U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

28–453 WASHINGTON : 2018

THE RACE TO 5G AND ITS POTENTIAL TO 

REVOLUTIONIZE AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 16, 2017 

Serial No. 115–79 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Chairman 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Tennessee 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio) 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

Ranking Member 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 2 

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

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 2 

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

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

opening statement ................................................................................................ 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

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

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8 

Hon. Susan W. Brooks, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Indiana, prepared statement ............................................................................... 10 

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

Jersey, prepared statement ................................................................................. 10 

WITNESSES

Chris Pearson, President, 5G Americas; Coleman Bazelon, Principal, Brattle 

Group .................................................................................................................... 11 

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

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 131 

Coleman Bazelon, Principal, Brattle Group .......................................................... 26 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 28 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 134 

Jonathan Adelstein, President and CEO, Wireless Infrastructure Association . 32 

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

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 138 

Shireen Santosham, Chief Innovation Officer, City of San Jose ......................... 45 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47 

David Broeker, Founding CEO, Indiana Biosciences Research Institute ........... 57 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 59 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 140 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Op-ed by Sam Liccardo entitled, ‘‘Why Does Verizon Care About Telephone 

Poles?’’ The New York Times, October 3, 2017 .................................................. 82 

White paper from the Brattle Group entitled, The Next Wave of Spectrum 

Reallocation: The Value of Additional Mid-Band Spectrum Reallocations ..... 86 

Letter of November 15, 2017, from Kevin Davis, Mayor of Hardin County, 

Tennessee, to Hon. Marsha Blackburn .............................................................. 127 

Statement of the Federal Communications Commission ..................................... 128 

(1) 

THE RACE TO 5G AND ITS POTENTIAL TO 

REVOLUTIONIZE AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS 

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:58 a.m., in room 

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Marsha Blackburn 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Blackburn, Lance, Shimkus, Latta, 

Guthrie, Olson, Kinzinger, Bilirakis, Johnson, Long, Flores, Brooks, 

Collins, Costello, Walden (ex officio), Doyle, Welch, Loebsack, Ruiz, 

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

Also Present: Representative Duncan. 

Staff Present: Jon Adame, Policy Coordinator, Communications 

and Technology; Ray Baum, Staff Director; Samantha Bopp, Staff 

Assistant; Kelly Collins, Staff Assistant; Robin Colwell, Chief 

Counsel, Communications and Technology; Sean Farrell, Professional Staff, Communications and Technology; Margaret Tucker 

Fogarty, Staff Assistant; Adam Fromm, Director of Outreach and 

Coalitions; Gene Fullano, Detailee, Communications and Technology; Theresa Gambo, Human Resources/Office Administrator; 

Elena Hernandez, Press Secretary; Zach Hunter, Director of Communications; Tim Kurth, Senior Professional Staff, Communications and Technology; Lauren McCarty, Counsel, Communications 

and Technology; Alex Miller, Video Production Aide and Press Secretary; Dan Schneider, Press Secretary; Evan Viau, Legislative 

Clerk, Communications and Technology; Hamlin Wade, Special Advisor, External Affairs; and Everett Winnick, Director of Information Technology. 

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

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The Subcommittee on Communications and 

Technology will come to order just a little bit on the early side of 

10:00 o’clock. The chair now recognizes herself for 5 minutes for an 

opening statement. 

I want welcome everyone to the first hearing of this year that is 

devoted exclusively to the promise of fifth generation wireless servVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:54 May 30, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-79 CHRIS
2 

ice, or 5G, and to explore the potential impediments to its deployment and wide-scale development. 

In the interest of time, I will submit my full opening statement 

for the record. Suffice it to say, the race to 5G is on across the 

world as we compete with other countries and regions. As in any 

competition, one can either lead, follow, or get out of the way. As 

chairman of the subcommittee, I look forward to working on a bipartisan basis to ensure that America is first to the finish line. 

At this time I recognize the subcommittee ranking member, Mr. 

