran, and Peters. This bill would require the FCC to standardize its data collection methods to ensure that USF 

support is directed to rural communities—in Mississippi and across the nation—that are actually in need. 

Reliable data is a critical step toward eliminating inefficiencies within the USF 

program and fulfilling the statutory goal of universal service. I appreciate the 

efforts of all stakeholders involved to improve data collection at the FCC. As 

these efforts continue, it is important that this data be collected quickly so as 

not to delay the delivery of essential communications services, through programs like Phase II of the Mobility Fund, to communities in need.3

(a) Setting these definition and measurement issues aside, we know there are only 

a small number of U.S. census tracks that currently have no broadband provider. 

As I noted in my testimony, I believe an economic case for deployment in these 

areas will remain difficult for private providers to make, and that therefore these 

should be the focus of any direct investments Congress includes in future infrastructure spending. 

That, I believe, is the best hope for ensuring federally-supported investments in 

broadband infrastructure are going to areas that are truly underserved or unserved. 

As I noted: 

Any direct infrastructure spending Congress approves should be targeted exclusively to the few remaining census tracts, mostly rural and tribal, where there 

is currently no competitive broadband service. Congress should consider setting 

aside a modest portion of its proposed infrastructure fund, say $20 billion, for 

a one-time rural broadband acceleration program. 

Network operators would be offered subsidies to build out in these extremely 

high-cost areas, with a requirement to use technologies with sufficient bandwidth to support substantial future growth, perhaps up to 100 Mbps speeds. 

Calculation of specific subsidies should be made on a per-location basis, determining as precisely as possible how much is needed to overcome otherwise prohibitive build-out costs. 

75 

4See FCC, Contribution Factor and Quarterly Filings—Universal Service Fund Management 

Support, available at https://www.fcc.gov/general/contribution-factor-quarterly-filings-univer 

sal-service-fund-usf-management-support. 5See, e.g., Larry Downes, How the FCC Sees Broadband’s 95 percent Success as 100 percent 

Failure, FORBES, Aug. 13, 2012, available at https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2012/ 

08/23/how-the-fcc-sees-broadbands-95-success-as-100-failure/#6e324b6dbe55. Even in the most 

recent Broadband Progress Report, the FCC still refuses to adopt measurement and reporting 

tools that show intermodal competition between wired and mobile broadband services. See FCC, 

2016 Broadband Progress Report, GN Docket 15–191, Jan. 29, 2016, available at https:// 

www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progress-reports/2016-broadband-progress-report. 

Funds for the acceleration program, moreover, should come from general appropriations rather than raising the already-unsustainable fees consumers pay into 

the Universal Service Fund, which today represents a 17.4 percent cost added 

to voice services.4

To avoid problems that plagued the Recovery Act’s scattered broadband initiatives, moreover, the acceleration program should be managed by one agency, 

with strict controls to help ensure troubled projects get attention (or cut off) 

sooner rather than later. Between the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Rural Utilities Service, and the FCC, there is consensus 

that the FCC does the best job at maximizing its deployment-related funds, and 

should be the sole agency responsible for the acceleration fund, albeit with 

added controls to reduce waste and abuse. 

(b) Solving the more specific measurement and consistency issues is entirely within the technical capability of the FCC, but the agency has in recent years had a 

strong disincentive to do so. Eager to activate authority the Commission incorrectly 

believed was inchoate in the Communications Act and in particular in Section 

706(a) and (b), the FCC has in recent years adjusted definitions and manipulated 

measurement data to emphasize failures in broadband deployment, both wired and 

mobile. For years, the agency refused even to consider mobile broadband as a source 

of broadband at all, arguing weakly that it had inadequate data to measure it.5

Why has the FCC engaged in such counter-productive behavior? By failing to answer or answering negatively Congressional mandates to determine whether markets are competitive, and by torturing the data to find that broadband was not being 

deployed ‘‘in a reasonable and timely manner’’ overall, the FCC justified many of 

its recent interventions into the broadband market. 

While the interventions skewed private broadband investment decisions, the 

misreporting has made it impossible for Congress, the agency or others to develop 

an accurate understanding of the true state of the broadband market and in particular where problems in coverage remain. 

Given the considerable resources the FCC devotes today to its data collection and 

reporting requirements, this is truly a lose-lose state of affairs. As I noted in earlier 

testimony: 

As Ronald Coase famously wrote, ‘‘If you torture the data long enough, nature 

will always confess.’’ 

That, in a nutshell, has become the FCC’s unintended modus operandi. The 

agency collects the data it needs to make wise and efficient decisions, but in 

the absence of clear guidelines and the most basic economic analysis, the Commission cannot resist the temptation to abandon the logical conclusions compelled by that data in the service of vague, idiosyncratic, transient and, often, 

unarticulated policy goals. The lack of structure wastes both government and 

private resources. Worse, it vastly under emphasizes the likelihood that imminent technology disruptors will better and more efficiently advance the communications needs of American consumers with far fewer unintended consequences. 

These problems devalue much of the good work of the agency’s staff and subvert 

the often-admirable goals of the FCC’s Chairmen and Commissioners. They 

have created an epidemic of negative side-effects, including: 

• Many of the agency’s reports fail to reach obvious conclusions supported by the 

thorough data collection the agency performs, limiting their usefulness as policy 

tools to advance the FCC’s longstanding charter to promote communications to 

all Americans. 

76 

6See Written Testimony of Larry Downes, Hearing on FCC Process Improvement, Before the 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. 

House of Representatives, July 11, 2013, available at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF16/ 

20130711/101107/HHRG-113-IF16-Wstate-DownesL–20130711.pdf. 7See https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1104/text?r=2436. 

8That clarification was proposed, for example, in draft legislation circulated in 2015 by Chairman Thune along with Chairmen Walden and Upton in the House. See Larry Downes, Eight 

Reasons to Support Congress’s Net Neutrality Bill, THE WASHINGTON POST, Jan. 20, 2015, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2015/01/20/eight-reasons-tosupport-congresss-net-neutrality-bill/?utm_term=.874a52ca1c05. 9See, e.g., Testimony of Ann C. Eilers, Principal Assistant Inspector General, DOC OIG before 

the House Energy & Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, 

Is the broadband stimulus working?, Feb. 27, 2013, available at https://www.oig.doc.gov/ 

OIGPublications/OIG-13-017-T.pdf; Government Accountability Office, Recovery Act: USDA 

Should Include Broadband Programs Impact in Annual Performance Reports, June, 2014 at 

page 22; Tony Romm, Wired to Fail, POLITICO, July 28, 2015, available at http:// 

www.politico.com/story/2015/07/broadband-coverage-rural-area-fund-mishandled-120601. 

• Rulemakings torture their analysis and data to justify what appear to be ex 

ante conclusions to regulate—regardless of the need or cost. . . .6

To overcome these problems, Congress must realign the agency’s incentives and 

require the agency to collect and report accurate information, allowing its technical 

experts to define and collect neutral and useful standardized data. 

Your proposed legislation, S. 1104, ‘‘The Rural Wireless Act of 2017,’’ 7 would go 

far toward resetting the balance, requiring the FCC to make its measurements 

based on good science rather than bad politics. I would recommend extending those 

common-sense principles beyond measurement of mobile broadband to wired services as well. I also continue to support consolidation of FCC reporting, both to reduce duplication and to remove unhelpful data silos between different bureaus within the agency. 

