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

20–043 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 114–264 

REMOVING BARRIERS TO WIRELESS 

BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 7, 2015 

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

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts 

CORY BOOKER, New Jersey 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

DAVID SCHWIETERT, Staff Director 

NICK ROSSI, Deputy Staff Director 

REBECCA SEIDEL, General Counsel 

JASON VAN BEEK, Deputy General Counsel 

KIM LIPSKY, Democratic Staff Director 

CHRIS DAY, Democratic Deputy Staff Director 

CLINT ODOM, Democratic General Counsel and Policy Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on October 7, 2015 ............................................................................ 1 

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

Statement of Senator Nelson .................................................................................. 2 

Statement of Senator Wicker .................................................................................. 36 

Statement of Senator Moran .................................................................................. 39 

Statement of Senator Gardner ............................................................................... 40 

Statement of Senator Daines .................................................................................. 43 

Statement of Senator Manchin ............................................................................... 45 

Statement of Senator Ayotte ................................................................................... 48 

Statement of Senator Udall .................................................................................... 50 

Statement of Senator Blumenthal .......................................................................... 52 

Statement of Senator Klobuchar ............................................................................ 56 

Statement of Senator Markey ................................................................................. 58 

Statement of Senator Johnson ................................................................................ 60 

WITNESSES

Douglas Kinkoph, Associate Administrator, Office of Telecommunications and 

Information Applications, National Telecommunications and Information 

Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce ................................................ 4 

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

Hon. Jonathan S. Adelstein, President and CEO, PCIA—The Wireless Infrastructure Association ........................................................................................... 9 

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

Hon. Gary Resnick, Mayor, Wilton Manors, Florida ............................................ 17 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19 

Cory J. Reed, Senior Vice President, Intelligent Solutions, Deere & Company . 21 

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

Bruce Morrison, Vice President, Operations and Network Build, Ericsson 

Inc. ......................................................................................................................... 27 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29 

APPENDIX

Hon. Marco Rubio, U.S. Senator from Florida, prepared statement ................... 67 

Letter dated July 29, 2015 to Hon. John Thune and Hon. Bill Nelson from 

Steven K. Berry, President and CEO, Competitive Carriers Association ....... 68 

Letter dated October 6, 2015 to Hon. John Thune and Hon. Bill Nelson 

from David F. Melcher, Aerospace Industries Association ............................... 71 

Response to written questions submitted to Douglas Kinkoph by: 

Hon. Deb Fischer .............................................................................................. 73 

Hon. Dan Sullivan ............................................................................................ 73 

Hon. Steve Daines ............................................................................................ 74 

Hon. Cory Booker ............................................................................................. 76 

Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Jonathan S. Adelstein by: 

Hon. Marco Rubio ............................................................................................. 76 

Hon. Deb Fischer .............................................................................................. 77 

Hon. Dan Sullivan ............................................................................................ 77 

Hon. Cory Booker ............................................................................................. 78 

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

Hon. Deb Fischer .............................................................................................. 78 

Hon. Steve Daines ............................................................................................ 78 

Hon. Cory Booker ............................................................................................. 80 

Page

IV 

Response to written questions submitted to Cory J. Reed by: 

Hon. Deb Fischer .............................................................................................. 82 

Hon. Steve Daines ............................................................................................ 83 

Hon. Cory Booker ............................................................................................. 84 

Response to written questions submitted to Bruce Morrison by: 

Hon. Marco Rubio ............................................................................................. 85 

Hon. Deb Fischer .............................................................................................. 85 

Hon. Dan Sullivan ............................................................................................ 86 

Hon. Steve Daines ............................................................................................ 87 

Hon. Amy Klobuchar ........................................................................................ 88 

Hon. Cory Booker ............................................................................................. 88 

(1) 

REMOVING BARRIERS TO WIRELESS 

BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2015 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John Thune, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

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

Moran, Sullivan, Johnson, Heller, Gardner, Daines, Nelson, Cantwell, Klobuchar, Blumenthal, Schatz, Markey, Udall, Manchin, and 

Peters. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA 

The CHAIRMAN. This hearing will come to order. I want to welcome our panel and thank you all for being here this morning. Our 

committee meets to examine policies related to spectrum and wireless broadband. 

As I mentioned at our July hearing on Wireless Broadband and 

the Future of Spectrum Policy, we have an opportunity to develop 

meaningful legislation to further promote economic development 

and the many benefits fueled by increased mobile connectivity. 

Similar to the feedback from our last hearing, I look forward to 

hearing from my many colleagues and our witnesses about ideas 

that they may have for such legislation. 

I also invite stakeholders not here today to share their ideas with 

the Committee in the coming days and weeks. Opening more spectrum for commercial use can bring in revenue to pay down our national debt and fund other priorities. But, the more lasting economic benefits spurred by spectrum availability—new jobs, technological innovation, and increased consumer welfare—depend on 

spectrum actually being used by individuals across the country. 

That requires the design, construction, deployment, and maintenance of physical facilities, including towers, antennas, fiber optic 

cables, and servers. 

The benefits of increased wireless deployment go well beyond the 

value of improving mobile connectivity for individuals where they 

live. There’s also tremendous potential in bringing connectivity to 

unserved areas where people may not reside, but where they do 

work and play, like farmland and parklands. Facilitating personal 

mobile devices and machine-to-machine communications in these 

areas holds great promise to improve public health and safety, inVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:44 May 10, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\DOCS\20043.TXT JACKIE
2 

crease agricultural productivity, and better manage natural resources. 

Telecommunication and broadband connectivity in rural America 

not only opens doors for individuals and families, but also enables 

new opportunities for farmers and ranchers when it comes to the 

millions of acres of land that they actively manage. Machine-to-machine and machine-to-farm communication is already delivering 

new productivity gains and promises much more benefit for American farmers, environmental stewardship, and the economic future 

of rural communities. I look forward to hearing testimony today 

about some of these innovative solutions and how public policy can 

facilitate their ongoing development. 

Improving broadband infrastructure deployment has received increasing legislative, administrative, and regulatory attention in recent years. Most recently, the Broadband Opportunity Council concluded a months-long review among 25 Federal agencies led by the 

Departments of Commerce and Agriculture to produce recommendations to increase broadband deployment through existing 

agency programs, missions, and budgets. We are pleased to have 

NTIA before us today to explain the recent report and discuss its 

role as a facilitator of interagency activities related to broadband. 

Universal broadband connectivity is a national objective, but its 

pursuit ultimately involves thousands of decisions made at the 

local level. These decisions are made by private enterprises determining where to deploy facilities and where to risk capital. They 

also are made by local and Federal Government authorities who 

are charged with protecting their constituents’ interests, authorities like city planning officials, military base personnel, and forestry managers. Today, we’re going to hear more detail about what 

goes into these decision processes, how they operate in practice, 

and how Congress can help to improve their efficiency. 

I’m encouraged by the broad engagement of members on this 

committee in efforts to promote wireless broadband deployment. 

Members on both sides of the aisle are working on a bipartisan 

basis to develop pragmatic concepts and actionable legislation as 

well as trying to identify new and bright ideas. 

I invite all of our members to continue working with one another 

to understand these issues, to create a fulsome record, and to craft 

broadband deployment legislation for action in this Congress. I’m 

committed to these efforts and believe it is among the most important work that can be done by this committee. 

Thank you. And I want to recognize now our Ranking Member, 

Senator Nelson. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And what you said about having to rely on State and local governments is one of the reasons that I requested that we have one 

of my mayors, the Mayor of Wilton Manors, Mayor Resnick, be part 

of the panel. 

And just to back up what you said, Mr. Chairman, we’re all here 

because of the demand for and the reliance on wireless broadband. 

And the additional need for spectrum always seems to gather most 

3 

of the attention, but we also, as we adopt a forward-looking wireless policy, we’ve got to look at the infrastructure side of the wireless situation. 

As we continue to hear concerns about delay and the processes 

required for getting additional wireless infrastructure deployed, 

this is a part of the discussion that we’re going to have to tackle. 

And that’s because building these networks implicates a number of 

very important issues, from historic preservation and environmental concerns to State and local land-use policies to tribal sovereignty and to national security. And so, our hope is that all the 

stakeholders in this can work together to help us find ways to balance these competing demands and, therefore, to meet, ultimately, 

what the public must have. 

And I also look forward to hearing from our NTIA witness about 

the steps the administration is already taking to increase opportunities for deployment of wireless infrastructure on Federal lands 

and buildings. 

The recent Broadband Opportunity Council report includes a 

number of recommendations on ways to speed this deployment on 

Federal lands. Just last week, GSA, under the guidance of Congress, took significant steps to improve processes for seeking access 

to Federal lands. And as we said in a previous hearing, we stand 

ready to work with Chairman Thune and all the stakeholders to 

find areas of bipartisan consensus so that we can address the future of U.S. wireless policy. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Nelson. 

And we are, as I said, joined by a great panel today. And, starting on your right and my left, we have Mr. Douglas Kinkoph, who 

is the Associate Administrator of the Office of Telecommunications 

Information Applications for the National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration—put that on a business card—— 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN.—Mr. Jonathan Adelstein, who is currently the 

President and CEO of PCIA, the Wireless Infrastructure Association, and also formerly the Administrator of the Rural Utilities 

Service, and a Commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission, and, I might add, a native South Dakotan—so, Jonathan, 

welcome, good to have you here; Mayor Gary Resnick is the Mayor, 

as Senator Nelson noted, Wilton Manors, Florida; and Mr. Core 

Reed is the Senior Vice President of Intelligent Solutions for Deere 

& Company, which will have, I think, some interesting thoughts on 

applications in agriculture, which is of great interest to many of us 

on this panel; and Mr. Bruce Morrison, and he’s the Vice President 

of Operations and Network Build for Ericsson, in North America. 

So, welcome, to all of you. It’s great to have you with us. Please 

feel free to begin with your remarks. And, if you could confine them 

as closely to 5 minutes as possible, and then we’ll get into our 

questions. 

And we’ll start on my left with Mr. Kinkoph. 

4 

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS KINKOPH, ASSOCIATE 

ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS 

AND INFORMATION APPLICATIONS, NATIONAL 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION 

ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

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

Nelson, and Committee members. I welcome other opportunity to 

testify before you today on behalf of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. 

My name is Doug Kinkoph, and I’m Associate Administrator at 

NTIA and lead the agency’s efforts related to broadband, including 

leading NTIA’s new Broadband USA Initiative. 

As President Obama has declared, access to high-speed 

broadband is no longer a luxury, it is a necessity for American families, businesses, consumers, and critical to U.S. economic growth 

and competitiveness. At NTIA, we have been working hard over the 

past 6 years to advance broadband availability nationwide through 

our $4 billion Broadband Grant Program. 

We oversaw roughly 230 projects across the country that have 

built critical network infrastructure, opened or upgraded public 

computer centers, established broadband adoption and digital inclusion programs. NTIA’s State Broadband Initiative invested another $300 million to help states collect broadband data for the National Broadband Map and expand their statewide broadband capacity. 

Six years ago, when Congress funded this program, we made a 

promise to communities across the country that they would benefit 

from this funding. The Obama administration’s investment in 

broadband would create jobs, stimulate economic development, 

spur investment, and open up new opportunities in employment, 

education, and healthcare. Today, I’m proud to say we’ve delivered 

on those pledges. Our broadband grantees deployed more than 

114,000 miles of new or upgraded network miles, connected nearly 

26,000 community anchor institutions, such as schools and hospitals, connected—and installed or upgraded more than 47,000 personal computers and public access centers. And our grantees enrolled hundreds of thousands of people as subscribers to broadband 

services for the first time. 

As we move beyond these projects, we recognize that more work 

needs to be done to ensure that no one is left behind. Nearly 51 

million Americans still do not have access at home to a wired 

broadband connection in their homes today, and we expect the need 

for speed to continue to increase. 

Even though the Recovery Act Grant Program is coming to an 

end, President Obama has continued to emphasize the importance 

of broadband. Over the past several months, he has outlined a series of initiatives aimed at closing the digital divide and fostering 

investment in our Nation’s broadband infrastructure. Last March, 

the President created the Broadband Opportunity Council, made 

up of over 20 Federal agencies, and directed it to determine what 

actions the Federal Government could take to eliminate regulatory 

barriers to broadband deployment and to encourage investment in 

broadband network and services. NTIA Administrator Larry 

5 

Strickling served as the Co-Chair of the Council at the designation 

by Senate—Secretary Pritzker. 

On September 21, the White House released the Council’s report, 

which described concrete steps that 25 Federal agencies would take 

over the next 18 months to eliminate barriers and promote 

broadband investment and adoption. Four key themes framed the 

recommendations and action items: 

One, modernize Federal programs to expand program support for 

broadband investment; 

Two, empower communities with tools and resources to attract 

broadband investment and promote meaningful use; 

Three, promote increased broadband deployment and competition 

through expanded access to Federal assets; 

And finally, improve data collection and analysis and research on 

broadband. 

Once implemented, we believe that the recommendations will 

make meaningful difference to communities seeking to expand and 

enhance their broadband capacity. For example, more funds will be 

available to support broadband projects, and local governments will 

have new tools and resources at their fingertips to bring broadband 

to their communities. 

The recommendations of the Broadband Opportunity Council represent an important next step in the administration’s ongoing campaign to expand broadband access and adoption. But, what matters 

is—now is that the agencies implement the recommendations and 

continue to identify additional steps that can be taken and barriers 

that can be tackled. 

At NTIA, we play an ongoing role in ensuring that the Council’s 

important work is carried out. NTIA’s Broadband USA Initiative 

will continue to work closely with communities seeking to expand 

their broadband capacity. NTIA has learned a lot over the past 6 

years overseeing this broadband portfolio of broadband infrastructure and adoption grants. NTIA has learned that there is no onesize-fits-all approach. Through our Broadband USA Initiative, we 

are now leveraging that knowledge and expertise to help communities in their broadband expansion efforts. We are offering them 

technical assistance and support they need to overcome their 

unique challenges through publication of products, workshops, and 

direct technical assistance. 

And I thank you again for the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing. And I will be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kinkoph follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS KINKOPH, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, 

OFFICE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION APPLICATIONS, NATIONAL

TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

COMMERCE

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

you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of the National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration (NTIA) regarding removing barriers to wireless 

broadband deployment. As President Obama has declared, access to high-speed 

broadband is no longer a luxury; it is a necessity for American families, businesses, 

and consumers and critical to U.S. economic growth and competitiveness. NTIA contributed to advancing broadband availability throughout the Nation by financing 

roughly 230 projects across the country that have built critical network infrastructure, opened or upgraded public computer centers and established broadband adopVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:44 May 10, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\20043.TXT JACKIE
6 

tion and digital inclusion programs from $4 billion from the 2009 Recovery Act. 

NTIA’s State Broadband Initiative Program invested another $300 million to help 

states collect broadband data for the National Broadband Map and expand their 

statewide broadband capacity. 

Six years ago, when Congress funded this program, we made a promise to communities across the country that would benefit from this funding: the Obama Administration’s investment in broadband would create jobs, stimulate economic development, spur private-sector investment, and open up new opportunities in employment, education and healthcare. Most important, it would improve lives. Today, I 

am proud to say we delivered on those pledges. Our broadband grantees deployed 

more than 114,000 miles of new or upgraded network miles, connected nearly 26,000 

community anchor institutions such as schools and hospitals and installed or upgraded more than 47,000 personal computers in public access centers. And our 

grantees enrolled hundreds of thousands of people as subscribers to broadband services. 

These projects have already had a significant impact on economic development. 

We commissioned an independent study from ASR Analytics looking at the social 

and economic impact of our broadband grant program and released that report earlier this year. The report showed that on average, in only two years, communities 

that received our broadband grant funds experienced an estimated 2 percent greater 

growth in broadband availability than non-grant communities. The report also concluded that the additional broadband infrastructure built by our grantees could be 

expected to create more than 22,000 long-term jobs and generate more than $1 billion in additional household income each year. The report also showed that community anchor institutions, like schools and libraries, served by our broadband infrastructure grantees experienced significantly increased speeds and lower costs. As an 

example, the median price paid by libraries in the sample was $233 per megabit 

per month before the grant program, at a median speed of 3 mbps. As a result of 

the grant program, the median price dropped to $15 per megabit per month and median speed increased to 20 mbps. 

With our infrastructure projects, one of our major goals was to prime the pump 

for private-sector investment by supplying critical middle-mile infrastructure that 

local providers can use to deliver affordable broadband to more homes and businesses. That is why all networks built with Recovery Act dollars are subject to openaccess rules that let all other carriers interconnect with these networks on fair and 

non-discriminatory terms. Open access middle-mile fiber can also be used for wireless tower backhaul. We also encouraged our grantees to connect directly to the key 

anchor institutions in these communities due to the higher bandwidth needs of 

schools, libraries and other institutions. 

In Massachusetts, there is a great example of a public-private partnership that laid the foundation for broadband expansion throughout the state. The $45.4 million 

grant to the Massachusetts Technology Park (MassTech) delivered affordable, highspeed Internet to 123 communities in rural western Massachusetts. The project was 

completed in January, 2014 and built 949 miles of new fiber and connected 1,233 

community anchor institutions. For this project and the Open Cape project, the 

state of Massachusetts provided the project matching funds. In building on the success of the Recovery Act projects, the state is making funding available to 45 communities to support their community broadband projects. 

Another Recovery Act success story is South Dakota Network, LLC (SDN), a partnership of 27 independent telecom companies covering most of South Dakota. SDN 

used its $20.6 million grant to add 397 miles of new middle-mile spurs that connected 512 community anchor institutions, including schools, hospitals, libraries, 

clinics, public safety agencies, courthouses, government buildings, and National 

Guard facilities, to high-speed broadband. The new and improved broadband access 

helped these institutions provide services that were previously unavailable due to 

lack of access or slow connections speeds. Healthcare providers can now offer telemedicine services and public schools and libraries now provide distance learning opportunities. 

To foster wireless broadband deployment, NTIA awarded a $9.5 million Recovery 

Act grant to Pine Telephone Company to deliver affordable wireless broadband service to the underserved tribal lands of the Choctaw Nation and its ten counties in 

rural southeastern Oklahoma. Through its grant, Pine Telephone leveraged the 

power of broadband to create economic growth and jobs and to enhance education 

and public safety. Upon completion in June 2013, Pine Telephone had constructed 

a new high-speed 344-mile network that used 3G universal mobile telecommunications systems (UMTS) technology. In addition, Pine Telephone constructed a lastmile wireless network that included 42 new wireless links, 37 new towers, and 6 

new/upgraded interconnection points. Pine Telephone connected 22 community anVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:44 May 10, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\20043.TXT JACKIE
7 

chor institutions (CAIs), including six K–12 schools and 16 public safety entities, 

and provided last-mile broadband services to 497 residential subscribers and 33 

businesses. It also donated space on the new towers for placement of emergency responder radio systems, which will help to improve critical public safety communications during emergencies. NTIA also awarded $32.2 million to the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority (NTUA) 

to build out telecommunications infrastructure throughout the Navajo Nation in 

northern Arizona, northwestern New Mexico, and southeastern Utah. Completed in 

2013, NTUA constructed over 1,345 miles, including 570 miles of aerial fiber and 

775 wireless miles. It also built 32 new towers to expand its existing microwave network and provide broadband access over 15,120 square miles of the Navajo Nation’s 

27,000 square mile area. It directly connected 50 chapter houses, which are the 

heart of each community and serve as municipal buildings and central community 

meeting places. In addition, NTUA’s subrecipient, NTUA Wireless (dba Choice Wireless), provides last-mile services via a 4G Long Term Evolution (LTE) network. 

Through this LTE network, NTUA provides high speed broadband access to both 

fixed and mobile customers to include 30,000 households (approximately 135,000 

people) and 1,000 businesses in 15 of the largest communities on the Navajo Nation, 

including Window Rock, Shiprock, Kayenta, Chinle, and Tuba City. 

In addition to the goal of economic development, NTIA also focused on inclusion 

issues—how to make broadband available to all Americans. We cannot lose sight of 

the importance of adoption. Once the facilities are built, we need for people to subscribe to use the service. Today, only 74 percent of Americans overall subscribe to 

broadband service. Through our adoption programs, we have learned important lessons about what works and what does not. An important takeaway is that digital 

literacy is fundamental to sustainable broadband adoption. Our grantees around the 

country have demonstrated that successful digital literacy training must be tailored 

to the specific needs of the community and the individual. Based on our grants, we 

now have developed a portfolio of innovative approaches to offering this training. 

Sustainable broadband adoption projects are reaching people who may never have 

even turned on a computer—a group that includes a disproportionate number of 

lower income Americans, senior citizens, and members of minority groups—and 

teaching them how to navigate the Internet, set up an e-mail account, write a resume, and even apply for jobs over the Internet. Through the Recovery Act, NTIA funded $250 million of sustainable broadband 

adoption grants. A program called TechGoesHome provides an illustration of one of 

these grants. The City of Boston’s Department of Information Technology partnered 

with a nonprofit called Open Air Boston to provide digital literacy training, subsidized netbooks or mobile devices and low-cost Internet access to low-income middle 

and high school students and their families. TechGoesHome served 62 middle and 

high schools and 35 community sites, and it equipped Boston teenagers with valuable digital literacy skills that will help them compete in a job market that takes 

these skills for granted. 

As we move beyond these projects, we recognize that more work needs to be done 

to ensure that no one is left behind in this digital revolution. When we started the 

Recovery Act grants program in 2009, the Federal Communications Commission 

(FCC) still defined broadband at a speed less than 1 Mbps. Today the FCC recommends download speeds of 25 Mbps. At that rate, nearly 51 million Americans 

still do not have access to a wired broadband connection. And we can expect the 

need for speed to continue to increase. 

Even though the Recovery Act grant program is substantially complete, President 

Obama has continued to emphasize the importance of broadband. Over the past several months, he has outlined a series of initiatives aimed at closing the digital divide and fostering investment in our Nation’s broadband infrastructure. 

In 2013, the President launched ConnectEd, a public private partnership to connect 99 percent of America’s students to the Internet through high-speed broadband 

within 5 years. Since the President’s announcement, the public and private sectors 

have committed more than $10 billion of total funding and in-kind commitments as 

part of this five-year effort. 

Earlier this year, the President announced ConnectHome, a new initiative with 

communities, the private sector, and Federal Government to expand high speed 

broadband to more families across the country. The pilot program is launching in 

27 cities and one tribal nation and will initially reach over 275,000 low-income 

households. Through the program, Internet service providers, non-profits and the 

private sector will offer broadband access, technical training, digital literacy programs, and devices for residents in assisted housing units. 

Last March, the President created the Broadband Opportunity Council, made up 

of over twenty Federal agencies, and directed it to determine what actions the FedVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:44 May 10, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\20043.TXT JACKIE
8 

eral Government could take to eliminate regulatory barriers to broadband deployment and to encourage investment in broadband networks and services. On September 21, the White House released the Council’s report, which describes concrete 

steps that 25 Federal agencies will take over the next 18 months to eliminate barriers and promote broadband investment and adoption. 

Many of the agencies involved had never considered broadband to be part of their 

core mission. So an initial part of the task was for each agency to look internally 

at policies and programs to explore whether there was flexibility to do more. 

The Council also solicited stakeholder input on ways that the Federal Government 

can incentivize broadband investment, drive competition and remove regulatory and 

policy barriers at the community level. We heard from more than 200 parties, including community groups, trade associations, broadband experts, state and local 

governments, private entities and individuals. Their feedback was important to 

shaping the report. 

Four key themes framed the recommendations and action items. 

1—Modernize Federal programs to expand program support for broadband investments. 

2—Empower communities with tools and resources to attract broadband investment and promote meaningful use. 

3—Promote increased broadband deployment and competition through expanded access to Federal assets. 

4—Improve data collection, analysis and research on broadband. 

Once implemented, we believe that the recommendations will make a meaningful 

difference to communities seeking to expand and enhance their broadband capacity. 

For example, more funds will be available to support broadband projects, and local 

governments will have new tools and resources at their fingertips to bring 

broadband to their communities. 

The first set of recommendations targets modernizing Federal programs to expand 

program support for broadband investments. 

Not all Federal programs fully reflect the changing conditions that reflect the 

need for broadband. In some cases, programs that can support broadband deployment and adoption lack specific guidelines to promote its use. We asked agencies 

to clarify whether their programs supported broadband investment. As a result, 

agencies have committed to 13 actions which clarify or open up additional options 

for Federal funding for broadband in programs totaling $10 billion. Examples include the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Community Development Block Grant and the Department of Commerce’s Economic Development Assistance Programs. 

The second set of recommendations relates to empowering communities with tools 

and resources to attract broadband investment and promote meaningful use. While 

Federal leadership is essential, many decisions about broadband investment are 

local. They are made by local governments in partnership with industry and guided 

by state law. To address the gaps, the Council recognized the need for Federal agencies to provide communities with targeted, easily accessible resources that share 

best practices from their peers around the country. 

NTIA’s BroadbandUSA effort has been working with communities across the 

country and we have heard time and again the challenges facing these communities 

to identify sources of funding for broadband, and to know where to turn to within 

the Federal Government for answers to their questions. One key action, which NTIA 

will spearhead, will be to create a portal for information on Federal broadband funding and loan programs to help communities easily identify resources as they seek 

to expand access to broadband. This will help communities find broadband-related 

policy guidance, key agency points-of-contact and best practices. Last week, NTIA 

announced the release of our Broadband Funding Guide, which provides a roadmap 

on how to access Federal funding to support broadband planning, public access, digital literacy, adoption, and deployment. 

The third set of Council recommendations relates to expanding access to Federal 

assets. Specific actions here include a commitment from the Department of Transportation to issue policy guidance to leverage highway rights of way for broadband. 

The White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy and National Economic 

Council will also lead the creation of an online open data inventory of Federal assets 

that can help support faster and more economical broadband deployments, both 

wireline and wireless to remote areas of the country. Additionally, NTIA will assist 

the Department of the Interior (DOI) in developing an initiative to leverage over 

4,000 towers and other assets on DOI-managed property to support wireless 

broadband deployments. This effort could reduce barriers to entry, increase competiVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:44 May 10, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\20043.TXT JACKIE
9 

tion, and improve service over 500 million square acres of land in unserved and underserved communities. 

The fourth set of recommendations revolves around improving data collection, 

analysis, and research on broadband. Research on broadband deployment, competition and adoption has not kept pace with the massive digital changes that permeate 

our economy and society. To address this issue, the Council, led by the National 

Science Foundation and NTIA, will develop a comprehensive broadband research 

and data collection agenda. This will allow Federal and private funders to coordinate and prioritize future research plans to support American competitiveness. 

The recommendations of the Broadband Opportunity Council represent an important next step in the Administration’s ongoing campaign to expand broadband access and adoption, but what matters now is that agencies implement the recommendations and continue to identify additional steps that can be taken and barriers that can be tackled. We welcome continued dialogue with all stakeholders in 

this effort. 

At NTIA, we will play an ongoing role in ensuring that the Council’s important 

work is carried out. NTIA’s BroadbandUSA initiative will continue to work closely 

with communities seeking to expand their broadband capacity. NTIA has learned a 

lot over the past six years overseeing this broad portfolio of broadband infrastructure and adoption grants. NTIA has learned that there’s no one-size-fits-all approach that works. Every community has unique needs and challenges. Through our 

BroadbandUSA initiative, we are now leveraging that knowledge and expertise to 

help communities in their broadband expansion efforts. We are offering them the 

technical assistance and support they need to overcome their unique challenges 

through publication of products, workshops, and technical assistance. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Kinkoph. 

Mr. Adelstein. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN, 

PRESIDENT AND CEO, PCIA—THE WIRELESS 

INFRASTRUCTURE ASSOCIATION 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Nelson, and members of the Committee. I really appreciate the 

opportunity to testify today, and I appreciate the focus on infrastructure. Your opening statements really hit the nail on the head. 

Without it, we can’t have wireless broadband. 

As you indicated, Mr. Chairman, I’m CEO of PCIA—The Wireless Infrastructure Association. We represent the companies that 

build, design, own, and manage wireless telecom facilities. Our 

members include the infrastructure providers, wireless carriers, 

equipment manufacturers, and professional service firms that build 

that network and maintain it. Our mission is to expand wireless 

broadband everywhere. I think that’s a mission consistent with 

what this committee has talked about and what you’ve talked 

about this morning. We help our members provide the facilities to 

meet consumers’ growing demand for mobile data. Put simply, 

wireless infrastructure enables the delivery of innovative applications, like telemedicine, like distance learning. It’s a catalyst for 

economic growth and job creation. A PCIA study found that the industry’s investments—we invest roughly $35 billion a year, but 

they have outsized impact on the economy because of all the direct 

and indirect effects. We’re expected to generate $1.2 trillion in 

chairman growth over 5 years and 1.3 million new jobs out of those 

investments. But, those investments have to flow, and that’s what 

this committee’s task that you sent to us today is, to figure out how 

to help that happen. 

This committee has shown great leadership in eliminating a 

number of barriers to infrastructure deployment. Most notably, 

10 

Section 6409 of the Spectrum Act, which you enacted in 2012, has 

had a real and direct impact on speeding the deployment of 4G infrastructure by eliminating local regulatory barriers to upgrading 

existing wireless infrastructure. And the FCC has done an outstanding job of implementing it with a clear framework of rules. 

Our members report real progress on the ground. This committee’s 

work has improved the speed, cost, and ease of deploying 4G networks. We’re grateful for your visionary leadership. 

We’re also grateful for the cooperative spirit of representatives of 

local governments, like Mayor Resnick here, and all the associations that he serves on. We’ve worked together to implement on the 

ground those provisions that you enacted. And I think it has been 

very effective in helping get the word out and getting it done 

smoothly. 

Still, we face a lot of challenges. Wireless data demand is projected to explode by 700 percent over the next 5 years. And the 

question is, How are we going to meet that demand? One way is 

more spectrum, as you indicated this morning. There’s a lot that 

we need, in terms of spectrum. We need as much as we can get, 

as fast as we can get it. This committee’s done great work on that 

front, as well. Spectrum, of course, is expensive, scarce, and takes 

a lot of time to get into use for consumers. 

Another avenue is through technological efficiencies, which also 

improve data throughput, squeezing more out of existing spectrum. 

But, again, this takes time to develop. 

A third way to address the wireless data crunch is through the 

rapid deployment of infrastructure. Wireless infrastructure provides additional capacity as soon as it’s deployed. Solutions range 

from tall towers that provide wide coverage and capacity to small 

cells and distributed antenna systems that fill the gaps in high 

traffic areas. 

Despite the assistance this committee has provided, roadblocks 

do remain. For example, some municipalities require proof of need 

before authorizing infrastructure builds. These requirements are 

both unnecessary and costly. Local governments shouldn’t be in the 

CTO business of deciding what level of service is appropriate, or 

forecasting demand. Our members invest their limited capital 

where it’s needed to serve consumers. Localities aren’t in a good position to second-guess these technical questions. 

Another way Congress could promote broadband is by streamlining the process of siting wireless infrastructure on Federal 

lands. GSA finally took a step last week to implement Congress’s 

2012 directive to provide standard forms and applications for wireless siting. Despite this law, an Executive Order by the President, 

many challenges remain in siting infrastructure on Federal property. Further legislation is needed to facilitate access on Federal 

lands, especially because they benefit rural areas so significantly. 

PCIA supports S. 1618, the Wireless Innovation Act, which is 

being considered by this committee, as well as other efforts that 

are being made by this committee to address that. 

Mr. Chairman, you and this committee are rightly focused on 

finding ways to focus on accelerating broadband deployment in 

rural America. PCIA completed a white paper in conjunction with 

our member, John Deere, who’s testifying today, on steps to enVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:44 May 10, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\20043.TXT JACKIE
11 

hance private investment. One critical mechanism is the Rural 

Utility Service, provides loans for broadband buildout. And these 

loans need a predictable level of support that enables borrowers to 

plan and invest in infrastructure. The Connect America Fund and 

its wireless component, the Mobility Fund, can help rural areas 

build infrastructure. 

Wireless broadband helps drive America’s innovation economy 

and fuels the Nation’s economic future. Continuing to upgrade 

America’s wireless infrastructure is necessary to connect more 

Americans with broadband. Policymakers from Congress to local 

governments need to eliminate regulatory barriers so our industry 

can invest their capital where it’s needed most. We can’t afford 

costly burdens and delays that will slow the rollout of wireless 

broadband. 

Our member companies are grateful for the bipartisan recognition of the centrality of wireless infrastructure by this committee, 

by Congress, by the administration, by the FCC. We look forward 

to making continued progress together. 