Doyle, for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Blackburn follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN

Welcome to the committee’s first hearing this year devoted exclusively to the 

promise of fifth generation wireless service, or ‘‘5G,’’ and to explore the potential impediments to its development and wide-scale deployment. It is imperative Congress 

tackle these challenges. This hearing is entitled: ‘‘The Race to 5G and its potential 

to Revolutionize American Competitiveness.’’ Let there be no mistake, the race to 

5G is on across the world; and as in any competition, one can either lead, follow, 

or get out of the way. As Chairman of this Subcommittee, I look forward to working 

on a bipartisan basis to ensure America is first to the finish line. 

The promise of 5G cuts across diverse industries and sectors of the economy. The 

potential benefits include: enhanced mobile broadband that can provide speeds that 

are 10 to 100 times faster than what exists today; ultra-low latency communications 

that are necessary for mission-critical applications like autonomous vehicles and remote surgery; and the massive machine-to-machine communications that constitute 

the ‘‘Internet of Things.’’ According to Cisco, there will be nearly 50 billion IoT devices connected by the year 2020. Taken together, the applications of 5G promise 

to revolutionize manufacturing, healthcare, transportation, city management, power 

generation and distribution, as well as law enforcement and emergency response. 

As we gaze towards the promise of 5G, we must also be mindful of the impediments to its deployment. Potential speed bumps along the way pertain to the harmonization of international technical standards, the availability of spectrum, and 

the strangling red tape of small cell siting requirements at the federal, state, and 

local levels. 

Importantly, we must keep in mind that 5G is only part of the communications 

landscape that will ensure our competitiveness moving forward. 5G networks will 

exist alongside LTE networks, unlicensed spectrum necessary for Wi-Fi, as well as 

traditional cable and landline networks, fiber optics, as well as satellite technologies. Each of these will continue to play prominent roles as our nation transitions to 5G wireless connectivity. 

Information is power, and history makes clear that countries with the best communications have the highest economic growth, and a distinct competitive advantage. 5G will play a major part in continuing our nation’s leadership in communications. I am pleased to convene this hearing to explore the promise of 5G, and to 

examine the challenges to its development and deployment. I look forward to the 

testimony of our witnesses. 

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

OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And I just want to comment that today is a notice for Pancreatic 

Cancer Awareness Month. And I see some of our friends in the audience and colleagues wearing purple today. And I just want to recognize that and acknowledge what a terrible disease that is, and 

hope we find a cure someday. 

Chairman, thank you for holding the hearing. And I want to 

thank all the witnesses here before us. 

3 

I believe that 5G holds a lot of promise and a lot of potential to 

drive American innovation, competitiveness, and productivity. But 

before I get into that, there are a few matters that I think need 

to be mentioned related to the FCC and their open meeting and reports of their plans to vote for repeal of the Open Internet Order 

as part of next month’s open meeting. 

In regard to this month’s open meeting agenda, many members, 

myself included, have expressed grave concerns about the Chairman’s agenda and the impact that it will have on media ownership, 

the Lifeline Program, and the ATSC 3.0 broadcast transition, or 

lack thereof, and the Commission’s item on copper retirement. 

Each one of these items is terrible in its own right and will have 

grave impacts to the public. I would urge the Chairman to delay 

voting these items and seek bipartisan consensus and to chart a 

path forward that benefits all Americans, not just the biggest companies. 

In regards to next month’s open meeting and widely reported rumors that Chairman Pai plans to repeal the Open Internet Order, 

I would tell him to stop and consider the broader consequences. 

The success of the internet and the internet ecosystem has to be 

based on open access and a level playing field where consumers can 

access the services they want and edge providers can access customers without having to pay to get permission from gatekeepers 

or having to pay tolls. 

Removing these rules removes this essential protection and 

threatens the virtuous cycle of investment and innovation that has 

made the internet what it is today. 