More broadly, however, Congress should remove any lingering temptation for the 

FCC to perform incomplete, inaccurate, or artificially pessimistic data collection and 

analysis of broadband market conditions. That could be accomplished by legislation 

making clear that Congress never intended Section 706 as an independent grant of 

agency authority, let alone one that triggered special powers based on particular 

negative findings about the state of broadband competition or availability.8

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JERRY MORAN TO

LARRY DOWNES

Question 1. According to the recommendations included in your written testimony, 

you support the idea of a single Federal agency ‘‘with strict controls to help ensure 

troubled projects get attention (or cut off) sooner rather than later’’ in rural 

broadband acceleration considerations for future comprehensive infrastructure legislation. 

a. Given the existing expertise at the FCC, would you agree that the FCC is the 

best place for the broadband infrastructure conversation to take place? 

b. What criteria do you suggest we consider in evaluating choices for the creation 

of any broadband infrastructure investment plan? 

Answer. (a) I have not made a comprehensive evaluation of either the corporate 

finance or project management expertise within the FCC, or its strengths in those 

areas relative to other Federal agencies and departments, notably the NTIA and the 

USAC. A careful and neutral evaluation of those capabilities and recommended improvements, however, would be essential before Congress authorizes any additional 

taxpayer funding to ensure both professional and efficient disbursement of grants, 

loans, and other resources. 

However, as I noted in my testimony, it is clear from both private investigations 

as well as those of the GAO that funding provided through the 2009 Recovery Act 

was not as effective as it could have been, and in many examples resulted in 

broadband project spending that was either unnecessary or, worse, which was never 

completed.9

These reports singled out the performance of the Rural Utilities Service as being 

especially poor. I am unaware, however, of reforms that may or may not have taken 

place at RUS following the recommendations of GAO or others. 

I do believe, however, that any future Federal investment would be best coordinated by a single agency. The FCC, if nothing else, has the most experience and 

the most appropriate Congressional mandates to advance broadband deployment 

and adoption goals within the Federal Government. The FCC also has the benefit 

77 

10See Blair Levin and Carol Mattey In Infrastructure Plan, a Big Opening for Rural 

Broadband, Brookings Institution, Feb. 13, 2017, available at, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/ 

the-avenue/2017/02/13/in-infrastructure-plan-a-big-opening-for-rural-broadband/. 11Larry Downes, The Digital Revolution Has Not Reached All of Us, THE WASHINGTON POST, 

August 31, 2016, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2016/ 

08/31/the-internet-revolution-has-not-reached-all-of-us/. 

of being the author of the visionary 2010 National Broadband Plan, which retains 

considerable value as a planning and evangelizing document. 

Finally, as noted in my testimony, the FCC has in recent months initiated proceedings specifically aimed at improving deployment opportunities for broadband in 

rural areas. 

Absent any findings of structural problems internal to the FCC that would make 

it unable to effectively manage future Federal broadband initiatives, I do believe the 

Commission is the best place to coordinate the on-going broadband infrastructure 

conversation. 

(b) Without knowing specific legislative goals and proposed funding levels, it’s difficult for me to advise the Committee on criteria for choosing between competing 

investment options and proposals. 

However, as I noted in my testimony, I share the non-partisan view of many analysts that our remaining digital divide is driven by both availability and adoption 

problems that disproportionately affect rural, older and less-educated Americans. 

Any broadband infrastructure plan adopted by Congress should focus on identifying 

the specific reasons for these gaps, and target spending and resources accordingly. 

I recommended limited and carefully controlled direct investment, targeted exclusively to the few remaining census tracts, mostly rural and tribal, where there is 

currently no competitive broadband service. 

These should take the form of subsidies to build out in these extremely high-cost 

areas, with a requirement to use technologies with sufficient bandwidth to support 

substantial future growth, perhaps up to 100 Mbps speeds. Calculation of specific 

subsidies should be made on a per-location basis, determining as precisely as possible how much is needed to overcome otherwise prohibitive build-out costs. 

I also recommend severely limiting ongoing support. To date, the FCC provides 

payments in the form of small ongoing annual subsidies, even in areas when all that 

was needed to overcome high infrastructure costs was an initial capital investment. 

Because of this approach, it can take years for providers to recoup their own capital 

investments, unintentionally encouraging operators to build piecemeal in rural 

areas, and to make decisions based on what providers believe the government will 

fund rather than on what consumers want. 

Future investments should avoid this error by offering instead carefully-calculated 

one-time subsidies. This will save billions in ongoing costs. While some truly highcost areas will continue to need both start-up capital and operating support, the emphasis for any new rural broadband infrastructure spending should be on those locations for which capital alone can overcome the need for further government subsidy. 

This will deliver the most bang for scarce taxpayer bucks. 

After determining the optimal per-location subsidy needed, the government may 

find there are more providers willing to build in underserved rural and tribal areas 

than there are funds to support them. If so, the FCC should be authorized to run 

a reverse auction among competing providers to bid down the per-location cost.10

To address equally entrenched adoption problems, I also recommended addressing 

causes of the digital divide unrelated to either availability or price. 

As the most recent data from the Pew Research Project shows, we are winning 

the battle to reduce broadband cost for those least able to afford it. In addition to 

expanded Universal Service programs and the shift from voice to broadband for 

Lifeline and other programs, leading Internet providers, including Comcast, AT&T 

and, recently, Sprint, have expanded programs aimed at low-income families, signing up millions of new Internet users for roughly $10 a month.11

As the adoption gap narrows, however, we need new strategies that target different problems. Availability and price are no longer the most significant factors 

holding back the 13 percent of Americans who remain offline. Consistent with finding over the last decade, the Pew Research Center noted recently that only 19 percent of offline adults cite the expense of Internet service of owning a computer as 

a barrier. 

Instead, ‘‘[a] third of non-internet users (34 percent) did not go online because 

they had no interest in doing so or did not think the Internet was relevant to their 

lives.’’ Researchers reported. ‘‘Another 32 percent of non-internet users said the 

78 

12Monica Anderson and Andrew Perrin, 13 percent of Americans Don’t Use the Internet—Who 

are They?, Pew Research Report, Sept. 7, 2016, available at http://www.pewresearch.org/facttank/2016/09/07/some-americans-dont-use-the-internet-who-are-they/ 13 National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Digitally Unconnected in the 

U.S. Who’s Not Online and Why?, Sept. 28, 2016, available at www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2016/ 

digitally-unconnected-us-who-s-not-online-and-why. 

Internet was too difficult to use, including 8 percent of this group who said they 

were ‘too old to learn.’ ’’ 12

While income undoubtedly continues to play a significant role in non-adoption, in 

other words, many who remain offline wouldn’t use the Internet even if it were free. 

This conclusion was also reached by a recent NTIA survey, which found that over 

half of those who don’t have Internet service at home—again, largely rural and 

older Americans, and those with less education—say they just don’t want or need 

it.13

Part of this resistance comes from the fact that unconnected Americans don’t 

know how to use a computer or even a smartphone, let alone how to install and 

maintain networking equipment inside or outside their home. So whatever funding 

the infrastructure law provides for broadband will be wasted if some of that support 

isn’t directed to providing hands-on education and on-going support. 

Public education about why the infrastructure bill is spending money on 

broadband will also be critical to getting maximum value from any new investment. 

That effort should include, at a minimum, the White House and related Departments including those dealing with commerce, housing, health, energy and education. 

The FCC should be tasked with coordinating the public outreach, and for working 

with stat-ups and established companies developing the most exciting and relevant 

applications and their respective trade groups in public-private partnerships. 

Question 2. Are there specific tools such as commonly-mandated forms or commonly-mandated resolution timeframes (e.g., ‘‘shot clocks’’) that can be standardized 

across all Federal agencies to improve the permitting process? What are the benefits 

and challenges to such efficiencies? 

Answer. The more any proposed legislation includes and mandates already-understood permitting ‘‘best practices’’ across federal—and, where possible, tribal, state 

and local governments—the more effective and efficient future deployments will be. 