And I thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Adelstein follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

PCIA—THE WIRELESS INFRASTRUCTURE ASSOCIATION

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

thank you for holding this important hearing and for the opportunity to testify on 

the urgent topic of removing barriers to wireless broadband deployment. I am the 

President and CEO of PCIA—The Wireless Infrastructure Association (PCIA), the 

principal organization representing the companies that build, design, own, and manage telecommunications facilities in the U.S. and throughout the world. Our over 

230 members include infrastructure providers, wireless carriers, equipment manufacturers, and professional services firms. PCIA focuses on ensuring that the infrastructure is in place to make mobile devices work. As mobile devices and applications continue to evolve, they share a common requirement of a wireless connection 

to a wired network—often provided through a tower. Our mission is to expand wireless broadband everywhere, helping our members provide wireless facilities that enable consumers to meet their growing mobile data needs anytime, anyplace. 

The wireless broadband infrastructure industry is honored to work with this Committee and Congress on sound policies to encourage deployment of broadband for all 

Americans, regardless of location or economic status. The premise of this hearing 

demonstrates the importance of broadband deployment. 

Wireless Infrastructure Enables Broadband that Creates Jobs and 

Economic Growth 

When it comes to meeting the growing wireless data demands of Americans and 

consumers throughout the world, the wireless infrastructure industry plays an indispensable role. Put simply, our industry enables wireless communication and applications. Similar to roads and bridges, which carry physical traffic, wireless infrastructure is the essential platform for digital traffic that carries innovative applications like Uber, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube, as well as life-altering broadband 

services like telemedicine, distance learning, improved public safety response, mobile banking, and a host of industrial and manufacturing functions. Efficient wireless infrastructure buildout will promote innovation and solidify America’s historical 

competitiveness in the technology sector, and virtually every other sector of the 

economy. 

Wireless infrastructure enables the economic growth and technological innovation 

that accompanies wireless broadband, including the Internet of Things, the app 

economy, and many future efficiencies and commercial opportunities that wireless 

broadband enables. A PCIA study found that private investments in wireless infrastructure between 2013 and 2017 are expected to generate as much as $1.2 trillion 

in economic growth and create 1.3 million net new jobs—including those directly attributable to wireless infrastructure and those created by it in other American busiVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:44 May 10, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\20043.TXT JACKIE
12 

1WIRELESS BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE: A CATALYST FOR GDP AND JOB GROWTH 2013–2017 

(2013), available at http://www.pcia.com/images/IAElInfrastructurelandlEconomylFalll 2013.PDF 2 CISCO VISUAL NETWORKING INDEX: GLOBAL MOBILE DATA TRAFFIC FORECAST UPDATE, 2014– 

2019 1 (2015), available at http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/visual-networking-index-vni/whitelpaperlc11-520862.pdf 3 CISCO VISUAL NETWORKING INDEX: FORECAST AND METHODOLOGY, 2014–2019 2 (2015), available at http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/ip-ngn-ip-next-generation-network/whitelpaperlc11-481360.pdf 

ness enterprises.1 Sustaining such investments will strengthen America’s competitiveness and allow the U.S. to remain the leader in wireless innovation and thus 

in the global economy. 

This Committee has shown great leadership for its work to eliminate a number 

of barriers to infrastructure deployment. Most critically, this Committee’s work on 

Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 has 

made an enormous difference in speeding the deployment of wireless infrastructure. 

Specifically, Section 6409(a) established a new Federal law governing state and local 

review of requests for modification of existing wireless towers or base stations, including collocations for additional providers of wireless services. The Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) outstanding and aggressive implementation of this 

law grounded Congress’ work with a clear regulatory framework that we are confident the courts will find legally sound. Our members report real progress on the 

speed, cost, and ease of their efforts to deploy 4G networks as a direct result of this 

Committee’s work, so we are grateful for your visionary leadership. 

Regarding implementation of Section 6409(a), PCIA, along with CTIA—The Wireless Association, has worked in good faith with national organizations representing 

state and local governments to implement the law at the suggestion of FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn. Over the last several months, we have met with the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, and the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors. We formed a working group 

together that has released several educational resources and participated on panels 

across the country. Together, we have produced resource materials for local governments, including (1) a checklist to streamline review processes; (2) best practices 

used by jurisdictions able to review and approve applications in less than 60 days; 

(3) webinars and contacts for education and assistance regarding application process; and (4) a model ordinance and application. Members of the working group posted these on their respective websites. It is precisely this kind of cooperation that 

has enabled significant progress toward fulfilling the promise of the legislation Congress enacted. I commend these organizations, and my fellow witness Mayor Gary 

Resnick, for their commitment to work together to expedite broadband deployment 

for the citizens of their communities. 

Mobile Broadband is the Future of Broadband 

As a variety of reports demonstrate, Americans are quickly moving towards mobile broadband as their primary way to access the Internet. For example, according 

to Cisco, last year’s mobile data traffic was nearly 30 times the size of the entire 

global Internet in 2000. And this trend is expected to continue.2 Cisco also reports 

that U.S. mobile data traffic will grow two times faster than U.S. fixed IP traffic 

over the next four years and traffic from wireless and mobile devices will exceed 

traffic from wired devices by 2019.3 These statistics underscore the need for government policies that reflect the growing demand for mobile data and address the challenges of meeting it by efficiently deploying wireless infrastructure. 

America is facing an economic and technological challenge, which I have termed 

the wireless data crunch. The wireless data crunch refers to the need to meet the 

nearly insatiable and increasing demand for wireless mobile data with the network’s 

capacity to deliver it. The demand for wireless data will increase 700 percent over 

the next five years. That’s on top of the explosive growth we have already witnessed 

in the last five years. This tremendous growth is both encouraging and sobering at 

the same time. The challenge for the wireless infrastructure industry, the telecommunications sector at large, and for this Committee is: how are we going to meet 

this demand? The projections should serve as a wake-up call that industry and government need to continue to work together to maintain the U.S.’s position as the 

global leader in wireless innovation, as this Committee has long recognized. 

To ensure capacity meets consumer demand, we need to build and deploy all manner of wireless infrastructure including more traditional towers, small cells, distributed antenna systems, and 1Wi-Fi offload. This integrated infrastructure ecosystem 

results in greater spectral efficiency. Using spectrum, a finite and limited resource, 

as efficiently as possible, allows more data to flow over existing frequencies. 

13 

Network engineers recognize three basic ways to deliver more wireless data: (1) 

additional spectrum, (2) increased technological efficiency, and (3) expanded wireless 

infrastructure. I will briefly discuss spectrum and technological efficiency. As PCIA’s 

focus is providing the infrastructure that makes mobile devices work, I will highlight on this aspect of the delivery of wireless data. 

Additional Spectrum 

Clearly, more spectrum must be made available—as much as we can get as fast 

as we can get it. And of course, spectrum is of great value. Thanks to the excellent 

work by members of this Committee, the FCC was able to auction 65 MHz of AWS– 

3 spectrum for over $45 billion. Let me put that in context. There were already 550 

MHz of spectrum in commercial cellular use. Thus, we’ve just increased the amount 

by around 12 percent. The usefulness of this spectrum is affected by the lag time 

between when the spectrum is auctioned and when it is ready for use. This includes 

the need for the spectrum to actually be allocated and cleared, antennas and other 

infrastructure to be upgraded, and a whole generation of handsets to be swapped 

out. Significant amounts of time are needed before these bands begin to offload traffic from existing frequencies, and it is not likely to be fully phased in for up to five 

years. 

This Committee and the industry are carefully monitoring the next auction—the 

incentive auction for broadcast spectrum. This auction is not slated to begin until 

next year, and will likely take over five years to yield any significant spectral relief. 

Beyond that, significant additional spectrum is not yet in the pipeline. Critical efforts are underway to clear unused Federal Government spectrum for commercial 

use, including the commitment by the Obama Administration to clear 500 MHz by 

2020. Notably, Senator Rubio reintroduced the Wireless Innovation Act (S. 1618), 

which seeks to identify and allocate Federal spectrum to commercial use. However, 

as this Committee is well aware, it is extremely complicated, and expensive, to move 

Federal agencies off their current frequencies. Clearing and auctioning Federal spectrum is necessary, but it will not help ease the wireless data crunch in the very 

near future. We certainly need more spectrum, and I urge you to pursue policies 

to make more available for commercial use. 

Technological Efficiencies 

Technological efficiencies also help ease the wireless data crunch. Each new network generation brings with it new technologies, more network capacity for data per 

user, and the potential for better voice quality, lower latency and greater data 

throughput. For example, 4G is much more efficient than 3G, allowing for more economic use of allocated spectrum, and 4G LTE Advanced is yet more efficient. But 

even as we build out 4G, traffic immediately diverted to these new and more efficient data channels—there’s lag time here, too, with old 3G and even 2G handsets 

still in use. Carriers can incentivize customers to use more efficient handsets, but 

this also takes time. Industry plans to begin field testing 5G as early as next year, 

but the technology is not expected to be introduced in the U.S. until around 2020. 

Technological efficiencies are absolutely critical, and more is needed, both on the 

network layer and on the software and content layer. Again, however, technological 

innovation alone will not enable the wireless industry to meet growing consumer demand, even when combined with new spectrum projected to come online. 

Infrastructure 

As noted, additional spectrum and technological efficiencies are necessary tools in 

the effort to address the data crunch. The third critical resource is the rapid deployment of the physical network, the infrastructure that supports spectrum and any 

new technological upgrades. This is the primary focus of PCIA. 

The physical wireless infrastructure now being deployed and upgraded offers a solution that is already carrying an immediate and heavy load to address the wireless 

data crunch. It consists of major investments of private capital that ushers this 

technology to market. With the appropriate regulatory guidance, today’s wireless industry can better plan for the network of tomorrow. Too often, misunderstandings 

and misrepresentations about wireless infrastructure can stall the deployment of 

these life-changing technologies. Wireless infrastructure has the power to transform 

a city in economic decline into an innovation hub. It can breathe new life into aging 

commercial zones, and provide rural areas the ability to compete in the innovation 

economy. 

Today, there are an abundance of choices available to network planners. The traditional tall towers effectively provide most of the coverage and capacity necessary. 

The industry is also deploying distributed antennas systems and small cells to fill 

the gaps or overlay capacity in high traffic markets. Further, the networks themselves are getting smarter. Self-optimizing networks and the combination of intelVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:44 May 10, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\20043.TXT JACKIE
14 

ligent software and hardware design allows a network to anticipate usage and provide greater resources to areas of need in real time, providing users with responsive 

service. Wi-Fi continues to play an important role in this system, offloading traffic 

to the wired network and providing greater headroom for cellular services. 

The densification of wireless infrastructure plays a critical role in meeting wireless data demand. In fact, infrastructure appears poised to play the largest role of 

any of the available solutions in the next five years, and perhaps more, to address 

the wireless data crunch. Spectrum and network densification are fungible—roughly 

speaking, doubling the amount of spectrum in an area could provide a similar boost 

to network capacity as doubling the number of cell sites. The availability of network 

densification as an alternative to spectrum purchases puts a cap on the cost of spectrum—and carriers regularly weigh them against one another. The mobile carriers 

paid high prices for spectrum in the AWS–3 auction, which is understandable because this could be one of the only available opportunities for significant new spectrum in the near future other than the 600 MHz auction. Today’s infrastructure will 

provide the foundation upon which the wireless industry will deliver the Internet 

of Things, 5G, and the applications, services, and jobs that will fuel the U.S. economy into the future. 

Broadband Opportunity Council 

Earlier this year, President Obama created the Broadband Opportunity Council 

to focus on increasing broadband investment and adoption. The Council is co-chaired 

by Department of Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker, working with the National 

Telecommunications and Information Agency (NTIA), and Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, working with the Rural Utilities Service (RUS), 

where I was previously Administrator. It includes over twenty-five different government agencies, united around clear policy objectives, including identifying regulatory barriers impeding broadband deployment. 

On September 21, the White House released a formal report that included recommendations to improve broadband across the country. The Council recommended 

that Federal agencies should further streamline access to Federal lands, structures 

and rights of way in order to help speed broadband deployment nationwide. The report also notes that there is significant room for improvement in local and state government practices. Local and state regulations, the report points out, cannot be addressed through executive action, but the Federal Government can encourage best 

practices. The Council has also sought to create an online inventory of data on Federal assets, and maintain the points of contact tasked with overseeing broadband 

buildout. Faster and more efficient broadband deployment is the goal. Nevertheless, 

as the report notes, many of the recommendations provided by commenters require 

congressional action. This report provides clear recognition of the crucial role Congress plays in taking broadband deployment forward. 

Congress’ Role in Encou raging Br oadband Deployment 

Wireless infrastructure is the backbone of all wireless voice and data communications. The industry is constantly innovating with new wireless technologies. Without 

sound regulations and policy at the local, state, and Federal levels, the innovation 

and competitiveness of the wireless industry will suffer. Even with all the positive 

strides in broadband deployment over the past five years, there remain a number 

of barriers to broadband deployment for Congress to address. 

We’ve seen how misinterpretations of congressional intent can cause delays in 

broadband deployment. Too often, local jurisdictions have denied siting applications 

without full reasoning and accountability as required by the Telecommunications 

Act of 1996 (Telecom Act). This left capital tied up and broadband projects languishing or abandoned. It took action by the Supreme Court in T-Mobile v. Roswell 

to help resolve one roadblock. In January, the Supreme Court agreed with our assessment that the Telecom Act requires localities to provide clear, written reasons 

when applications to build wireless facilities are denied. The Court sided with industry and found that wireless providers must be informed in a clear-cut and timely 

manner. We were pleased with this ruling, but we should not have to petition the 

highest court in the land to resolve these types of delays in the name of broadband 

buildout and all that it enables. 

One suggestion for Congress to consider that would alleviate roadblocks to wireless siting at the local level would be removing requirements that a provider demonstrate ‘‘proof-of-need’’ or show a ‘‘gap-in-service’’ when siting a wireless facility. 

Proof-of-need is used as a barrier to building new facilities because it is simple to 

reject an application based on a local government’s subjective evaluation that the 

applicant failed to sufficiently demonstrate that a facility serves a purpose. Moreover, varied judicial interpretations of Sections 332 and 253 of the Telecom Act 

15 

allow a jurisdiction to deny an application on the basis that ‘‘sufficient’’ wireless coverage already exists in the area. The test is extremely subjective in practice, makes 

it more difficult to site wireless facilities, and thereby slowing broadband deployment and preventing wireless facilities from alleviating data capacity constraints. 

As the need to meet consumer demand moves from coverage to capacity, communities are not well positioned to second-guess costly investment decisions that are 

guided by experienced radio frequency engineers to improve customer service. In 

many cases, such obstruction can undercut service to the very citizens local governments are elected to serve. 

Another way Congress can encourage investment in broadband deployment is by 

maintaining an appropriate regime for the tax treatment of Real Estate Investment 

Trusts (REITs). Long-standing tax policies, established in the 1960s, and IRS guidance, have always held that communications towers have been considered real estate for REIT qualification purposes. Transmission tower companies lease vertical 

real estate—communications towers and the land beneath it—to multiple tenants. 

Tenants own the equipment and lease space on the towers generally over a long period of time. Transmission tower companies eliminate the need for each tenant to 

construct its own towers, which prevents overcrowding neighborhoods and communities with multiple towers. This model enhances competition in the wireless industry by lowering costs for mobile wireless service providers and other tenants to enter 

new markets. Transmission tower companies allow these competitors to operate 

without having to raise capital to build their own tower networks. 

Today, the properties of tower companies play a critical role in broadband deployment. Continued buildout of towers is essential to meeting the demand for wireless 

data, and the current REIT structure promotes this necessary capital investment. 

As the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trust (NAREIT) stated in 

its April 2015 submission to the Senate Finance Committee, ‘‘Today, investment 

through and by tower REITs is one way the national demand for real estate specialized to meet the needs of mobile phone providers and users is met.’’ 

Congress can also encourage broadband deployment by enacting bipartisan legislation to promote an open Internet. Only congressional action can give the certainty 

for broadband providers looking to invest. As Congress looks to enact open Internet 

legislation, it should provide the FCC the necessary legal authority to map out clear 

rules of the road for broadband providers while encouraging investment in 

broadband networks. 

Another barrier to broadband deployment is the byzantine process of siting wireless broadband infrastructure on Federal lands. This Committee on a bipartisan 

basis has expressed interest in this issue and we appreciate your leadership. The 

Federal Government owns or administers nearly thirty percent of all land in the 

U.S., as well as thousands of buildings. Broadband providers currently face significant challenges when working to secure access to Federal lands and buildings. Deploying wireless infrastructure on these properties is absolutely critical for public 

safety and economic development. Wireless facilities can be sited on Federal property in an environmentally responsible way that is sensitive to areas historic significance. 

Predictability and consistency are vital to network planning and investment in 

any arena, but this need is amplified when deploying broadband on Federal property, which often requires burdensome interagency review and coordination. PCIA 

is actively working with agencies across the Federal Government, Congress, and the 

White House to find ways to expedite the siting process. In 2012, Congress, with 

the leadership of this Committee, put forward a framework to make it easier to site 

communications facilities on Federal lands and properties through standard applications and agreements. Also in 2012, President Obama issued Executive Order 13616 

to promote infrastructure buildout on Federal lands and created a cross-agency 

working group charged with meeting the mandate of speeding deployment on Federal lands and properties. 

Unfortunately, even with an Executive Order and direction from Congress, the 

process to site wireless infrastructure on Federal lands has not sufficiently improved. Further legislation will spur agencies to work with the industry to bring 

broadband service to difficult-to-reach Federal lands and Federal buildings. As such, 

PCIA supports the Wireless Innovation Act (S. 1618) to address this very issue. By 

facilitating access, the Federal Government can increase revenues through lease 

payments to the Treasury while at the same time improving broadband access for 

its citizens. Better access to Federal lands and property will also help increase 

broadband availability in rural areas. The importance of expanding rural broadband 

is clear. Many of the lands and properties that would benefit from streamlined 

siting are by definition rural. We look forward to continuing to work with both 

16 

chambers on legislation to streamline and expedite the process of siting broadband 

infrastructure on Federal property. 

As our member John Deere has indicated in its testimony, along with work on 

Federal lands, it is important for the public and private sector to work together to 

ensure that buildout can accelerate in Rural America. One critical mechanism is the 

loans provided by the Rural Utilities Service for broadband buildout. These loans 

are repaid with a significant portion of funding from the Universal Service Fund 

(USF). For these funds to meet their intended purpose there must be a predictable 

level of support to the USF so that loan recipients can plan, borrow, and invest in 

infrastructure. Lastly, the Connect America Fund (CAF) is a sustainable cost-recovery mechanism for rural areas where subscriber densities are too low to motivate 

providers to build infrastructure and offer service. CAF’s wireless component, the 

Mobility Fund, is targeted at the expansion of mobile broadband networks. We think 

these programs will go a long way to accelerate the deployment of wireless 

broadband in rural communities. 

Similarly, more work is needed to provide connectivity to native nations so that 

these communities can take advantage of the benefits that broadband provides. 

PCIA has long worked with tribal leaders and communities to promote their access 

wireless broadband, including commenting in various dockets related to historic 

preservation and environmental protection. PCIA has also participated in the FCC’s 

annual workshops on this topic, providing a platform for information exchange between industry and those representing native nations to better understand the cultural differences and shared experiences. In the spirit of collaboration, PCIA would 

urge a reexamination of certain tower siting processes at the FCC, whereby, for example, an application to site communications facilities in downtown Chicago triggers 

a full-day review and fees associated with a tribe many miles away. Our industry 

understands the critical nature of sovereignty and respects the value of protecting 

sensitive historic sites. Still, there must be a more efficient and rational approach 

that is more appropriately targeted so that we may all benefit from a stronger network. 

Both state and Federal policies require pole attachment rules that promote the 

deployment of broadband access and the new technologies that enable it, while providing fair treatment for pole owners. Among other things, Congress added 

‘‘provider[s] of telecommunications services[s]’’ to the category of attachers entitled 

to pole attachments at just and reasonable rates, terms and conditions under Section 224 of the Telecom Act. This Section has been modernized through action by 

the FCC, which has helped to provide greater access to poles for wireless attachers, 

shortened timelines for make-ready and other work, and established rates in greater 

harmony with other like attachments. However, many jurisdictions have been slow 

to adopt the FCC’s standards. In these states, the telecommunications industry 

must re-legislate and re-litigate the efforts taken before the FCC. Greater national 

certainty and clarity with respect to the rights of wireless attachers in these jurisdictions would spur further broadband deployment. 

Last, Members of this Committee have been working on legislation to require that 

broadband conduits be installed as a part of certain highway construction projects, 

also known as ‘‘dig once.’’ This initiative would help facilitate broadband infrastructure deployment and reduce duplicative Federal reviews for work at the same location. PCIA looks forward to working with the Committee on this legislation. 

Conclusion 

The wireless infrastructure industry faces a number of legal and regulatory hurdles that slow investment and deployment. By providing certainty and lowering 

some of the barriers noted above, Congress can play a constructive role in ensuring 

broadband to all Americans. In closing, there are number of specific steps Congress 

can take to encourage broadband deployment. This Committee should look to remove requirements that a provider demonstrate ‘‘proof-of-need’’ or show a ‘‘gap-inservice’’ when siting a wireless facility. Next, Congress should look to expedite and 

streamline the process for citing wireless broadband infrastructure on Federal 

lands. In addition, ensuring that the current REIT structure that dates back to the 

1960s is maintained is another way Congress can increase deployment. Further, 

harmonizing rates and providing greater national clarity on pole attachments would 

promote deployment as well. And finally, installing broadband conduits as a part 

of certain highway construction projects would reduce duplicative Federal reviews 

for broadband deployment. 

Wireless broadband helps drive America’s innovation economy and fuels the Nation’s economic future. The U.S. has always been the global leader in wireless 

broadband innovation, and private investment in wireless infrastructure is a big the 

17 

reason why. Continuing to upgrade America’s wireless infrastructure is a necessary 

component of connecting more Americans with broadband. 

The mobile broadband revolution holds incredible promise for economic growth, 

job creation, public safety, education, healthcare and many other benefits. At the 

same time, there are warning signs on the road ahead. Our industry is determined 

to meet consumer demand, even as it rises swiftly. That is capital intensive, costly 

and operationally demanding. We need policies that allow that allow us to invest 

that capital efficiently, and to target areas that need additional coverage and capacity. To maximize the promise of wireless broadband for economic growth, job creation and technological innovation, infrastructure builders need the capital to invest—and we need regulators and Congress to help, as this Committee has long realized and as the purpose of this hearing recognizes. We are deeply grateful for the 

bipartisan recognition of the importance of infrastructure by this Committee, by 

Congress, by the FCC and the Administration. All have implemented policies to promote wireless broadband deployment, and all are working to build on recent successes. 

Thank you again Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson for holding this 

hearing and inviting me to testify. I look forward to continuing to work with you 

and the rest of the Committee to continue to make progress on these very important 

issues. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Adelstein. 

And we move now to distinguished mayor. Mayor Resnick, please 

proceed with your remarks. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GARY RESNICK, MAYOR, 

WILTON MANORS, FLORIDA 

Mr. RESNICK. Thank you. 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 long-term member of the National League of Cities and the 

National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors. 

The cities and towns in your states are very likely members of NLC 

and NATOA. I also have the privilege of serving as chair of the 

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee of the Federal Communications Commission. In addition, my background as an attorney with 

the Florida firm of Gray Robinson, representing businesses and 

local governments for over 20 years in connection with communications issues, and my role as mayor, has allowed me to work effectively with public and private entities and local citizens to improve 

wireless communications. 

I want to thank the Committee for calling attention to the importance of wireless communications services by holding this hearing, 

and I appreciate the opportunity to provide the unique perspective 

of local governments in our role in ensuring our communities have 

access to wireless broadband services. 

No one wants broadband deployment and competitive choice 

more than local governments. We are not only regulators of the deployment of this infrastructure, we are large consumers of these 

services, and often local governments are providers of broadband 

services. For years, communities across the country have taken innovative steps to increase the deployment of critical infrastructure, 

including towers, carefully balancing the health, safety, and welfare concerns of our residents and communities. The recent tragedy 

in Oregon and events in the Carolinas are just the latest examples 

demonstrating the importance for local governments and our first 

responders to have reliable access to vital wireless communications 

and broadband services. 

18 

While various stakeholders’ approaches to increasing wireless 

broadband may differ, all of us have the same goal: to ensure that 

all Americans have affordable access to advanced broadband services. Our need for additional broadband deployments must be balanced with the critical need for local governments to maintain reasonable control and authority over the placement of these facilities 

in our communities. Federal policies must respect our ability as 

local officials to manage public rights-of-way as well as land uses 

on public and private properties. Disruption to neighborhoods, open 

spaces, streets, sidewalks, and business can have a negative impact 

on public safety and industry as well as on the sustainability of our 

communities. 

The vast majority of projects in our communities are reviewed 

and deployed in a timely manner, respecting both the needs of providers and tower owners and also the desires of the communities 

they serve. In fact, many communities with industry input have 

taken steps to streamline their siting practices in an effort to provide certainty in the permitting and zoning processes. Any assertion that most local governments are barriers to wireless infrastructure deployment is simply wrong. As mayor, I know firsthand 

how vitally important communications services are to our first-responder, police, and fire personnel, the vast majority of whom are 

local government employees. 

In 2009, the FCC adopted a declaratory ruling establishing time 

frames within which local governments must act on tower-siting 

applications. Prior to that FCC action, the Florida legislature 

adopted similar time frames for local government action. To date, 

these time frames have worked well in my state and throughout 

the country. In a related facility siting report and order adopted in 

2014, the FCC declined to adopt an additional remedy in the event 

that time frames were not being met, in large part because of a 

finding that the existing rules were working well. In its 2014 wireless broadband facilities order, the FCC recognized the vital role 

that local governments play in bringing advanced communication 

services to all Americans. The FCC did so in a way to preserve 

local land-use authority, protect camouflage and concealment measures, and allow local communities to protect aesthetic and safety 

interests. 

In conjunction with the 2014 order, NLC, NATOA, and the National Association of Counties worked cooperatively with CTIA and 

PCIA on educational initiatives and materials that provide communities with resources to encourage increased broadband deployment. Cooperation between local governments and industry is evident by the sheer number of sites deployed to date. 

There may be instances where deployment does not occur as 

quickly as either industry or local governments would like. If there 

are delays to deployment, it should be understood that we, as local 

leaders, are managing a variety of infrastructure needs, just as the 

industry is managing a variety of issues. It would not be productive 

for the legislative process to portray each other as obstacles to 

wireless broadband deployment. Reaching consensus, which is the 

mainstay of the government process at the local level, would be 

most effective. We look forward to continuing our demonstrated effective working relationship with the wireless industry and our 

19 

Federal colleagues using a collaborative approach to promote 

broadband deployment in a manner that respects the legitimate interests of all interested parties. 

Billions of dollars are being invested in broadband projects 

through various Federal programs. Local governments, the government closest to the people and most accountable to our joint constituents, want to see these investments succeed. We will continue 

to play an important role in helping to ensure that these initiatives 

are deployed in a timely and efficient manner while protecting the 

unique needs and interests of the communities they seek to serve. 

Again, on behalf of NLC and NATOA and local governments, I 

would like to thank the Committee for inviting me to participate 

in this hearing today. I urge you to view local governments as 

strong partners in ensuring that affordable broadband services are 

available to all Americans. 

Thank you again, and I look forward to any questions you may 

have. 

And I want to just acknowledge the presence here today of many 

of my colleague city officials from Florida, and appreciate their support in coming to this hearing. 

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 and 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 largest and most representative membership and advocacy organization for city officials, comprised of more than 19,000 cities, towns, and villages representing more than 218 million Americans. The National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors is the premier local government professional 

association that provides support to its members on the many local, state, and Federal communications laws, administrative rulings, 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 also serve as Chair of the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) of the 

Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The IAC provides guidance to the FCC 

on a broad range of issues of importance to state, local and tribal governments including cable and local franchising, public rights-of-way, facilities siting, universal 

service, broadband access, barriers to competitive entry, and public safety communications. My background as an attorney with the Florida firm of GrayRobinson, 

representing businesses and local governments for over 20 years in connection with 

such communications issues, and my role as Mayor, has allowed me to work effectively with public and private entities, and local citizens, focused on improving wireless communications. 

I want to thank the Committee for calling attention to the importance of wireless 

communications services by holding this hearing and appreciate the opportunity to 

provide the unique perspective of local governments and our role in ensuring our 

communities have access to wireless broadband services. No one wants broadband 

deployment and competitive choice more than local governments. We are not only 

regulators of the deployment of these services for the benefit of our residents, we 

are large consumers of these services and often local governments are providers of 

broadband services. For years, communities across the country have taken innovative steps to increase the deployment of critical infrastructure—including towers— 

carefully balancing the health, safety and welfare concerns of our residents and 

communities. 

The recent tragedy in Oregon and the preparations for Hurricane Joaquin are just 

the latest examples demonstrating the importance of local governments and our first 

responders having reliable access to vital wireless communications and broadband 

services. 

20 

Role of Local Governments in Increasing Wireless Broadband 

While various stakeholders’ approaches to increasing wireless broadband may differ, it is safe to conclude that all of us have the same goals—to ensure that all 

Americans have universal, affordable access to advanced broadband services and 

that deployment occurs as efficiently as possible without compromising the public’s 

health and safety. It is undeniable that the growing demand for wireless broadband 

services, coupled with the growing use of personal wireless devices, requires the deployment of additional infrastructure. Increased access and better wireless 

broadband services bring a wealth of benefits to America’s municipalities and counties, including increased economic development and job creation, enhanced public 

safety, telemedicine, distance learning, and improved civic engagement. 

Our need for additional broadband deployments must be balanced with the absolute need for local governments to maintain reasonable control and authority over 

the placement of these facilities in our communities. Because of our responsibility 

as local leaders to protect the health, safety, and welfare of our residents, Federal 

policies must respect our ability as local officials to manage public rights-of-way as 

well as land uses on private and public property. Disruption to neighborhoods, open 

spaces, streets, sidewalks, and businesses can have a negative impact on public 

safety and industry, as well as the sustainability of our communities. As such, local 

governments have, and must maintain, authority to regulate land use, zoning and 

access to public rights-of-way. 

Not a Barrier to Deployment 

Local governments believe that the vast majority of projects in our communities 

are reviewed and deployed in a timely manner, respecting both the needs of providers and tower owners, and also the desires of the communities they serve. In fact, 

many communities, with industry input, have taken steps to streamline their siting 

practices in an effort to provide certainty in the permitting and zoning processes. 

Many communities have enacted ordinances that express a preference for collocations and encourage such siting requests by limiting government review solely to a 

staff process. Any assertion that most local governments are barriers to wireless infrastructure deployment is simply wrong. As Mayor, I know firsthand how vitally 

important communications services are to our first responder police and fire personnel—the vast majority of whom are local government employees. Additionally, 

wireless broadband is critical for the economic and social welfare of our residents, 

educational institutions, libraries, and businesses and we strive to ensure they have 

affordable, reliable access to these services. 

In 2009, the Federal Communications Commission adopted a declaratory ruling 

establishing time frames within which local communities must act on tower siting 

applications. Prior to that FCC action, the Florida Legislature adopted similar time 

frames for such local government action. To date, the time frames have worked well 

in my state and throughout the country. In a related facilities siting Report and 

Order adopted in 2014, the Commission declined to adopt an additional remedy in 

the event the time frames were not met, in large part because of a finding that the 

existing rules are working well. 

Furthermore, in its 2014 wireless broadband facilities siting order, the FCC recognized the vital role that local governments play in bringing advanced communications services to all Americans. While taking steps to eliminate what it viewed as 

unnecessary review procedures with respect to small-sized wireless broadband facilities on existing structures, the FCC did so in a way to preserve local land use authority, protect camouflage and concealment measures, and allow local communities 

to protect aesthetic and safety interests. 

In conjunction with the 2014 order, NLC, NATOA, and the National Association 

of Counties worked cooperatively with CTIA and PCIA on educational initiatives 

and materials that provide communities with resources to encourage increased 

broadband deployment and choice for our residents and businesses, consistent with 

the new Federal rules. We are eager to work with all stakeholders. Proof of cooperation between local governments and industry is evident by the sheer number of sites 

deployed to date. 

There may be instances where deployment does not occur as quickly as industry 

or local governments would like. We understand that the wireless industry is undergoing many changes and has many pressures that may delay deployment of infrastructure. Similarly, wireless infrastructure is just one of the many responsibilities 

that fall on the shoulders of local governments. If there are delays to deployment, 

it should be understood that we, as local leaders, are managing a variety of infrastructure needs, just as the industry is managing a variety of issues. It would not 

be productive for the legislative process to portray each other as obstacles to wireless broadband deployment. Reaching consensus, which is the mainstay of the govVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:44 May 10, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\20043.TXT JACKIE
21 

ernment process at the local level, would be most effective. We look forward to continuing our demonstrated effective working relationship with the wireless industry 

and our Federal colleagues using a collaborative approach to promote deployment 

in a manner that respects the legitimate interests of all interested parties. 