So putting that aside, and to the matter at hand, 5G, next-generation wireless networks have incredible potential to revolutionize 

our economy and our way of life. Think back to 2007 and 700 

megahertz auction. The iPhone has just been introduced, but the 

promise of smartphone technology and ubiquitous high-speed access was still just a dream. 

When Steve jobs announced the iPhone, it had to be connected 

to WiFi because 3G networks at the time weren’t responsive 

enough. But today, nearly 80 percent of Americans own 

smartphones, and the global app economy has grown to be worth 

more than $1.6 trillion a year globally. 

In the same way that LTE has put the internet in our pockets, 

5G has the potential to connect every aspect of our lives. From 

smart transportation and self-driving vehicles, to connected medical devices and predictive diagnosis, to virtual and augmented reality, the promise of 5G has the potential to bring these technologies into reach. 

But to get to this promised land and to bring the future into the 

present, we need to chart a course that facilitates this technology 

by making new spectrum available and easing the deployment of 

new wireless infrastructure. My hope is that we can advance bipartisan legislation to free up additional spectrum to meet the needs 

of licensed and unlicensed industries. 

On the other hand, I have seen draft legislation in the Senate, 

proposals at the State level, and heard rumblings from the FCC 

and their Broadband Deployment Advisory Council that all seek to 

preempt local government with a heavy hand. 

4 

To me, these approaches are all stick and no carrot. We need an 

approach that is collaborate, and we need to bring State and local 

governments into these discussions in a more productivity way. 

I am happy to see a representative from San Jose here today. 

Reading your testimony, I see that your city has big plans: selfdriving vehicles, smart infrastructure, and using technology to 

meet the challenges you face. I am proud to say we have been 

doing all of this in Pittsburgh for quite a while now, and I am glad 

to see Silicon Valley finally catching up. 

My point is that great innovation is happening in cities all across 

the country, and local governments in cities like Pittsburgh, San 

Jose, and so many others have risen to meet these challenges. They 

don’t need someone to run roughshod over them. They need partners that will help them meet the needs of their citizens. 

I believe that there is much this committee can do to facilitate 

the deployment of 5G and wireless broadband. My hope is that we 

can do in a that way that is thoughtful and inclusive. 

Madam Chair, I thank you, and I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Doyle follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. DOYLE

Thank you Chairman Blackburn for holding this hearing and thank you to all of 

the witnesses for appearing before us. 

I believe that 5G holds a lot of promise and a lot of potential to drive American 

innovation, competitiveness, and productivity. But before I get into that, there are 

a few matters that I think need to be mentioned related to the FCC and their Open 

Meeting today, and reports of their plans to vote to repeal the Open Internet Order 

as part of next month’s Open Meeting. 

In regards to this month’s open meeting agenda, many Members, myself included, 

have expressed grave concerns about the Chairman’s agenda and the impact that 

it will have on media ownership, the lifeline program, the ATSC3 broadcast transition, or lack thereof, and the Commission’s item on copper retirement. 

Each one of these items is terrible in its own right and will have grave impacts 

on the public. I would urge the Chairman to delay voting these items and seek bipartisan consensus—and to chart a path forward that benefits all Americans and 

not just the biggest companies. 

In regards to next month’s open meeting, and widely reported rumors that Chairman Pai plans to repeal the Open Internet Order, I would tell him to stop and consider the broader consequences. The success of the Internet and the Internet Ecosystem has be based on open access and a level playing field, where consumers can 

access the services they want, and edge providers can access customers without having to get permission from gatekeepers or having to pay tolls. Removing these rules 

removes this essential protection—and threatens the virtuous cycle of investment 

and innovation that has made the Internet what it is today. 

Putting that aside, and to the matter at hand—5G.Next generation wireless networks have incredible potential to revolutionize our economy and our way of life. 

Think back to 2007 and the 700 Mega-hertz auction. The iPhone had just been introduced, but the promise of smartphone technology and ubiquitous high speed access was still a dream. When Steve Jobs announced the iPhone, it had to be connected to Wi-Fi because 3G networks at the time weren’t responsive enough. But 

today, nearly 80% of Americans’ own smartphones and the global App economy has 

growth to be worth more than $1.6 trillion a year globally. 