Many of these practices have been developed by innovative Federal agencies and 

local authorities experimenting with ways to accelerate the deployment of fastchanging broadband technologies in specific geographies and communities, taking 

into account geological challenges and local preferences. 

They include the ‘‘dig once’’ and ‘‘climb once’’ policies advocated by the White 

House and Congress, ‘‘shot clocks’’ that result in applications being deemed granted 

if a decision is not reached in a reasonable timeframe, and master contractor agreements for new infrastructure deployments piloted by Google Fiber and other 

broadband providers for both wired and mobile deployments that streamline the 

process of permitting, rights of way, and gaining access to local facilities including 

buildings, roads, utility poles and other property. 

Much has been learned over the last few decades of infrastructure deployment, 

and there is consensus on what constitutes the best and most effective permitting 

and other processes. I note several specific examples of these practices in my testimony, and there is a wealth of literature available from trade groups, academics, 

and think tanks that describe these practices in detail. 

The difficulty, as your questions suggests, is not that we do not know how best 

to manage broadband deployment, but that we lack both uniform and enforceable 

standards that apply to all government actors, retaining local values and choice 

where appropriate. 

The FCC, for example, has long-maintained shot clocks for mobile equipment construction application, but lacks the resources to adequately monitor compliance, let 

alone enforce its rules. 

The Federal Government, likewise, has adopted a ‘‘dig once’’ policy for fiber conduit by way of several Executive Orders, but needs to extend that policy to public 

rights of way adjoining roads, and to state roads as well as federal. 

Given the limits of executive authority to extend and enforce these best practices, 

particularly regarding state government, Congress should embrace permitting reform as part of any broadband infrastructure legislation it develops. That would be 

the most effective and efficient way to propagate these practices throughout the government. 

79 

14See Larry Downes, How to Understand the EU-U.S. Digital Divide, HARVARD BUSINESS RE- VIEW, Oct. 19, 2015, available at https://hbr.org/2015/10/how-to-understand-the-eu-u-s-digitaldivide. 15 Richard Bennett, Wireless First: A Winning Strategy for Rural Broadband, High-Tech 

Forum, April 11, 2017, available at http://hightechforum.org/wireless-first-a-winning-strategyfor-rural-broadband/. 16See Caleb Henry, FCC Approves OneWeb for U.S. Market as it Considers other Constellations, SPACE NEWS, June 23, 2017, available at http://spacenews.com/fcc-approves-oneweb-forus-market-as-it-considers-other-constellations/. See also Larry Downes, Ligado is Ready to 

Launch a New Mobile Network. Will the FCC Let Them? FORBES, June 12, 2017, available at 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2017/06/12/ligado-is-ready-to-launch-a-new-mobile-network-will-the-fcc-let-them/#7d455e3b3831. 

Question 3. Can you explain the importance of taking a ‘‘technology-neutral approach’’ in any comprehensive infrastructure or tax legislative package considerations by this Congress and Federal regulating agencies? 

Answer. There are many myths about broadband technologies that have infected 

policy decisions over the years, particularly at the FCC. These include, for example, 

a belief promoted by some legal academics with minimal technical or business 

knowledge that the only way to achieve universal and competitive broadband deployment is to lay fiber optic cable to every home in America, regardless of location 

or cost, and preferably as part of a federally owned and operated Internet infrastructure. 

Similarly, the FCC has long emphasized directly and indirectly that only wired 

broadband is truly broadband, leaving other delivery technologies either de-emphasized or excluded from various programs. 

These myths are both technologically inaccurate and counter-productive. Often, 

their proponents intentionally misread data about deployment in other countries to 

feed a demonstrably false narrative that without a nationalized, all-fiber network, 

the U.S. both is and will remain uncompetitive in the Internet economy.14

More to the point, these broadband myths explicitly and implicitly deter both public and private investment in alternative broadband technologies and investment 

models that would actually close the remaining U.S. digital divide quickly and efficiently. By insisting on a deployment model that is neither cost-effective nor politically viable, those who encourage these myths condemn some consumers, particularly rural and tribal residents, to being left out of the digital conversation longer 

than necessary, if not permanently. 

As I noted in my testimony, there have long been multiple broadband technologies, including cable, cellular and in particular next-generation DSL, fixed mobile and satellite, that are better suited to deliver broadband to geographically remote and/or sparsely populated areas of the country. They provide increasingly fast 

speeds and high reliability, as well as more cost-effective capital and operating features. 

Sadly, if these technologies were not treated as second-class options by self-styled 

consumer advocates and their colleagues inside the FCC, they would have been deployed even more aggressively in the last decades. That would not only have eliminated remaining broadband availability gaps sooner but would have led to accelerated development of these technologies. Their success would also have stimulated 

competition for more innovation in other potential broadband technologies, including 

broadband over power lines. 

Fiber optics will continue to play an expanded role in Internet infrastructure, but 

for the foreseeable future, as the National Broadband Plan made clear, it is unlikely 

to become the sole last mile connection technology for a country as vast and sparsely 

populated as the U.S. 

New cellular and cable technologies, including 5G and Docsis 3.1, will offer wider 

coverage and greatly accelerated speeds. But in many rural areas, as I noted in my 

testimony, fixed wireless technologies have proven themselves capable of providing 

high-speed last-mile connections to homes and businesses, with the promise of even 

better performance going forward. 

Satellite-based solutions have likewise matured, as have hybrid fiber/copper technologies using existing telephone lines.15 Just this week, the FCC unanimously approved OneWeb’s application to launch a constellation of low-orbiting satellites that 

will, when operational, provide global Internet access.16 Many other satellite providers, including SpaceX, Ligado, Boeing, and Telesat, have pending applications. 

The problem is that up until now Universal Service programs have either explicitly or implicitly favored wired technologies, for example by defining minimum 

broadband speeds above what is reasonably necessary or by setting latency standVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:09 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\28640.TXT JACKIE
80 

17See Doug Brake, A Policymaker’s Guide to Rural Broadband Infrastructure, Information 

Technology and Innovation Foundation (April 2017), available at http://www2.itif.org/2017- 

rural-broadband-infrastructure.pdf?mc_cid=4fb4705a17&mc_eid=98756dc702. 1 Andrew Perrin, Digital Divide Between Rural and Nonrural America Persists, Pew Research 

Center, May 19, 2017, available at http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/19/digitalgap-between-rural-and-nonrural-america-persists/?utm_campaign=Newsletters&utm_source=sen 

dgrid&utm_medium=e-mail. 

ards in a way that intentionally if implicitly excludes satellite-based solutions.17

That means that neither network operators nor consumers can make use of Universal Service Funds that would otherwise be available to overcome cost issues. 

Removing technologically-unsound prejudices from USF and elsewhere as part of 

any broadband infrastructure legislation will be crucial in achieving the goal of that 

legislation to close the digital divide, particularly for rural Americans. It will also 

stimulate even faster innovation in these and other broadband technologies—including those we can’t even imagine today. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. MAGGIE HASSAN TO

LARRY DOWNES

Question. It’s clear there is major interest in improving access to broadband and 

the way we deploy broadband services. This national goal transcends party lines, 

and I’m pleased to be a part of this committee where I can work with colleagues 

on both sides of the aisle to make improvements. I would like to hear from you all, 

what is being done, and what more should be done to ensure rural Americans are 

not left behind as technology evolves and innovations emerge. Rural America is 

more complex and difficult to connect for many reasons, but every American should 

have the opportunity to reap the social and economic benefits of broadband 

connectivity. What are your thoughts? 

Answer. Rural residents are making great strides in both access and adoption of 

affordable broadband Internet, but continue to trail urban and suburban consumers. 