FirstNet 

Public and private stakeholders are working collaboratively to deploy a new nationwide, interoperable, wireless broadband network for public safety communications (‘‘FirstNet’’) to serve both urban and rural America within the next several 

years. As a result, challenges to timely wireless deployment may increase. However, 

let there be no mistake—local governments actively encourage and want the deployment of this new network and will strive to ensure it is built in a timely manner. 

Any assertion that local governments would act in any manner to delay the deployment of FirstNet ignores the long-established role that local governments play 

in providing public safety communications and protecting life and property. 

Conclusion 

Billions of dollars are being invested in broadband projects through various Federal programs, such as the Connect America Fund and E-Rate, with much of it in 

rural parts of our country. Local governments—the government closest to the people 

and most accountable to our joint constituents– want to see these investments succeed. We fully recognize that local governments will play an important role in helping to ensure that these initiatives are deployed in a timely and efficient manner, 

while protecting the unique needs and interests of the communities they seek to 

serve. 

On behalf of 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 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. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mayor. It’s nice to have mayors and 

local officials here, because they’re actually people who have power 

to get things done. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. So, next up, Mr. Reed. 

STATEMENT OF CORY J. REED, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, 

INTELLIGENT SOLUTIONS, DEERE & COMPANY 

Mr. REED. Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and members of the Committee, good morning. My name is Cory Reed, and 

I’m the Senior Vice President for Intelligent Solutions at John 

Deere. That’s the precision ag business at John Deere. Thank you 

for the opportunity to testify today. 

John Deere is a global manufacturer and provider of agriculture, 

construction, turf, and forestry equipment and services. We serve 

customers around the world who cultivate, harvest, and build upon 

the land to meet the growing need for food, fuel, fiber, and infrastructure. Deere has been providing innovative equipment and 

services to serve these customers since 1837. Today, Deere is pioneering state-of-the-art data and information solutions designed to 

greatly enhance productivity and sustainability. 

This topic is of central importance to the vitality of rural America, and, in particular, the U.S. agricultural sector. Despite the remarkable growth and innovation in broadband technologies nationwide, too many rural communities today lag behind in access to 

those technologies and the benefits that they bring. John Deere is 

acutely aware of this gap and the challenges it presents for agriculture. 

22 

The modern economics of farming have transformed production 

agriculture into a technology-driven sector increasingly dependent 

on access to broadband. The Internet of Things in rural America 

includes not only smart meters and appliances, but also smart tractors, combines, and production systems. In fact, the rapid adoption 

of data-driven technologies and services across the ag economy 

today is as transformational as was the introduction of mechanization to farming nearly 100 years ago. 

With this in mind, I’d like to share five specific ideas that Deere 

believes can close the gaps between those that have access to 

broadband and those that do not: 

First, rural broadband programs must make deployment in agricultural areas a priority to address the needs of U.S. farmers and 

rural communities. Farmers are compelled by long-term demand 

trends to achieve and sustain unprecedented high levels of productivity by increasing yields and managing input costs with finite 

amounts of land and water. And the stakes for the future of the 

U.S. ag sector are high. As you know, rural populations have declined over the last several years, and rural economic growth has 

lagged the country as a whole. These pressures in rural America 

are felt in the ag economy, as well. But, we also know that increased agricultural productivity arising from technology innovation and adoption can help revitalize these same rural communities. 

Second, broadband deployment policies must include mobile as 

well as fixed services. Wherever possible, farmers are using precision agriculture technologies, including GPS-enabled technologies, 

that depend on high-speed wireless broadband to communicate 

with customers and vendors to obtain realtime information on field 

conditions, weather, and other environmental factors, to follow 

commodity markets, and to manage fleets. New technologies enable 

more prescriptive use of soils, water, fertilizer, herbicides, and fuel. 

They allow farming practices and applications to be tailored to the 

specific conditions of an individual field. With access to mobile 

broadband services, farmers can employ innovative machine-to-machine operations in the field and machine-to-farm communications 

from the field, and achieve significant improvements in productivity and cost management. 

Mobile broadband services are essential to broadband deployment in rural areas where infrastructure, land acquisition, and 

right-of-way cost to serve large areas can be high, and the potential 

subscriber population can be small relative to urban and suburban 

areas. To enable realtime sharing of data and communications, including machine-to-machine and machine-to-field interactions, precision agriculture requires access to both reliable wireless and 

wireline broadband services. However, today’s reality is that access 

to mobile and fixed broadband coverage in the fields where ag 

equipment operates falls short of what’s needed and will be needed. 

For these reasons, Deere supports the retention and expansion of 

the FCC’s Mobility Fund and other funding sources, as well as infrastructure policies and rules aimed at supporting expansion of 

rural mobile services. 

Third, Federal policies and programs should assess broadband 

coverage goals based on geographic area and functional use, includVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:44 May 10, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\20043.TXT JACKIE
23 

ing deployment in active croplands. Deere believes Federal agencies should review broadband availability through an expanded 

lens, one that incorporates a geographic and functional-use metric 

aimed at advancing deployment to commercial and economic activities where access has fallen behind. Historically, FCC, NTIA, and 

USDA funding programs supporting broadband deployment have 

focused on last-mile connections to residential consumers and anchor institutions. Cropland areas where farming is done have 

lagged behind in adequate mobile coverage. To address this gap, 

the metric of broadband access in active croplands and farm buildings should be considered in identifying areas of need. Cropland 

coverage can be assessed using USDA’s GIS data for crop operations, the U.S. Geological Service’s Land-Use Classification, or 

other data bases. Given their economic and commercial importance 

to rural communities, farming operations should receive priority in 

implementing rural broadband support, and should be considered 

anchor institutions for purposes of existing support programs. 

Fourth, broadband deployment funding programs need to be updated and expanded. Deere endorses the expansion of the Universal Service Fund to include backhaul capacity and a variety of 

middle-mile projects. Effective rural broadband services require 

backhaul capacity to keep up with expanding broadband demand. 

Further, all providers should be eligible to receive support for middle-mile facilities that support wireline backhaul for mobile 

broadband, not just for middle-mile facilities that support wired 

last-mile connections. 

Finally, infrastructure policies should be evaluated to promote 

rural and agricultural access to broadband. Deere supports efforts 

to promote the expansion of the infrastructure necessary for wireless broadband deployment in rural and agricultural areas. In particular, we would encourage actions to streamline procedures for 

siting wireless towers and infrastructure and installing conduit. We 

must ensure that all unnecessary barriers are removed. 

In conclusion, let me reiterate that the future of our rural communities is closely linked to the strength of American agriculture. 

That future in an increasingly technology-dependent global environment will be determined by whether agricultural operations 

have full access to advanced wireless services, including high-speed 

wireless broadband. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to share Deere’s perspective 

on this critically important topic, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Reed follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CORY J. REED, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, INTELLIGENT

SOLUTIONS, DEERE & COMPANY

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

thank you for holding this important hearing and for the opportunity to testify 

today on behalf of Deere & Company. John Deere is a global leader in the manufacture of agricultural, construction, turf and forestry equipment. Deere provides advanced agricultural and other equipment and services to customers that cultivate, 

harvest, transform, enrich and build upon the land to meet the world’s dramatically 

increasing need for food, fuel, fiber and infrastructure. Deere has been providing innovative equipment and services to customers since 1837, and today, is pioneering 

state-of-the-art data and information solutions designed to greatly enhance productivity and sustainability. 

24 

1See USDA, Ag and Food Sectors and the Economy, available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/ 

data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/ag-and-food-sectors-and-the-economy.aspx. 2See id. 

3See USDA, Rural America at a Glance, 2014, at 1, available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/ 

media/1697681/eb26.pdf. 4See id. at 1. 5See USDA, Preliminary Report Highlights, U.S. Farms and Farmers (Feb. 2014), available 

at: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/PreliminarylReport/Highlights.pdf. 6See USDA, Agricultural Productivity, available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farmeconomy/agricultural-productivity.aspx. 

This topic is of central importance to the economic vitality of the Nation’s rural 

communities, generally, and to the agricultural sector, in particular. Today, access 

to mobile broadband services is an essential component of a healthy and growing 

national economy. Rapid developments in broadband technology have not only 

opened unprecedented opportunities for economic activity, but also for education, 

health care services and cultural development. Despite the remarkable nationwide 

growth and innovation in broadband and advanced technologies, however, too many 

rural communities in the United States lag significantly behind in access to those 

technologies and the extraordinary benefits that they can bring. 

We at John Deere are acutely aware of this technology gap and the special difficulties it presents for the agricultural sector. The challenging economics of farming 

and the need to meet long-term demand have transformed agriculture in the U.S. 

and many other countries into a technology-driven sector increasingly dependent on 

access to broadband. The ‘‘Internet of Things’’ in rural America includes not only 

smart meters and smart appliances, but also smart tractors, combines, and production systems. In fact, the rapid adoption of information technologies and services 

across the agricultural economy today is no less significant than was the introduction of mechanization to farming almost 100 years ago. 

Deere greatly appreciates this opportunity to discuss with the Committee the urgent need that we see for actions that will promote rapid deployment of broadband 

facilities and services in the agricultural sector. I am pleased to share several recommendations for steps that can be taken to bridge the gaps between those that 

have access to broadband and those that do not. 

Rural Broadband Programs Must Make Deployment in Agricultural Areas 

a Priority to Address the Expanding Needs of American Farmers and 

Rural Communities 

Megatrends in the today’s global agricultural sector make accelerated deployment 

of expanded broadband systems and services critical. Farmers are compelled by 

long-term demand to sustain unprecedented high levels of productivity by carefully 

managing costs while increasing yields from a finite amount of land. World population is projected to climb from approximately 7 billion today to more than 9 billion 

by 2050. This means that every hour, there are an additional 9,000 new mouths to 

feed globally, which equates to roughly enough new people to fill Washington Nationals Park more than five times each and every day. As incomes around the world 

rise, animal protein becomes a larger component of average diets. This, in turn, generates greater demand for grains. In most of the world there is a rising trend in 

farm sizes, scale and specialization as economies develop. Environmental sustainability and compliance is a growing challenge, and the supply of skilled labor for 

agriculture is not enough to meet the demand. 

The stakes for the future of the Ag sector are high. Agriculture and agriculturerelated industries contributed $789 billion to the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) 

in 2013, a 4.7-percent share.1 The agricultural economy extends to a wide range of 

other sectors that contribute added value to the economy. In 2013, 16.9 million fulland part-time jobs were related to agriculture—about 9.2 percent of total U.S. employment. Direct on-farm employment provided over 2.6 million of these jobs. Employment in related industries supported another 14.2 million jobs.2

While the U.S. economy is now in its sixth year of recovery from recession, it remains fragile in some aspects, especially in rural areas. Urban employment now exceeds pre-recession levels but rural employment persists at levels well below its 

2007 peak.3 Rural populations have declined over the last several years, and 779 

rural counties continued to lose jobs in 2014.4 The population, economic and employment pressures in rural America continue to affect the agricultural sector. Between 

2007 and 2012, the number of U.S. farms decreased by 4.3 percent.5 One important 

bright spot in today’s rural areas is increased productivity, arising from technology 

innovation and adoption that has fueled growth in U.S. agriculture.6

25 

7See Kurt Marko, Forbes, Precision Agriculture Eats Data, CPUC Cycles: It’s a Perfect Fit 

for Cloud Services (Aug. 25, 2015), available at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtmarko/2015/ 

08/25/precision-ag-cloud/. 

II. Broadband Deployment Policies Must Include Mobile, as Well as Fixed 

Services 

The impacts of these megatrends are an everyday reality for American farmers 

who face constant pressure to improve efficiency, environmental stewardship, and 

output. For this purpose, farmers look to advanced smart farming technology solutions, including solutions that take advantage of mobile and fixed broadband access. 

Today, producers are able to farm to within a few centimeters of accuracy thanks 

to innovative GPS-enabled positioning systems that are now standard on virtually 

all modern farming equipment, as supplemented with data available from satellite 

signals. Using these high precision techniques, advanced agricultural equipment 

and services now include technology that provides real-time agronomic data that can 

be analyzed to optimize the precise amount of seed, fertilizer and pesticides needed, 

reduce costs for fuel, labor, water, and identify best practices for fields in a given 

location. (Deere’s Precision Ag Technologies, for instance, gives farmers access to detailed agronomic information in the field essential for improved decision-making 

with respect to managing costs and recourses.) 

Where possible, producers using these precision agriculture techniques communicate via high-speed wireless broadband with customers and vendors, follow commodity markets, obtain real-time information on field conditions, weather and other 

environmental factors, and manage fleets and regulatory compliance. With access to 

mobile broadband services, farmers can also employ innovative machine-to-machine 

(‘‘M2M’’) operations in the field and machine-to-farm (‘‘M2F’’) from the field that enable producers to make significant improvements in real-time productivity and cost 

management. 

Today these technologies are making an enormous contribution to improved used 

of limited resources, regulatory compliance and Ag sustainability. Precision technologies are enabling more efficient, prescriptive use of soils, water, fertilizer, herbicides and fuel by allowing producers to tailor farming practices and applications to 

the specific conditions of an individual field. 

For example, when the farmer leaves his field in the fall, he is able to share harvest yields directly and immediately with trusted agronomist advisors. This helps 

the advisor to prescribe the appropriate amount of nutrients to be added back to 

the soil, based only on what the farmer took off at harvest, and ensure those nutrients are added and incorporated before winter. The farmer can also make decisions 

on which seeds to buy for next year, taking advantage of early order price discounts. 

By reducing inputs, improving resource management, minimizing land impacts and 

lowering costs, these technologies are delivering the promise of sustainability on the 

farm. 

The economic impact of these technologies is significant. According to recent reports, data-driven decisions about irrigation, fertilization and harvesting can increase corn farm profitability by $5 to $100 per acre, and a recent 6-month pilot 

study found precision agriculture improved overall crop productivity by 15 percent.7

We must take steps now to bridge the gap between rural broadband availability 

and urban and suburban broadband availability. Mobile services, not only wireline 

fixed services, are essential to broadband deployment in rural and remote areas 

where infrastructure, land acquisition, and right-of-way costs are higher on a per 

capita basis than that of urban and suburban areas. To enable real-time sharing 

of data and communications, including in the context of innovative M2M and M2F 

interactions, precision agriculture technology requires access to both reliable mobile 

and wireline broadband services. 

However, the harsh reality in the rural U.S. is that there is a significant lack of 

access to adequate mobile and fixed broadband coverage in the fields where agricultural equipment operates. Today, many John Deere customers are challenged by 

this lack of adequate mobile coverage. Deere’s JDLinkTM data service, for example, 

currently relies on the cellular telephone network to transmit telemetric machine 

operation data. The lack of coverage needed for these solutions to transmit telemetric data from the machines, already a concern, will only become more problematic as data volumes increase. In rural areas where farm machines operate today, 

JDLinkTM data transmissions have a 70 percent successful call completion rate. 

Without significant improvements in cell coverage in agricultural areas, Deere expects that this figure could drop to about 50 percent in two to three years as agricultural demand for wireless broadband services increases. For these reasons, Deere 

supports the retention and even expansion of the FCC’s Mobility fund and other 

26 

8 Although the USDA reports that sixty-seven percent (67 percent) of U.S. farms had Internet 

service (DSL, wireless, cable, and satellite) in 2013, compared with sixty two percent (62 percent) in 2011 these figures do not reflect connectivity acreage under active crop production and 

whether the access that is being detected to the farmhouse is in fact sufficient to support today’s 

smart farming operations. See USDA, NASS, Farm Computer Usage and Ownership (Aug. 2013), 

available at: http://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/MethodologylandlDatalQuality/ComputerlUsage/08l2013/fmpc0813.pdf. 

funding sources as well as infrastructure policies and rules aimed at supporting expansion of rural mobile services. 

III. Deployment Policies and Programs Should Assess Broadband Coverage 

Goals Based on Geographic Area and Functional Use; Croplands 

Require Coverage and Farms Should be Treated as Anchor Institutions 

Deere believes it is time for Federal agencies with broadband deployment mandates to view broadband availability through an expanded lens—one that incorporates a geographic and functional usage metric aimed at advancing broadband deployment to industries and economic activities where access to this key input has 

fallen behind. Broadband access in active croplands, in particular, should be included as a metric in identifying areas of need and farm operations should be treated as ‘‘anchor institutions’’ for the purposes of existing support programs. While 

fixed broadband has penetrated the residential and business areas of many rural 

communities, the cropland areas where farming is done lags far behind in adequate 

mobile broadband access. Yet agricultural operations are no less important to the 

economic vitality of these same communities than are those commercial entities 

served by fixed broadband. By supporting increased wireless broadband deployment 

in areas where most farming operations occur (i.e., in the fields), rural communities 

and the U.S. economy will benefit through increased economic growth, improved environmental stewardship, and enhanced food security. 

Historically, Federal funding programs at the FCC, NTIA and USDA aimed at 

spurring broadband deployment have focused on enabling last-mile connections to 

residential consumers and ‘‘anchor institutions,’’ defined generally to include 

healthcare providers, schools, and libraries, as well as middle-mile facilities that enable last-mile connections to these ends. This assessment framework overlooks significant geographic and functional-use areas of broadband demand and coverage, 

and the benefits that deployment to such unserved and underserved areas can create. Large swaths of agricultural land in the United States—where people do not 

reside, but where they work and contribute to the rural and national economy—are 

wholly lacking broadband coverage. 

To address this gap, broadband access in active croplands (and farm buildings) 

should be included as a metric for identifying areas of need. There are a number 

of ways that ‘‘cropland’’ coverage can be assessed including by using the USDA’s 

GIS data for crop operations or the U.S. geological Survey’s (USGS) Land Use classification. 

It should be noted that farms represent a significant center of rural commercial 

activity. Owners, employees, buyers and vendors all conduct business in farm facilities and thus are important locations in rural communities. On that basis, as ‘‘anchor’’ institutions, farm operations should be given priority in implementing rural 

broadband support programs.8

Deere also recommends that government broadband support programs should 

count machine-to-machine mobile broadband transmissions, by agricultural equipment in the field and associated operators’ mobile devices, when assessing the status of mobile broadband deployment. By counting the number of machines with 

modems working the 300+ million acres of cropland in the United States, program 

administrators will have better information to more accurately assess the availability and lack of availability of advanced broadband services in rural areas, and 

can then consider targeted ways to strengthen funding to those rural areas of the 

country that need it most. Counting only rural populations fails to account for the 

growth in modems imbedded in agricultural machinery or the economic impacts of 

the Ag sector. 

IV. Funding Programs Need to Be Updated and Expanded 

Deere endorses the expansion of the Universal Service Fund (USF) to include 

backhaul capacity and a variety of middle-mile projects. Effective rural broadband 

service requires backhaul capacity to keep up with expanding broadband demand. 

Further, all providers should be eligible to receive support for middle-mile facilities 

that support wireline backhaul for mobile broadband, not just for middle mile facilities that support wired last mile connections. 

27 

We should also allow USF support for standalone broadband services not tied to 

traditional telephone services. The widespread availability of standalone broadband 

service will give consumers greater choice in service and providers and will avoid 

rules that effectively force consumers to purchase services they do not want. 

V. Infrastructure Policies Should be Evaluated to Promote Rural and 

Agricultural Access to Broadband 

Finally, Deere supports efforts to promote expansion of the infrastructure necessary to expand wireless broadband deployment in rural and agricultural areas. In 

particular, we would encourage actions that streamline procedures for siting wireless tower infrastructure and installing conduit. We must ensure that all unnecessary barriers are removed, including delays and expense associated with permitting, 

federal, state and local siting approvals, and approvals to access highway and other 

rights of way. ‘‘Dig once’’ policies that avoid repeated excavations and the attendant 

costs delays, and disruptions, should be encouraged. 

Conclusion 

The future of our rural communities is closely linked to the strength of American 

agriculture. Today, the outlook for both is challenging but bright given the resourcefulness of American farmers, the advent of precision agriculture and other innovative farming technologies and the Nation’s extensive agricultural resources. Whether 

our rural communities are able to thrive in an increasingly technology-dependent 

world will be determined by whether we are successful in ensuring that agricultural 

operations have full access to advanced wireless services and technologies including 

high-speed broadband. 

I appreciate the opportunity to provide the Committee some perspective on this 

critically important topic. Thank you all for your work and engagement in exploring 

solutions. I look forward to answering your questions and being an ongoing resource 

to the Committee. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Reed. 

Mr. Morrison. 

STATEMENT OF BRUCE MORRISON, VICE PRESIDENT, 

OPERATIONS AND NETWORK BUILD, ERICSSON INC. 

Mr. MORRISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Mr. 

Nelson, and good morning to all the members of the Committee. 

My name is Bruce Morrison, and I lead the team that builds, deploys, and manages networks for Ericsson here in North America. 

That includes real estate acquisition and permitting tower erection, 

leads base-station radio installation, and everything in between. 

Ericsson has thousands of employees and subcontractors handling 

the deployment of broadband networks in the United States, including the integration of tens of thousands of communications 

sites in the last year alone. In my 15 years of infrastructure deployment, I have seen tremendous change in progress, and I look 

forward to sharing some of that experience with you here today. 

At Ericsson, we believe in a networked society, where individuals 

and industries are empowered to reach their full potential. Our infrastructure services and software enable and improve the efficiency of networks around the globe. Forty percent of the world’s 

mobile traffic is carried over an Ericsson network. Those metrics 

indicate just how far Ericsson has come since its founding, 139 

years ago. Back then, the Senate was made up of only 76 members, 

and the wonder known as Mount Rushmore wouldn’t break ground 

for another 50 years. As you can imagine, we have learned a great 

deal since then. 

Mr. Chairman, you understand the importance of networks driven by access deficient—sufficient spectrum, and we would like to 

applaud your efforts, and those of this entire committee, to identify 

28 

spectrum for licensed use. Licensed spectrum remains the best option available today to meet insatiable consumer demand. It also 

ensures that the networks we build and operate handle traffic as 

efficiently as possible. For example, underserved communities will 

benefit from the Federal Communications Commission upcoming 

600 megahertz auction, spectrum ideally suited for rural communities. That’s where the importance of unfettered infrastructure deployment, the subject of today’s hearing, comes into play. 

Decades ago, wireless deployment served only a narrow purpose 

for a narrow constituency. Today, it provides nearly limitless ways 

to make life easier for all people through the power of mobility. As 

we enter the next generation of 5G technology, we know that mobility encompasses more than telecommunications, and that includes enhanced user experience through the Internet of Things 

and enterprise applications such as utility smart grids. The key to 

all this, however, is connectivity through both access and coverage. 

Now more than ever we must think beyond our coverage bars on 

our phones and to bandwidth capable of streaming video, supporting wireless applications, and connecting smart appliances. 

With every innovation comes the need for more wireless infrastructure, and not simply the 300-foot-towers-along-the-highway variety. 

We’re talking about small cells, low-powered radio access points 

that mobile operators use to extend service coverage and increase 

network capacity on light and power poles, including building facades, and even on bus stops, all to provide connectivity on each 

city block. With spectrum being so scarce, it is small-cell technology 

that will allow you to launch your favorite application or stream a 

video in downtown Washington in the year 2020. 

Today, Ericsson’s focus is centered on delivering the highestquality speed and service to meet ever-increasing customer demand. Ericsson’s own statistics, released in August, cited a 55-percent growth in data traffic year-over-year between the second quarters of 2014 and 2015 alone. To help satisfy that need, we’re implementing new approaches, like using small cells and micro facilities 

installed on light and utility poles, upgrading existing antennas 

with better capacity and the ability to use multiple frequency 

ranges, replacing older T1 backhaul with higher-capacity fiber, and 

finally, deploying temporary facilities for festivals, parades, and 

sporting events to meet short-term demand. 

For its part, the Federal Government has made some important 

strides to help remove existing barriers to broadband deployment. 

For example, the FCC shot clock has reduced to months, a zoning 

and permitting approval process that often dragged on for years. In 

addition, Federal efforts to assist local jurisdictions to expedite the 

deployment of equipment for facilities that meet certain criteria 

have been very helpful. And, of course, Federal programs such as 

the Connect America Fund, or CAF, provide badly needed resources 

for broadband services in our rural communities. 

These efforts have been effective, but there’s still plenty more 

that can be done. In my submitted testimony, I provide in greater 

detail ways that Congress and the Federal Government can even— 

be even more helpful in removing barriers to deployment. But, for 

the purpose of this statement, I will highlight three key suggestions: streamlining access and jurisdictional processes for the inVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:44 May 10, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\20043.TXT JACKIE
29 

stallation and deployment of dark fiber and small-cell technology; 

streamlining access to light and utility bowls to standardize deployments; and finally, standardizing the application process for the deployment of wireless infrastructure on federally owned buildings 

and property, the idea incorporated into the Wireless Innovation 

Act. 

Mr. Chairman, these steps to reduce regulatory bureaucratic red 

tape may not sound terribly exciting, but they’re absolutely critical 

to our ability to carry out our vision and your vision to reduce the 

cost of deploying wireless broadband services. 

Looking ahead, the future is exciting and our mission remains 

clear: to transform networks, which will, in turn, transform businesses and communities, nations and governments, and, most importantly, lives. Ericsson remains committed to delivering on this 

promise, have a networked society, and looks forward to working 

with Congress and the Federal Government to accomplish that 

goal. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity today to be 

here, and I look forward to answering any questions the Committee 

may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Morrison follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRUCE MORRISON, VICE PRESIDENT, OPERATIONS AND

NETWORK BUILD, ERICSSON INC. 

Summary of Key Points 

• At Ericsson, we believe in a ‘‘Networked Society,’’ where individuals and industries are empowered to reach their full potential. 

• Licensed spectrum remains the best option available today to meet insatiable 

consumer demand. 

• Decades ago, wireless deployment served only a narrow purpose for a narrow 

constituency. Today, it provides nearly limitless ways to make life easier for all 

people through the power of mobility. 

• With every innovation comes the need for more wireless infrastructure such as 

small cells—low-powered radio access points that mobile operators use to extend 

service coverage and increase network capacity. 

• To help deliver the highest quality speed and service to meet ever-increasing 

demand, Ericsson is implementing new approaches like: 

» Using small cells and micro-facilities; 

» Upgrading existing antennas; 

» Installing high-capacity fiber; 

» Implementing new strategies for complex environments; and 

» Deploying temporary facilities to meet short-term demand. 

• For its part, the Federal Government has made some important strides to help 

remove existing barriers to broadband deployment such as the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) shot clock and ‘Connect America Fund’ (CAF) funding. 

• These efforts have been effective, but there is still plenty more that can be done, 

such as: 

» Streamlining access and jurisdictional processes for the installation and deployment of dark fiber and small cell technology; 

» Streamlining access to light and utility poles to standardize deployments; and 

» Standardizing the application process for the deployment of wireless infrastructure on federally-owned buildings and property, an idea incorporated 

into S. 1618, ‘‘The Wireless Innovation Act.’’ 

30 

• Ericsson remains committed to delivering on the promise of a networked society 

and looks forward to working with Congress and the Federal Government to accomplish that goal. 

Written Testimony of Bruce Morrison, Ericsson Inc. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to all the members of the Committee. I want to thank you for the kind invitation to be here today. 

My name is Bruce Morrison and I lead the team that builds, deploys, and manages networks for Ericsson here in North America. That includes real-estate acquisition and permitting, tower construction, radio base station installation, and everything in between. Ericsson has thousands of employees and subcontractors handling 

the deployment of broadband networks in the United States, including the integration of tens of thousands of communication sites in the last year alone. In my fifteen 

years of infrastructure deployment, I have seen tremendous change and progress, 

and I look forward to sharing some of that experience with you here today. 

At Ericsson, we believe in a ‘‘Networked Society,’’ where individuals and industries are empowered to reach their full potential. Our infrastructure, services, and 

software enable and improve the efficiency of networks around the globe. Forty percent of the world’s mobile traffic is carried over Ericsson networks. 

Those metrics indicate just how far Ericsson has come since its founding 139 

years ago. Back then, Senator Hannibal Hamlin, Abraham Lincoln’s Vice President, 

walked these very halls; the Senate was made up of only 76 members; and the wonder known as Mount Rushmore wouldn’t break ground for another 50 years. As you 

can imagine, we have learned a great deal since then. 

Mr. Chairman, you understand the importance of networks driven by access to 

sufficient spectrum. And we would like to applaud your efforts, and those of this 

entire committee, to identify spectrum for licensed use. Licensed spectrum remains 

the best option available today to meet insatiable consumer demand. It also ensures 

that the networks we build and operate handle traffic as efficiently as possible. For 

example, underserved communities will benefit from the Federal Communications 

Commission’s (FCC) upcoming 600Mhz auction, spectrum ideally suited for rural 

communities. That’s where the importance of unfettered infrastructure deployment, 

the subject of today’s hearing, comes into play. 

Decades ago, wireless deployment served only a narrow purpose for a narrow constituency. Today, it provides nearly limitless ways to make life easier for all people 

through the power of mobility. As we enter the next generation of 5G technology, 

we know that mobility encompasses more than telecommunications. It includes enhanced user experience through the ‘‘Internet of Things’’ and enterprise applications 

such as utility smart grids. The key to all of this, however, is connectivity through 

both access and coverage. 

Now, more than ever, we must think beyond the coverage bars on our phones to 

bandwidth capable of streaming video, supporting wireless applications, and connecting smart appliances. With every innovation comes the need for more wireless 

infrastructure and not simply the 300-foot-towers-along-the-highway variety. We’re 

talking about small cells—low-powered radio access points that mobile operators use 

to extend service coverage and increase network capacity—on light and power poles, 

building facades, and even bus stops, all to provide connectivity on each city block. 

With spectrum being so scarce, it is small-cell technology that will allow you to 

launch your favorite application or stream a video in downtown Washington in the 

year 2020. 

Today, Ericsson’s focus is centered on delivering the highest quality speed and 

service to meet ever-increasing demand. Ericsson’s own statistics, released in August, cited a 55 percent growth in data traffic year-over-year between the second 

quarters of 2014 and 2015 alone. To help satisfy that need, we are implementing 

new approaches like: 

• Using small cells and micro-facilities installed on light and utility poles; 

• Upgrading existing antennas with better capacity and the ability to use multiple frequency ranges; 

• Replacing older T1 backhaul with higher-capacity fiber; 

• Implementing new strategies for complex environments like stadiums; and 

• Deploying temporary facilities for festivals, parades, and sporting events to 

meet short term demand. 

For its part, the Federal Government has made some important strides to help 

remove existing barriers to broadband deployment. For example, the FCC’s shot 

clock has reduced to months, a zoning and permitting approval process that often 

dragged on for years. In addition, Federal efforts to assist local jurisdictions to expeVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:44 May 10, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\20043.TXT JACKIE
31 

dite the deployment of equipment for facilities that meet certain criteria have been 

very helpful. And of course, Federal programs such as the ‘‘Connect America Fund’’ 

or ‘‘CAF,’’ provide badly needed resources for broadband services in our rural communities. 

In addition, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 allowed jurisdictions to rewrite 

relevant rules which have allowed for cell site facilities. Many jurisdictions have 

also allowed a hierarchy for siting priority that streamlines deployment for facilities. 

Examples include: 

• Collocations on existing structures/buildings/water tanks that were exempt from 

zoning requirements; 

• Exemption from public hearing and public notice requirements for facilities that 

meet certain requirements; 

• Exemption or administrative review process for facilities in commercial or industry zoning classifications; 

• Exemption or administrative review process for facilities designed with stealth 

technology; 

• Expansion of new locations and designated contacts established for cell site facilities available on Federal and state land, on city and county parks, in utility 

districts (water tanks, power poles, transmission towers, etc.), and on right of 

ways. 

These efforts have been effective, but there is still plenty more that can be done 

by Congress and the Federal Government to help removing barriers to deployment. 

They include: 

• Streamlining access and jurisdictional processes for the installation and deployment of dark fiber and small cell technology; 

• Standardizing the application process for the deployment of wireless infrastructure on federally owned buildings and property, an idea incorporated into S. 