In the same way that LTE has put the internet in our pockets, -G has the potential to connect every aspect of our lives—from smart transportation and self-driving 

vehicles, to connected medical devices and predictive diagnosis, to virtual and augmented reality; the promise of 5G has the potential to bring these technologies into 

reach. 

But to get to this promised land and bring the future into the present, we need 

to chart a course that facilitates this technology by making new spectrum available 

and easing the deployment of new wireless infrastructure. My hope is that we can 

advance bipartisan legislation to free up additional spectrum to meet the needs of 

the licensed and unlicensed industries. 

5 

On the other hand, I’ve seen draft legislation in the Senate, proposals at the state 

level, and heard rumblings from the FCC and their Broadband Deployment Advisory Council, that all seek to pre-empt local government with a heavy hand. 

To me these approaches are all stick and no carrot. We need an approach that 

is collaborative, and we need to bring state and local governments into these discussions in a more productive way. 

I’m happy to see a representative from San Jose here today. Reading your testimony, I see that your city has big plans: self driving vehicles, smart infrastructure, 

and using technology to meet the challenges you face. I’m proud to say we’ve been 

doing all this in Pittsburgh for a while now—and I’m glad to see Silicon Valley finally catching up. 

My point is that great innovation is happening in cities across the country, and 

local governments in cities like Pittsburgh, San Jose, and so many others have risen 

to meet these challenges. They don’t need someone to run rough-shod over them; 

they need partners that will help them meet the needs of their citizens. 

I believe there is much this Committee can do to facilitate the deployment of 5G 

and wireless broadband. My hope is that we can do so in a thoughtful and inclusive 

way. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

At this time, I recognize the chair of the full committee, Mr. Walden. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And I have a very serious question for the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Do you know the way to San Jose? 

That was an old song, for those of you who are kind of new to 

this. The old radio guy in me coming out here. Do you want to sing 

it? 

OK. I want to welcome our witnesses. Thanks for being here 

today. We really value your testimony as we learn a lot about the 

fifth generation wireless technology, often called 5G. So thanks for 

being here, and thanks for your testimony. 

This is going to revolutionize America’s competitiveness. In the 

interest of saving time, I will submit the whole statement for the 

record. But the chairman of the subcommittee is correct, we are in 

a global race to develop and deploy 5G networks. Let there be no 

mistake: The race to 5G is a sprint, not a marathon. Even as we 

speak, competitors in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere are working to 

steal the mantle when it comes to having the best, most robust, 

and fastest communication networks. 

I do want to make one point regarding the promise of 5G to our 

competitiveness in manufacturing, healthcare, energy, smart cities, 

and autonomous transportation. None of the applications enabled 

by 5G technology will be possible without adequate spectrum, and 

all the rhetoric around the race to 5G will be for nothing if we do 

not update the Communications Act to allow the Federal Communications Commission to deposit upfront payments from prospective 

spectrum auction bidders directly with the Treasury. 

Current law prevents the Commission from doing so. So I want 

to applaud the chairman of this subcommittee for including provisions in the FCC reauthorization bill to allow the Commission to 

do so. 

I also want to recognize the bipartisan work of Representatives 

Guthrie and Matsui in introducing standalone legislation to do the 

6 

same thing. Thank you for that. I think we are all on the same 

page here. 

But let me be clear. Absent a change in law, the FCC can’t hold 

any auction of consequence to bring about the 5G revolution that 

we must encourage. So we all need to work together on a bipartisan basis to change that law so the Commission can again hold 

meaningful spectrum auctions. The inability to do so will mean the 

loss of billions in auction proceeds for deficit reduction. 

So, anyway, thank you for being here. Thanks for your testimony. 