Just last week, the Pew Research Center released new data on the digital divide.1

The good news is that the rural divide continues to shrink, both in absolute and 

relative terms: 

Nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of rural Americans say they have a broadband 

Internet connection at home, up from about a third (35 percent) in 2007, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted in fall 2016. Rural Americans 

are now 10 percentage points less likely than Americans overall to have home 

broadband; in 2007, there was a 16-point gap between rural Americans (35 percent) and all U.S. adults (51 percent) on this question. 

But, as Figure 1 makes clear, rural users continue to lag in adoption. 

81 

2Monica Anderson and Andrew Perrin, 13 percent of Americans Don’t Use the Internet—Who 

are They?, Pew Research Report, Sept. 7, 2016, available at http://www.pewresearch.org/facttank/2016/09/07/some-americans-dont-use-the-internet-who-are-they/ 3 National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Digitally Unconnected in the 

U.S. Who’s Not Online and Why?, Sept. 28, 2016, available at www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2016/ 

digitally-unconnected-us-who-s-not-online-and-why. 

Figure 1 

There are, of course, many explanations for the remaining gaps. As the Pew research notes, some rural parts of the country still lack access to basic broadband 

infrastructure. Where broadband is available, it may be less reliable or offered at 

slower speeds. And rural users may believe, rightly or wrongly, that Internet products and services are not relevant to their lives. 

Indeed, according to multiple surveys, the largest impediment today to universal 

broadband adoption is neither availability nor cost—it’s a perception by non-adopters that there’s nothing online of interest to them. According to Pew, ‘‘[a] third of 

non-internet users (34 percent) did not go online because they had no interest in 

doing so or did not think the Internet was relevant to their lives.’’ Researchers reported that ‘‘Another 32 percent of non-internet users said the Internet was too difficult to use, including 8 percent of this group who said they were ‘too old to 

learn.’ ’’ 2

While access and price undoubtedly continues to play a significant role in nonadoption, in other words, many who remain offline wouldn’t use the Internet even 

if it were free. This conclusion was also reached by a recent NTIA survey, which 

found that over half of those who don’t have Internet service at home—largely rural 

and older Americans, and those with less education—say they just don’t want or 

need it.3

As the improving relative and absolute adoption rates suggest, however, a combination of private and public-private initiatives aimed at both access and adoption 

gaps have and continue to make excellent progress in overcoming these real and 

perceived obstacles. 

Basic technology costs continue to decline, and new infrastructure technologies 

are invented and rapidly improve. Together, these translate to high-speed access becoming increasingly cost-effective even in the most geographically remote parts of 

the U.S. 

Cable providers continue to expand their networks, and new protocols increase the 

speed and reliability of those networks. Hybrid fiber/copper options that utilize existing telephone infrastructure have brought high-speed broadband to many areas 

that are otherwise too expensive to serve. 

New wireless technologies, including fixed wireless systems utilizing existing 4G 

LTE networks, are both more cost-effective and competitive with wired solutions. 


503HASSQ1.eps
82 

4See https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC–344201A1.pdf. 5See https://www.fcc.gov/broadband-deployment-advisory-committee. 

6See Blair Levin and Carol Mattey In Infrastructure Plan, a Big Opening for Rural 

Broadband, Brookings Institution, Feb. 13, 2017, available at, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/ 

the-avenue/2017/02/13/in-infrastructure-plan-a-big-opening-for-rural-broadband/. 

And, as we heard at the hearing, low-orbit satellite broadband services have the potential to deliver competitive service without introducing latency that reduces the 

usefulness of some applications, notably high-definition video. 

For those areas of the country where these alternatives remain difficult to costjustify, programs administered by the FCC, including the Connect America Fund 

and Mobility Fund, have accelerated the push to provide needed capital for infrastructure investment. The agency has committed even more revenue from the Universal Service Fund to these programs, and there remains the potential for Congress, as part of a possible infrastructure bill, to increase those funds even more. 

Just last month, FCC Chairman Pai announced the formation of a Rural 

Broadband Auctions Task Force,4 tasked with implementing auction-based alloca- tion of another $6.5 billion in rural infrastructure funding. 

Earlier in the year, Chairman Pai also announced the creation of a Broadband 

Deployment Advisory Committee.5 The Committee, composed of leaders from both 

public and private sector organizations at the federal, state and local levels, has as 

its mission: 

[T]o make recommendations for the Commission on how to accelerate the deployment of high-speed Internet access, or ‘‘broadband,’’ by reducing and/or removing regulatory barriers to infrastructure investment. This Committee is intended to provide an effective means for stakeholders with interests in this area 

to exchange ideas and develop recommendations for the Commission, which will 

in turn enhance the Commission’s ability to carry out its statutory responsibility to encourage broadband deployment to all Americans. 

Supplementing these efforts, the Commission has initiated several Notices of Proposed Rulemaking to implement specific changes aimed at improving the speed and 

efficiency of both public and private broadband deployment initiatives. 

Finally, for rural Americans for whom cost is a barrier to broadband adoption, 

both private and public efforts to reduce or subsidize the price of connection continue to bring more Americans online. Most major broadband providers, following 

the early efforts of Comcast, AT&T and others, have programs that provide reduced 

price service (about $10 a month) for lower income Americans and their communities. Likewise, the FCC continues to transform Universal Service programs originally designed to subsidize wired voice service into programs aimed at both wired 

and mobile broadband. 

Recommendations 

As I noted in my written testimony, however, there are still ways in which these 

positive developments can be further improved. Specifically, I identified eight reforms that Congress should consider including in future infrastructure spending or 

otherwise. (A detailed explanation for each can be found in my written testimony.) 

1. Limit and carefully control direct investments. Any direct infrastructure spending Congress approves should be targeted exclusively to the few remaining census tracts, mostly rural and tribal, where there is currently no competitive 

broadband service. Congress should consider setting aside a modest portion of 

its proposed infrastructure fund, say $20 billion, for a one-time rural broadband acceleration program. 

2. Severely limit ongoing support. To date, Federal efforts to overcome the financial hurdles to deploying rural broadband infrastructure have suffered from a 

structural flaw. The FCC provides payments in the form of small ongoing annual subsidies, even in areas when all that was needed to overcome high infrastructure costs was an initial capital investment. 

Future investments should avoid this error by offering instead carefully-calculated one-time subsidies. While some truly high-cost areas will continue to 

need both start-up capital and operating support, the emphasis for any new 

rural broadband infrastructure spending should be on those locations for which 

capital alone can overcome the need for further government subsidy.6

3. Extend ‘‘Dig Once.’’ Lack of coordination between broadband and other infrastructure projects wastes time and resources, particularly when roads are 

being built or maintained. It is essential that we fully embrace a ‘‘Dig Once’’ 

rule, requiring installation of conduits for broadband equipment whenever 

83 

7See Letter from Government Accountability Office, June 27, 2013, available at http:// 

www.gao.gov/assets/600/591928.pdf. 8See Doug Brake, A Policymaker’s Guide to Rural Broadband Infrastructure, Information 

Technology and Innovation Foundation (April 2017), available at http://www2.itif.org/2017- 

rural-broadband-infrastructure.pdf?mc_cid=4fb4705a17&mc_eid=98756dc702. 

roads are being dug up for any reason. According to the Government Accountability Office, ‘‘Dig Once’’ can reduce the cost of deploying fiber under highways 

in urban areas up to 33 percent and up to 16 percent in rural areas.7

4. Address other unproductive barriers to mobile deployments. Congress should establish Federal guidelines to eliminate unnecessary bickering over pole attachments, especially for poles that are municipally-owned or owned by regulated 

utilities. To avoid rent-seeking behavior that grinds the process to a halt, we 

need cost-based attachment fees, ‘‘climb-once’’ policies, and basic rules about 

notice and contractor qualifications. Network operators should not be penalized 

in either time or money for replacing or upgrading small cell equipment—applications that are often treated as full-scale installations of new towers. 