1618, The Wireless Innovation Act; 

• Streamlining access to light and utility poles to standardize deployments; 

• Distinguishing process requirements so that the installation of equipment on a 

flag pole isn’t considered the same as doing so at a stadium or a hospital; 

• Assisting jurisdictions to process the use of small cells; 

• Providing relief from onerous Federal requirements that lack technical descriptions; 

• Advancing a regulatory approach that allows the quick deployment of small 

cells in metropolitan jurisdictions; 

• Updating the current rules surrounding ‘‘Local Exchange Carriers’’ support and 

deployment requirements for backhaul; 

• Improving the ‘‘Mobility Fund’’ by targeting infrastructure funding to truly 

unserved areas. Senator Joe Manchin recently sent a letter to the FCC supporting this idea; 

• Improving the ‘‘Spectrum Relocation Fund’’ to increase its flexibility and to provide for new allowable uses of funds to facilitate improved spectrum planning 

and relocation while improving spectrum utilization. These reforms would hasten the transition of government spectrum for commercial use which we strongly endorse. Senators Jerry Moran and Mark Udall recently sent a letter to the 

Office of Management and Budget outlining areas where improvements can be 

made; 

• Developing requirements or support for shared infrastructure and hardening. 

For example, at a typical cellular tower, each wireless carrier has its own generator. Shared infrastructure would mean that only one generator is required per 

site; and 

• Implementing a requirement to incorporate dark fiber or green field (empty) 

conduit attached to all federally-funded roadway projects. 

Mr. Chairman, these are just a few areas where Congress could assist infrastructure companies like Ericsson in carrying out your vision to ‘‘reduce the cost of deploying wireless broadband services.’’ 

Looking ahead, the future is exciting and our mission remains clear—to transform 

networks which will in turn transform businesses and communities, nations and 

governments, and most importantly, lives. Ericsson remains committed to delivering 

on the promise of a networked society and looks forward to working with Congress 

and the Federal Government to accomplish that goal. 

32 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to be here today and I look 

forward to answering any questions the Committee has. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Morrison. 

We’ll proceed to 5-minute rounds of questions. 

And I would just point out that this particular tool [holds up 

smartphone] right here, if connected, is a very powerful tool that 

can keep me, hopefully, if I know how to use it, somewhat productive. But, without the infrastructure and facilities to support it, it’s 

really nothing more than an expensive paperweight. And that’s 

why the discussion that we’re having here today is so important in 

the overall goal that we have of further getting deployment of 

broadband across this country. 

And, with that in mind, I wanted to turn to Mr. Reed for just 

a moment. Rural America is well represented on this panel. And 

so, we understand the unique challenges that are faced in these 

areas when attempting to spur growth in and ensure the vitality 

of America’s rural economies. So, as such, your mention of a rural 

technology gap is quite concerning. And you note that cost for infrastructure, land acquisition, and rights-of-way for rural 

broadband deployment are higher than in urban areas, which I 

have to say seems somewhat counterintuitive. So, could you perhaps elaborate or address the cause of these costs and the associated impact on our Nation’s agricultural sector? 

Mr. REED. Yes, I can probably best describe the demand side of 

what’s driving the need, and potentially talk a little bit about the 

cost. 

On the need side, agriculture is going through a transformation, 

and the competitiveness of that industry is enabled through these 

services. Customers who in the past—and producers who in the 

past—have farmed on the average across their operation are today 

employing technologies that allow them to farm their fields in subinch level of accuracy, applying just the right amount of nutrient, 

the right amount of seed, the right amount of water to get the best 

response for both agricultural productivity, increase in yield, as 

well as cost management, not to mention the environmental effects. 

What this has created is an increasing demand on the infrastructure across rural America. That infrastructure’s been met with the 

need to expand it. And along that expansion, it—a lot of the incentives available for carriers to do that are not available to them to 

extend their coverage areas into rural America. 

Our proposal would include including cropland as a metric for 

how we determine and use funds available to providers and coverage areas and understand the coverage of rural America. Reducing—we need to reduce the overall cost associated with siting new 

facilities for those areas. Technically, what’s happening is, increasing numbers of machines—it’s not just the population; the rural 

employment is a very small number, overall, of people, but the machines that are going out with these technologies are increasing at 

increasing levels. Every large ag piece of equipment going into the 

North American market today is going out equipped with a 3G 

modem. In the future, it’ll be 4G and, in the future, 5G. There’s a 

lot of talk of the auto industry’s approach to this. This has been 

going on in agriculture for nearly a decade. What that’s created is 

tremendous potential, but also tremendous need and demand on 

33 

the infrastructure that doesn’t always cover those areas of the 

country, because people now are the primary metric. And, while 

there are certainly people in communities that depend on that technology, the population is disproportionate to the economic impact 

and the drivers for production agriculture. 

The CHAIRMAN. So, yes, and you’re primarily talking about government programs or forms of public assistance that are more—— 

Mr. REED. Universal Service Fund, the Mobility Fund, those 

types of funds that are made available for the increase and extension of that infrastructure to not only meet the current demand, 

but to keep up with what we expect is an increasing growth in demand in the rural community. 

The CHAIRMAN. It just seems that the planned acquisition, rightof-way, those sorts of things shouldn’t be as much of a obstacle, you 

might characterize it that way, as it would be in a more urban setting. That was, I guess, what I was trying to sort of get at there. 

Mr. Adelstein, in your testimony, you stressed the need to alleviate roadblocks to wireless siting at the local level. And you have 

specifically proposed removing requirements that a provider demonstrate proof of need or show a gap in service when siting a wireless facility due to the subjective nature of these determinations. 

So, I guess the question is, How, specifically, would you propose 

changing the law to remove these deployment barriers while still 

preserving the right of localities to have a corresponding role in the 

siting process at the local level? 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Well, Mr. Chairman, we would propose eliminating the gap-in-service test in Sections 332 and 253 of the Act. 

I think that Mayor Resnick is exactly right, there is a major role 

for localities in making sure that their consumers’ needs are met, 

but is that role extending to deciding where service is needed? In 

the old days, people would say, ‘‘Well, there’s no coverage here, so 

we need coverage, because there’s no bars.’’ But, we’ve moved from 

a coverage era to a capacity era. And now what’s really driving investment is the need to meet that capacity. So, an extremely complex decision made by our radio-frequency engineers of the carriers 

and infrastructure providers that determine where there’s going to 

be capacity, where there’s going to be demand for it that’s going to 

exceed that capacity. And it’s something that’s not really in the expertise of local communities. For them to second-guess and say, 

‘‘Oh, there’s no business case here, there’s no need, there’s no gap 

in service. I see bars on the phone’’—literally, we’ve heard of consultants running around with a phone, saying, ‘‘You know, this 

phone works.’’ But, they don’t understand the complexities that go 

into it, nor should they; that’s not the role of localities. There’s an 

important role for them, I don’t think that’s one of them. And hopefully we could reach agreement with them on that. 

Many localities don’t do this. Let’s, you know, put—make this 

clear, that it’s those that are the sort of bad actors, the ones that 

are dragging their heels. Many local communities—and Mayor 

Resnick has said—have really gotten on it. Ten states have passed 

laws. But, those that are using this kind of an excuse to delay deployment, I think, is something that the Act could resolve. 

34 

The CHAIRMAN. All right, and I’ll come back to some other questions later, but right now I’ll turn to Senator Nelson because my 

time’s expired. 

Senator NELSON. Mr. Reed, when you were talking, it occurred 

to me—Is John Deere planning for the future of driverless tractors? 

Mr. REED. So, agriculture has gone through tremendous change, 

and that change started with mechanization. Automation is the 

next of that phase, but, ultimately, optimization through information systems. We’ve, in fact, in your home state, been operating autonomous vehicles in confined situations in orchards for a number 

of years. That technology exists today. The ability to automate at 

that level exists today. And it has enabled, through both the use 

of GPS technology, machine-to-machine communication, machineto-farm and to carrier-type technologies. So, the answer is yes. 

Senator NELSON. And would the wireless technology, in addition 

to the GPS if you’re operating directly off the satellite—does that 

enhance the ability for—— 

Mr. REED. It—yes—absolutely enhances the ability. They’re complementary to one another. What wireless cannot do is give the 

level of precision of GPS. With GPS, we’re able to get to sub-inchlevel accuracy—— 

Senator NELSON. Right. 

Mr. REED.—within 2 centimeters of accuracy. What wireless does 

is allow broad access to data communications on and off of the machine, which supplements that and moves both machine and agronomic data on and off of machines to both raise production and 

lower cost. 

Senator NELSON. So, Mr. Chairman, you could be a gentlemen 

farmer. You could be plowing your field while you’re sitting back 

drinking your cup of coffee in the farmhouse. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. That’s the kind of farming I would like, yes. 

Senator NELSON. Mr. Adelstein, what has this shift in technology 

meant for infrastructure siting? Is it more difficult or is it easier 

to get approvals for small cells? 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Well, we’re working closely with the FCC on 

small cells to facilitate deployment of them and distribute antenna 

systems. And I think the FCC’s made some progress trying to make 

sure that there’s a ability to get it sited on poles, in particular. We 

find that, inside of buildings, there’s no real regulatory issues. It’s 

more the outside deployments that can run into issues. And we 

want to make sure that we respect historical and local concerns, 

but, at the same time, we need to facilitate small cells. 

So, I think that, you know, localities are increasingly getting it. 

I have to hand it to Mayor Resnick and the others that—they have 

these devices, too, and they know, as he said, what it means to 

their communities. So, we’re seeing a number of states act to facilitate deployment. We’re seeing some localities do it. But, there are 

some that don’t, and that, for some reason, resist. And those are 

the ones I think we need to sort of bring everybody up to the excellent level of those that recognize that this is essential to their communities. And the shift to small cell and DAS is because of this capacity issue I was talking about. That’s targeting in, particularly, 

urban areas, many of which, in your State, require more capacity 

35 

in downtown or dense areas, where there might not be room for a 

macro tower, a smaller cell. 

Senator NELSON. Mr. Mayor, tell me, how has the availability of 

small cell technology affected the local review of the siting process? 

Put your microphone on, please. 

Mr. RESNICK. All right, thank you. 

As Mr. Adelstein said, many local governments and states have 

amended their codes and how they process applications, particularly for small cells. We generally encourage and support co-location. And so, if small cells can co-locate on existing facilities, 

whether they’re buildings or existing towers in the rights-of-way or 

towers on other property, that’s certainly an easier review for local 

governments. Generally, it’s just an administrative permitting review, and that’s it. There’s not a public hearing required for review 

of co-locations in those circumstances. 

So, many local governments actually need more education as to 

how small cells work, how they’re going to be deployed, and how 

they can support the communications services in their communities. 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, could I just add one point to that, 

which is that sometimes localities are telling us, ‘‘Hey, you could 

put a DAS system or a small cell system in, when a macro tower 

might make a lot more sense.’’ It’s a lot more expensive, it doesn’t 

provide the same level of coverage. And that’s an area where we 

get a little bit concerned about it. They try to dictate what the 

technology is as most efficient. Frankly, there’s not enough capital 

to go around, and we need to do this as efficiently as possible. 

Sometimes—— 

Senator NELSON. Are we getting to the point, for our local elected 

officials, that the technology has advanced so much that the harassment and the huge controversies that would occur over the big 

tower that was so ugly, that now you’ve got this capability of putting these small cells that are almost undetectable—have we gotten 

to that point, Mr. Mayor? 

Mr. RESNICK. Well, I still see, and I hear from my colleagues, 

that there still are plenty of applications for large towers. Yes, the 

small-cell technology seems to be growing and does offer a lot of alternatives to constructing these huge towers, which have a lot of 

issues, have a lot of problems, but the applications for large towers 

actually is not diminished, at least with respect to the communities 

that I’m familiar with in Florida. And NLC is indicated, as well, 

around the country. They’re still—it seems, actually, to be growing 

now, the need for the industry to want to construct large towers, 

as opposed to small cells. 

Senator NELSON. Well, when you get a controversy over a large 

tower, do you have any magic solutions on this? 

Mr. RESNICK. Generally—a lot of local governments do. And 

many local governments have actually been proactive in this matter. My city, for example, has a large tower that we rented park 

space to construct the tower on, and that worked out well, because 

it’s camouflaged facility, it’s actually a—it’s used as a light structure in a ballfield, so it fits with the design of our facility where 

we rented it. It works for the three carriers that are on it, in terms 

of providing coverage. When we redid the park—we just spent a 

36 

million and a half dollars to redo the park—it still fit into the plans 

for the park. And many, many communities are doing that, they’re 

proactively identifying locations within their communities where 

they would like to see towers build. They’re not saying, necessarily, 

‘‘If you apply, we’re going to approve it in that area,’’ but they’re 

being proactive about identifying areas where they think it would 

be appropriate to construct towers, which also the industry likes, 

because it can streamline the approval process. Communities are 

identifying those locations, having a sense already of whether 

there’s going to be a lot of public opposition. And so, it could 

streamline the public hearing process. And it often can give the 

carriers access to residential areas, where they wouldn’t ordinarily 

be able to find sites. Like, for example—and you may be familiar 

with this, Senator, but Miami Dade County School District, which 

is one of the largest school districts in the country—I think it’s the 

fourth-largest school district in the country—has made a policy decision to rent school sites for towers. The carriers and the infrastructure companies would not otherwise get access in those residential areas for towers. They’re adjacent, for the most part, to single-family homes. But, this gives them access to property as well 

as coverage in areas where they ordinarily would not have coverage. 

So, yes, in answer to your question, local governments around 

the country are coming up with their own innovative ways to support large towers, which still need to be constructed. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Nelson. 

Senator Wicker. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER F. WICKER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI 

Senator WICKER. Thank you. 

Mayor Resnick, I appreciate your testimony. You mentioned that, 

as a result of a collaborative effort, there might be delays in wireless deployment. What is it about the collaborative effort that 

would stand in the way of wireless deployment? 

Mr. RESNICK. I’m not sure I meant to say that collaboration between local governments and the industry would result in delays, 

but that delays can come from either party. I mean, we’ve seen tremendous changes in the industry side with respect to technology, 

how the industry is structured, et cetera, that we’ve seen, at the 

local level, result in delays in deployment. For example, a community I work with has had numerous applications from various carriers to co-locate antennas on existing towers in that community, 

and then they ask the community to stop processing those applications because the industry—that applicant—is going through a 

change of structure, ownership, whatever. And often those requests 

for delays will sit for months, years, whatever, until they determine 

what they’re doing, who’s acquiring them, who they’re acquiring, 

and whether they still need that site, or not. So, it’s not a collaboration between local governments and the industry that causes 

delays, but it could be delays as a result of different things occurring in the industry. 

Senator WICKER. Do you have any suggestions for us in that regard? 

37 

Mr. RESNICK. That’s a great question. 

Senator WICKER. You can take that for the record. 

Mr. RESNICK. All right, thank you. 

Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, could I add to this subject? 

Senator WICKER. Briefly, yes. 

Mr. MORRISON. The Mayor is right, there are still applications 

coming in for the larger towers. However, Mr. Nelson also pointed 

out, ‘‘Is there a difference between the large towers, which 

everybody’s familiar with, and small cells?’’ And there is. Again, I 

would argue that the—or make a point that I did in my testimony 

that the jurisdictions are actually getting more wireless-friendly. 

And we have a defined process. It’s a defined timeline. It’s gone 

from being a 2 to, you know, year process, it’s down to months. So, 

we thank the local jurisdictions for that. 

However, when we do talk small cell, if you just go outside on 

any urban street, you’ll see the light poles. You know, we’re looking 

to go on every third light pole. So, what we would argue is that, 

you know, putting a, you know, less-than 3-foot, less-than 90 pound 

piece of equipment shouldn’t have the same process or timeline to 

put up a 300 foot site. So, again, it is industry’s job, but we also 

need the Federal Government to help support us, you know, get 

that message across that the applications are very different, moving forward. 

Thank you. 

Senator WICKER. That makes sense to me. 

Mr. Kinkoph, given the challenges of achieving sufficient mobile 

broadband coverage over the Nation’s vast rural areas, how will 

FirstNet assure that public safety personnel in smaller cities and 

rural communities have reasonably comparable access to the devices and coverage? 

Mr. KINKOPH. First, that is an independent agency within NTIA, 

and it doesn’t fall within my area of responsibility, but I would be 

happy to take back your question to FirstNet. 

[Mr. Kinkoph later replied as follows:] 

Congress created FirstNet as an independent authority within NTIA responsible 

for deploying a nationwide, interoperable public safety broadband network. FirstNet 

reports that it has taken significant steps to meet the requirements set forth in the 

Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, such as substantial rural coverage milestones in each phase of the network’s deployment. These steps have included holding 55 state/territory consultations and collecting over 11,000 data surveys from states and territories to learn directly from public safety where they need 

coverage, how many and what kinds of devices they may need, as well as their rural 

deployment priorities. 

Additionally, FirstNet has held numerous industry days to engage with rural telecommunications providers and associations to understand their capabilities and 

gauge their interest in participating in the deployment of the FirstNet network. 

These industry days are aimed at fostering creative solutions to public safety needs 

and encouraging partnerships among a diverse set of organizations. FirstNet has 

also taken steps to ensure that partnerships with rural telecommunications providers are part of the evaluation criteria for the upcoming nationwide Request for 

Proposals (RFP) that will be key to deploying the nationwide network. 

Senator WICKER. OK. So, we’ll take that for the record. 

Let me get back to John Deere. You know, I—Mr. Reed, I’ve been 

trying to wrap my brain around precision agriculture for 15 years 

now. It’s absolutely fascinating. We’re going to need to feed and 

38 

clothe billions of more people in the world. And precision agriculture is part of that, don’t you agree? 

Mr. REED. It’s absolutely part of it. It’s one of the critical 

enablers with population growth and the needs for increasing productivity. We’re able to use this technology to actually put the precise correct amount of seed, nutrients, water, herbicides, crop protection products down only where and when it’s needed. 

Senator WICKER. So, Senator Thune is sitting in his air-conditioned, huge, multiple-hundred-thousand-dollar implement in 

South Dakota, drinking his cup of coffee, and there is an inch of 

soil, I think you’ve said, and the first half-inch of that soil needs 

more herbicide than the second half-inch of soil. Is that what you’re 

saying? Or more water or—— 

Mr. REED. Yes. 

Senator WICKER.—or less fertilizer—— 

Mr. REED. It’s a continuum. Historically, most of farming’s been 

done on the average across the farm—average number of seeds— 

30,000 seeds of corn or 200 pounds of nitrogen. What’s happening 

is, the tools—the connectivity and the analysis tools and the flowing data have allowed us to prescribe to higher and higher levels 

of resolution the precise amount of input and need, down to the 

local level. And that moved from acre to square meter. And in institutions like Purdue or University of Illinois, they’re working on 

crop-level, plant-level sensing so that you can provide to the plant 

exactly what it needs. That’s the future. Today, largely that’s done 

at the acre or even square meter level. We’re getting to the point 

where it’s moving even higher resolution down, potentially, to the 

individual plant level. 

Senator WICKER. OK. Can you tell us, when you talk about these 

gaps, what you wish FCC would do and what you wish Congress 

would do to help us with these gaps? 

Mr. REED. I think there are a number of things. You know, we 

mentioned earlier the cost. Often, the cost is evaluated on a percapita basis, not as a lens of what’s it enabling, in terms of the industry, and cropland being one of those. The opportunity to expand 

coverage to cropland and expand the use of funds to ensure that 

cropland is considered as one of the coverage factors is extremely 

important. To sustain and use the Universal Service Fund to extend support for middle-mile capacity, each one of these—each one 

of these systems in the geography requires a middle-mile carrier to 

take that information back and to communicate it back. The ability 

to increase the Mobility Fund—most of these—and there’s a lot of 

plans that allow for wired facilities, wired broadband into local agricultural communities. These are roving machines. These are wireless machines that need the same connectivity you’d have in a mobile phone to be able to connect to those machines. The Mobility 

Fund is extremely important. And allow rural carriers to retain 

their support when they offer standalone broadband that might be 

decoupled from telephone services. This service is unique from that. 

And those same rules should apply for standalones—allow delivery 

to standalone broadband technology. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you very much. 

And thank you all. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Wicker. 

39 

Senator Moran. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MORAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS 

Senator MORAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

Let me address my question, initially, to Mr. Morrison. Senator 

Udall and I, along with a number of members of this committee 

back in April, wrote a letter to the Office of Management and 

Budget asking them about how they would suggest we improve the 

Spectrum Reallocation Fund. You’ve mentioned that letter in your 

testimony. Pleasing to me is, OMB responded in a very specific and 

detailed way. It appeared to me they didn’t just treat this as a typical congressional response, and I value the input that they’re providing. The end goal, here, is to introduce legislation that deals 

with the issues that they raise, and others, on the topic of spectrum. 

What I want you to do is to tell me, about Ericsson or others, 

what the industry is doing to make mobile broadband technologies 

more spectrally efficient, and what the result of that could mean, 

as far as availability of spectrum. 

Mr. MORRISON. That’s a very good question, Senator. 

Ericsson, like other vendors, has worked with many operators 

that have limited spectrum holdings. And that has forced us and 

the rest of the industry to come up with innovative technologies for 

maximizing spectral efficiency in order to keep up with mobile 

broadband traffic growth. For example, techniques such as carrier 

aggregation, multiple antenna, MIMO—which is multiple input, 

multiple output—network coordination, and LTE broadcast. It allows us to increase LTE network capacity and to deliver high-definition video more efficiently without adding new spectrum or new 

cell site locations. 

Network efficiency is continually improving with each new software release, and there are more technology innovations to come. 

However, these technologies do have their limits, and so it’s important that we continue to explore the ways to free up more spectrum 

for mobile broadband services even as we continue to introduce 

more efficient radio technology. 

Senator MORAN. I think what you’re saying is that spectrum efficiency is valuable, important, creates a greater opportunity to use 

less spectrum in specific applications, but it isn’t the total solution 

to availability of spectrum. We still need access to additional spectrum. That correct? 

Mr. MORRISON. That’s spot on. The bottom line is that, as a product manufacturer, our customers expect us to be as efficient as possible with the equipment we provide. However, there are limitations. Again, we are looking towards 5G and, again, you know, the 

benefits that it will bring, from an efficiency perspective, but, at 

the end of the day, we need more spectrum. 

Senator MORAN. Mr. Adelstein indicated he’d like to respond. 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Yes. Well, there’s really three basic ways you can 

get more throughput on existing spectrum. There’s additional spectrum. There’s better technology, which Mr. Morrison was talking 

about. And there’s infrastructure, a subject of today’s hearing. Now, 

infrastructure, if you densify the network and put more cell sites 

40 

in, you can reuse the same spectrum over and over again. So, 

roughly, if you put ten times as many cell sites in one little area, 

you can get ten times the throughput. Not exactly, but it’s very 

roughly that way. 

If you look at the three different, basically, leverage you can use 

to get more throughput to address the fact that we have 700-percent increase in demand over the next 5 years projected, technology, we expect, will be maybe 100 percent of that. We just sold 

$45 billion worth of spectrum that you enacted the ability of FCC 

to sell. Twelve percent additional spectrum went into that—12 percent more. So, for $45 billion, we got 12 percent. So, there’s—12 

percent, you got 100 percent, we’re still down to 588 percent of that 

700 percent to deal with. And, largely, I think, in the next 5 years, 

infrastructure is going to play the key role for that. And I think 

that’s why this hearing is so critical today. 

Senator MORAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Kinkoph, what can you learn from the private sector, as far 

as efficiencies? 

Mr. KINKOPH. Well, I—from an NTIA standpoint, the spectrum 

area does not fall in my area of responsibility, but NTIA is currently working on the directive from the President to allocate or 

identify 500 more megahertz of spectrum. And I—my understanding is, they’re about halfway to that. So, I think that’s a critical step in ensuring that, over the—by 2020—— 

Senator MORAN. When is that to be concluded? 

Mr. KINKOPH. By 2020 was the directive. I’d be happy, though, 

to have our spectrum folks that are working on that meet—— 

Senator MORAN. And I may have interrupted something you 

else—something else you wanted to say. 

Mr. KINKOPH. No, I think we’re good. 

Senator MORAN. OK. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Moran. 

Senator Gardner. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CORY GARDNER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you all for being here today. 

Mr. Reed, I wanted to talk a little bit more about agriculture 

broadband needs. And, you know, I can remember when we started 

in the—first with precision farming, that we would sell subscriptions to a satellite to try to get it if you didn’t have a Coast Guard 

beacon nearby, where you could do some of the work on positioning. 

And, of course, I know in your testimony you stated you had a 6- 

month pilot study that found precision ag improved overall crop 

productivity by 15 percent. I would note that if you used red tractors, not green tractors, that would be 20 percent increase in productivity. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator GARDNER. But, appreciate the willingness to—as a red 

tractor dealer, I have to continue to get my jabs in on the green 

guys. So—— 

[Laughter.] 

41 

Senator GARDNER.—thank you for letting me do that. I’m just 

kidding. 

But, wanted to just maybe get a bigger picture of what—when 

you pull into a field—when a farmer pulls into a field and they’re 

either, you know, going in with a combine—and what happens to 

that combine, or maybe a planting is a better example—what happens, if you don’t have adequate broadband, to that farmer? 

Mr. REED. We can use either of those examples. Essentially, the 

system for communicating, if it’s not available, a lot of the tools 

available to give customers a more precise use over the land start 

to get very difficult to use. It reverts to manual approaches of 

phone calls, people walking on and off of machines, using data 

sticks, providers having to drive trucks and infrastructure out to 

connect with the machines to take soil samples. The things that 

are automated today are possible in a manual state, they’re just 

not scalable that way. 

So, today, as the tractor enters the field to plant, the prescription 

for seed delivery, for nutrient delivery, is wirelessly loaded onto the 

machine. They press a button, and it, in an automated fashion, executes that prescription across the field. That’s the state-of-the-art 

today. And that’s only available when there’s communication available to sync between that roving machine and a network that allows it to move back and forth freely. 

Senator GARDNER. You know, one of the highest costs, obviously, 

for a farmer are the inputs to the fertilizer and others that they 

put into the field. And before precision agriculture, before the ability to really prescribe fertilization application for your particular 

farm, based on precision farming capabilities, how many times did 

the co-op, the local co-op come out and have a tank of fertilizer, and 

that tank was always empty by the time it left the farm. Now, with 

precision agriculture, that tank isn’t always empty. There may be 

some left over, which means we’re doing a much better job of managing our inputs, managing costs, and it’s better for the environment that way. 

Mr. REED. I think you point out two benefits, both the cost of— 

both the economics and the environmental side of this are aligned, 

in that, when we use only the nutrients required or only the seed 

required or only the crop protection required in a given acre, it’s 

both a cost effect for the production cost side, the competitiveness 

of the industry, it’s also very much an environmental effect, which 

is only using what’s necessary to grow the productivity. Not only 

can they use less, but, ultimately, by putting what’s needed in the 

right place, they can grow more using those same inputs. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Reed. 

Mr. Kinkoph, the Wireless Innovation Act, which Senator Rubio 

introduced and I’m cosponsoring, requires NTIA, in consultation 

with the Commission and the Director of the Office of Management 

and Budget, to develop a framework for determining the commercial value of each Federal spectrum band. Further, every 5 years, 

the bill requires agencies that use Federal spectrum to compare the 

opportunity cost of that spectrum to the projected cost of relocating—co-locating, leasing, or contracting out their spectrum use 

to a commercial provider. Do the agencies have the tools on hand 

right now that they need to do that sort of economic analysis? 

42 

Mr. KINKOPH. As I’ve indicated, spectrum does not fall into my 

area of responsibility, but I would be happy to take that back to 

our spectrum team and—— 

Senator GARDNER. Fantastic. If you’d do that for the record, that 

would be great. 

[Mr. Kinkoph replied as follows:] 

While NTIA is not in a position to evaluate the resources of other agencies, it is 

highly unlikely that many agencies that use Federal spectrum currently possess the 

tools, expertise, or relevant information needed to conduct the expansive economic 

analysis required under the proposed framework. NTIA does not currently have the 

expertise or resources to develop the framework required by the proposed legislation. 

There are numerous challenges in even considering the development of such a 

framework. Besides requiring a very large commitment of resources, one of the challenges with developing and implementing the proposed framework is the lack of 

quantifiable data necessary to account for the value of each Federal agency’s congressionally-mandated mission. Under statutory changes enacted in 2012, NTIA is 

responsible for balancing ‘‘the best possible and most efficient use of electromagnetic 

spectrum resources across the Federal Government. . .with the needs and missions 

of Federal agencies.’’ (47 U.S.C. § 902(b)(2)(U), added by Pub. L. 112–96, title VI, 

§ 6410, 126 Stat. 234 (2012)) Determining the opportunity cost of Federal spectrum 

based on the potential commercial value of the spectrum alone would not adequately 

account for or incorporate the social value of the government missions or programs 

that rely on this spectrum. The economic and non-economic societal benefits from 

meeting the public interest goals that led to Congress mandating and funding an 

agency’s spectrum-dependent missions are difficult to quantify in economic terms. 

Consequently, quantifying the economic value to ‘‘the highest commercial alternative use’’ would not provide an informative proxy for assessing the total social and 

economic value of a Federal spectrum assignment. Additionally, since in most cases 

it is not a single Federal agency utilizing a spectrum band, allocating economic 

value between the various agency uses would be challenging. 

Even if a framework for determining opportunity cost is developed and implemented for a given Federal band, it does not resolve whether it is possible and or 

practicable to make spectrum available while still ensuring no loss of mission or capability to the Federal agencies. Nearly every band used by the Federal Government 

is shared among several agencies and developing a relocation or sharing plan with 

associated costs is difficult, time consuming, and resource intensive., Requiring the 

agencies to determine potential relocation or sharing costs for every Federal system 

in every band in which the agencies operate is not practicable and may not lead 

to a scenario where a comparative cost analysis is possible. 

Senator GARDNER. And you may or may not be able to answer 

this. OMB and NTIA currently, are they working with the agencies 

so they understand the economic value of their spectrum use? 

Mr. KINKOPH. I would also have to take that question back for 

you. 

[Mr. Kinkoph replied as follows:] 

As directed in a 2013 Presidential Memorandum, the Administration is continuing 

to work with the Federal agencies, through the White House Spectrum Policy Team 

and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to evaluate spectrum efficiency 

in procurements and market-based incentives for the efficient use of Federal spectrum. For years, OMB guidance in Circular A–11 has instructed Federal agencies 

to consider the economic value of spectrum in weighing alternative proposals for deploying spectrum-based services. This guidance is intended to ensure proper stewardship of the spectrum resource and requires a certification from NTIA for the development or procurement of major spectrum-dependent systems (and all satellite 

systems) using congressionally appropriated funds. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you. 

And another question to you. The Broadband Opportunity Council recommended the expediting of permitting on Federal lands. 

Was the Council able to do a comparison of Federal agencies and 

43 

their efficiencies—or inefficiencies and determine why some are 

better than others? 

Mr. KINKOPH. No, that was not part of the review by the 

Broadband Opportunity Council. However, they are taking on and 

continuing on the 1316 616 work to ensure that we look at—and 

also the historical preservation to ensure that we kind of expedite 

the current permitting process. 

Senator GARDNER. And were you able to come up with a list of 

your series of best practices as a result of that? 

Mr. KINKOPH. That would be part of the work that will be ongoing now that the report has been released. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you. 

And, Mr. Adelstein, as you may know, Senators Klobuchar, 

Daines, and I plan to introduce a broadband infrastructure bill that 

promises a ‘‘dig once’’ policy to couple broadband expansion with 

new highway construction and improve the broadband siting process on Federal lands. In your testimony, you described the current 

process of installing and improving broadband infrastructure on 

Federal lands as byzantine, and argue that you need predictability 

and consistency to encourage investment in this space. Do you believe our legislation would move us toward these goals, if you’re familiar with it, and simplify the current process? And what does 

that mean for broadband investment and infrastructure? 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Absolutely. We support the Klobuchar-Gardner 

bill. I think it’s a fantastic idea. It requires broadband conduits to 

be installed as part of certain highway construction projects. I 

think that’s important for rural and urban areas alike. It’s to—designed to reduce the number of repeated excavations that are required, lowers the costs for deployment by avoiding duplicative 

Federal reviews and the need for multiple permits for work performed at the same location. I think it assists in connecting wireless facilities to larger network by getting those conduits in place. 

As demand increases, we’ll be able to use those to move forward, 

whether it’s for macro cell towers, DAS, or small cells that we 

talked about earlier. All of these facilities require backhaul. Basically, the wireless antenna’s got to get back to the wired network, 

and these conduits that you would enable through your legislation 

will facilitate that. So, I think it would be very important legislation to promote broadband deployment. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Gardner. 

Senator Daines. 

STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE DAINES, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Couple of weeks ago, we had a high-tech job summit in my hometown of Bozeman. Six hundred people showed up. Couple of our 

keynote speakers—one was Dr. Craig Barrett, of Intel fame, joined 

Intel in 1974, rose, became CEO 1998, and served as CEO til 2005. 