And, Madam Chair, with that, I will yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN

Thank you, Madame Chairman. I want to welcome our witnesses to this hearing 

on fifth generation wireless technology, often called ‘‘5G,’’ and its potential to revolutionize American competitiveness. 

The Chairman of the Subcommittee is correct—we are in a global race to develop 

and deploy 5G networks. Let there be no mistake: the race to 5G is a sprint, not 

a marathon. Even as we speak, competitors in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere are 

working to steal the mantle when it comes to having the best, most robust, and fastest communications networks. 

Mobile, cellular technology was developed in the United States first. We have seen 

it evolve from first generation networks that were only capable of voice service, to 

digital second-generation networks capable of voice and text, to third generation 

networks capable of voice, text, and basic Internet, to today’s fourth generation LTE 

networks that unleashed true mobile broadband and video service. Approximately 

every 10 years American consumers have seen a generational leap in wireless 

connectivity and applications. Just as we were the first to deploy mobile technology, 

so we must be first to deploy 5G throughout the ecosystem of networks, services, 

and applications that constitute our communications architecture. 

So, what is 5G? In short, 5G represents the next generational shift that will provide broadband speeds faster than existing wireless networks by at least an order 

of magnitude. It will do so by combining existing low- and mid-band spectrum with 

higher, millimeter-band frequencies previously thought to be unusable for mobile 

broadband. It is only through combining low-, mid-, and high-band spectrum that 

we can realize the full promise of 5G in urban, suburban, and rural areas. 

It’s been noted that 5G will enable enhanced mobile broadband, ultra-low-latency, 

and massive machine-to-machine communications. Examples of these benefits are in 

power generation and distribution through smart grid technology such as sensors 

on substations to report outages, as well as supply and demand readings on transmission lines that will allow dynamic pricing on smart home meters—potentially 

saving consumers hundreds of dollars annually on their power bills. We also anticipate increased efficiencies in the manufacturing sector through the application of 5G 

enabled sensors, controllers, and data analytics that allow for greater automation, 

predictive maintenance, and supply chain management. 

One of the most prominent examples of 5G applications is in autonomous vehicles. 

Earlier this year, our committee, and then the full House, unanimously voted for 

the first self-driving car legislation ever considered by Congress—the SELF DRIVE 

Act. This bill is critical to the development and deployment of self-driving car technology, which has the potential to save tens of thousands of lives each year. But 

the regulatory certainty provided by the SELF DRIVE Act will depend on the availability of spectrum. If America is to win the race to 5G, then we must figure out 

how to make more spectrum available for commercial service in addition to the regulatory reforms and international harmonization necessary to making this technology a reality. 

Lastly, and most importantly, I want to emphasize that all the rhetoric around 

the race to 5G will be for nothing if we do not update the Communications Act to 

allow the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to deposit upfront payments 

from prospective spectrum auction bidders directly with the Treasury. Current law 

prevents the Commission from doing so. I want to applaud the Chairman of this 

Subcommittee for including provisions in the FCC Reauthorization bill to allow the 

Commission to do so. I also want to recognize the bipartisan work of Representatives Guthrie and Matsui in introducing stand-alone legislation to do the same 

7 

thing. Let me be clear: absent a change in law, the FCC cannot hold any auction 

of consequence to bring about the 5G revolution. We must all work together on a 

bipartisan basis to change the law, so the Commission can again hold meaningful 

spectrum auctions. The inability to do so will mean the loss of billions in auction 

proceeds for deficit reduction. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

At this time, I recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes for an opening. 

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

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

This Congress, Democrats on this committee have focused on protecting security, providing economic opportunities, and promoting 

democracy. Faster wireless networks have a potential to do all 

three. 

These technologies can make us safer by helping first responders 

react faster after an emergency or disaster. They can offer economic opportunity by helping people apply for jobs or train for a 

new career. And they can improve civic engagement by keeping 

people better connected with their government. 