5. Re-engineer government processes that hinder private investment. Beyond pole 

and building access issues, both wired and mobile deployment is being held 

back unnecessarily by unproductive costs associated with dealing with slow 

and overly bureaucratic local governments. The problem is not so much local 

regulations as it is local processes—or often, the lack thereof. Best practices 

distilled from a long history of good and bad examples should be established 

at the Federal level and included in the infrastructure bill as conditions for 

local jurisdictions to receive Federal assistance. 

6. Make investments technology-neutral. Until now, Universal Service programs 

have either explicitly or implicitly favored wired technologies, for example by 

defining minimum broadband speeds above what is reasonably necessary or by 

setting latency standards in a way that intentionally excludes satellite-based 

solutions.8 No matter how the infrastructure bill provides for broadband in the 

remaining unserved locations, it should do so on a technology-neutral basis to 

encourage continued development of new options. 

7. Address nonfinancial causes of the digital divide. Many unconnected Americans 

don’t know how to use a computer or even a smartphone, let alone how to install and maintain networking equipment inside or outside their home. Whatever funding the infrastructure law provides for broadband will be wasted if 

some of that support isn’t directed to providing hands-on education and ongoing support. Community groups and senior centers are natural conduits for 

these essential services, along with private programs that are today underfunded. 

8. Use the bully pulpit to encourage digital want-nots. Public education about why 

the infrastructure bill is spending money on broadband will be critical to getting maximum value from any new investment. That effort should include, at 

a minimum, the White House and related Departments including those dealing 

with commerce, housing, health, energy and education. 

Following these basic recommendations will maximize the value of any taxpayer 

money spent on broadband infrastructure. Even more, these simple steps will help 

multiply government spending with continued private investment, accelerating efforts to close the digital divide and bring the least-connected parts of the country 

into our growing digital conversation. 

In Silicon Valley, that’s what we call a win-win-win. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. JERRY MORAN TO

BRIAN M. HENDRICKS

Question. I am excited to see Kansas serving as a leader to other states by successfully accelerating wireless deployment and investment by streamlining their 

processes through its state legislature. I understand that other states have not been 

able to reach similar state-level legislative solutions. 

a. Do you think the patchwork if deployment laws across the states will impact 

uniform investment and deployment 4G and 5G infrastructure? 

Answer. Senator Moran, yes, Nokia believes that a patchwork of laws and local 

zoning practices creates a significant problem. As I noted in my testimony, in order 

to evolve our wireless infrastructure further under the hypothetical Fifth Generation (5G) umbrella that will require networks to have near zero latency (delay in 

84 

transmission of packets) and extremely high peak data rates, we will need to deploy 

hundreds of thousands of small cells, distributed antenna systems (DAS), and other 

micro-infrastructure. Doing this will allow current networks to support use cases 

with zero fault tolerance like autonomous driving vehicles. Making substantial upgrades to large macro tower sights as the primary, or only method, to increase capacity and coverage in 5G rather than utilizing smaller cells to bolster and evolve 

4G networks does not make technical or economic sense. 

In order to achieve ubiquitous deployment of 5G in the U.S., we need to ensure 

that there are predictable, non-burdensome frameworks available to process the 

many thousands of small infrastructure applications we anticipate. When a service 

provider and a vendor partner like Nokia look at areas for deployment planning 

purposes, you want the considerations to be: (1) what infrastructure is already deployed, (2) how is the network performing and what is the user experience like, and 

(3) what new equipment makes the most sense for this area to increase coverage, 

capacity and performance to support the emerging Internet of Things (IoT) vision 

of a connected society. You do not want a variable in that equation to be the regulatory environment. 

We have seen deployments quickly become infeasible due to things like: (1) requirements to submit numerous applications for a single, multi-site deployment, (2) 

requirements that three or more agencies must sign off on an application in seriatim rather than using concurrent review, and (3) initial connection fees and recurring monthly ‘‘rents’’ that exponentially increase the cost of the project. Modest 

projects, such as a the hypothetical 200 small cell deployment I mentioned in the 

hearing, quickly amass costs in the millions of dollars just to obtain regulatory approval and access. That is before we have even purchased the equipment, established connectivity and power, or served a single customer. 

What the foregoing will produce, if unchecked, is a very uneven deployment of 

these new network components. For example, prioritizing one urban area over another, or one suburban or mid-sized city over another based primarily on a regulatory cost vs. economic opportunity analysis. We have already begun to see this 

happen. Many cities across the country have expressed interest in demonstration deployments for special events, or to do early deployments of connected infrastructure 

or Smart Cities technology. Unsurprisingly, the cities chosen for early deployment 

share in common a few characteristics, including: well established processes, dedicated personnel to review and facilitate approval and siting, and fees that are tied 

closely to the actual costs incurred by the city in furnishing access. 

Nokia believes that a more harmonized framework across the country would 

greatly aid in planning and deployment of the next generation networks. Some of 

these concepts are discussed in my response to the next question. Importantly, if 

we do not see greater consistency in the processes, fees and other circumstances related to siting of 5G infrastructure, roll out of the technology will be very uneven 

across the U.S. And, that has important implications because 5G is an essential development to ensure that all of the contemplated uses cases, from connected 

healthcare and its improved access to diagnostic and therapeutic medicine to intelligent transportation are available to all Americans. Closing the digital divide between communities with robust broadband access and those without it has been a 

major policy priority. We do not want lack of common sense, reasonable siting policies in many jurisdictions to be a reason the divide grows further. 

b. What further actions can the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) take 

to incentivize the deployment of 4G and 5G infrastructure? 

Answer. The FCC has played an important role over the last few decades in promoting the deployment of communications networks that meet the needs of consumers by providing guiderails where necessary to achieve deployment goals. The 

FCC can do so again today by modernizing its approach to wireless siting to reflect 

the unique challenges of further building out today’s 4G LTE networks and tomorrow’s 5G networks. 

As I previously noted, dense networks of smaller wireless facilities are key to creating the capacity needed to support next-generation wireless networks. Small cells 

are usually no more than a few feet in dimension and are typically placed on existing structures like rooftops, water towers, and the sides of buildings, or our poles 

along local streets and rights of way. Although some states and localities are beginning to understand the importance of small cell technologies and are streamlining 

local policies to facilitate their deployment, many others are imposing on small cells 

the same types of regulations, laws, and requirements that govern macrocell (large, 

frequently tower-based) deployments. These barriers can take several forms, including those I mentioned in my response to the preceding question and through direct 

or de facto prohibitions on new wireless infrastructure. 

85 

The FCC can address these barriers without undermining localities’ important 

role in permitting new facilities. Specifically, the FCC can ensure that localities 

issue permits for wireless facilities that allow them to fully recover their costs to 

process the permits, but that nevertheless are issued within reasonable timelines 

and without unreasonable requirements (so-called shot clocks, prohibitions against 

moratoria and policies that severely restrict deployment based on arbitrary criteria 

such as not putting a small cell on a pole more than 30 feet in height). Doing so 

will enable the rapid buildout of next-generation networks and will foster connected, 

smart communities across the country. There are multiple ways to achieve this. The 

FCC could utilize its open proceeding to establish a framework for reasonable fees 

and ‘‘shot clocks’’ that states and localities must follow. The Commission could then 

utilize its Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee (BDAC) to create a set of 

model processes, perhaps a template, that states and localities could adopt as an 

operating framework. The BDAC should include more representation from state and 

local governments than it does at this time to further that collaborative process. Following its rule making and BDAC process, the Commission would be in a strong 

position to review ongoing siting practices and provide relief where unreasonable or 

unworkable practices remain. Congress should also consider augmenting the tools 

that the Commission has to effectuate this type of outcome by clarifying Sections 

253 and 332 of the Communications Act. 

c. What role do you see a potential comprehensive infrastructure package playing 

in modernizing Federal deployment laws and rules? 