We had Doug Burgum there, of Intel, of—which, when it went 

through the—really, the high-growth phase—we had Doug Burgum 

there, the founder of Great Plains Software, as keynotes. And why 

44 

were they in Montana, keynoting an event? Because they were on 

their way to hunt, with their bows, elk and mule deer. And you 

have an intersection now of elk and electrons that are creating this 

revolution going on in the high-tech world, this high-tech ecosystem 

that we are seeing across much of western Montana. 

But, one of the challenges that we face, certainly, is broadband 

and connectivity. In fact, this year members of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation will have, finally, access to 3G service for 

the first time. So, we’re not fighting for 4G and 5G right now in 

parts of Montana, we’re happy to get to 3G at this moment here, 

and the Northern Cheyenne finally will have access to it. But, the 

fact is, many of our rural consumers and our tribes lack access to 

basic service and access to any kind of broadband on most tribal 

lands in Montana. It’s virtually nonexistent. 

And we’ve seen these high-tech jobs are growing ten times faster 

than other sectors in our economy, at least in Montana. And 

they’re paying twice our average wages that we see in our state. 

So, I want to start with Mr. Adelstein. In your testimony, you 

mentioned PCIA’s involvement in working with tribal leaders. Can 

you tell me specifically what PCIA has done to work with tribal 

communities? And what are the biggest barriers to broadband deployment on tribal lands? 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Yes, you’re certainly correct, Senator Daines, 

that tribal areas are the most difficult to serve. I mean, Chairman 

Thune and I are from South Dakota. We’ve seen the—both the potential and the challenges in tribal areas in our state. They’re most 

in need of broadband because of the economic challenges they face, 

and yet they’re the most difficult to build in. Part of it has to do 

with the land law and the fact that those parcels are divided up, 

so it’s very hard to get access to rights-of-way. PCIA has participated in the FCC’s annual workshops on this, and the FCC’s made 

a real effort to try to help. We would love to serve tribal lands, but 

these processes can be—make it very, very difficult to do so. 

We also are having issues, increasingly, with tribes in areas that 

aren’t tribal areas, in getting their approval to site new builds because of some of the review processes that we think need to be 

streamlined somewhat. So, we’d like to work with tribes on both 

getting broadband to their communities as well as to all communities in the country, and respecting tribal sovereignty and respecting the historic preservation needs. At the same time, the need to 

get broadband out is essential. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you. 

Mr. Kinkoph, question. Your testimony states that past partnerships with tribal authorities have been effective. Is NTIA working 

to form these partnerships and help facilitate projects in other 

states like Montana to connect these tribal communities? 

Mr. KINKOPH. Yes. We’ve, through our BTOP program, connected 

eight different tribal networks throughout the United States. And 

we continue to provide technical assistance, as needed, through 

Broadband USA. We’re currently working with Merritt Networks, 

up in Michigan and Wisconsin area, with some of the tribes to help 

them with their current connection issues. 

I think the Broadband Opportunity Council, though, presents 

several options to helping move this issue forward. And one is—the 

45 

first one is, the DOI is looking to conduct a tribal summit on 

broadband with—throughout the United States. So, bring in the 

tribes and have a sitdown and a discussion on broadband issues 

that they’re facing across the United States. And that would be a 

multi-agency summit. 

Second, the DOI has stepped up and has agreed to launch an 

interagency tribal school tech initiative to help bring more technology into the tribal schools. 

Third, there is the DOL, which has agreed to start to expand 

tech-based job training into the tribal lands. 

And then the fourth one that is part of the BOC is that DOI is 

looking to make available the 4,000 towers that they own on tribal 

and rural land available to the private industry, which I think will 

go a long way in bringing connectivity to some of those areas. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you. That’s a good update. Appreciate it. 

I want to, as I close here—run out of time—Mr. Morrison, your 

testimony talked about the importance of a networked society. I 

couldn’t agree more. We’ve seen what happens in places like southwest Montana, where you have a blue ribbon trout stream in your 

backyard, and you have connectivity—you can work where you also 

like to play, as we say in Montana. Congress needs to do away with 

the regulatory roadblocks, and helping these communities streamline investment for broadband infrastructure is one of the key components. Senator Gardner mentioned the bill he’ll be introducing 

with Senator Klobuchar to address these roadblocks. 

What can Congress, the Federal Government, do to incentivize 

companies to build out rural America? 

Mr. MORRISON. Senator, that’s a really good question. And it’s an 

important one. 

Senator, a very good question. I really believe, though, that the— 

that question would be better answered by the commercial carriers 

than by Ericsson at this time. 

Senator DAINES. OK. All right. 

I’m out of time. I’m out of time, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Daines. 

Senator Manchin, followed by Senator—— 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOE MANCHIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate it. 

And thank you all for being here. 

This, I guess, would be to Mr. Morrison. 

Mr. MORRISON. Yes, Senator. 

Senator MANCHIN. In preparation for the hearing, I reached out 

to the U.S. Forest Service to see if there was anything I could do 

to expedite permit approvals of the towers at Monongahela National Forest, which is predominantly in West Virginia. It turns out 

there are 14 towers located in the Forest Service property, and the 

Forest Service has received a grand total of zero applications for 

cellular or broadband installations in West Virginia. Zero. 

While I’m committed to working with my colleagues to streamline the Federal permitting process, we have a much more immediate need in West Virginia, attracting enough private investment 

to build out basic wireless infrastructure. As you noted in your tesVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:44 May 10, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\20043.TXT JACKIE
46 

timony, I believe that $70 million has been returned to the Mobility 

Fund. I think you said $73 million to Mobility. It could be a great 

place to start. And I’ve invited Chairman Wheeler to come see firsthand the rural communications challenges that remain in rural 

America, mostly West Virginia. 

What can we do, in your opinion, to attract investment in truly 

unserved areas? And do you think that the Mobility Fund could 

play a role in this? 

Mr. MORRISON. Senator, that actually wasn’t in my testimony. 

[Mr. Morrison later amplified his testimony in writing below:] 

Ericsson supports improving the ‘‘Mobility Fund’’ by targeting funding allocated 

for infrastructure to the truly unserved areas that still exist in our Nation today. 

In our written testimony, we highlighted this support and acknowledged Senator 

Manchin’s recent engagement with the FCC on this issue. We appreciate his leadership on this effort and recognize that he knows firsthand the challenges rural America faces with access to infrastructure. In terms of states with advanced wireless 

penetration, West Virginia ranks as one of the lowest, and that needs to change. 

Without investment by the Federal Government as well as incentives for private investment in such areas, states like West Virginia will never experience the full benefits of a networked society. 

Senator MANCHIN. Seventy million? Well, somebody’s testimony. 

Which one of you want to speak up? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. I can certainly address the issue, Senator 

Manchin. 

I think one of the reasons you’re not seeing any applications for 

Forest Service in your State—— 

Senator MANCHIN. I think you mentioned it, sir, but that’s all 

right. 

Mr. ADELSTEIN.—is because our members that build these facilities are loathe to go into Federal lands, because it’s almost impossible to get sited. You go—— 

Senator MANCHIN. No, we’re—we have 14 towers. We’ve got nobody on them. Towers are there. 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. But, are they available, really, for use? I think 

the Broadband—— 

Senator MANCHIN. Sure. 

Mr. ADELSTEIN.—Opportunity Council made it much easier to 

use those, but there’s a need for—— 

Senator MANCHIN. Well, the permitting process is tough. We 

know that. 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Right. 

Senator MANCHIN. But, we have 14 towers in the national forest 

right now, and we’re not utilizing the towers to the extent they 

could be. I don’t know why you’re not—who—how come you’re not 

wanting to get on those towers? 

Mr. KINKOPH. NTIA does—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. KINKOPH. You know, I think the issue is—— 

Senator MANCHIN. We just want service is all we want. 

We want just a little bit of service. Not much, just a little bit. 

Mr. KINKOPH. As Jonathan was going to say—is that it is a—the 

BOC is looking at ways to streamline the process and get it on. 

What of the things I do know is that agencies—the recent MiddleClass Tax Cut Relief Act—GSA just finished helping to streamline 

47 

that process through master templates. But, even there, there’s not 

an obligation for each Federal agency to adopt and use those. 

They’re not required to. So, there is work to be done, and the BOC 

will continue to try to move that forward to improve efficiencies. 

Senator MANCHIN. Well, you all work on the map, too, don’t you? 

Mr. KINKOPH. The map—— 

Senator MANCHIN. Do you all do the map? 

Mr. KINKOPH. The map was actually transferred to the FCC the 

end of June. So, the FCC is now in charge of the map. 

Senator MANCHIN. In charge of it. I know that you’re showing my 

state, West Virginia, with 97 percent coverage. I would say you’d 

better look at that map again. 

Mr. KINKOPH. We’ll do that. 

Senator MANCHIN. Who—I mean, it doesn’t—it’s not accurate. 

Mr. KINKOPH. The map—the development of the map over time 

has evolved and become more and more accurate. The data collection came from—the State collects it from the providers. It is then 

provided to NTIA, and we have it uploaded by the FCC, historically. Now, the FCC has—— 

Senator MANCHIN. I’m saying you had Indiana, Mississippi, Kansas, Illinois, and Louisiana, and Texas at 100 percent. 

Mr. KINKOPH. Yes. 

Senator MANCHIN. Now, whoever represents—if—I’m sure if Senator Wicker was here, he would tell you that—maybe good old Mississippi is not quite there. 

Mr. KINKOPH. Yes. Some of the—— 

Senator MANCHIN. I know we’re not at 97 percent. 

Mr. KINKOPH. Yes. Some of the verification—the states were obligated to do the verification, and that came down to resources. I 

know, in South Dakota, we were informed that they drove over 

40,000 miles, literally, to check the cell-site reaches. So, they did 

it, basically, manually. That’s how it’s done. And some states have 

not had the resources to do that to the full extent. 

Senator MANCHIN. Final question I would have is on the spectrum auction that was held. And I think you mentioned, I think, 

Mr. Adelstein, you said $45 billion, and that reduced our deficit by 

$28 billion. How do you believe private companies can help accelerate the transition process? And what Federal regulations might 

prevent them from playing a role in that process, for us to be 

able—— 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. In terms of using the—spectrum? 

Senator MANCHIN. Absolutely. 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Yes, I think it—we need to clear that as quickly 

as possible. One of the problems with that spectrum is, it’s encumbered by Federal users. NTIA has done a good job, I think, of trying to corral them, but we need to get that spectrum that was paid 

for so dearly into use as quickly as possible. 

Senator MANCHIN. What’s taking it so long? 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Well, it—— 

Senator MANCHIN. Why do you find that—you’re stating it could 

be a 5-year transition? 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. It—well, there are a number of reasons why it 

takes so long to implement spectrum. One of them is the need to 

relocate Federal users and get them moved, but also there’s a need 

48 

to build the infrastructure and get it all sited. There’s a need for 

handsets to be changed out. 

Senator MANCHIN. But, the private will move a lot quicker and 

then—than what we’re—the Federal. I’m saying, if we’re the impediment, this is a committee that you should work with and give 

us an idea of what we can do to release that or kind of spur the 

Federal Government in releasing that spectrum, letting it go. 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. I think it’s urgent for NTIA to do everything 

they can to help move those fellow users. I know they’re taking 

that responsibility very seriously and they’re doing it. It can’t be 

done quickly enough. 

But, there are not only, you know, Federal issues. I mean, it 

takes time to, basically, get spectrum into use. Already I think very 

shortly we’ll be able to use some of the—— 

Senator MANCHIN. Mr. Resnick, you said—Honorable Mr. 

Resnick here is shaking his head like the dickens, no. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. RESNICK. Well, we’ve got the—thank you, Senator. And I’m 

not the expert in this area, either, but it’s—— 

Senator MANCHIN. You’ve got an—— 

Mr. RESNICK.—known in the communications industry that many 

entities that purchase this spectrum do so not necessarily with the 

intent to use it right away, but to hold it in the event that their 

business plans change and they may need it or to prohibit competitors from obtaining it and boxing them in to not having access to 

it. So, there’s a tremendous amount of spectrum out there that’s 

held now by satellite companies that—— 

Senator MANCHIN. Speculated, right? Speculation? 

Mr. RESNICK. Yes. 

Senator MANCHIN. So, what you’re saying is, when we sell the 

spectrum, it—basically, you should use it or lose it? 

Mr. RESNICK. Like any other permit. 

Senator MANCHIN. Gotcha. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Senator from West Virginia. And I think the 

statement you were looking for was in the cloud. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. That’s a—you’re way ahead of the rest of us, 

Senator Manchin, so—— 

Senator Ayotte. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KELLY AYOTTE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. Kinkoph, I wanted to ask you—one of the goals of the 

Broadband Opportunity Council is, of course, to modernize Federal 

programs to expand support for broadband investment. You’ve 

heard a number of my colleagues asking about, How do we do that, 

particularly in rural areas? New Hampshire is one of the states 

under the Universal Service Fund that continues to be underfunded. I think my constituents get a pretty raw deal, because 

we’re receiving 41 cents for every dollar that we contribute. I would 

welcome any of you to come drive around my state in Coos County, 

in Grafton, and even areas of Cheshire, that you cannot get full access to broadband, which is very important to economic developVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:44 May 10, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\20043.TXT JACKIE
49 

ment and access in general. I also would ask, How do we reform 

this program, and what can the Rural Utilities Service and NTIA, 

along with other Federal agencies, do to encourage the FCC to 

tackle USF contribution reform? Because I have to say to my constituents, ‘‘I’m sorry you’re paying all this on your phone bills, because you’re not getting it back.’’ We still have a lot of needs. And 

so, I’m kind of like, Why are we doing this? Is there any look at 

reforming USF to make it more viable—more responsive to what 

we need in the country? 

Mr. KINKOPH. I would defer that to the FCC, who has jurisdiction over that program. 

I would say that the Broadband Opportunity Council has many 

options in front of it, or several options in front it, that could be 

beneficial—— 

Senator AYOTTE. With all respect, as the Broadband Opportunity 

Council, I would hope that you would make recommendations as to 

what the FCC could do to take this issue up, because it’s a very 

important issue. 

Mr. KINKOPH. Thank you. So, on the—so, some of the issues that 

would have a benefit to your state in helping to promote broadband 

would be—the Department of Transportation is currently looking 

at pushing down the rules and clarifying rules to the states for providing opportunities to access the conduit, the pole attachments in 

those states today. There’s a lot of clarity that needs to be pushed 

out to the states as to how current infrastructure related to the Department of Transportation could be used for broadband. I think 

that’s going to go a long ways in letting people understand how to 

utilize it. 

The DOI, as I mentioned earlier, the towers that are throughout 

all the rural and Federal lands—there’s 4,000 of them—that, you 

know, clarity on how the private industry can get access to those 

to provide wireless is also a critical step in that direction. 

And then there is the open data inventory, which—of Federal assets—which is one of the BOC initiatives, which is an inventory of 

all the assets that are available that external private industry can 

look at and potentially utilize to help leverage those to provide 

broadband, whether wirelessly or wired. 

So, I think those are three big steps for rural states and other 

states around the country that it will help expand and promote the 

use of broadband. 

Senator AYOTTE. Mr. Adelstein, do you have any comment on 

USF? It seems to me this is an important issue as you look at opportunity to expand broadband and how we’re using Federal resources effectively to do that, and properly. 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. I think you’re absolutely right. And we’d love to 

see the Mobility Fund—the FCC’s created, but not funded the Mobility Fund—to make sure that there’s—is funding for wireless systems to build the infrastructure to provide the business case to 

build that. 

It’s also important that there be predictability. I used to head the 

Rural Utility Service, and some of the changes in USF, I think, undercut the ability of rural communities to apply for loans and get 

them repaid, because they weren’t certain what the revenue flow 

would be. You know, if you take out a loan, you have to know what 

50 

the revenue’s going to be if you want to build a wireless system or 

a wired system. I think it’s very important for there to be predictability and consistency and understanding, going forward, of what 

that’s going to be. 

You know, the challenge in rural areas is one for our industry 

of trying to find the capital return on investment. And having these 

Federal programs are really essential to make up for the fact that 

you have lower densities and similar fixed costs. 

Senator AYOTTE. It’s just really hard sometimes for me to justify 

this fund to my constituents. If they could keep this pot of money 

in New Hampshire, and our Governor and legislature could have 

it to build out broadband and opportunity, they could get a lot 

more efficiency out of it and probably cover much greater parts of 

our state. That’s what the challenge is, because we feel like we’re 

subsidizing areas that aren’t rural, actually, and so the fund sometimes is used to build out duplicative areas. Do you see that as an 

issue that needs to be addressed? 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Well, certainly a lot of the fund is going also to 

individual phones, called the Lifeline Program, which is very helpful, but there’s been some abuse of the system. We’d like to see the 

funds go into infrastructure. 

Senator AYOTTE. Where everyone can benefit. 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Right. 

Senator AYOTTE. Yes. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Ayotte. 

Senator Udall. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Chairman Thune. Thank you very 

much. 

And being from South Dakota, Chairman Thune, I know you understand the digital divide and the real challenge facing rural 

areas. 

Having no cell phone reception is not just an inconvenience for 

people, it can mean not being able to call 911 in an emergency. And 

I know you all realize that. And the—during the years, we’ve had 

many people come forward and talk about some of those devastating consequences, in terms of not being hooked up to the 

emergency network. 

Mobile broadband also enables innovation and new opportunities 

for job creation. And that’s something we really want to see in New 

Mexico in our rural areas. Our constituents living in rural areas 

should not be left behind. 

So, I’m glad, Chairman Thune, that you’re focusing the Committee on this subject. 

Mr. Adelstein, when you were RUS administrator—you just mentioned that—I had the pleasure of hosing you in Moriarty, New 

Mexico, for a broadband and smart-grid summit. And I know, you 

know, you enjoyed that. You’ve got a smile on your face still. So, 

I know you understand that building broadband infrastructure in 

New Mexico and other rural states can involve approvals from multiple Federal agencies, such as the Bureau of Land Management, 

51 

the Forest Service. And I want to ask you about ways to streamline 

the permitting process for broadband deployment on Federal lands. 

Could you discuss potential changes that could reduce the cost of 

deployments, such as piggybacking on existing rights-of-way? For 

example, installing a fiber optic line along an existing powerline or 

other infrastructure where the ground has already been disturbed, 

rather than chopping it up for a new line. 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Yes, thank you. We—I hope we’ve made progress 

on broadband in New Mexico since then, but I know—— 

Senator UDALL. We have. We have, with your good help. 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. And your great leadership. I know you’ve been 

committed to this issue for a long time. And I think Federal lands, 

which control so much of your State, are really critical, because 

those are vast rural areas that have virtually no coverage, because 

our industry is afraid to go there, because they get caught up in 

these reviews. 

There’s actually a bill—I see Senator Klobuchar is here, that 

she’s considering legislation on this. Senator Rubio’s introduced 

legislation, S. 1618. Senator Gardner talked about this earlier. We 

think that there are things you can do. You can create a standard 

fee schedule so our people know exactly what the rates are going 

to be across different agencies, and have it be based on real costs. 

You can have fee retention by agency, which that bill would enable, 

which would allow the agency, basically, to take a piece of the pie 

to help pay for other cost of doing the processing of those forms so 

that they have an incentive to get these things done instead of 

agencies that, like, you know—I’m not going to name any agencies 

that are going to be mad at them—but, you know, just put it at 

the bottom of their pile, because their job is to manage Federal 

lands, not to enable broadband. I think having common forms and 

contracts would be extremely helpful. It’s in that bill. Have an expectancy of lease renewal. Sometimes on Federal lands, we get very 

short lease periods. You want to invest a huge amount of capital 

to build, say, a tower, for example, that’s got a 30-year life, and you 

get a 5- or 10-year lease expectancy, it’s very helpful if you can get 

a longer term. We—the bill calls for point of contact. And—oversee 

a negotiation process to get that done, to make sure if something 

gets caught up, that it gets moved. And regular reporting on 

progress to Congress. 

I think the Broadband Opportunity Council had a lot of great 

ideas. There are other ideas that could build upon it that this committee could address through legislation. 

Senator UDALL. Yes. Well—no, thank you very much for that answer. And it’s really good to see fellow Senators working on this, 

including Senator Klobuchar and Senator Gardner. 

Do—other members of other panel, do you have ideas on this specific area? 

Please. 

Mr. KINKOPH. The Broadband Opportunity Council will be addressing this issue. And we have sat down with several providers 

that have shared very similar lists as PCIA, here. So, I think that 

it goes a long ways in sharing that information with the Committee 

as we move forward to try to implement some of this streamlining. 

Senator UDALL. Great. 

52 

Mayor? Please. 

Mr. RESNICK. Thank you, Senator. Again, it’s a privilege to be 

here. 

My committee at the FCC, the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee, consists of mayors and State legislators and Indian tribe 

members from around the country. So, we have a broad perspective 

of the status of broadband and what needs to be done around the 

country. 

But, one of the things that we’ve recognized is that there are 

many Federal programs, especially dealing with transportation initiatives, that do not allow broadband to be built under the grants 

that are awarded under those programs. I have two members of my 

committee from Kansas, and I, as well, even though I’m from an 

urban area in Florida. We wanted to use grants that we receive 

from four transportation projects, and we were not—to install conduits—and we were not allowed to install conduits as part of those 

projects. So, if there are ways of eliminating some of those barriers 

under existing Federal programs, that would be helpful. 

Senator UDALL. Great. Thank you very much. 

I’ve run out of time, but if you want to give a very quick answer, 

with the Chairman’s permission—— 

Mr. MORRISON. I was just going to echo the sentiments of the 

representative from PCIA, but also add that each department within the Federal Government sometimes has its own processes. If the 

process was the same, it would be quicker and more commercially 

viable for commercial carriers to deploy quicker. You know, one 

checklist would be very helpful, moving forward. 

Senator UDALL. Great. 

Thank you for those answers. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Udall. 

Senator Blumenthal. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 

having this hearing on a really important topic that has national 

implications, I think in every state in the country. 

In Connecticut, for example, a recent article by AP reporter Stephen Singer, which appeared widely in our state, entitled ‘‘Digital 

Divide: Northwest Hills of Connecticut Struggle to Gain Broadband 

Access,’’ demonstrated very graphically how the northwestern part 

of our state suffers from great gaps in coverage and laggard reception in many areas. This area has about 22 towns and 200,000 residents, including Meryl Streep and Henry Kissinger and a number 

of other boldfaced names that would be well known to you, but it 

is covered in a way that local officials and residents say is extremely limited—in fact, lacking—so that business growth is 

stalled, schools are undermined, not to mention ordinary households suffering from a lack of coverage. 

I ask that this article be placed in the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. So ordered. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

53 

The Register Citizen 

DIGITAL DIVIDE: NORTHWEST HILLS OF CONNECTICUT STRUGGLE TO GAIN

BROADBAND ACCESS

(AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin) 

By STEPHEN SINGER, AP Business Writer 

POSTED: 10/04/15, 12:11 PM EDT UPDATED: ON 10/04/2015 

HARTFORD >> Connecticut’s Litchfield hills, which boast premier antique shops, 

vineyards and 18th century inns, also feature cellphone dead zones and super-slow 

Internet service that infuriate residents and frustrate businesses. 

Telecommunications companies say hilly terrain and dense woods are to blame 

and angry residents accuse the companies of refusing to wire the region because the 

investment doesn’t pay in sparsely populated areas. 

‘‘We’re not going under, but it’s increasingly painful,’’ said Klaus Knuth, innkeeper at the Blackberry River Inn in Norfolk. 

Guests expect to connect to the Internet on their phones, tablets or laptops, but 

Wi-Fi is only ‘‘so-so’’ in the building that houses most of the inn’s rooms, he said. 

‘‘The rest is dead,’’ Knuth said. 

Some businesses such as Founders Insurance Agency in Salisbury and Torrington 

rely on coaxial cable that transmits data, but not graphics or video. Frank 

Buonocore, a company vice president, called the service reliable and ‘‘adequate for 

our purposes.’’ 

Others, such as Steve Bowen, a retired advertising executive, make private arrangements to secure broadband. He said he paid $5,000 to bring a line to his Sharon home and now advises residents and officials how to market their campaign for 

expanded broadband access. 

‘‘We can wait 10 years for it to come here naturally or we can jump the gun,’’ 

Bowen said. 

Known for its natural beauty on the doorstep of the Berkshires in Massachusetts 

and New York’s Hudson Valley, the Litchfield hills are home to celebrities such as 

Meryl Streep and Henry Kissinger and are a destination for tourists and New Yorkers who can afford second homes. 

But local officials and residents say limited cellphone and high-speed Internet access stall business growth and undermine schools that depend on the web. 

‘‘It’s difficult to attract people to that kind of a landscape,’’ said state Consumer 

Counsel Elin Swanson Katz. 


107BLUM1.eps
54 

Connecticut officials promoting an initiative for super-fast Internet cannot force 

unregulated telecommunications firms to expand broadband. ‘‘We’re sort of a catalyst,’’ said Bill Vallee, the state’s broadband policy coordinator. 

State Rep. Roberta Willis, D-Salisbury, accuses telecommunications companies of 

failing to do enough to build broadband networks. 

‘‘You just can’t say it’s the topography and walk away,’’ she said. ‘‘If electricity 

companies were deregulated like this there would be no electricity in my district.’’ 

Comcast spokeswoman Laura Brubaker Crisco said the telecommunications firm 

has extended its network nearly 62 miles in northwest Connecticut since 2005 and 

completed nearly 100 projects extending fiber more than 10 miles in the past two 

years. 

‘‘However, there are some low-density areas where it is not economic for Comcast 

or other providers to build out,’’ she said. 

David Snyder, vice president for engineering for the east region of Frontier Communications Corp., said due to the area’s topography, ‘‘it’s just natural the investment and the time become more challenging.’’ 

Frontier has connected broadband to 40,000 households in Connecticut, including 

the northwest region, since it began operations in the state a year ago, he said. 

How many residents in the region are without broadband is not known. Katz and 

Kim Maxwell, the technical adviser to the group of officials and others working to 

extend broadband, said about 10 percent of homes in rural areas are estimated to 

have no access. Vallee said it could be more. 

Closing the so-called digital divide separating those with and without high-speed 

Internet access has drawn funding from the Federal Communications Commission 

and the telecommunications industry. Alex Phillips, president of the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association, which serves rural areas, said too much money 

is spent on studies, ‘‘but the regular guy still doesn’t have adequate choice or adequate service.’’ 

Northwest Connecticut includes about 22 towns with about 200,000 residents in 

85,000 households, Maxwell said. Extending broadband in much of the area could 

be completed by 2018 at a cost of as much as $350 million financed by bonds, he 

said. 

‘‘People want this to happen,’’ he said. ‘‘I’d be really surprised if this doesn’t happen.’’ 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. So, let me ask you, Mr. Resnick—you’ve 

mentioned in your testimony, I think, some of the ways that Internet access can be—and wireless—can be broadened. Co-location, I 

think, is one of the methods. Can you suggest some others that 

local communities can use, as a mayor? 

Mr. RESNICK. Thank you, Senator. 

Yes. Many of us had—used to have access to institutional networks, fiber networks, that were used by the local governments, 

whether a county or a city, and we could get anchor institutions 

on those networks, as well as our own government facilities, so 

they could provide interconnection communications services for our 

police and fire, but also we could have schools, we could have hospitals, we could have other anchor institutions as part of those networks. 

Most of us lost the ability to obtain those networks when State 

cable franchising came into play. And so, that might be something 

that, as a Federal—at the Federal level, we might want to relook 

at, because State franchising doesn’t provide for the continuation 

of institutional networks. And so, now these entities that, before, 

built it, had it paid for through their fees, are now telling us that, 

‘‘Oh, if you want to continue using this fiber, it’s going—you’re 

going to be under a managed solution, and it’s going to cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.’’ So, as a result, we’re now 

paying for broadband connectivity to schools and libraries, police 

stations, fire stations, hospitals, where, before, it was provided as 

an amenity as part of that process. That would be one solution. 

55 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And the telecommunications companies 

often blame the terrain or woods. And northwestern Connecticut 

has plenty of both, hilly terrain and dense woods. Residents there 

believe that the telecommunications companies have avoided the 

investment because these areas are sparsely populated. 

What about other methods, such as spectrum-sharing? I don’t 

know whether any of the folks who are here today have perspectives on that issue. 

Mr. Kinkoph? 

Mr. KINKOPH. As I’ve said, spectrum is not in my area of responsibility, but NTIA does believe spectrum-sharing is critical to opening up enough spectrum for the broadband—wireless broadband 

community, and it is one of the ways that they envision—that 

NTIA envisions reaching the 500 megahertz goal by 2020. So, we 

do support it. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And in your experience, Mr. Resnick, how 

ready and willing are the telecommunications companies to cooperate with you? 

Mr. RESNICK. Well, as I indicated in my testimony, there’s been 

a greater degree of cooperation with the industry associations and 

the local government associations. In particular, we issued a joint 

information in response to recent FCC regulations. So, I think— 

and Mr. Adelstein and I have a long history of working together— 

that there is an interest in cooperation. It doesn’t do either of us 

any good to try and point fingers and say, ‘‘You’re the reason why 

infrastructure cannot be deployed as quickly as we would like.’’ 

And so, I think the area of—the intent of cooperation would continue. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. There really is a common goal here. 

Mr. RESNICK. Absolutely. As I indicated in my testimony, the 

communities definitely want access to advanced broadband services 

at an affordable rate throughout all of our communities, not just 

rural, but also urban. I live in a very urban area, and there are 

portions of my area that do not have access to advanced broadband 

services, either. And so, it’s not just a rural issue, it’s—there are 

a whole host of reasons why people do not subscribe to broadband 

services. Yes, there are issues with it being available, but the FCC, 

at least, according to information that was presented to my committee, the majority of folks that do not subscribe to broadband do 

so either because it’s not affordable or because they don’t see the 

value in it. They do not understand how it would improve their 

lives. And so, my city, for example, wanted to build a digital literacy center using CDBG funds, which we receive, and we were 

told that we’re not allowed to use that Federal program for building a digital literacy center. 

So, there are restrictions on funds that are already out there that 

might be—and I think that’s part of the Broadband Opportunity 

Council’s recommendations—is to look at those restrictions and 

open things up so that these Federal programs can be used for 

broadband deployment. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you very much. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. 

56 

Next up is my neighbor and best-selling author, Senator 

Klobuchar. 

[Laughter.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I was kind of smiling, looking knowingly at Senator Thune when 

Senator Blumenthal was talking about all the rural parts of his 

state that are sparsely populated. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Which the Mayor has acknowledged that is 

true in every state in the country. But, we just have a little bit 

more of it. 

And I appreciate your leadership, Mr. Chairman, in having this 

hearing, and also in the work that we have done to push the FCC 

to do something different with the Universal Service Fund and 

some of those requirements so we can free up more money. 

I’ve really been struck, being at home the last year especially, 

with the number of people that are raising this issue. I’ve sort of 

figured out what happened, is they had some access in the rural 

areas, but it now—technology has changed, and their work is 

changing, and farmers are expected to, you know, go in to their 

suppliers and tell them exactly what’s happening every day with 

the temperatures where their turkeys are being kept and other 

things. And so, what’s basically happening is that their work is 

changing—in schools, not just in businesses—so that the highspeed aspect of this and having high-quality Internet is becoming 

incredibly important. 

I’ve heard stories, on a reservation, of one house that had Wi-Fi, 

and the entire group of kids would be over in the yard—just try 

to picture it—trying to hook up to that Wi-Fi in one house’s yard. 

Or the story of farmers and small business owners that go to the 

McDonald’s every day to be able to report back to some of their customers and suppliers, because they’re not able to—while they 

might have Internet, they’re not able to send—and they don’t have 

the capacity to send the kind of documents and videos and other 

things that they have to send to do their jobs. 

So, this is a real issue right at a time where our economy is stabilizing, we’re seeing improvements, but we’re still actually seeing 

a lot of rural poverty. We just saw some numbers on that. And so, 

this is, to me, not a crisis as much as an opportunity to make some 

improvements. And that’s why I’m introducing the bill today, with 

Senator Daines and Senator Gardner—and I appreciate their support, and I’m sure others—to make some changes in how we 

streamline and invest in the broadband infrastructure. And that’s 

the ‘‘dig once’’ concept. When there’s Federal projects, it’s also requiring the GSA to work with Federal agencies to consolidate and 

streamline contracts and fees for deploying broadband infrastructure. 