People increasingly connect to the government using only their 

smartphones. That is especially true for the most vulnerable among 

us. Unfortunately, when they try to reach their government for 

help, too often they find Web sites that do not work on their mobile 

devices. 

And that is why I introduced the Connected Government Act earlier this year with Congresswoman Robin Kelly that was passed by 

the full House last night. Our bill ensures that all new Federal 

agency Web sites are designed to work well on mobile devices. 

And today I will look forward to discussing other ways that 5G 

networks can serve all of our communities. While we have heard 

a lot this year about the importance of broadband in rural areas, 

today’s hearing focuses on new technologies best designed for urban 

centers. These 5G technologies could present new opportunities for 

low-income Americans in urban areas who often struggle to pay for 

their connections. 

And I know that some say that speeding deployment of these 

networks means that we must sacrifice environmental protections, 

that we must undermine tribal sovereignty, and that we need to 

block our local governments. But I urge my colleagues to look 

passed these naysayers. Let’s find a path that promotes broadband 

deployment while still respecting the public interest. 

And I believe that the LIFT America Act, which was introduced 

by the Democrats on this committee earlier this year, does just 

that. Our bill ensures high-speed broadband deployment to 98 percent of the country without jeopardizing the environment, city governments, or tribal rights. 

It is unfortunate that while we are working here today to bring 

high-speed wireless broadband to urban areas, the FCC is working 

against us. As we speak, they are voting to kill the Lifeline Program as we know it, effectively taking wireless phones out of the 

hands of the people who need them the most. They are acting to 

8 

senselessly cut the wireless lifeline to 7.3 million Americans. And 

that is cruel, particularly when some of those Americans live in 

places that are still recovering from natural disasters. 

So I hope they reconsider and work with Congress to help those 

who need it most. Mr. Doyle talked about all the terrible things 

that we expect from the FCC over the next days or weeks, and I 

want to join in his comments. 

But with that, I thank the witnesses. 

And I would like to yield the rest of my time, half to Congresswoman Matsui, and other half to Congressman McNerney. So I 

yield now to Congresswoman Matsui. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR. 

Thank you Madam Chairman. This Congress, Democrats on this Committee have 

focused on protecting security, providing economic opportunities, and promoting democracy. Faster wireless networks have the potential to do all three. 

These technologies can make us safer by helping first responders react faster after 

an emergency or a disaster. They can offer economic opportunity by helping people 

apply for jobs or train for a new career. And they can improve civic engagement by 

keeping people better connected with their government. 

People increasingly connect to the government using only their smartphones. 

That’s especially true for the most vulnerable among us. Unfortunately, when they 

try to reach their government for help, too often they find Web sites that do not 

work on their mobile devices. 

That’s why I introduced the Connected Government Act earlier this year with 

Congresswoman Robin Kelly that was passed by the full House last night. Our bill 

ensures that all new federal agency Web sites are designed to work well on mobile 

devices. 

Today, I look forward to discussing other ways that 5G networks can serve all of 

our communities. While we have heard a lot this year about the importance of 

broadband in rural areas, today’s hearing focuses on new technologies best designed 

for urban centers. These 5G technologies could present new opportunities for lowincome Americans in urban areas who often struggle to pay for their connections. 

I know that some say that speeding deployment of these networks means that we 

must sacrifice environmental protections, that we must undermine tribal sovereignty, and that we need to block our local governments. But I urge my colleagues 

to look past these naysayers. Let’s find a path that promotes broadband deployment 

while still respecting the public interest. 

I believe that the LIFT America Act-which was introduced by the Democrats on 

this Committee earlier this year-does just that. Our bill ensures high-speed 

broadband deployment to 98 percent of the country, without jeopardizing the environment, city governments, or tribal rights. 

It is unfortunate that while we are working here today to bring high-speed wireless broadband to urban areas, the FCC is working against us. As we speak, they 

are voting to kill the Lifeline program as we know it, effectively taking wireless 

phones out of the hands of the people who need them the most. They are acting 

to senselessly cut the wireless lifeline to 7.3 million Americans. That’s cruel, particularly when some of those Americans live in places that are still recovering from 

natural disasters. I hope they reconsider and work with Congress to help those who 

need it most. 