Answer. Senator Moran, we believe that a comprehensive infrastructure package 

is an excellent policy opportunity for Congress. With respect to broadband, we have 

noted that a fiscal component should be included, and that there are a variety of 

ways in which Congress can incentivize and enable early deployments of 5G and IoT 

technology on a small scale. We also believe that there are opportunities to further 

address the complexities of rural deployment. 

With respect to Federal deployment laws and rules, Nokia is cognizant of the 

challenges in attempting to reform siting policies and rules related to Federal land 

and buildings, particularly because there are multiple committees in both the House 

and Senate with a jurisdictional claim to the effected agencies. That makes a single, 

stand alone bill addressing siting much more difficult to effectuate. The nature of 

a comprehensive infrastructure package, which of necessity will involve inputs and 

collaboration across multiple committees, makes it more sensible to address the 

issue of broadband infrastructure siting comprehensively. 

Such a bill will likely include policy and fiscal focus on highways in which socalled ‘‘dig once’’ language can greatly increase the availability and cost effectiveness of fiber for future broadband needs. Similarly, an infrastructure bill will likely 

include a section dealing with broadband and the programs administered by both 

the FCC and the Department of Commerce (NTIA) making it reasonable to further 

clarify FCC authority over infrastructure siting practices at the state and local level. 

In addition, broadband is likely not the only technology or activity that can benefit 

from a review and alteration of policies and practices at multiple Federal agencies 

including the Department of the Interior that play a role in determining access to 

Federal lands and buildings. Congress is in a strong position to utilize incentives 

to these agencies to adopt reforms, or to prescribe what processes should look like 

for review of applications. And, further, to provide a deemed granted framework or 

other approval mechanism that grants applications for access if the agencies fail to 

follow the prescribed practices. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MAGGIE HASSAN TO

BRIAN M. HENDRICKS

Question 1. It’s clear there is major interest in improving access to broadband and 

the way we deploy broadband services. This national goal transcends party lines, 

and I’m pleased to be a part of this committee where I can work with colleagues 

on both sides of the aisle to make improvements. I would like to hear from you all, 

what is being done, and what more should be done to ensure rural Americans are 

not left behind as technology evolves and innovations emerge. Rural America is 

more complex and difficult to connect for many reasons, but every American should 

have the opportunity to reap the social and economic benefits of broadband 

connectivity. What are your thoughts? 

Answer. Thank you, Senator Hassan, for your leadership and the opportunity to 

provide Nokia’s views. Rural deployment of broadband has been a decades long challenge. There are several reasons for this, including: (1) lower population densities 

that in turn provide fewer subscribers to facilitate a workable business case, (2) 

86 

even where broadband has been available, we have done a poor job as an industry 

of creating interest in adoption by rapidly advancing the use cases to make adoption 

a high value proposition for all consumers, and (3) the high cost of deploying fiber 

to every home, and technical limits in early wireless technology. High adoption rates 

are even more critical in areas where you may have fewer enterprise customers 

(businesses), fewer anchor institutions, and smaller pools of consumers. 

There are some promising signs that we may be able to overcome some of these 

previous challenges. One the ‘‘wired’’ side, the cost of fiber has declined, making new 

deployments much less costly. In addition, provisions such as ‘‘dig once’’ that will 

require future highway projects to include conduit for future fiber deployments will 

cause further cost efficiencies by avoiding much of the cost of trenching for new 

cable to be laid. Nokia has also made significant advances in technology that allow 

for the use of already deployed copper infrastructure to provide ever higher 

broadband speeds. Speeds up to 1 Gbps in the transport area of networks are now 

feasible in certain circumstances, which in turn increases data speeds available to 

consumers. With respect to wireless, prior generations of wireless broadband have been able 

to greatly expand the availability of broadband to consumers, but not always at data 

rates that made wireless a competitive alternative to other services. That changed 

significantly with the deployment of the 4th generation (4G) of wireless. Peak data 

rates have risen considerably in the last five to seven years, and further evolutions 

are anticipated between now and 2020 that will bring mobile broadband speeds to 

a much higher level. 

Recognizing that in rural areas there are still challenges, including lower data 

rates for individuals that live miles away from the nearest cell tower, Nokia has 

worked on solutions that can increase the performance of current wireless service. 

One product, called FastMile, allows a consumer to mount a very small multi-directional antenna on their premises through a self-install process. This increases the 

normal coverage area available to consumers by 12x and can increase available 

throughput and data rates by 2.5x. The design of this technology is attractive to 

wireless service providers because it can be overlaid on their current infrastructure 

deployments and utilizes different frequency bands than the underlying network, 

many of which are underutilized in rural areas. The net effect of this is to dramatically change the business case for rural deployment of high quality mobile 

broadband. 

To build on these developments, Congress could consider: 

• Further work on spectrum, particularly in identifying low band spectrum (below 

6 GHz) because the propagation characteristics are well suited for all types of 

deployments, and particularly good for rural deployments. Nokia strongly recommends that Congress prioritize the range of 3.1–3.55 GHz and 3.7–4.2 GHz, 

both in the MOBILE NOW Act; 

• In any infrastructure bill that includes broadband, direct additional resources 

toward foundational research into increasing performance of currently deployed 

copper and fiber infrastructure, and solutions that can increase the efficiency 

of spectrum use or utilization of lightly used bands available in rural areas. 

Question 2. Mr. Hendricks, as we prepare for the future of wireless networks and 

pave the way for 5G networks specifically, I think it would be useful to shed light 

on what 5G will mean for Granite Staters and people across the country. What will 

our devices be able to do with 5G that they can’t do today? What will 5G mean in 

practical terms for our constituents? What are the biggest impediments to deploying 

5G throughout the country and particularly in rural areas like those in my state 

of New Hampshire? 

Answer. The short answer to what can consumers expect from 5G is this: a truly 

portable and programmable world. They will be able to have access to the information and services they value, wherever they are, with an expectation of reliability 

that is much higher than even current LTE networks provide. They will be able to 

conduct commerce, access high bandwidth services including health care, and monitor and control appliances. They will have access to lower cost transportation due 

to the cost reduction benefits produced by autonomous vehicles. Some of the more 

exciting aspects of the programmable world Nokia sees include the potential for remotely delivering not just diagnostic, but therapeutic health care services, greatly 

improving the quality of the rural health care delivery system. 

As I noted in my written testimony, the United States is fortunate to have excellent wireless networks. But, it is important to note that 3G networks were engineered primarily for voice and to support basic data including text. The 4G (LTE) 

networks deployed in the last seven years made an exponential leap in capability, 

but they were still designed primarily for voice and higher speed data to support 

87 

applications like social networking and streaming video. The capacity in these 4G 

networks has been tested at times, in part because of wider adoption of smart 

phones and the introduction of other handhelds such as tablets and by the emergence of streaming services like Netflix. Wireless carriers have stayed ahead of 

these demands with increases in spectrum utilization efficiency and network management. 

As we look to the future, we need to be cognizant of network performance issues 

including peak data rates and latency (delay in transmission). Current networks 

have made significant progress in peak data rates, but still see levels well below 

what will be necessary to support applications with a zero-fault tolerance and which 

require massive bandwidth such as autonomous driving vehicles and some aspects 

of health care. 

There is a distinction between ‘‘connected’’ transportation, which relays data to 

and from a vehicle but the driver remains the controlling interface with the road, 

and truly autonomous vehicles whose critical operating systems including braking 

cannot depend on a network with insufficient capacity and performance. LTE networks of today are well suited for connected transportation (information relay to the 

vehicle). But with latency of 35–60 milliseconds, they are less well suited in their 

current deployment configuration to ensure safe, autonomous vehicles on a mass 

scale. Similarly, connected health care, which can include remote diagnostic services 

and even some imaging is quite different than conceptual ideas like remote surgery 

that will require latency to be near zero. 