And maybe I’ll start with you, Mr. Adelstein, since you’ve been 

positive about this bill. And I know my colleagues have mentioned 

it, as well. Could you talk about the importance of doing that? And 

also, this issue of how population density drives where spectrum is 

57 

built out and what more we can do to reframe the deployment process to get more of this going in rural areas. 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Senator Klobuchar, I’m thrilled that you’re introducing bipartisan legislation today to address this issue, these 

many issues, actually. Your bill would take care of improving 

broadband deployment on Federal lands, which, of course, comprise 

much of Minnesota. It also helps with the ‘‘dig once’’ policy, as I 

understand it, which is really critical to getting the backhaul that 

we need. Your cosponsor, Senator Gardner, also raised this issue, 

and we discussed the fact that every one of these antennas, which 

is increasingly where people are getting and—receiving and transmitting their data, has to connect back to fiber, ideally, and having 

that ability to get access to those conduits. Whenever something is 

being built in a rural area or in an urban area, we ought to have 

the opportunity to use that for broadband connectivity, because 

those are really the roads and bridges of the future. And so, when 

we’re building today’s roads, let’s also build those digital highways 

so that we can continue to expand capacity to meet it. 

So, your bill, I think, really hits the right notes, both for urban 

and rural areas, to expand broadband connectivity. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Could you talk about the lack of consistency 

and the resulting uncertainty that’s affecting your member companies’ ability to deploy wireless broadband? What else can we do 

about that? 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Do you mean on Federal lands, in particular? 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Uh-huh. 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Yes. Each agency tends to have its own process. 

We were thrilled that GSA finally completed its model forms that 

you asked them to do back in 2012. Congress had to put a lot of 

pressure on them, but they got that done. And that’ll help, but 

there’s a lot more that needs to be done. I think that, you know, 

negotiations with the Federal Government take, on average, 4 

years, compared to less than 2 for the private sector, and sometimes it can take 10 and more. The Federal Government’s foregoing 

revenue, because our members will literally go right next door to 

Federal property rather than use Federal lands to site, even if Federal land might be in a better location to get service where it’s 

needed. 

So, I think that we need to have, like, a standard fee schedule 

that your bill proposes. We need fee retention for the agencies so 

that they can use those funds to process the applications. We need 

common forms and contracts. There’s no reason that each agency 

needs to have their own separate process, and we have to run into 

all of these roadblocks that your bill would address. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. 

Last, Mr. Kinkoph, could you talk about why coordinating 

broadband deployment with highway construction is important? 

Mr. KINKOPH. In the BOC, we have—there is a commitment from 

the Department of Transportation to push down and clarify the— 

that broadband should be considered a part of the opportunity 

when digging once. I mean, it is a clear benefit to the country to 

have these rules clarified to the States. A lot of this is run by the 

States, so it’s really a clarification from the Federal level to the 

states that they can utilize and deploy conduit when they dig, et 

58 

cetera. So, I agree with Jonathan that we should be laying conduit 

wherever possible. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK, thanks. 

I’m beyond my time, but I’ll ask you one for the record later, Mr. 

Morrison, so we don’t have to go into it, but it’s this issue of towers 

being built, but the Federal permitting process actually slows it 

down. And so, it basically renders the tower useless if you can’t get 

the broadband in there. So, I’m sure you’re familiar with this. 

Mr. MORRISON. Most definitely. 

I did want to answer one of the questions that you asked earlier 

about what the Federal Government could do to move quicker as— 

when we talk about application processes. And let me just give you 

an example. As a—you know, we’ll call it a landlord at the Federal 

Government, if we have an opportunity in wireless community to 

go to a roof, it’s a quick sale to a commercial rooftop owner, ‘‘Sir, 

ma’am, you know, how much revenue is your rooftop generating?’’ 

‘‘Well, it’s actually costing me $5,000 a year to maintain.’’ ‘‘Well, 

you know what? We’ll go ahead and install a commercial antenna 

on there, and we’ll actually pay you double that, so you’ll cover 

your cost of maintenance, plus you’ll have a little bit of money left 

over.’’ Those transactions can happen as quickly as in 2 weeks. 

Sometimes, on average, maybe 2–3 months. Anytime we go through 

a process with the Federal Government to lease any kind of property—and we’re not talking about the permitting, we’re talking 

about the business aspect of it, the numeration—it is months, if not 

years, to make that negotiation. So, my suggestion would be that 

the Federal Government take a look at what the process is from 

a business perspective, just to be a little bit more nimble. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. 

Next up, Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Markey. 

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

This hearing is about the future, obviously. This is where we 

should be the leader. And spectrum is the oxygen of the wireless 

world, and we need more oxygen so that more innovation can occur. 

And that doesn’t make any difference that exists on this committee. 

If you want to be wirelessly following the Green Bay Packers or the 

Minnesota Vikings or the New England Patriots, you want a wireless device. And you can be out in the Berkshires and have bad 

system out there, so we need to do something about it. 

And I think one of the areas that we can look at is how the Federal Government can move more of its spectrum out into the private sector. That’s what happened in 1993. The Defense Department wasn’t happy about it, but we took it, and it created the 

third, fourth, fifth, and sixth cell phone companies in America. 

So, I’ve actually joined with Senator Fischer in introducing a bill, 

the Federal Spectrum Incentive Act, because this really does know 

no State boundaries. And what the bill does is, it incentivizes Federal agencies to give up spectrum by allowing them to receive a 

portion of the spectrum auction proceeds. Like 1 percent. That’s all 

they get. But, it says to them, ‘‘Start thinking now about what 

59 

spectrum you can give up,’’ and, as quickly as possible, you get 

your one percent return. And that’s kind of a win-win, because 

you’re not deciding which spectrum should go, but you’re leaving it 

up to the agency and saying, ‘‘You get a reward for doing it.’’ 

And over on the House side, that’s bipartisan over there, as well. 

It’s Doris Matsui and Representative Guthrie, a Republican from 

Kentucky, OK, who have introduced the same bill. They’re having 

a hearing on that today. And the bill has been endorsed by the 

Consumer Electronics Association as something that they believe 

will help to telescope the time frame it takes in order to get that 

spectrum out and into the marketplace to reduce the crunch that 

exists. 

So, Mr. Morrison, maybe you could talk about that. What do you 

think about that as an idea that can help to move the spectrum 

out and into the private sector? 

Mr. MORRISON. I appreciate the question, Senator, but I can’t 

really provide an answer at this time. I’m happy to confer with appropriate parties within Ericsson and get back an answer that we’ll 

submit in to the Committee for inclusion in the hearing. But, that’s 

not my personal area of expertise. 

[Mr. Morrison later submitted the following for the record:] 

Ericsson supports the advancement of legislative efforts, including the ‘‘Federal 

Spectrum Incentive Act,’’ to clear underutilized spectrum currently held by the Federal Government for commercial, licensed broadband use. We applaud the leadership of Senators Markey and Fischer whose bill offers new incentives for Federal 

agencies to relinquish badly-needed spectrum. This will ultimately make our networks more efficient, create jobs, raise revenue at a time when budgets are constrained, and foster innovation. 

Senator MARKEY. OK. 

Mr. Adelstein, do you think we should be incentivizing the Federal agencies to start moving the spectrum out? And do you think 

this is a potentially workable way of accomplishing that goal? 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Absolutely. I think it’s an excellent bill, and I 

think that the agencies need incentive to move it. They’ve got— 

they’re sitting on enormous amounts of spectrum. NTIA is trying 

to get them to move. But, if you actually have them have a piece 

of the pie so that they can pay for their own costs of moving to new 

systems, also they can maybe buy new radio systems—some Federal systems are very antiquated—and if you can say, ‘‘Look, if 

you’ll get off the spectrum, you can use new equipment, use it more 

efficiently. Here are some funds to do it.’’—it takes Congress to do 

that, because right now the law requires that all proceeds from 

spectrum auctions go straight to the Treasury. Why not let some 

go to the agencies that need those costs to recover the cost of them 

to move? I think that bill would help to move more spectrum into 

the commercial mobile use, which we urgently need, as we’ve discussed throughout this hearing. 

Senator MARKEY. Yes. I think we do need to find some way, Mr. 

Chairman, of incentivizing all these agencies to move, and maybe 

finding a little revenue stream that helps them with—pay for their 

costs. 

And so, you know, I’d like to work with you—I know my staff’s 

been talking to your staff about it, but I’d love to be able to work 

with you and Senator Fischer and try to find some smart way of 

60 

kind of replicating what we did in the past. These agencies have 

more spectrum than they need. And hopefully we could work together to accomplish that goal. 

Do any of the other witnesses want to speak on that bill? 

Mr. KINKOPH. From an NTIA standpoint, while it’s not my area 

of expertise on the spectrum side, I do know that our Office of 

Spectrum Management is currently reviewing that. Be happy to 

put our staff in contact with yours. 

Senator MARKEY. That would be helpful to us. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Senator from Massachusetts is right, the 

Federal Government is sitting on a large share of that spectrum. 

We need to figure out how to break that loose. So, I look forward 

to working with you. 

The Senator who represents America’s team, the Senator from 

Wisconsin. 

[Laughter.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. RON JOHNSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m 

sure the Chairman would also agree with me that we obviously 

need that spectrum to broadcast Green Bay Packer games, you 

know, primarily. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MARKEY. We’ll see you in the Super Bowl. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator JOHNSON. I hope so. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Morrison, I want to kind of pick up where 

you left off, talking about the difficulty of negotiating with the government. Tell me, from your perspective, why that is. I mean, what 

is the impediment? 

Mr. MORRISON. I think, first and foremost—and we talked about 

it earlier, my colleague with—from the PCIA —one, each Federal 

department has its own process. So, again, as we approach the Federal Government, it’s, ‘‘OK, which organization within the Federal 

Government?’’ So, it’s not standardized. The second thing is, the 

rules aren’t the same. And then, the third component is that 

there’s no set checklist. So, again, the Federal Government typically is good about, you know, providing, you know, lots of documentation on policies and procedures. In this particular area, we 

just need a simple checklist. We’re happy to fill out all of the requirements. Just give us the checklist, let’s stick to the checklist. 

And again, there really should be something driving the timeline— 

the timeliness of this, and that would greatly help the industry. 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Adelstein, just last week the GSA indicated to my staff that it has taken steps to implement some of the 

siting provisions we included in the Spectrum Act of 2012. From 

your perspective, have they taken adequate actions? And, if not, 

what do they need to do? 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. I think they could do more. I think it was very 

helpful. You know, you talk about long it takes the Federal Government to do things. Congress mandated they do that in 2012, and 

61 

here we are in 2015, almost 2016, and they got it done. So, you 

wonder what takes so long. We talked about the fact that you have 

to renegotiate sometimes every site is different. And we’ve asked, 

and you’ve talked about legislation that would help to improve that 

process. I think that there’s a lot that the Broadband Opportunity 

Council could do further. I think they’ve done a lot. The report was 

very helpful, as far as it went. But, I think Congress can do more 

on Federal lands. The legislation that Senator Rubio and Senator 

Klobuchar talked about introducing with Senator Gardner today, 

and, I think, with your support, the Federal lands would be—would 

speed the deployment coming up with more standardized processes 

so each time we have to negotiate for a lease, it doesn’t have to be 

reinventing the wheel every time with some bureaucrat who, frankly, doesn’t care that much. I mean, it—to their own credit, they 

have other responsibilities, they’re busy, they’ve got a big pile on 

their plate, and they’re not thinking about broadband. But, the 

President has said, ‘‘You should be thinking about broadband.’’ He 

put together a council to talk about it. He issued an executive 

order. And GSA still took 3 years to basically even put together a 

common lease form. So, there’s a lot more that needs to be done. 

I think that the work by this committee in enacting legislation to 

promote that in—with your support and leadership, I think can 

really help to expedite, at least on Federal lands, getting 

broadband deployed. 

Senator JOHNSON. You know, in order to get some of this legislation passed or some of these policies implemented, it’s really nice 

to have a really good anecdotal story. Do you have any stories that 

just kind of speak to how absurd this is? 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Well, you know, I was talking to somebody a little while ago about—they were trying to get something through in 

the California area, which can be notoriously difficult, and it—he 

had planned on, ‘‘You know, OK, it’s going to take a while. I need 

5 years.’’ Ten years later, he’s still trying to get it sited there, an 

area where there is no broadband coverage, you’re going down a 

major highway, and everybody gets their calls dropped there. So, 

you’d think, OK, this is the place to do it. It’s a desert, where 

there’s really not a lot you need to worry about. You put a tower 

there, it’s—you know, might disturb a lizard or something, but, basically, what is, you know, the problem, here, when people are trying to get work done as they’re commuting or somebody might be 

in the car, traveling with them. You shouldn’t be on your cell phone 

in the car, but, you know, if you’re—need that service as you’re 

driving down—emergencies and public safety—why can’t we get 

that done? Why does it take 10 years? And today, he still hasn’t 

gotten that approved. 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Morrison, do you have any a example? Or 

anybody else want to offer up a good anecdote to help get these 

things implemented? 

Mr. MORRISON. I would just reiterate that, again, 15 years in the 

industry, I have several examples that corroborate that, that what 

should have taken one, maybe two, years, from a government perspective, drag on from 5 to 10 years. That’s absolutely not uncommon. 

Senator JOHNSON. Again, just basically put up a tower. 

62 

Mr. MORRISON. That’s correct. 

Senator JOHNSON. Yes. 

I have no further questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Johnson. 

I want to follow up. Mr. Morrison, you mentioned, in your testimony—you were talking about how long it takes to get this stuff 

done—how the FCC’s 2009 shot clock action has significantly decreased the time spent on zoning and approval processes, and reducing a widely recognized barrier to deployment. And this question has to do with whether or not a similar shot clock applied to 

Federal agency decisionmakers could be similarly helpful. 

So, I’d like to get the opinion of the full panel, and start with 

you, Mr. Morrison, about your thoughts on a shot clock for other 

Federal agencies, and how that shot clock might be implemented. 

Mr. MORRISON. The shot clock, in my opinion, is very effective. 

I would acknowledge that not every jurisdiction necessarily follows 

it to the letter, but it has had a significant impact in reducing what 

could have been 18–24 month process, in some of other bigger jurisdictions, down to 6 months or less. So, in my opinion, though it’s 

not 100 percent coverage or fully in effect, it’s had a very significant impact, in that, yes, if the Federal Government were to adopt 

something similar, again, not just for permitting and zoning, but 

also for the lease opportunity, it would have a positive impact. 

The CHAIRMAN. Others on the panel? Shot clock. 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Yes. I think—you know, shot clocks have been 

very effective in implementing broadband deployment. One of the 

things that Congress had to do was to tell localities that, ‘‘You can’t 

require zoning again on a tower you’ve already zoned.’’ That was 

literally what they were doing. If you have a shopping mall, you 

don’t have them rezone it just because, you know, Kmart’s moving 

out and somebody else is moving in, but that’s what was happening. 

So, it took great bipartisan leadership in this committee to get 

that done. And the FCC, in its wisdom, said, ‘‘OK, look, at the end 

of the process, if—even after all that, if you can’t get it done within 

the period of the shot clock, we’re going to deem it granted. We’re 

going to say you’ve got to make a decision now.’’ A shot clock 

doesn’t require a decision in the affirmative. It just says you’ve got 

to decide within a reasonable period of time. 

And on a situation like a co-location, I think it made sense that 

the FCC said, ‘‘If you’re just putting something up to expand capacity on an existing already zoned facility, let’s just deem it approved 

if you can’t get it done within a certain period of time.’’ And that’s 

something that you might consider, as well. 

Senator JOHNSON. Mayor? 

Mr. RESNICK. Mr. Chairman, just—in my testimony, I mentioned 

that Florida adopted these time frames—similar time frames—actually, 3 years—prior to the FCC’s shot clock. And that—those time 

frames were adopted in cooperation by cities working with the industry and coming up with the language of that statute. So, this 

was something that we worked cooperatively with the industry in 

coming up with, and it’s worked well. 

There are some important exceptions to those time frames written into the Florida statute that are not written into the FCC’s 

63 

order that you might want to think about, like, for example, if 

there’s an emergency and it’s impossible to have the meetings or 

whatever that has to take place to process the application, there’s 

tolling of the time frames. If there’s a hurricane hitting Florida and 

the Governor sets forth a state of emergency, the time frames are 

tolled. Similarly, if the local government cannot have their review 

process conducted in that timeframe, just because it’s not possible 

to schedule the public reviews that might be necessary, the time 

frames are tolled, as well as the applicant and the local government can agree to extend. And, in my experience in Florida, as— 

even after the FCC shot clock was announced, most of the times 

the extensions come at the request of the applicant. They’re just 

not ready to proceed with all the information needed to pursue the 

application or to address questions that are going to come up at a 

public hearing. 

So, I think if you set forth time frames for the Federal agencies— 

and I don’t know how their review processes take place—but, you 

might want to build in to some of those time frames the exceptions 

to allow the time frames to toll. 

With respect to the remedy if they don’t meet the time frames, 

that’s important. You can’t just say, ‘‘It’s deemed approved. Go 

build your tower.’’ Because, one, it’s going to be very difficult—Mr. 

Adelstein can talk more about this than I can—but, it’s my understanding that it’s going to be very difficult to get insurance to cover 

that construction and that tower if they’re doing it without a permit. So, there is—there’s still value in saying, ‘‘It’s not deemed approved. You can go construct your tower, but you still need to get 

a permit.’’ Whatever process is required for that under a Federal 

level, they should still have to go through the permit. 

The one that you might want to consider, local governments have 

gotten very swift at negotiating leases for local property with infrastructure providers. Maybe as a remedy, have the Federal property 

be turned over to a local government. And I’m sure they’d be willing to take it, and we can negotiate a lease much swifter than the 

Federal Government, apparently. 

The CHAIRMAN. That would be a reverse power grab, I guess—— 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN.—which I think many of my constituents would 

support. 

But, it sounds like what you’re saying is, you think what you 

have done could be applied to Federal agencies in the way that 

you—— 

Mr. RESNICK. Right. I mean, it’s worked. I’m not aware of any 

instances, really around the country, where there’s been tremendous fights because of not meeting the time frames. Perhaps Mr. 

Morrison might have specific examples. But, for the most part, it 

has worked, and the industry and the local governments continue 

to work cooperatively on processing these applications in a timely 

fashion. And again, I’m not familiar with the review that’s required 

by the Federal agencies, but it’s worked, from the local government 

standpoint. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. 

Mr. Kinkoph, you have extensive experience implementing coordinating programs aimed at increasing broadband deployment 

64 

across the country. And, as you know, a broadly supported recommendation is to create a national data inventory of existing Federal property assets that may be suitable for facilitating broadband 

deployment and infrastructure. Such an inventory would include 

data on the condition, availability, location, and ownership of Federal property. It seems that NTIA is well positioned to manage 

such a data base, particularly considering the work your agency’s 

already done on the national broadband map. Can NTIA, with support from Congress, obtain from other Federal agencies the key information needed to create this inventory? 

Mr. KINKOPH. NTIA is currently going to be part of a team that 

is doing that through the Broadband Opportunity Council. And if 

so, it is being led by OSCP and NEC, and NTIA will be part of that 

team to gather that information and provided it on an open data 

source so that other organizations can create maps, or whatever 

they need to do with it. But, at this time, I’m not in a position to 

say that NTIA would take that on. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Can’t say that, but—— 

Mr. KINKOPH. I would have to—— 

The CHAIRMAN.—it could happen? 

Mr. KINKOPH.—back. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Well, that’s—I mean, if we were to give 

some direction there, you seem well suited and positioned—— 

Mr. KINKOPH. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN.—your agency does, to do that. 

Mr. KINKOPH. Resources are always an issue. 

The CHAIRMAN. Right. OK. Well, that would certainly have to be 

addressed, as well. 

In addition to the types of information that I mentioned, which— 

you know, location, availability, ownership, et cetera—what other 

types of data do you think ought to be included in that type of an 

inventory? And I direct that to you, and if anybody else wants to 

take a shot at that. 

Mr. KINKOPH. It’s a—you know, my view is, it’s—I don’t have a 

checklist, but, you know, location of towers, conduits, fiber, and— 

you know, there’s other issues that have to be addressed that 

hasn’t been addressed here, and I’ll just raise it: national security, 

national—you know, Homeland Security’s part in the BOC, and all 

those issues have to take in as you become—and you publish 

those—that type of information. But, I believe that it should be as 

broad and as sweeping as possible to help the industry know and 

be able to deploy quickly throughout the U.S. But, I don’t have a 

checklist currently with me. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. All right. 

All right. Well, if there are no other questions, we certainly appreciate your testimony today and thank you for your responses. 

There were a couple of questions for the record that we’ll try and 

get, and, if you can, get those back to us as quickly as possible. 

Of course, the hearing record will remain open for 2 weeks. During this time, Senators are asked to submit any questions for the 

record. And, upon receipt, the witnesses are requested to submit 

their written answers to the Committee as soon as possible. 

Thank you all very much. 

65 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(67) 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARCO RUBIO, U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA

The Internet is the greatest invention of our generation. The possibilities it has 

created—from enabling a single mom to attend college online, to allowing a human 

rights activist to make their voice heard on Twitter—are virtually endless. It has 

been a transformative innovation that has changed our world and brought greater 

opportunities, prosperities and freedom within reach of more people. None of this 

is assured forever, especially as policies are debated nationally and internationally 

that would fundamentally change the Internet as we know it. 

For example, in 2010 the Federal Communications Commission identified the 

need for additional spectrum, the finite resource that makes the use of the Internet 

and wireless broadband possible. As we move toward an increasingly mobile digital 

economy, our national demand for spectrum will only increase. Unfortunately, the 

Federal gove1nment is relying on 20th century governance to oversee decisions regarding the future of our Internet and broadband capabilities. 

Today and further into the 21st century, we will need greater commercial access 

to the infrastructure, including spectrum, that has made the types of innovation we 

have become familiar with possible. For this reason, I introduced the Wireless Innovation Act, which has been supported by five of my colleagues on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. This bill would release government-owned spectrum to increase commercial use, identify ways to increase the efficient and transparent use of spectrum by Federal users, and incentivize the deployment of broadband on federally-owned property. 

I believe this framework is vital in bringing us closer to creating the infrastructure necessary for greater wireless access and closer to a global economy supported 

by the Internet of Things. That is why I have been working with my colleagues to 

pass the Wireless Innovation Act in order to bring our Federal plan for governing 

these resources more in line with 21st century realities. 

We should be identifying federally-owned spectrum and reallocating those resources through an auction pipeline to commercial entities. In the age of our growing Internet, the Federal Government should be helping, not hindering, innovation 

and investment through this process. We should also recognize there is a role for 

unlicensed and shared spectrum, and approach the process of reallocating spectrum 

in a comprehensive manner that facilitates the best use of our existing resources, 

without creating an approval or authorization process that prohibits growth and innovation. 

This process will in turn help to create more transparency and analysis around 

the use and the value of existing spectrum held by the Federal Government. We 

should know how our spectrum is used and, where possible, find ways to make it 

even more efficient. We should also have a streamlined process for the deployment 

of wireless infrastructure on federally owned or controlled property. This will allow 

data to move more quickly and allow for increases in coverage and capacity. Our 

government should not be a barrier to deployment because of outdated regulations. 

One reason I believe the Internet has worked so well because, for the most part, 

the Government hasn’t stepped in to ruin it. Let’s keep it that way. 

68 

COMPETITIVE CARRIERS ASSOCIATION

Washington, DC, July 29, 2015 

Hon. JOHN THUNE, 

Chairman, 

U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation, 

Washington, DC. 

Hon. BILL NELSON, 

Ranking Member, 

U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson: 

Competitive Carriers Association (CCA) respectfully submits this letter for the 

record regarding today’s hearing on ‘‘Wireless Broadband and the Future of Spectrum Policy.’’ CCA commends the Committee for beginning a bipartisan process to 

consider ways to meet future demand for wireless services through a long-term legislative solution. 

Mobile broadband is a critical component of modern life, and spectrum is the lifeblood of mobile services. CCA represents over 100 competitive wireless providers 

ranging from small, rural carriers to regional and nationwide providers, as well as 

approximately 200 associate members consisting of small businesses, vendors, and 

suppliers that service carriers of all sizes. All CCA members depend on procompetitive policies that support their ability to access critical spectrum resources and 

continued growth of mobile broadband to meet their customer’s needs. 

In addition, mobile broadband powers advanced telemedicine, limitless education, 

employment prospects, public safety, precision farming, and other innovative new 

services and opportunities, both in urban population centers and in rural America. 

Indeed, nearly half of all United States households are now ‘‘wireless only’’ and 

PEW Research recently found that ‘‘nearly two-thirds of Americans are now 

smartphone owners, and for many these devices are a key entry point to the online 

world.’’ While carriers continue to make impressive progress to provide innovative 

services, there is still work to be done. CCA supports the Committee’s focus on fueling broadband investment and growth with additional access to spectrum and by 

promoting policies that remove barriers to competition and facilitate the next disruptive innovation. 

Ensure Competitive Spectrum Policies 

Building on the Spectrum Act and the progress made implementing it, Congress 

has a key role to play in creating durable, enduring processes to meet our wireless 

nation’s spectrum needs. Looking over the horizon, rather than focusing on a particular spectrum band or technology, policymakers should foster efficient spectrum 

management that maximizes utilization of this finite, taxpayer-owned resource. 

While we all must cooperatively work to identify additional spectrum resources 

for mobile broadband use, competitive principles currently in place should guide future spectrum policy. For example, spectrum must be interoperable to support open 

ecosystems that allow carriers of all sizes and technologies to maximize use of spectrum to unleash new services. Interoperability was required for the original Cellular 

spectrum band, and policies requiring or restoring interoperability in other spectrum bands provide carriers with the certainty that scarce spectrum resources can 

be used to enhance competition and service offerings. Future spectrum allocations 

must be interoperable to support a competitive mobile ecosystem. 

Additionally, the FCC should continue to allocate spectrum in smaller geographic 

license sizes. CCA applauds efforts to reinforce this principle, and commends Chairman Thune’s repeated support in previous hearings for using smaller geographic license sizes to encourage interest in rural areas. Smaller geographic license sizes, 

like Cellular Market Areas or Partial Economic Areas, are necessary for smaller carriers to be able to compete for spectrum at auction and support utilization nationwide, particularly in rural areas. Furthermore, policymakers should consider appropriate build-out requirements and, as required by the Communications Act, policies 

that help to avoid excessive spectrum aggregation that impedes competition. 

The Next Band: A Broad Range of Solutions Should Be Considered 

There is no one-size-fits-all solution to making more spectrum available for mobile 

carriers, and each additional spectrum band will have unique utilization challenges 

and opportunities. Congress should consider a broad range of ideas that collectively 

add up to new and enhanced opportunities for access to additional spectrum resources. Market-based proposals, like those contemplated in the Rural Spectrum Accessibility Act (S. 417), provide incentives for wireless carriers to enter into business 

agreements to partition or disaggregate a spectrum license to make unused specVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:44 May 10, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\20043.TXT JACKIE
69 

trum available to small carriers or for carriers to serve rural areas, particularly 

when this spectrum may otherwise go unused. 

Despite recent efforts to repurpose the AWS–3 band, the Federal Government remains the holder of the largest amount of spectrum. While Federal users must retain access to resources necessary to complete their missions, Congress should consider policies to support reallocation where appropriate. A good example is the Wireless Innovation Act (S. 1618), which supports identifying Federal spectrum that can 

be reallocated for mobile broadband use and encourages deployment on Federal 

buildings and lands. Another example, the Federal Incentive Auction Act (S. 887) 

provides monetary incentives for Federal users to reallocate spectrum for commercial use in exchange for a percentage of the auction proceeds. These legislative efforts provide opportunistic uses of spectrum which encourage more efficient use. As 

FCC Commissioner Rosenworcel has articulated, carrots to incentivize spectral efficiency among Federal users allow the mobile broadband industry and the Federal 

Government to cooperate to identify opportunities to maximize use of otherwise 

under-utilized spectrum. 

Increasing demand for spectrum, and the limited amount of new spectrum resources available for license, requires policies that consider opportunities that unlicensed spectrum offer for innovators, entrepreneurs and existing mobile operators 

to maximize spectral resources. Unlicensed spectrum, as a compliment to licensed 

spectrum, helps to support enhanced services and competition. In identifying future 

spectrum bands for potential reallocation for commercial use, higher frequency spectrum can support on-the-spot capacity solutions, while continued work to identify 

lower frequency spectrum to support wide area coverage, particularly in rural areas. 

Progress in identifying spectrum for unlicensed use in the 3.5 GHz and 5 GHz bands 

provides a good example of ways to support new technologies while enhancing licensed carrier services. Stakeholders prefer exclusive use of licensed spectrum, yet 

facing today’s realities all options should be on the table. Access to new frequencies 

and technologies, with open ecosystems that support the availability of devices in 

all spectrum bands, for all carriers, should be encouraged. 

Role of Technology 

Spectrum availability, as vital as it is, requires sound standards-setting to support 

both competition and meet growing wireless demands. Policymakers should continue 

to play a role as standards are developed to ensure all Americans benefit from new 

innovations and technology advancements. Establishing core competitive principles 

for emerging technology while avoiding unnecessary regulation will help bridge the 

digital divide between urban and rural areas. New technologies like LAA, LTE–U, 

smart antennas, dynamic spectrum access and cognitive radio may help alleviate 

network congestion and provide carriers with new avenues to offer faster, more efficient service to otherwise unserved areas. This is a particular focus of CCA members that do not have the same spectrum portfolios of their largest rivals. Ensuring 

the capabilities of future networks now will help us to meet the needs of urban and 

rural consumers alike and in turn will spur development of 5G services. The United 

States has led the world in 4G deployment. The same should be true of 5G deployment, and these policies will foster that leadership. Policymakers should keenly emphasize that new technologies and services are available nationwide to maximize 

spectrum utilization and make sure that rural areas are not left behind as new services evolve. 

Infrastructure 

While spectrum is the invisible infrastructure over which mobile services ride, 

carriers also depend on towers and other physical network components. Wireless 

broadband is necessarily dependent on costly infrastructure to provide services. 

Competitive carriers depend on reasonable facilities siting policies to deploy critical 

wireless services. Many competitive carriers serve the most rural areas of the 

United States and often face challenges obtaining prompt collocation or tower construction permits or rights of way for siting on Federal lands. Efforts to streamline 

the siting process and remove unnecessary red tape encourage faster deployment of 

mobile broadband infrastructure and services to consumers. 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Parks Service (NPS), United 

States Forest Service (USFS) Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and other Federal 

agencies own, manage, or administer significant portions of land, particularly in 

western and rural states. Competitive carriers seeking to deploy mobile broadband 

in these areas face unreasonable delays and other impediments to constructing and 

siting on these lands. Barriers to deployment often raise a carrier’s cost through onerous administrative, legal and regulatory requirements. Consolidating Federal requirements, and trimming excessive or duplicative rules when multiple Federal 

70 

agencies are involved in approving the same infrastructure project would help to 

streamline an otherwise laborious process. For example, creating an application 

clearing house to coordinate all Federal permitting required for a project would reduce delays and utilize limited resources more efficiently. 

Similarly, carriers depend on timely responses from state and local governments 

on siting applications. Shot clocks and other defined time frames and parameters 

allow for efficient application consideration without creating unnecessary delays or 

obstacles for carriers to expand their facilities. The Supreme Court’s ruling in TMobile South LLC v. City of Roswell, which requires local and state governments 

to act expeditiously and clearly state their objections to a tower siting application, 

is a step in the right direction. Should further disputes regarding state and local 

authority continue to arise, we encourage Congress and the FCC to provide additional guidance to provide clear rules of the road for tower siting. 

Certainty Regarding Other Inputs to Wireless Broadband Supports Continued Investment 

While today’s hearing is focused on spectral inputs for continued growth of mobile 

broadband services, CCA would be remiss not to mention the need for certainty regarding access to other inputs and incentives. For example, carriers, non-nationwide 

carriers in particular, require access to reasonable data roaming, access to devices, 

and certainty regarding the Universal Service Fund (USF) to continue to invest to 

meet growing demands. Congress created USF to provide reasonably comparable 

services to urban and rural consumer alike, requiring that support be predictable 

and sufficient. These policies have enabled years of expansion of mobile wireless 

services in rural America. USF injects a healthy dose of funding to supplement and 

compliment competitive carriers’ private sector investments to expand mobile 

broadband service in rural and high cost areas that are otherwise uneconomical to 

serve. Any uncertainty regarding existing and future support has the potential to 

delay or prevent deployment of broadband infrastructure. 

Uncertainty regarding existing and future support has the chilling effect of stalling deployments and forcing carriers to make difficult decisions regarding existing 

and planned mobile broadband services. In addition, this uncertainty has the potential to strand existing investments, leaving behind a legacy of rusty towers and reduced services. Congress must continue its oversight to ensure that USF support is 

sufficient and predictable to support wireless service throughout rural America. 