With that, I thank the witnesses, and I would like to yield one minute of time 

to Congresswoman Matsui and one minute of time to Congressman McNerney. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Ranking Member Pallone. 

Additional spectrum will be critical for both 5G and advancements in technology and innovation. Carriers and broadband providers will need to find creative ways to free up bandwidth to meet 

consumer needs in a 5G-and-beyond world. This would be necessary to account for the Internet of Things economy, autonomous 

9 

vehicles, virtual reality, and new innovations that we have yet to 

hear about. 

A realistic 5G-and-beyond strategy will need to be creative and 

will not be a one-size-fits-all solution. I think that technologies like 

blockchain could play an interesting role for spectrum sharing and 

one that could potentially maximize the efficient use of spectrum 

bands. 

Thank you. And I yield to Mr. McNerney. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I thank the ranking member, and I thank 

my friend and colleague from Sacramento. 

I am basically going to repeat what the ranking member said. As 

we sit here today holding a hearing about increasing connectivity, 

the FCC is voting on an item that would do just the opposite; 

namely, a proposal to dismantle the Lifeline Program. 

This will disconnect millions of low-income Americans. In my district alone, there are more than 56,000 households that participate 

in the Lifeline Program. The FCC Chairman’s proposal will be absolutely devastating for those folks. 

We all have constituents who rely on this program for essential 

communication services, all of us have constituents, such as getting 

in touch with family and friends and obtaining help during emergencies. We owe it to our constituents to help them stay connected. 

While I look forward to the hearing and I appreciate the witnesses coming today, I can’t help but think about how today will 

be a serious step backward for connecting Americans. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. PALLONE. And I yield back, Madam Chairman. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Chair. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Walden, you are recognized. 

Mr. WALDEN. Well, with the indulgence of the committee, today 

likely marks the last day of one of our veteran staff members, 

David Redl, who has worked for the committee for the last 7 years, 

was my chief counsel on the telecommunications subcommittee, 

and continued on in that role under our current chairwoman until 

the administration decided to pluck him from us, rather slowly. 

But that was the Senate, actually. The Senate was slow. 

But they have now confirmed him, and we have every reason to 

believe the President will sign the paperwork today and David Redl 

will go off into the administrative landscape of the NTIA where he 

will be on a completely faithful search for more spectrum to free 

up and make available. 

So if we could honor our staffer, David Redl. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. WALDEN. And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back. And we 

get back his section of the payroll, too. So thank you. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. That is correct. And we wish Mr. Redl well. 

And we should send our friends in the Senate a case of Red Bull 

and encourage them to work more expeditiously as they approach 

the issues that he is going to handle for the administration. 

This concludes the member opening statements. The chair would 

like to remind members that, pursuant to the committee rules, all 

members’ opening statements will be made a part of the record. 

10 

At this point, I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into 

the record the opening statement of Mrs. Brooks and other members who may want to submit. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN W. BROOKS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I’m thrilled to be here today for this important hearing and would like to thank 

all of the witnesses for being here. I’m especially thrilled to have a Hoosier witness 

here, David Broecker, from the Indiana Biosciences Research Institute representing 

the great innovations occurring in our state. 

I have become increasingly engaged on efforts to empower 5G for a number of reasons. I’m proud that Indiana is one of thirteen states that have enacted state legislation to streamline the deployment of small cell networks, Indianapolis is an AT&T 

test site for 5G evolution build-out, and we have brilliant leaders like David working 

to innovate and build our communities. 

As the saying goes, innovation waits for no one, and for our economy to move at 

the speed of innovation, we must support new and emerging technologies. I recently 

co-founded the 5G Caucus with my colleague Congresswoman Debbie Dingell as a 

means to educate members and staff about how 5G will revolutionize our communities and the role we, as policymakers, need to play to empower 5G. Unfortunately, 

Congress isn’t known for moving fast, and it is difficult for Congress to keep up with 

the speed of innovation. 