What the foregoing makes clear is that there is a distinction between applications 

where basic data is being transmitted from sensors (connected health, transportation, some aspects of smart metering) and services which will require much more 

bandwidth and much lower latency. It is not inconceivable that we will see a true 

industrial Internet, with remote operation of large machinery, a tactile Internet that 

allows remote surgery, and the transmission or real time 4K quality video as part 

of virtual or augmented reality. 

The challenge, as I noted in my testimony is that these use cases are arriving 

at the same time billions of new devices will be connecting to current networks, 

ranging from sensors on appliances and information interfaces in transportation to 

health care devices and services. From a challenge standpoint, we must be able to 

deploy hundreds of thousands of new small cell and related technologies to ‘‘densify’’ 

the LTE networks already deployed and to evolve them further. This involves several challenges: (1) creating the technology and making it small, cost effective, and 

higher performing, (2) gaining access to the necessary rights of way and other structures at a local level to make these deployments, and to avoid egregious charges for 

access that compromise the financial viability of the projects, and (3) as I noted in 

the foregoing question, continuing to find ways to get more performance from the 

infrastructure that has been deployed already through additional spectrum allocations for mobile broadband applications. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO

TO BRIAN M. HENDRICKS

Question 1. In your testimony, you spoke about Nokia’s personal experience with 

the frustrating siting process. Can you elaborate more on any specific challenges 

Nokia has faced in connection with any permitting on Federal lands or with Federal 

facilities? 

Answer. Thank you Senator for the questions and for your engagement on these 

issues. As I noted at the hearing, Nevada has been very forward leaning in its technology policy on a bipartisan basis. We frequently have conversations with local officials including infrastructure planners about their needs and interests, and they 

regularly inquire about changes they can make to policies to enable rapid deployment of new equipment. Industry has spent considerable time focusing on the issues 

with state and local government processes, which remain problematic, so I believe 

it is important to note examples of governments that are working hard to enable 

5G and the connected society vision when we do encounter them. We have spent 

less time on the Federal issues. So, thank you for providing an opportunity to offer 

more information. 

Our experience siting on Federal lands varies based on several factors, including: 

(1) the responsible agency, (2) the policies and practices (if indeed there are any), 

and (3) personnel issues. On the personnel side, as with the state and local environment, we often find at both the agency regional office and the national level there 

are limited personnel resources dedicated to application review. Policies for handling 

applications have not been effectively communicated to all responsible staff and 

88 

training in the policies and the procedures for processing applications has not been 

sufficient. Regions where the amount of Federal land tend have more resources, so 

the resourcing issues are magnified in states where there is relatively little Federal 

land being managed. Applications for siting on Federal land can take many months, 

or even years and there is no effective guidance or rule governing how quickly the 

applications must be reviewed and acted upon. Some of the process length is due 

to the list of regulatory requirements including impact studies, but much of the 

length is due to personnel limitations and training issues. 

Question 2. You also mentioned that the lack of employee resources exacerbates 

a number of other impediments. Can you elaborate on the impact that a lack of sufficient staff within Federal agencies, like the Department of Interior, or others, have 

on this process? How do you think the Federal hiring freeze has further impeded 

the efficiency of processing applications? 

Answer. Roughly 28 percent of the land in the U.S. is owned by the Federal Government. It is therefore critical for the wireless industry to have access and the ability to construct facilities on Federal lands, properties, and buildings, particularly in 

rural and remote areas that more often consist of Federal lands. The industry works 

with numerous Federal agencies that manage those lands so that facilities can be 

constructed. But, the processes vary greatly across agencies and can often take 

years to complete. The lack of uniform processes, including timelines for required 

action and procedures for reviewing and responding to applications is not a personnel issue, it is an issue of not prioritizing siting as a function of the agency. This 

is something that Congress has, and can continue to address. 

Ensuring that agencies are appropriately staffed, imposing additional Congressional oversight on agencies administering Federal lands, and encouraging adoption 

of standardized deadlines and processes for reviewing wireless siting applications 

will promote new infrastructure construction for the benefit of Federal employees 

and, more broadly, American consumers. 

Nokia cannot say definitively whether the hiring freeze has (or will) exacerbate 

the problems we have experienced. However, it is safe to say that the freeze limits 

options to overcome the staffing limitations. A few practical suggestions that can improve siting on Federal land include: 

• At each relevant agency that is involved in the review and approval of siting 

on Federal lands, direct that the head of the agency appoint a career employee, 

and/or to establish an office that is responsible for: 

(1) maintaining an updated policy document regarding infrastructure siting on 

Federal land under their jurisdiction; 

(2) providing points of contact within the agency that can answer questions 

(ombudsman like approach) and ensuring that all regional offices have at 

least one employee responsible for reviewing and responding to applications; 

and 

(3) developing and clearly communicating training on the agency procedures to 

regional office staff. 

• Establishing standardized application review and approval timelines, and providing a mechanism for deeming applications approved if they are not acted 

upon within these time periods; and 

• Consider streamlining or waiving the application of any remaining Federal regulations that impose impact analysis requirements on equipment below a certain size. 

Question 3. In our discussion during the hearing, we discussed your highlighting 

of Smart Cities. I just wanted to follow-up and get your response about whether: 

(a) Nokia was a partner with any communities who applied for the USDOT 2015 

Smart City Challenge? And (b) Would Nokia be looking to engage with public and 

private sector applications for any similar efforts in the future? 

Answer. During this particular challenge Nokia was completing our acquisition of 

infrastructure provider Alcatel-Lucent and divesting other non-core businesses to retool our market strategy. We did not have some of the core competencies that were 

necessary to make a compelling partner. Following completion of the acquisition, 

Nokia announced an aggressive move into certain vertical markets including Smart 

Cities where we believe our products are a compelling fit. We anticipate being active 

as partners with cities on future applications and have been working on projects in 

non-U.S. markets such as connected sewer, connected bus shelter and port security. 

I have included here a link to our smart city site that includes a high-level summary of our vision, potential capabilities, and links to white papers and other items 

of interest. https://networks.nokia.com/smart-city 

89 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JERRY MORAN TO

HON. JEFF WENINGER

Question 1. Kansas was one of the first states in the Nation to pass legislation 

to eliminate barriers to wireless broadband deployment. In 2016, the Kansas legislature passed and the Governor signed this bill into law to help expedite the deployment of small cell technology in the state. Small cell technology will be the backbone 

of the next generation wireless technology and networks, known as 5G. Since this 

bill was signed into law last year, Arizona, Ohio, Colorado, and Virginia have all 

signed into law similar bills. Indiana, Iowa, and Florida have passed similar bills 

that are waiting action by their Governors. 

a. Given the wide range of deployment processes and associated fees across the 

country, do you anticipate wireless providers utilizing certain states’ streamlined 

state-level deployment laws like those found in Arizona and my home state of Kansas? 

Answer. I definitely believe that the cell companies will use this as a large part 

in their decision making process. The fact that Kansas and Arizona have a friendly 

predictable environment now should be a very positive factor. I am sure population 

and density will play a factor as well. 

b. How do you see states like Arizona and Kansas serving as models of favorable 

pathways for deployment to other states? And the Federal level? 

Answer. I believe our states have set the bar for the others to follow. After I had 

the privilege of testifying I truly believe a national model is the way to go. This is 

critical infrastructure in this era. We have to pull together and allow ourselves to 

succeed. I believe there are some states that will need some flexibility for weather 

and different local issues, but I believe you can come up with a way to make it 

work. 

c. Your written testimony mentions the ‘‘productive discussions’’ between industry 

and local leaders that were coordinated leading up the introduction and enactment 

of Arizona’s state law promoting investment in small cell deployment. Could you 

please elaborate on these conversations and their ability to reach a productive consensus? 