Similarly, uncertainty regarding the availability of devices to utilize new spectrum allocations or access to backhaul and roaming to provide services limits smaller carriers’ ability to invest and provide services in rural and underserved areas. 

As the legislative process continues, CCA encourages the Committee to focus on providing carriers of all sizes with access to all inputs necessary to meet continually 

growing demands. 

In conclusion, CCA applauds and supports committee efforts to provide additional 

spectrum resources for mobile broadband and welcomes the opportunity to help craft 

a proactive approach to potential solutions. Enacting policies that provide competitive carriers with certainty while eliminating or streamlining burdensome procedures and creating innovative solutions to access finite spectrum resources will encourage investment and expansion in mobile broadband infrastructure and foster 

continued innovation and economic growth. Consumers across the United States, especially in rural areas, will benefit from Congress’s continued focus on policies that 

support competition and investment in mobile broadband. CCA appreciates the opportunity to contribute to the record for today’s hearing, and looks forward to continued work with the Committee, its Members, and the FCC on these important 

issues to increase mobile broadband services and support competition in the industry. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. 

Sincerely, 

STEVEN K. BERRY, 

President and CEO. 

71 

AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION

Arlington, VA, October 6, 2015 

Hon. JOHN THUNE, 

Chairman, 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation, 

United States Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

Hon. BILL NELSON, 

Ranking Member, 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation, 

United States Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson: 

The Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) represents an industry that directly 

employs more than one million workers across the country, and provided $220 billion in revenue and $118 billion in exports in 2014 alone. This industry supports 

a broad swath of the American economy, including the civil aviation industry, which 

contributed $1.5 trillion to the Nation’s economy in 2012. Equally importantly, our 

members design, develop and manufacture the cutting-edge aircraft, satellites, and 

weapon systems that keep our Nation safe and protect U.S. national interests 

around the globe. 

As you know, many of the technologies the aerospace and defense industry depends upon, develops, and delivers are spectrum-dependent. Without continued and 

reliable access to spectrum, Federal agencies and military service members may not 

be able to accomplish their missions effectively. Consequently, our industry is a critical stakeholder in the debate on spectrum policy and the management and use of 

spectrum by the Federal Government. We understand that the civilian economy demands increased access to additional spectrum for commercial broadband. However, 

changes in spectrum policy must take care to ensure that any such transition not 

be conducted to the detriment of our national security, intelligence capabilities, or 

new entrants to our economy such as the integration of unmanned aircraft into our 

national airspace. 

Existing manufactured systems should be taken into account when considering 

spectrum policy changes. Many aerospace and defense systems are developed in accordance with international standards to operate in certain frequencies. Many missions and applications require technologies to operate on specific frequencies given 

the constraints placed on technology by the laws of physics. Yet, as technology advances and subscriber usage and markets evolve, the frequencies where some services can operate may also change. For example, the commercial wireless industry 

has pursued higher and higher frequency bands to complement their existing systems, whereas it was once thought that only lower frequencies could be technologically or economically feasible. As such, AIA requests that policymakers undertake a cautious approach and determine the readiness of alternative technology solutions and associated impact to end users by working collaboratively with the U.S. 

aerospace & defense industry in formulating policy. 

The systems built by our members are primarily developed and manufactured in 

the United States. All of AIA’s members are U.S. manufacturers. We have an established industrial base and supply chain that makes enormous contributions not only 

to our country’s economy, but also to our Nation’s safety and well being. Our ability 

to accomplish these goals relies on the continued availability of spectrum to support 

our systems and solutions. 

I respectfully request your approval, if appropriate, to place a copy of this letter 

in the hearing record of your October 7, 2015 hearing titled ‘‘Removing Barriers to 

Wireless Broadband Deployment.’’ We greatly appreciate your expertise and leadership on spectrum issues, and as you pursue changes in spectrum policy in the current Congress, I hope you will consider the needs of our industry and consider us 

a resource in future stakeholder discussions. 

Sincerely, 

DAVID F. MELCHER. 

72 

Aerospace Industries Association—Issue Paper 

SPECTRUM—CRITICAL TO U.S. AEROSPACE & DEFENSE INDUSTRY CONTRIBUTIONS TO

U.S. ECONOMY AND GLOBAL LEADERSHIP

AIA Recommends Spectrum Principles for U.S. Policymakers 

The Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) recommends that U.S. policymakers 

advance spectrum principles that: 

• Include the interests of all spectrum stakeholders, including U.S. aerospace & 

defense industry. 

• Recognize that our industry contributes high-tech jobs, exports, technology innovation, research and development (R&D) benefiting both the U.S. economy and 

U.S. national security. 

• Enable the aerospace and defense industry to continue as the single largest 

U.S. net exporter of technologically-advanced systems and solutions. 

• Promote U.S. economic growth by ensuring continued safe, stable and secure operation of U.S. systems and technologies—aeronautical, radar, satellite—that 

enable critical weather forecasting, public safety, air traffic control, navigation, 

flight testing, earth monitoring, and national security activities. 

• Ensure our industry’s ability to access critical spectrum to support R&D, and 

safe, efficient and secure facility and manufacturing operations. 

Key Facts About the U.S. Aerospace and Defense Industry 

• Employs more than 1 million workers across the United States. 

• In 2014 generated over $220 billion in revenue and exported over $118 billion. 

• The U.S. civil aviation industry contributed $1.5 trillion to the U.S. economy in 

2012. Last year 848 million passengers flew on U.S. domestic flights and on foreign airlines serving the U.S. 

Discussion 

Spectrum is vital to everything that the U.S. aerospace and defense industry creates, so it is critical that policymakers take the needs and concerns of the industry 

into account in debates on spectrum sharing, Federal spectrum repurposing, and 

commercial spectrum requirements. The performance of high-tech, advanced platforms, systems and solutions that we innovate, develop, manufacture, and deploy 

are dependent on spectrum preservation and access. Therefore, we have a vital 

stake in discussions about Federal spectrum policy. 

Critical Spectrum Uses for Technology Operation and Development 

Spectrum is an enabler of advance aerospace and defense systems, solutions and 

services provided to commercial, Federal and international customers. The U.S. 

aerospace & defense industry invests substantially in new and existing technologies 

that rely on spectrum, including: 

• Civil Aviation and NextGen 

• Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

• Commercial Space Transportation 

• Critical Infrastructure Protection 

• The Global Positioning System 

• Radars 

• Earth Observation 

• Weather Forecasting 

• Secure Global Communications 

• Maritime Communications 

• Missile Launch Warning 

The U.S. aerospace and defense industry is comprised of large manufacturers, as 

well as medium and small suppliers, which rely on certain frequencies with specific 

technical characteristics in the manufacturing and testing process. These cuttingedge technologies must be safely and securely tested to ensure our systems meet 

the safety requirements of our customers. Civil aviation users include airlines, business aviation, and private pilots. Government users include the U.S. military, law 

enforcement, customs and immigration enforcement, and state agencies. 

Technological Considerations 

Existing manufactured systems should be taken into account when considering 

spectrum policy changes. Many aerospace and defense systems are developed in accordance with international standards to operate in certain frequencies. Many missions and applications require technologies to operate in specific frequencies given 

the constraints placed on technology by the laws of physics. Therefore, it is not always possible to simply move technologies to new frequencies. While our industry 

is open to discussions on relocation and sharing where it makes technological and 

73 

financial sense, sometimes it may not be feasible for a particular application or mission, due to the technical operating characteristics of specific frequency bands—including signal range, power requirements, signal penetration into objects like buildings, and interference with other systems. 

Yet, as technology advances, the frequencies where some services can operate may 

also change. For example, the commercial wireless industry has pursued higher and 

higher frequency bands for their systems, whereas it was once thought that only 

lower frequencies could be economically feasible. As such, AIA requests that policymakers undertake a cautious approach and determine the readiness of alternative 

technology solutions and associated impact to end users by working collaboratively 

with the U.S. aerospace & defense industry in formulating policy. 

Summary 

AIA supports a long-range vision that provides reliable access to spectrum for the 

aerospace & defense industry, the wireless broadband industry, and government investments alike. AIA looks forward to engaging with U.S. policymakers, both as a 

stakeholder and as a resource to ensure the U.S. has a robust, balanced, and inclusive spectrum policy that preserves our Nation’s civil aviation, communication and 

navigation systems, and national security. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. DEB FISCHER TO

DOUGLAS KINKOPH

Question. Earlier this year, Senator Klobuchar and I introduced the Rural Spectrum Accessibility Act, which would incentivize wireless carriers to lease unused 

spectrum to smaller rural carriers. Have any of the witnesses had an opportunity 

to review this proposal or others to incentivize spectrum sharing? Do you believe 

this would help expand access? 

Answer. NTIA manages Federal use of spectrum while the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) manages non-federal use. Thus, the FCC may be in a better position to comment on the specifics of the proposed Rural Spectrum Accessibility Act. The Administration has not taken a position on this specific proposal. 

However, NTIA generally supports appropriate initiatives to expand access to spectrum and facilitate efficient use of scarce spectrum resources, which are clear objectives of the proposed measure. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DAN SULLIVAN TO

DOUGLAS KINKOPH

Question 1. Companies in my state that are currently trying to build much needed 

broadband infrastructure have been delayed by unexpected requirements in the permitting process. How can we improve transparency in the permitting process to 

avoid this? 

Answer. State, local, and Federal permitting delays often impact broadband construction projects, and all levels of government should work to increase transparency to facilitate the permitting process. At the Federal level, President Obama 

recognized the importance of transparency when he issued Executive Order (EO) 

No. 13616, ‘‘Accelerating Broadband Infrastructure Deployment,’’ to facilitate wired 

and wireless broadband infrastructure deployment on Federal lands, buildings, and 

rights-of-way. While Federal agencies have made significant progress in streamlining Federal processes, the 2015 Broadband Opportunity Council (Council) received input from stakeholders indicating that the Federal Government can still do 

more to help service providers obtain the necessary permits and permissions to 

build out broadband networks on Federal lands and use Federal assets or cross Federal rights-of-way, particularly by streamlining Federal permitting processes. Building on the EO 13616 actions, the Council’s report includes agency commitments to 

create an online inventory of data on Federal assets, such as the Department of Interior (DOI) telecommunications towers, that can help support faster and more economical broadband deployments to remote areas of the country. Additionally, the 

Administration is committed to streamlining the applications for programs and permitting processes to facilitate broadband deployment and foster competition. The 

implementation of these agency actions should help to improve transparency and 

minimize delays in gaining access to Federal assets for increased broadband investments. 

Question 2. Companies in my state have explained that they try to build their infrastructure across State, private, or Alaska Native land, rather than deal with the 

problems associated with crossing Federal land. Do you agree that it is a problem 

74 

that the private sector is avoiding building broadband infrastructure on Federal 

land, especially when more than 60 percent of Alaska is owned by the Federal Government? 

Answer. Federal lands, buildings, and assets are important conduits for 

broadband deployment and should be readily accessible for deployment of broadband 

infrastructure. The Broadband Opportunity Council (Council) heard from multiple 

stakeholders urging Federal agencies to take action to streamline processes and 

standardize timelines for the review and processing of permitting applications and 

make such documentation easily accessible. One of the Council’s guiding principles 

is that the Federal Government should strive for uniform definitions and common 

permitting and application processes to reduce the burden on local government, 

state government, non-profit, and private applicants applying for Federal resources. 

The deployment of broadband requires collaboration between the public and private 

sectors and often cooperation across multiple levels of government. Federal agencies 

should work closely with the private sector and local and state governments to ensure Federal policies facilitate investment in broadband services. 

Question 3. I, along with some of my colleagues, sent a letter to the Co-Chairs 

of the Broadband Opportunity Council. In it, we asked for an analysis of current 

broadband initiatives. Can you point to any specific initiatives that are working particularly well? Can you point to any that are not? 

Answer. NTIA was responsible for implementing the broadband grants programs 

established by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. We believe this program was a resounding success. It fully delivered on its pledges to create jobs, stimulate economic development, spur private-sector investment, and open up new opportunities in employment, education, and healthcare. NTIA’s broadband grantees 

deployed more than 115,000 miles of new or upgraded network miles; connected 

more than 25,500 community anchor institutions; installed or upgraded more than 

47,100 personal computers in public access centers; and prompted more than 

670,000 people to subscribe to broadband services. 

Through the ongoing BroadbandUSA initiative, NTIA is leveraging the expertise 

gained by overseeing this broad portfolio of broadband infrastructure and adoption 

grants to help communities expand their broadband capacity. NTIA’s technical assistance ranges from workshops and webinars to more personalized one-on-one community assistance. NTIA can help communities navigate government rules and 

grant programs; find the best way to design and deliver a broadband adoption program; and attract broadband investment. To date, NTIA has held four regional 

workshops to bring community and industry stakeholders together to discuss how 

best to support their broadband needs. NTIA has also released field-tested guides 

such as our Broadband Adoption Toolkit, Public-Private Partnership Primer, and 

Guide to Federal Funding of Broadband Projects to inform community broadband 

efforts. NTIA has received very positive feedback on its broadband initiatives and 

plans to issue additional publications on broadband topics over the next several 

months. 

Additionally, through the Broadband Opportunity Council (Council) all member 

agencies were surveyed to identify programs that could be modified to support or 

further support broadband. The Council then developed 36 immediate actions, with 

associated milestones, that the member agencies agreed to undertake. Once implemented, we believe that these recommendations will make a meaningful difference 

to communities seeking new tools and resources to promote broadband investments. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. STEVE DAINES TO

DOUGLAS KINKOPH

Question 1. Mr. Kinkoph, you talked about the FCC’s recommended download 

speed of 25 megabits per second and how over 50 million Americans’ current 

broadband connection does not meet that standard. But does the average consumer 

really need 25 megabits per second? You can stream HD video at 4 megabits per 

second and 10 megabits per second is considered industrial strength. So why are 

we focusing on upgrading download speeds for Americans who already have 

broadband when there are still plenty of people—many in Montana—who have no 

connectivity at all? 

Answer. NTIA recognizes that consumers’ needs for broadband speeds will vary 

depending upon their broadband usage or the types of applications they demand. In 

its February 2015 Broadband Progress Report, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) updated its broadband benchmark speeds to 25 Mbps for downloads 

and 3 Mbps for uploads to reflect advances in technology, market offerings by 

broadband providers, and consumer demand. The FCC noted that high-speed 

75 

broadband is essential to support video, telemedicine, distance learning, and other 

applications needed by such end users as hospitals, schools, and libraries. In many 

cases residential broadband connections serve multiple people as well as a variety 

of devices within a single household therefore increasing bandwidth needs and the 

demand for high-speed broadband. Additionally, consumers using broadband to 

stream and download HD video will require higher speeds to ensure they receive 

an acceptable quality of service. Still, NTIA knows that there are many areas of our 

country, particularly in very rural areas and tribal lands, where any broadband connection would be an improvement over what exists today. 

NTIA has demonstrated a longstanding commitment to promoting broadband deployment and adoption in unserved and underserved areas, including parts of Montana. Through the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program, for example, 

NTIA awarded a $13.7 million grant in 2010 to Ronan Telephone Company (RTC) 

to deploy a new high-speed middle-mile network to expand broadband services and 

promote economic development and recovery for underserved communities of Montana, including the Blackfeet and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. As 

of June 2015, the project deployed 299 miles of new fiber and upgraded 106 miles 

of existing fiber. RTC also signed agreements with local Internet service providers 

to facilitate more affordable and accessible broadband service for households and 

businesses in the area. To date, RTC has connected 34 Community Anchor Institutions (CAIs), including educational institutions, government facilities, public safety 

entities, and medical facilities. RTC also partnered with Health Information Exchange of Montana to facilitate telemedicine and improved healthcare delivery for 

rural residents. 

While much progress has been made, challenges still remain in bringing 

broadband to unserved areas of the country. Much of the easy work has been done— 

building out broadband infrastructure where the business case is compelling or encouraging broadband adoption and use among those who are already digitally ready. 

NTIA is committed to tackling the hard work that needs to occur to reach those 

communities where geography and economics render broadband deployment, competition, and adoption difficult to fully realize. NTIA is taking action through its 

BroadbandUSA initiative to offer communities the technical assistance and support 

they need to overcome their unique challenges hindering investment in broadband 

infrastructure and adoption. 

Question 2. Mr. Kinkoph, NTIA has several different programs and partnerships 

to carry out its mission with respect to broadband, as do dozens of other Federal 

agencies. In fact, as you mentioned, the Broadband Opportunity Council report gave 

recommendations to over twenty Federal agencies. That sounds like a lot of agencies 

involved in carrying out the one common goal to bring broadband connectivity to 

Americans. What programs and policies does NTIA have in place to ensure that 

there is no overlap or waste? 

Answer. The President created the Broadband Opportunity Council (Council) to 

provide a vehicle for strategic coordination among Federal agencies to promote 

greater broadband deployment and adoption. While there are several Federal agencies involved in promoting broadband use and adoption, many of the agencies 

named to the Council had never viewed broadband to be part of their core missions. 

So an initial part of the Council’s task was for each agency to look internally at 

their existing policies and programs to explore whether there was flexibility to do 

more to promote broadband. This exercise helped raise the profile of broadband as 

a tool that these agencies could use to fulfill their missions and further agency 

goals. Council members collectively became more informed about barriers and issues 

facing stakeholders trying to deploy broadband and promote broadband adoption. 

NTIA will continue to co-chair the Council to promote coordination among Federal 

agencies and monitor implementation of the agency actions. Additionally, interagency coordination is a key component of NTIA’s BroadbandUSA initiative. 

BroadbandUSA regularly receives requests from other Federal agencies to provide 

input on broadband policies, review proposed legislation and rulemaking on 

broadband issues, and participate in their workshops or outreach activities related 

to broadband. In this role, NTIA can strive to minimize any overlap or duplication 

in Federal agencies’ various broadband initiatives. 

76 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. CORY BOOKER TO

DOUGLAS KINKOPH

Question. It is clear from the recent spectrum auction, which attracted over $44 

billion in bids, and from your testimony that the demand for licensed wireless spectrum is growing. While Congress is addressing the need for licensed spectrum, we 

must also take seriously the need to expand our reserve of unlicensed spectrum for 

Wi-Fi and other purposes. Just how important is unlicensed spectrum and Wi-Fi to 

the continued expansion of mobile device communication? 

Answer. Wi-Fi, and unlicensed spectrum use more broadly, continues to be a tremendous innovation success story. The Administration has stated that both licensed 

and unlicensed spectrum must be part of the country’s spectrum policy. The Federal 

Communication Commission’s (FCC) upcoming incentive auction will open up bandwidth by allowing unlicensed wireless use in the resulting guard bands. Earlier this 

year, NTIA collaborated with the FCC to enable a three-tier licensing approach that 

includes more traditional incumbent and priority access as well as general authorized access licenses (which provide low-barrier access to spectrum, much like unlicensed use) to frequencies in the 3.5 GHz band through the adoption of innovative 

mechanisms for sharing the spectrum with incumbent Federal systems. Even in 

areas where all priority licenses are in use, this sharing regime will make up to 80 

megahertz of spectrum available to users who simply need certified equipment to 

operate, which could potentially help create a new space for innovative services to 

flourish. NTIA also is working closely with the FCC, other Federal agencies, and 

industry to evaluate and facilitate compatibility between unlicensed devices and incumbent systems to enable spectrum sharing in the 5 GHz band. Finally, NTIA is 

also working with the FCC on innovative approaches to increasing unlicensed access 

in the 64–71 GHz band. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. MARCO RUBIO TO

HON. JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN

Question. I’ve introduced The Wireless Innovation Act to free up more spectrum 

for commercial use and to streamline wireless infrastructure deployment, particularly on Federal property. I’d like to know whether within the Federal Government 

there are agencies that your members find to be particularly challenging? 

Answer. The myriad of processes and procedures among different Federal agencies 

often poses insurmountable obstacles to siting wireless infrastructure on Federal 

property. PCIA strongly supports the Wireless Innovation Act (‘‘WIA’’) you introduced because, among other important provisions, it includes a number of critical 

reforms to the Federal siting process. WIA would be a tremendous help in making 

the siting process on Federal property friendlier to wireless broadband buildout. A 

more standard approach to siting would allow easier interaction with agencies borne 

of varied histories and comprised of different cultures and values. The agencies have 

good people doing good work, but to date there have been bad processes or a lack 

of processes. Congress is well suited to provide direction and clarity that is otherwise lacking in the broadband deployment process on Federal lands today. 

Just recently, the GSA indicated that it has at last taken steps to implement 

some of the siting provisions included in Section 6409 of the 2012 legislation and 

that would be required under the Wireless Innovation Act. From what you know of 

GSA’s actions, have they acted in a way that will expedite the process for siting on 

Federal properties? If not, what remains to be done? 

PCIA commends GSA’s recent actions to follow its statutory mandates, albeit they 

late in implementing them. Its actions are certainly a step in the right direction but 

much more needs to be done. For instance, all landholding Federal agencies are not 

currently mandated to use the GSA forms or contracts. Without a requirement to 

standardize these forms across agencies, GSA’s actions could be for naught. In addition, further congressional action is necessary to encourage long-term leases, swift 

renewal processes, and publicly available fee schedules. Moreover, without individuals at each agency who understand the important Federal mandate to spur 

broadband deployment and are empowered to approve or deny applications that 

have stalled at the field level, these projects will languish or will be abandoned. 

Even in light of GSA’s recent actions, many of the provisions contained in the Wireless Innovation Act are necessary to further improve the process to site wireless facilities on Federal lands. 

77 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DEB FISCHER TO

HON. JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN

Question 1. Mr. Adelstein, in your written testimony, you discussed challenges related to the ‘‘wireless data crunch.’’ You also provided several examples of how to 

address the challenge including spectrum access, efficiencies, and infrastructure. 

Can you please expand upon your comments, particularly as it relates to infrastructure solutions and rural consumers? 

Answer. As I mentioned in my testimony, there is today an abundance of choices 

available to network planners to address the wireless data crunch. Traditional tall 

support structures effectively provide much of the coverage and capacity necessary 

for wireless broadband. To fill coverage gaps and overlay capacity in high traffic 

markets, the industry is also increasingly deploying distributed antennas systems 

and small cells. Further, the networks themselves are getting smarter. Self-optimizing networks and the combination of intelligent software and hardware design 

allows a network to anticipate usage and provide greater resources to areas of need 

on the fly, enhancing the user experience. Unlicensed spectrum similarly continues 

to play an important role in this system, offloading traffic to the wired network and 

providing greater headroom for licensed mobile services. Today’s infrastructure will 

provide the cornerstone of the Internet of Things, 5G, and the applications, services, 

and jobs that will make up the economy of tomorrow. This is especially true in rural 

areas. As technology improves, it may become easier to serve rural communities. 

Now, network planners have an abundance of choices to serve a diverse set of areas. 

Question 2. Earlier this year Senator Klobuchar and I introduced the Rural Spectrum Accessibility Act, which would incentivize wireless carriers to lease unused 

spectrum to smaller rural carriers. Have any of the witnesses had an opportunity 

to review this proposal or others to incentivize spectrum sharing? Do you believe 

this would help expand access? 

Answer. As I mentioned in my testimony, we need as much spectrum as we can 

get, as fast as we can get it. Whether it’s new spectrum or reusing or repurposing 

current spectrum allocations, it is important to look at all potential solutions to ensure that all Americans and all communities are able to enjoy the enormous benefits 

that comes from wireless broadband. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DAN SULLIVAN TO

HON. JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN

Question 1. The construction season in Alaska is shorter than most. This does not 

allow for delays caused by roadblocks in the Federal permitting process. How can 

we improve the timeliness of permitting on Federal lands? 

Answer. The current process for siting wireless infrastructure on Federal lands 

is fraught with complications. Each landholding agency has their own process for 

siting, with different requirements and often different fees. PCIA has worked closely 

with Members of both the House and Senate on legislation to streamline and expedite the process. It would be very helpful, for example, if all Federal landholding 

agencies were required to use a common set of forms and contracts. Further, providing leases with a public and transparent fee schedule would provide the necessary certainty when deciding whether to invest in new infrastructure and shorten 

the timeline for individual site specific fee negotiations. The availability of long term 

leases and automatic renewal would also improve the Federal siting process, as 

would fee retention for the landholding agency. 

Question 2. 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. Is this a situation where a ‘‘shot clock’’ could help speed up the permitting process? 

Answer. Yes. Applying a reasonable time limit on siting applications is helpful in 

the build-out of wireless broadband infrastructure on Federal or state lands. PCIA 

members are often frustrated with unreasonable and unnecessary delays in obtaining permits. It is not necessary to usurp local authority, but only receive a timely 

‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ answer from the local government or agency. 

Question 3. Alaska has some of the most remote, sparsely populated communities 

in the U.S. Access to high speed broadband Internet enables these communities to 

connect locally and globally. Given Alaska’s topography, and the remoteness of 

many communities, there is a strong need for wireless broadband to help serve 

these unserved and underserved communities. Considering that the Wireless Infrastructure Association (PCIA) works with federal, state, and local governments to reVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:44 May 10, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\20043.TXT JACKIE
78 

move barriers to wireless broadband deployment, how does PCIA work with Alaska 

Native leaders to identify and overcome barriers to wireless broadband deployment 

on Alaska Native lands? 

Answer. I have visited Alaskan Native lands and leaders in your state, and recognize the pressing need for connectivity there. PCIA has consistently highlighted that 

wireless is the most cost-effective infrastructure for low-density regions. Wireless infrastructure has the power to provide rural areas like those in Alaska the ability 

to compete in the innovation economy. One of the barriers to deployment in rural 

areas that PCIA has emphasized is access to Federal lands and property. Many of 

them that would benefit from streamlined siting are by definition rural. Having better access to Federal lands and property will help increase broadband availability 

in rural areas. PCIA recognizes that much of Alaska is Alaska Native land. We have 

worked with Native leaders through organizing and participating in workshops at 

the FCC that provide education on tribal wireless siting review processes and the 

importance of broadband deployment on Native lands. PCIA has also forged relationships with Tribal Historic Preservation Office leaders by inviting them to attend 

and speak at our Wireless Infrastructure Show. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. CORY BOOKER TO

HON. JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN

Question. It is clear from the recent spectrum auction, which attracted over $44 

billion dollars in bids, and from your testimony that the demand for licensed wireless spectrum is growing. While Congress is addressing the need for licensed spectrum, we must also take seriously the need to expand our reserve of unlicensed 

spectrum for Wi-Fi and other purposes. Just how important is unlicensed spectrum 

and Wi-Fi to the continued expansion of mobile device communication? 

Answer. Spectrum is a critical component for economic growth, international competitiveness and wireless innovation. As I noted in my testimony, more spectrum 

must be made available—as much as we can get, as fast as we can get it—because 

the demand for wireless mobile data continues to explode. Licensed spectrum remains a top priority because it allows for the greatest level of certainty and quality 

of service. However, both licensed and unlicensed spectrum are needed to continue 

incentivizing the incredible amount of investment that has made the U.S. the global 

leader in wireless innovation. Unlicensed spectrum is an important testbed for new 

applications in the consumer and enterprise space, and as wireless data demand increases, unlicensed spectrum is handling more and more of the offload and backhaul 

requirements. 

In order to continue to encourage private investment in wireless networks, Congress needs to modernize spectrum policy for both licensed and unlicensed spectrum 

uses. This is why PCIA supports S. 424, the Wi-Fi Innovation Act. Your bill recognizes that the U.S. faces both an unprecedented wireless data crunch and a digital 

divide that puts lower-income Americans at a disadvantage. This bill is a crucial 

step toward the adoption of policies that will ease the wireless data crunch and help 

bridge the digital divide. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. DEB FISCHER TO

HON. GARY RESNICK

Question. Earlier this year Senator Klobuchar and I introduced the Rural Spectrum Accessibility Act, which would incentivize wireless carriers to lease unused 

spectrum to smaller rural carriers. Have any of the witnesses had an opportunity 

to review this proposal or others to incentivize spectrum sharing? Do you believe 

this would help expand access? 

Answer. I have not had an opportunity to review this proposed legislation and do 

not currently have a position on it. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. STEVE DAINES TO

HON. GARY RESNICK

Question 1. Mr. Resnick, you mention in your testimony that local leaders are 

managing many infrastructure needs and that sometimes there are delays to deployment. Can you expand on that and tell us what the sticking points are and what 

you, as local leaders, are up against that cause difficulty in moving the deployment 

process forward? 

79 

Answer. Thank you for this question. As an initial matter, it is important to note 

that the industry has reduced, voluntarily, the number of wireless infrastructure 

sites between December 2013 and December 2014. (Source: http://www.ctia.org/ 

your-wireless-life/how-wireless-works/annual-wireless-industry-survey.) Moreover, 

according to informtion provided to me, the industry is not seeking to add a significant number of new sites in 2016. Thus, there is not a crisis in terms of the industry 

looking to add new wireless infrastructure sites and not being able to do so. Quite 

the contrary, largely because of how many sites have been successfully processed by 

local governments and constructed, the industry is not seeking to add as many sites 

as it has in prior years. There are certainly no issues created by local governments 

with respect to deploying new facilities. 

To expand on challenges faced by local leaders, we have many challenges to provide services with limited government resources. The vast majority of local governments nationwide do not have a large number of staff members to process applications, and these staff members review, provide comments, inspect and manage a 

wide variety of activities in response to applications and inquiries from the private 

sector, in addition to handling government initiated projects to improve the quality 

of life for citizens and economic development activities. These functions are in addition to processing applications for deployment of communications facilities that may 

be filed. Local leaders and staff manage infrastructure deployment both in the 

rights-of-way and on government and private property. These management responsibilities include public works and utilities staff and land use and planning staff. 

Such activities range from engineering work for utilities and roads, land use planning and zoning compliance, drainage impacts, parks planning, development impacts on groundwater, hazardous materials, legal issues and other issues as well. 

I am not suggesting that there are deployment delays because these are communications facilities. Rather, I was referring to the need to address all of our staffs’ 

obligations in due course, given limited staff and resource constraints. The industry 

as well has challenges and does not have unlimited resources to pursue the deployment of wireless facilities. 

Perhaps the best way to address the question is to provide an example using my 

City, Wilton Manors, FL, as an example. We have a population of approximately 

12,000, but are fortunate to be able to budget significant resources to be able to pursue and respond to land use and planning activities than many local governments 

our size. During our budgeting process for our 2015–16 Fiscal Year, we identified 

several large-scale private development and infrastructure projects expected to be 

submitted, as well as government initiated land use and planning activities we determined to address. For example, we have two fairly large private developments 

that will be submitting applications for approvals this year that will have significant 

government resources in terms of plans review, comments, public hearings, permitting and inspection. IN addition, our private electric utility will be applying for permits for significant infrastructure utility pole replacements in our ROW. Further, 

the private railroad that bisects my city will be expanding its ROW and seeking permits for construction and blocking roadways. The staff resources for these projects 

are expected to be over 4,000 hours. We are aware of these projects because the corporations involved, smartly, met with my City leaders to give us a ‘‘heads up’’ so 

we can plan accordingly. In addition to these private-initiated projects, for economic 

development purposes we decided to rezone a significant portion of an area of our 

City. We have also budgeted to undertake major water and sewer system improvements. Further, we have obtained grants in excess of $3 million for significant roadway improvements that are in various stages of design, engineering and construction. Like any business, we budget to ensure we have sufficient and appropriate 

staff or contractors engaged to handle this work, but of course, will not waste taxpayer dollars by hiring staff and engaging contractors that may not be needed. Because of the level of activity for our 2015–16 Fiscal Year, we decided to hire an additional full-time planner at a cost to our taxpayers of approximately $120,000 and 

pursued an RFP to engage an outside planning firm and expanded the contracts for 

our City engineering firm and building officials. 

We also recognize that in addition to these known projects, there will be hundreds 

of other projects and applications that arise that cannot be anticipated. My City 

staff generally process 40 permit applications per month. 

The wireless industry generally does not alert local governments to applications 

they anticipate filing, prior to actually submitting an application. We are unsure if 

we can require pre-application filing meetings as we do with other development 

projects, or if such process would commence the shot clock. If a wireless infrastructure application is filed, we will process it in due course. Actually, because of the 

FL shot clock (which pre-dated the FCC’s and actually affords less time), such application will force our staff to delay processing other applications, delaying the railVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:44 May 10, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\20043.TXT JACKIE
80 

1 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee to the Federal Communications Commission Advisory Recommendation No. 2015–3, submitted February 2, 2015. (https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/intergovernmental-advisory-committee-comments) 

road, utility infrastructure and private development projects, as well as government 

initiated water and sewer and economic development. However, the FCC determined 

that such applications are more important than any other projects the City may be 

addressing. Thus, to comply with Federal requirements and avoid a lawsuit, we will 

move such wireless application to the head of the pack. What is further frustrating, 

is that often after submitting applications, the wireless communications industry 

will revise its needs and plans and seek to place applications on hold, or delay providing information needed to move applications forward. That has been the experience with the last three applications submitted by the industry. We understand that 

this industry is in constant flux with mergers, acquisitions, changed business plans 

and new technologies. But starting and stopping government processing is not an 

efficient use of limited resources. 

Of course, time is money for all these projects. If the railroad, electric utility or 

private developers complain about delays, frankly it’s easy for local leaders to blame 

Congress and the FCC in deciding that instead of a first come, first serve, process, 

the wireless communications industry gets special treatment. 

I hope this elaborates sufficiently on what I meant that local leaders face many 

challenges. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. CORY BOOKER TO

HON. GARY RESNICK

Question 1. No discussion of facilitating greater wireless broadband infrastructure 

is complete unless it addresses issues of local access. It has been my experience that 

local governments are often best suited to provide innovative solutions to the toughest challenges facing communities. Do you agree that local governments should be 

free to adopt municipal broadband networks? 

Answer. Absolutely. Local governments should have the freedom and flexibility to 

determine whether municipal broadband is an appropriate and viable option for 

their communities’ technology and communications needs. The Intergovernmental 

Advisory Committee (IAC) of the FCC, which I have the privilege of chairing, submitted a recommendation to the Commission supporting local authority to adopt 

municipal broadband networks.1 The IAC acknowledged the many and diverse 

broadband networks provided by local governments. In many community/local government broadband networks, the private sector has been involved in helping design, build, and/or operate the network, creating new business opportunities and 

jobs in the process. We further mentioned that we have noticed firsthand that the 

private sector has provided better and more affordable broadband service in response to communities even considering deploying their own broadband networks. 

The IAC noted for example, in the case of the City of Chattanooga, which Petitioned 

the FCC to overturn Tennessee’s ban on municipal broadband, it was offering 1 Gigabit per second broadband service for approximately $70/month to consumers. Such 

local governments should be commended for their commitment to their residents. 

There are many areas of this country where residents and businesses do not have 

access to broadband services or where there is only one provider of broadband. 

There may be many reasons why the private sector decides not to invest in 

broadband networks in a certain community. When only one service provider serves 

a market, the quality of service, rates, and customer satisfaction suffer in comparison with customers who live in competitive markets. When the private sector does 

not create a robust competitive market, local governments, on behalf of their residents, should have the option of developing a broadband system that will serve the 

needs of their local residents and businesses. 

In addition, the National League of Cities, National Association of Counties, and 

National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors all have policies 

which support local authority to adopt municipal broadband networks. 

Question 2. What can we do at the Federal level to enable and empower localities 

with the flexibility and tools necessary to provide access to broadband to their constituents? 

Answer. There are many and important actions the Federal Government can undertake to enable and to empower localities with the flexibility and tools to provide 

access to broadband to our residents. 

First, the Federal Government can ensure that local governments have a seat at 

the table when it comes to discussions and potential legislation about broadband. 

81 

Often times, localities are left out of the discussion/consultation process, yet we are 

most in tune with our communities’ broadband needs and the challenges and opportunities at the local level. For example, the ‘‘Dig Once’’ legislation has a lofty purpose, but there have been few opportunities for input from local governments, many 

of which have already adopted similar legislation and may be responsible ultimately 

for implementing components of the effort. 

Second, the Federal Government should support the removal of barriers to localities providing broadband to our constituents, either directly or in public private 

partnerships. The FCC’s recent action overturning certain states’ bans on municipal 

broadband is an example of Federal Government action that allows greater local 

flexibility. 

Third, other issues being addressed at the Federal level will affect local governments’ flexibility and tools that may be available to address broadband access. For 

example, there are discussions underway about continuing the tax exempt status of 

municipal bonds, restricting certain local taxes, or making permanent the ban on 

taxation on Internet service. If local governments do not have access to financing 

and sufficient revenues, broadband access provided by local governments may be 

harmed. In a similar manner, Federal funding for transportation and infrastructure 

projects will enable local governments to consider deploying infrastructure to enable 

greater broadband access as part of such construction initiatives. 

Finally, there exists significant fiber and conduit deployed already in rights-ofway, which may be abandoned, unused, or used currently by local governments for 

limited purposes. Often such fiber and conduit may be subject to restrictions so that 

local governments are not able to use such resources to enable broadband access for 

their constituents. Many such restrictions are relics of antiquated policies or anticompetitive goals put in place to limit local governments’ ability to use broadband 

networks. The Federal Government should explore measures through which such 

valuable, but unused and underused fiber and conduit resources, can be used by 

local governments to provide broadband access to residents and businesses, particularly when broadband service is otherwise lacking in the community. Below please 

find several examples of restrictions that limit local government flexibility to support broadband: 

• There are some federally funded projects, specifically traffic signal automation, 

where many cities and counties have installed conduit and other infrastructure 

that could be used to support broadband deployment projects. However, because 

of conditions on the Federal grant, these governments have been reluctant to 

use conduit/fiber for wireless communications and broadband or non-governmental purposes. In particular this is the situation facing the City/County of 

San Francisco. These facilities are conveniently located with mounting assets in 

the form of traffic signals. If such restrictions were removed, it could free up 

miles of existing assets already in place, especially in urban and suburban settings, and not require digging rights-of-ways and property. 

• In my City of Wilton Manors, FL, while we are a small city, we have many residents who do not subscribe to broadband either because of the cost or because 

they do not see the value in their lives. We attempted to create a digital literacy 

center using Federal CDBG funds to provide broadband for free to those who 

could not afford it and to teach residents how to use broadband effectively. Unfortunately, CDBG funds cannot be used for such purpose. Removing such restrictions on Federal programs would provide localities with more flexibility. 

• In Martin County, FL, the County has inventoried more than 90 cell towers 

that are within one mile of the County’s Community Broadband Network, which 

it constructed for its own communications needs to avoid escalating prices for 

such services by the private sector. The County has engaged in discussions with 

private communications providers about utilizing the County’s network and aggregating providers’ backhaul. There are much more opportunities for DAS deployments on this network as well. Unfortunately, several years ago the State 

of Florida adopted restrictions on local governments offering communications 

services, which calls into question the viability of the County pursuing such endeavors with private providers. 

• Many local governments utilize fiber INETs constructed by their franchised 

cable operators. Cable operators imposed restrictions on the use of such fiber 

to prohibit use for non-governmental purposes. Even though the cable operators 

have been paid many times over for the costs to construct such INETs, the restrictions remain in place. There are many methods to remove such restrictions, 

allowing local governments to utilize such fiber for greater purposes. One of the 

questions asked at the hearing was what the communications industry could do 

to remove barriers to broadband. Certainly, if the industry agreed to remove 

82 

such restrictions, it would allow greater flexibility for governments to use industry-constructed fiber networks. 

Question 3. Can municipal broadband networks be an important part of expanding 

wireless availability in cities by providing additional support for small cell and other 

wireless networks? 

Answer. Unequivocally, yes, city and county broadband networks can be an important part of expanding wireless broadband availability. As noted above, often municipal broadband networks are limited by antiquated restrictions, either established 

in state law or by conditions imposed by private entities that constructed such networks. Thus, such networks used by local governments in the U.S. cannot be used 

to their full potential. Municipalities and counties have been at the forefront of creating solutions for the wireless communications industry to expand wireless services, particularly in areas that lacked satisfactory coverage. Local governments control significant fiber and other resources that, if restrictions were eliminated, could 

be used to provide backhaul, redundancy and other vital technical support for small 

cell and other wireless systems. 

Local governments have a long history of utilizing their infrastructure to support 

wireless communications. For years, local governments have been leasing government owned towers erected for public safety communications, water towers and 

buildings to wireless providers for installation of communications antennas and related devices. In addition, governments with unrestricted fiber and infrastructure 

already support wireless uses. By way of example: 

• City and County-owned fiber can support wireless as a means of backhaul (including DAS) and can serve as backbone or middle mile for public or private 

last mile broadband deployment. If we put a list together, it would run to hundreds of communities that already do variations on both of these strategies. One 

quick illustration: Washington, DC’s own fiber supports public safety wireless 

and a wide range of other City uses, while its unrestricted fiber is offered to 

commercial providers that use it to service the last mile. 

• In Arlington County, VA, much of the County’s Public Safety Ring, as it’s 

known, co-opted the available ConnectArlington conduit used for traffic and 

general county purposes. Arlington County is completing a fiber backhaul 

project for its microwave tower used for simulcasting emergency and public 

safety officers handheld communications across the County. 

• The examples in response to question 2, with San Francisco and Martin County, 

FL, further demonstrate the ability of cities and counties to use infrastructure, 

already in place in many cases, to support wireless and small cell networks. 

In conclusion, local governments support broadband deployment. We are not only 

regulators of the infrastructure installation and seek to ensure that our constituents 

have access, but we are large consumers of these services. In many cases, local governments can provide creative solutions to improve broadband access, either on 

their own or by facilitating deployment by private entities. Often local governments 

are reluctant to explore such creative solutions because of antiquated laws that restrict the use of funds or infrastructure, or anticompetitive restrictions imposed by 

private entities. As a result, much existing infrastructure owned and controlled by 

local governments that could be utilized to support broadband and communications 

services remains unused or underused. Thank you for the opportunity to respond 

to these questions. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DEB FISCHER TO

CORY J. REED

Question 1. Mr. Reed, you stated in your testimony that John Deere supports allowing the Universal Service Fund to cover only broadband services, instead of requiring both broadband and voice. Earlier this year we had a letter with 61 senators 

that supported that proposal as well. Can you expand on the importance of this 

issue? 

Answer. Universal Service Fund support for stand-alone broadband is important 

to ensure that rural end users of communications service, both business and residential, have the same ability to subscribe to broadband-only services as end users 

in urban areas. The FCC’s 2011 Connect America Fund Order redirected the universal service system from supporting voice to supporting broadband. Until recently, 

however, the CAF provided support for broadband-only lines offered by the larger 

incumbent providers but not the smaller, rural providers. Congress directed that all 

consumers in our Nation should have access to advanced telecommunications servVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:44 May 10, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\20043.TXT JACKIE
83 

ices, which includes broadband connections that are increasingly necessary for active participation in the global economy. Providing CAF support for broadband-only 

services gives rural end users the same ability as urban end users to choose the 

technologies that best meet their needs for various communications services. Rural 

businesses need the flexibility to tailor their technology solution—whether fixed or 

wireless or some combination of both—in a way that best meets their particular 

needs. For example, a farmer that spends time in the field may prefer to ‘‘cut the 

cord’’ for voice communications, purchasing only broadband from the wireline provider and broadband plus voice from the wireless provider. Now that the FCC has 

amended its rules to give rural providers CAF support for broadband-only lines, 

rural consumers should have increased access to affordable wired broadband with 

or without wired voice service. This should help make broadband more affordable 

in rural areas, promoting greater broadband adoption. The FCC should be commended for updating its rules to support stand-alone broadband in all areas of the 

country. 

Question 2. Earlier this year Senator Klobuchar and I introduced the Rural Spectrum Accessibility Act, which would incentivize wireless carriers to lease unused 

spectrum to smaller rural carriers. Have any of the witnesses had an opportunity 

to review this proposal or others to incentivize spectrum sharing? Do you believe 

this would help expand access? 

Answer. Spectrum partitioning and/or leasing are important means of freeing up 

underutilized spectrum that has been licensed to one carrier to make it available 

for use by other providers serving users that need spectrum. As just one method 

of making better use of our finite spectrum resources, laws that permit and even 

encourage spectrum ‘‘disaggregation’’ and leasing play an important role in meeting 

demand for wireless services and promoting innovation across multiple industries. 

Innovation in wireless services and networks is an American success story that includes the modern cell phone network to the plethora of wireless devices emerging 

in the Internet of Things in a wide variety of applications. Deere’s precision ag technologies are one just one example. Those wireless systems incorporate GPS-enabled 

high precision agricultural equipment wirelessly transmitting real-time agronomic 

and equipment data machine-to-machine and machine-to-farm. Farmhouses communicate wirelessly with domestic and world market interfaces, suppliers, customers, 

government agencies. These precision farming technologies are now available to any 

producer to improve his or her yields, significantly lower costs, and improve environmental sustainability. However, rural areas where agricultural operations are located often lack adequate wireless coverage. 

Businesses and consumers should be able to resort to every available strategy to 

make better use of spectrum resources in urban and rural areas. To the extent we 

free up underutilized spectrum through spectrum portioning or leasing, we enable 

the development of new services and applications while preserving important existing services. Just in the past few years we have seen creative and flexible approaches to finding new spectrum resources through mandating greater channel efficiencies, repurposing spectrum, creating new sharing schemes, etc. The broadcast 

incentive auction, the AWS–3 auction, the FCC’s 3.5 GHz Citizen’s Band service and 

White Spaces decisions, are all examples of strategies to make greater use of spectrum resources and help expand wireless coverage. 

Ironically, evidence shows that unused spectrum in rural areas is actually in 

abundant supply but it is often not easily accessible. There may be multiple reasons 

for this that call for a broad-based response. Not only can the business case for 

building wireless infrastructure in lightly populated areas be challenging but, according to some smaller providers, the FCC’s auction and licensing rules sometimes 

make it difficult for smaller rural carriers to participate and gain access to spectrum. Therefore, there may be lightly used or unused spectrum in rural areas under 

large wireless carrier licenses that could be put to great use by smaller rural carriers. The Rural Spectrum Accessibility Act would take a significant step toward addressing this imbalance by creating an incentive for wireless carriers to offer their 

unused spectrum to rural and smaller carriers and expand wireless coverage. This 

measure, and other measures, will be necessary to address the inadequate wireless 

coverage in rural areas that persists today. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. STEVE DAINES TO

CORY J. REED

Question. Mr. Reed, you mentioned the need to update and expand USF, particularly the Mobility Fund. Several Montana companies were beneficiaries of the Mobility Fund Phase I and were able to connect communities to mobile broadband for 

84 

the first time. But now it appears as though the FCC is scaling back the Mobility 

Fund and pushing funding for fiber rather than mobile broadband. Is this trend concerning to your company? And how will the underserved rural farmers become connected without these programs? 

Answer. Thank you for asking specifically about support for wireless broadband 

and the Mobility Fund. Ag producers need access to all broadband technology options to reap the full benefits that new precision agriculture offers. John Deere customers need flexibility to adopt the appropriate technology solutions depending on 

ag equipment used, crops, livestock, terrain, climate, proximity to broadband interconnection points and population centers, and barriers to local land acquisition and 

access. However, we are concerned that the FCC’s rural broadband support programs do not place sufficient priority on providing access to the full suite of technology options—wired, fixed and mobile wireless. Fiber, including fiber in the middle mile that supports last mile fiber and last mile wireless, is important to 

broadband coverage but it must not be the exclusive technology choice. In some circumstances, wireless access may be the best or even the only feasible solution. 

This is why it is so important to preserve and even expand the Mobility Fund. 

The FCC created a support fund dedicated exclusively to mobile services for the first 

time in 2011. The Mobility Fund was created to ensure the availability of mobile 

broadband networks in areas where a private-sector business case was not supporting needed wireless services. The FCC’s early plans contemplated a Mobility 

Fund Phase II but today, more than 5 years later, that fund is yet to become a reality. The Commission has since revised the program to retarget funds to support 

4G LTE mobile broadband and voice service and in 2014, the FCC asked for further 

input on how best to distribute Mobility Fund Phase II support. Now, 2 1/2 years 

later, the FCC has yet to adopt rules to implement Mobility Fund Phase II and the 

effort appears to be stalled. Instead, despite the growing demand for and importance 

of mobile services in rural areas, the Commission’s current commitment to the Mobility Fund is in real question and the Commission has even suggested that it may 

not continue the fund. 

The Commission should confirm that expanded broadband in rural areas is a current priority by issuing a decision that preserves and even expands the Mobility 

Fund Phase II. While there is a need to update these support programs to better 

ensure coverage of agricultural areas, the Commission can and should act promptly 

to confirm the status the Mobility Fund Phase II while considering further updates. 

Another area where policy preferences for fiber over wireless should be overcome 

is in the distribution of Connect America Funds (CAF) support. The method by 

which CAF funds are distributed will determine whether rural families and businesses in agriculture will have the flexibility required to apply the technology solution—whether fixed, wireless, or some combination of both—that best meets their 

particular needs. The ‘‘tiered’’ approach that the Commission has proposed would 

enable only wireline providers to bid in the first round of an auction, thereby giving 

wireline an advantage over wireless technologies. Carriers interested in providing 

wireless service could be excluded from accessing support funds; ultimately users’ 

flexibility to employ the most appropriate technology solutions to meet a wide variety of circumstances would be limited. If a wireless service is a superior option for 

particular users (based on the cost and other efficiencies that apply to the equipment, terrain, distance and other specific attributes of a locale to be served), then 

wireless providers should not be precluded from bidding in the first round to meet 

these needs. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. CORY BOOKER TO

CORY J. REED

Question 1. It is clear from the recent spectrum auction, which attracted over $44 

billion dollars in bids, and from your testimony that the demand for licensed wireless spectrum is growing. While Congress is addressing the need for licensed spectrum, we must also take seriously the need to expand our reserve of unlicensed 

spectrum for Wi-Fi and other purposes. 

Answer. John Deere certainly agrees that there is an important need for additional, unlicensed spectrum to be made available for mobile applications. This is especially true for the development and adoption of current and future innovations in 

production agriculture. 

Question 2. Just how important is unlicensed spectrum and Wi-Fi to the continued expansion of mobile device communication? 

Answer. John Deere believes that unlicensed spectrum is as important as licensed 

spectrum for continued expansion of mobile device communication. It is true that 

85 

the demand for licensed spectrum continues to grow, fueled by soaring consumer 

and business demand for continuous voice, data, and video connectivity. Congress 

and the FCC have acted to meet licensed spectrum demand in several ways: 

through the digital TV transition, advanced wireless auctions, and the impending 

600 MHz incentive auction. 

Today, however, mobile technologies include a broad range of services and devices 

that operate on unlicensed as well as licensed spectrum. Unlicensed devices complement licensed services, and meet a wide range of consumer and business needs 

that contribute tens of billions of dollars to the U.S. economy each year. Unlicensed 

spectrum, made available for public use decades ago, has become an essential platform for a thriving ecosystem of device and service innovations that are now a part 

of everyday life. 

For example, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth are integral to many consumer, business, medical, industrial and other devices. Unlicensed spectrum is critical to the burgeoning 

‘‘Internet of Things’’ in today’s economy. This includes connected automobiles, wearable health technologies, remote energy monitoring, automated manufacturing, logistics and inventory control, and countless new applications that are still to be developed for commercial use. 

As applied to the agricultural sector, GPS technologies and unlicensed spectrum 

combine to connect agricultural machinery operating in croplands, thus enabling 

farmers to achieve unprecedented levels of productivity, as well as energy, resource 

and environmental conservation. John Deere is pioneering such innovations in modern, high precision, data-driven farming and believes that access to unlicensed spectrum will continue to spur innovations that deliver important new public benefits. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. MARCO RUBIO TO

BRUCE MORRISON

Question. Delays, needless paperwork, and moratoria mean higher costs for wireless infrastructure companies, correct? And would you agree that these factors contribute to less deployment? Would it be correct to conclude that many regulations 

ignore the realities of modern wireless technology—for instance, applying the same 

rules for constructing a new 200-foot tower to swapping out new antennas for older, 

existing ones? 

Answer. Yes, Senator Rubio, the cost to deploy or build facilities is a key consideration when determining how to provide coverage to certain areas. Applying the 

same rules, regardless of the scope of the facility, typically slows down deployment 

however. Looking at low-impact sites (attaching antennas to existing structures, 

right of way deployment, and replacing existing equipment) under the same view 

as a full new tower site deployment typically incurs longer time frames and costs 

despite the fact that any impact on the environment or community is usually negligible. 

Also, due to new technologies, there is an increased need for smaller, low-visibility 

sites that need to be deployed to handle gaps in the network based on customer demands. These sites typically cover a lot less area than a typical wireless site, so the 

ability to deploy in a quick, cost-effective manner allows for a more efficient build 

out. Many jurisdictional codes and processes already account for different deployment methodologies outside of wireless. Policymakers could help industry by applying similar approaches to wireless deployment. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DEB FISCHER TO

BRUCE MORRISON

Question 1. Mr. Morrison talked about a few new technologies that could change 

broadband infrastructure. Federal policy, however, can slow the implementation of 

these technologies or inhibit them altogether. Do you think there are structural 

changes that could be made to Federal agencies that would encourage the integration of new technologies? 

Answer. Yes Senator Fischer, Federal policy can assist technology implementation 

by continuing to improve processes as they relate to: local jurisdictional review 

timelines (so-called shot clocks), environmental review processes, and use in the 

public right of way. New technology typically requires the swapping out or addition 

of new wireless equipment and as a result, having a streamlined process for carrier 

site modification is very important. This is not always captured however in shotclock policy as deployment can involve replacing existing equipment (ground and antennas for example) or the expansion of additional equipment for other carriers. 

86 

Also, with new technologies comes the increased need for smaller, low-visibility 

sites that must be deployed to handle gaps in the network. These sites typically 

cover a lot less area than a typical wireless site, so the ability to deploy in a quick, 

cost-effective manner is very important and allows for better infrastructure build 

out. Many of these micro or small-cell sites have a minimal footprint and can be 

located in public right of ways such as rooftops and billboards. 

It is important to note though that small-site technology shouldn’t be subject to 

the same scrutiny and processes as a full macro-site deployment. Many jurisdictions 

account for this methodology outside of wireless. For example, the permitting process to construct an addition to an existing house is much more streamlined than 

one for an entirely new construction project. Wireless broadband infrastructure 

should benefit from a similar methodology. 

Question 2. Earlier this year Senator Klobuchar and I introduced the ‘Rural Spectrum Accessibility Act,’ which would incentivize wireless carriers to lease unused 

spectrum to smaller rural carriers. Have any of the witnesses had an opportunity 

to review this proposal or others to incentivize spectrum sharing? Do you believe 

this would help expand access? 

Answer. Ericsson believes that efforts to make broadband service available to 

unserved areas can reduce poverty, enable development, and foster better lives. 

Ericsson has the capability and capacity to support rural broadband infrastructure 

deployment at the request of our commercial customers, yet cost remains the biggest 

challenge in this area. 

Proposals, such as the ‘‘Rural Spectrum Accessibility Act,’’ that seek to incentivize 

major wireless carriers to collaborate with their smaller providers should be considered with the goal of expanding wireless broadband access to rural and underserved 

communities. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DAN SULLIVAN TO

BRUCE MORRISON

Question 1. Thank you for providing the rural perspective at the Commerce Committee’s broadband infrastructure hearing. While your testimony focused on agricultural areas, the needs and challenges are similar in areas where construction, forestry, and mining machines operate. What can we do to encourage broadband deployment in rural areas, not only where people are living, but also where they are 

working? 

Answer. Deere agrees that it is important to promote policies that foster 

broadband deployment to rural areas where people work and travel, not only where 

they live. This includes areas where construction, forestry, and mining operations 

are conducted. Existing government efforts to promote broadband deployment in 

rural areas have historically assessed broadband availability or unavailability based 

on the state of broadband coverage in population centers, namely residential areas, 

along with ‘‘anchor institutions’’ identified as schools and hospitals. While this approach identifies needs of people at their homes, it often can mask a severe lack 

of broadband access in business and commercial locations in rural areas thus overlooking the need for broadband access to the very locations that are the economic 

lifeblood sustaining the rural community. 

Deere is intensely interested in expediting the deployment of mobile broadband 

services to rural areas where, by definition, farming, ranching, and other agricultural operations are concentrated. Therefore, Deere respectfully suggests that U.S. 

government agencies with broadband deployment mandates, including the FCC, update the way they assess the need for broadband in rural communities. In particular, Deere recommends that agencies with deployment mandates view availability through an additional lens—one that incorporates geographic and functional 

usage that captures the importance of promoting broadband access to economic centers. 

An important example of this is the need to assess broadband availability in areas 

of agricultural operations—specifically, croplands and the farmhouse center that 

manages the farming operations. Broadband infrastructure and services are sorely 

needed to support the growing demand in the agricultural sector for machine-to-machine services to optimize efficiencies in operations, provide real time access to market data and transactions, and manage vendor and materials resources. Together, 

croplands and farmhouse centers represent the economic drivers to most rural communities in the United States. As such, farmhouses should be considered an ‘‘anchor 

institution’’ in those programs that provide support to specific functions. Similarly, 

existing support programs do not adequately consider broadband availability in 

rural areas where construction, forestry and mining operations are concentrated. 

87 

Ensuring that these locations also have access to broadband services—in addition 

to population centers and traditional ‘‘anchor institutions’’-is essential to supporting 

rural communities today and in the future. 

In addition to treating farm institutions as ‘‘anchor institutions,’’ for those rural 

areas that are identified as needing support for broadband deployment, policies 

should ensure that sufficient funds exist to support mobile broadband deployment, 

including in the Mobility Fund, which is of particular value in areas where wireline 

coverage over very large areas is costly and difficult. 

Specifically, Deere supports: 

• Retention and expansion of the Mobility Fund 

• Addition of ‘‘cropland’’ as a metric to assess need and funding awards 

• Treatment of farmhouses as ‘‘anchor institutions’’ 

• Increased broadband speeds but not rigid performance thresholds that may discourage deployment of intermediate speeds or technologies that greatly improve 

on existing access to broadband. 

• Funding of middle mile facilities for rate of return carriers 

• Policies facilitating stand-alone broadband to foster deployment in rural areas. 

• Eliminating barriers to infrastructure deployment, including streamlined environmental review of infrastructure projects, steps that make it easier to deploy 

infrastructure on Federal lands, ‘‘dig once’’ policies, etc. 

• Use of public funds on sharable and open backhaul capacity 

Question 2. I want to emphasize how important it is for the rural carriers in my 

State that there is certainty in our funding mechanisms for funding broadband infrastructure. Could you elaborate on this point? 

Answer. All businesses, including providers of rural broadband and telecommunications services, need certainty to invest in new infrastructure to grow their business and bring cutting edge technologies to their customers. Understanding the 

rules of the road and knowing that they will not change mid-stream is imperative 

to long-range business planning. Rate-of-return carriers still cannot receive universal service support for stand-alone broadband and middle mile backhaul four 

years after the FCC adopted rules governing such support for price cap carriers. 

Similarly, wireless carriers are still waiting for FCC rules governing ongoing support in the Mobility Fund or elsewhere for upgrading wireless services in rural 

areas to offer high-speed broadband. The FCC needs to act, on its own or pursuant 

to legislative direction, as soon as possible to end this period of prolonged uncertainty so rate-of-return and wireless carriers can plan and execute broadband investments in rural America. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. STEVE DAINES TO

BRUCE MORRISON

Question. Mr. Morrison, removing barriers to broadband deployment doesn’t guarantee that companies will invest in networks in rural America. From your experience, what are some incentives that can encourage companies to serve rural consumers? 

Answer. Thank you for the question Senator Daines. As a leader in the ICT industry, Ericsson aims to provide significant and measureable contributions to a sustainable ‘‘Networked Society,’’ a world where individuals and industries are empowered 

to reach their full potential. To that end, Ericsson believes that efforts to make 

broadband service available to unserved areas, including those in Montana, can reduce poverty, enable development, and foster better lives. Ericsson has the capability and capacity to support rural broadband infrastructure deployment at the request of our commercial customers, yet cost remains the biggest challenge in this 

area. 

Federal subsidiaries and allocation of funds to help with development have 

spurred deployment in the past. Additionally, facilitating the access or rights for 

low-band spectrum makes rural deployment more feasible due to signal strength. In 

addition, any incentives that can be provided to land and facility owners (public and 

private) for the placement of wireless equipment or to access utilities for power and 

backhaul needs would prove helpful as well. 

Finally, to the extent that the Federal Government can incentivize investment by 

wireless carriers, through programs such as the ‘Connect America Fund’ (CAF) and 

the ‘Mobility Fund,’ rural and underserved communities will benefit greatly. 

88 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR TO

BRUCE MORRISON

Question 1. Mr. Morrison, there have been cases in which a tower is built in a 

rural area but the Federal permitting process slows down the deployment of 

wireline backhaul rendering the tower useless. Is it sometimes the case that the 

barrier to broadband access is the permitting process which slows down deployment 

of wireline backhaul infrastructure? 

Answer. To help avoid situations like the one you describe, wireless operators almost always develop a backhaul plan prior to the construction of a communications 

tower. The case you reference may occur when a tower is built for a government 

communication system that is also offered for collocation by wireless carriers. Without adequate backhaul from the tower location, those carriers may not have an interest in collocating. I don’t believe that the permitting process renders a tower useless, but it certainly can delay and increase the cost of the development process significantly. Allow me to offer some additional insight and context into these processes. Any cellular facility requires a connection to an appropriate backhaul source with 

enough capacity to handle the large amount of data being consumed for customer 

needs. Typically, that can be accomplished with fiber or in some cases, cable. Rural 

deployment of a proper backhaul network does create a barrier to tower placement 

and can be hampered by construction requirements (locating cables underground for 

example) and franchise/right of way agreements which dictate how and where 

equipment can be deployed. 

This is the similar predicament for rural homeowners that do not have access to 

proper backhaul networks and must resort to dial-up or satellite options. One solution to satisfy this backhaul need is by utilizing a point-to-point microwave to connect to a fiber backhaul option. Even that option is not free of challenges however 

due to line-of-site, tower structural capacity, and microwave height considerations. 

Question 2. What are the other barriers to deploying this infrastructure? 

Answer. Lack of a sound business case that allows wireless operators to recoup 

the higher costs of infrastructure development and deployment in rural areas is one 

of the most significant challenges to wireless broadband infrastructure deployment. 

The cost challenges to deploy in rural areas include: long distances, mountainous 

geography, shorter construction windows due to seasonal inclement weather, a lack 

of power availability, upfront costs/approvals for access roads, land clearing, government land ownership issues, and tower height limitations. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. CORY BOOKER TO

BRUCE MORRISON

Question 1. It is clear from the recent spectrum auction, which attracted over $44 

billion in bids, and from your testimony that the demand for licensed wireless spectrum is growing. While Congress is addressing the need for licensed spectrum, we 

must also take seriously the need to expand our reserve of unlicensed spectrum for 

Wi-Fi and other purposes. 

Answer. Ericsson supports both licensed and unlicensed platforms and integrates 

both types of solutions in our product offerings to customers. Ericsson is a member 

of, and contributor to, all of the technological development and standards groups 

furthering both licensed and unlicensed platforms (e.g., the Third Generation Project 

(‘‘3GPP’’), the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (‘‘IEEE’’) and its 

many working groups, and the Wi-Fi Alliance (‘‘WFA’’)). We support the advancement of LTE–U/LAA, we support Wi-Fi, and we are committed to continued innovation and equitable access for multiple technologies using unlicensed platforms. LTE– 

U/LAA will allow a mobile network operator to combine licensed spectrum operations with access to unlicensed spectrum to opportunistically enhance users’ data 

rates, performance, and experience. It offers a technology choice for offloading traffic 

using unlicensed resources, integrated with the licensed carrier’s network. LTE–U/ 

LAA is standards-based and designed to co-exist with other technologies using unlicensed bands, including 802.11/Wi-Fi. 

Question 2. Just how important is unlicensed spectrum and Wi-Fi to the continued expansion of mobile device communication? 

Answer. The world is fast becoming what Ericsson describes as the ‘‘Networked 

Society,’’ where connectivity is the linchpin for new ways of innovating, collaborating 

and socializing. The transition to this Networked Society represents a fundamental 

shift in technology comparable to the Industrial Revolution. In the Networked Society everyone and everything will be connected everywhere in real time—and that, 

89 

of course, requires additional spectrum. Whether it is through solutions utilizing licensed, unlicensed (Wi-fi is one of many unlicensed technology innovations along 

with Bluetooth, an Ericsson invention), or shared spectrum, wireless communication 

is driving innovation and sparking new activities. 

Ericsson’s most recent forecast projects that North American mobile data traffic 

will balloon many times by 2020, and U.S. policy must embrace a combination of 

licensed and unlicensed spectrum initiatives if industry and innovators can hope to 

keep up. The mobile networks of today and in the future will need to use multiple, 

evolving aspects of licensed and unlicensed technologies to deliver the best mobile 

experience possible in any given environment. Access to more licensed spectrum is 

a critical element, but unlicensed spectrum is also an integral component for meeting the growing demand for mobile broadband. 

Æ