Answer. The large group of stakeholders had fifteen to twenty meetings. At first 

it was tense and it was tough to find common ground. We slowly found out what 

was the most important issues that the sides had. The cell companies main issues 

were price and having the same process for every locale. They needed a price that 

was reasonable and a process that was efficient. 

The municipalities main concerns were for public safety, design standards, and 

concealment requirements. Cities and counties have spent years making these areas 

beautiful and it’s understandable that they want to keep it that way. 

I also believe that the fact that I am a former city councilman of eight years 

helped. I understand the issue of local control and not wanting to give that up. But 

I also understand and conveyed to them that this isn’t like any other issue. This 

is critical infrastructure that their constituents want and need. 

Question 2. In your experience, are there examples where state-level reviews (like 

environmental reviews) of a permitting application can be used by the Federal Government to avoid needless duplication? 

Answer. I believe that it would be much more efficient to allow the states to act 

as the approval mechanism for a Federal program. The main goal is to make this 

efficient as possible and to your point duplicating reviews by the Federal Government will certainly delay deployment. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. DAN SULLIVAN TO

HON. JEFF WENINGER

Question. The construction season in Alaska is shorter than most. This does not 

allow for delays caused by roadblocks in the federal, state, or local permitting process. For example, one of our carriers in Alaska experienced delays and increased 

costs in getting permission to install towers in building out their network. This situation involved only a few towers, with a small footprint, in a large national wildlife 

refuge. 

a. Representative Weninger, do we need to consider improved tools like reasonable 

shot clocks and ‘‘deemed granted’’ remedies in any infrastructure package? 

Answer. I believe there needs to be shot clocks and deem granted policies. Without them there is no mechanism to make this happen in an efficient manner. You 

can still approve these in batches and pull out the ones that the planning departVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:09 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\28640.TXT JACKIE
90 

ment believes has issues. These are large investments in communities that the citizens and the government want. I am at a loss as to why communities would want 

to delay such an investment. 

b. What are the benefits and challenges to enforcing such mechanisms? 

Answer. The benefit is faster deployment, predictability, jobs, investment and our 

country being a leader into the 5G world. 

The challenge is does the policy have any teeth if it’s not followed? Are some communities doing everything they can to put up roadblocks? I would think and hope 

that situation would self correct. It is possible that such behavior might put a community to the back of the deployment line. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. MAGGIE HASSAN TO

HON. JEFF WENINGER

Question. It’s clear there is major interest in improving access to broadband and 

the way we deploy broadband services. This national goal transcends party lines, 

and I’m pleased to be a part of this committee where I can work with colleagues 

on both sides of the aisle to make improvements. I would like to hear from you all, 

what is being done, and what more should be done to ensure rural Americans are 

not left behind as technology evolves and innovations emerge. Rural America is 

more complex and difficult to connect for many reasons, but every American should 

have the opportunity to reap the social and economic benefits of broadband 

connectivity. What are your thoughts? 

Answer. I believe a combination of things can be done to speed up deployment 

of cellular technology in rural America. 

1. I believe targeted tax credits to the companies deploying this technology is appropriate in these specific rural areas. This is critical infrastructure in today’s 

society. 

2. I like the idea that your committee has put forward involving the use of government facilities and land for deployment in rural areas. Between government 

owned land and government facilities there are enormous opportunities to deploy this technology throughout rural America. 

3. The Federal Government should allow the deployment of this technology at 

Federal Government facilities and land in rural America for no charge. The investment in jobs as well as rural economic development dollars that would flow 

would more than make up for an arbitrary fee that discourages investment. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. MAGGIE HASSAN TO

HON. GARY RESNICK

Question. It’s clear there is major interest in improving access to broadband and 

the way we deploy broadband services. This national goal transcends party lines, 

and I’m pleased to be a part of this committee where I can work with colleagues 

on both sides of the aisle to make improvements. I would like to hear from you all, 

what is being done, and what more should be done to ensure rural Americans are 

not left behind as technology evolves and innovations emerge. Rural America is 

more complex and difficult to connect for many reasons, but every American should 

have the opportunity to reap the social and economic benefits of broadband 

connectivity. What are your thoughts? 

Answer. Senator Hassan, thank you for this question. Many communities around 

the country, particularly in rural areas, do not have access to broadband services, 

and even those that do have broadband, certainly do not have the level of broadband 

services or competition to improve service and rates that many urban areas enjoy. 

During my eight years on the FCC’s Intergovernmental Advisory Committee and my 

decades of working on these issues with the National League of Cities, I have heard 

from many local officials across the country that have clamored for broadband service, often offering financial incentives and other assistance to broadband providers 

to deploy facilities to serve their constituents. Unfortunately, there have been few 

if any takers. Even my own City, which is within dense, urban southeast Florida, 

until recently, was served by only one wireline broadband provider until we convinced a second that with greater density occurring, it made sense to build out our 

City. 

The reason broadband providers do not reach rural and other communities is simple. As industry itself will plainly state, there is simply no current business plan 

that would support expanding or offering such services in these communities. There 

91 

is not sufficient return on investment for the industry to commit the capital to build 

facilities in these areas, particularly compared to the return the industry can realize 

by deploying more infrastructure in dense and wealthy areas. 

Obviously, local government siting regulations do not impair the ability to offer 

broadband services in rural and other less attractive areas. Quite the contrary, often 

such local governments will offer incentives and other assistance to providers to deploy their service in their communities. However, even such incentives do not entice 

providers to do what their bottom line concerns and shareholders will not support. 

Many local governments required complete buildouts to ensure that broadband infrastructure was deployed throughout cities and counties, even where the return on 

investment was lower. Such local buildout requirements have been opposed by industry and prohibited in many states. 

In many cases, the local governments realized that the only way to bring quality, 

affordable broadband to their constituents was to provide it themselves. Unfortunately, the industry has opposed government broadband, often lobbying state legislatures to place prohibitions and other roadblocks on municipal broadband. Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld such state prohibitions in Tennessee and North Carolina. 

There are several actions the Federal Government could take to encourage the deployment of broadband infrastructure in such areas. 

(1) The process for access to Federal lands for the deployment of broadband infrastructure should be made more predictable and easier. 

(2) Congress must ensure that FirstNet services meet their stated Federal goal 

of serving both urban and rural communities. FirstNet has the very real potential of bringing advanced services to rural communities. 

(3) Federal and state policies should support, rather than restrict, local governments’ broadband initiatives. Many cities, for example, seek to install conduit 

as part of transportation roadway projects, to make it easier for broadband 

providers to deploy fiber. However, Federal funds for such transportation 

projects may not allow installation of conduit, even at the local governments’ 

expense. Federal funds for roads, bridges, water and other infrastructure 

should be available for broadband infrastructure as well. Federal law should 

also allow local governments to provide broadband services if such governments decide to do so. 

(4) Finally, Congress should consider subsidies or tax incentives that may spur 

private investment, which, coupled with potential public funding, would actually bring these vital services to rural America. Further, many states are now 

granting tremendous taxpayer subsidized incentives to the industry in the 

form of free or basically free access to government property in the rights of 

way, to deploy infrastructure. Governments should be able to negotiate for the 

benefit of their constituents in exchange for such valuable subsidies. In this 

day and age, it is absolutely outrageous that there are large segments of 

Americans that do not have access to affordable, quality broadband service. 

If left to market forces, this will continue. However, compared to other issues 

confronting our nation, this does have readily available solutions. Thank you 

again for the opportunity to respond. 

Æ