Establishing a pipeline of new spectrum auctions to help meet America’s mobile 

needs, promoting infrastructure reform to unlock tens of billions in 5G investment, 

and ensuring that wireless operators have rights to access municipal infrastructure 

in a timely manner are all key aspects as we work to unleash the power of 5G. Any 

regulations we consider should act like guardrails—not roadblocks or speed 

bumps—so that 5G pioneers can create the next generation of advancements within 

the guardrails—instead of having to navigate around a roadblock that would stifle 

or even prohibit technologies that improve the way we live our lives. 

5G means the opportunity for faster emergency response times that can save 

lives, smart cities, remote surgery, and unleashing the potential of the anticipated 

50 billion new internet of things connected devices coming online by 2020. 

I look forward to leading with Congresswoman Dingell on this issue and working 

together to advance sound policy that unlocks the economic potential of 5G and 

maintains and strengthens US leadership in next-generation technology. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. LEONARD LANCE

Thank you Madam Chairman and welcome to our distinguished panel. Thank you 

for being with us here today. 

Wireless services have come a long way over the last 50 years. The jump in capabilities from the first iteration of cellular technology, developed largely from the 

work done at Bell Labs in New Jersey, to the current 4th Generation LTE has been 

immense. However, these past innovations pale in comparison to the potential 5G 

has to revolutionize wireless communications. From improved data rates and speeds 

for consumers, to commercial applications in industries such as health care, agriculture, energy, education and manufacturing, 5G’s potential applications are almost limitless. 

As countries around the globe compete to lead in 5G, the district I serve is a hub 

of 5G development, thanks to the companies such as Verizon, AT&T, Nokia, 

Qualcomm and Samsung. Because of companies like these, New Jersey is leading 

the effort to maintain the United States as the leader in wireless innovation. 

American companies have already invested billions of dollars into 4G LTE and as 

they continue to invest in 4G, they have promised to invest hundreds of billions 

more in 5G. According to a recent report by Accenture, Americans will use five 

times more mobile data in 2021 than they do now. 5G has the potential not only 

to help networks manage this unprecedented data demand, but also to add over 3 

million jobs in the next seven years and support 22 million jobs by the year 2035. 

However, private investment alone will not win us the global race to 5G. Policymakers in Congress and the Federal Communications Commission must pursue 

policies to create regulatory regime that is conducive to the deployment of 5G infraVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:54 May 30, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-79 CHRIS
11 

structure and ensure there is sufficient spectrum available for commercial use to 

meet future needs. We must help facilitate innovation by fueling the spectrum pipeline and removing regulatory barriers to deployment. 

Wireless networks are complex and require a mix of different types of spectrum 

to meet coverage and capacity requirements. As our demand for wireless 

connectivity continues to skyrocket, the FCC and Congress must examine spectrum 

use in high, mid, and low bands. 

Thank you again for being with us here today and I look forward to your testimony and discussion on this important topic. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. We want to thank our witnesses for being here 

today and taking the time to testify for the subcommittee and for 

preparing your testimony in advance. 

Today’s witnesses are going to have the opportunity to give their 

opening statements, followed by a round of questions from the 

members. We are fully aware that we are on an abbreviated schedule for today as the President will arrive at 11:30 for the Republican Conference meeting. 

We want to welcome our witnesses. Chris Pearson, president of 

5G Americas. Dr. Coleman Bazelon, principal of the Brattle Group. 

The Honorable Jonathan Adelstein, who has been with us so many 

times, former FCC Commissioner and the current president and 

CEO of the Wireless Infrastructure Association. Shireen 

Santosham, the chief innovation officer for the city of San Jose, 

California—and she does know the way to San Jose. David 

Broeker, the founding CEO of the Indiana Biosciences Research Institute. 

We appreciate that each of you are here today and for preparing 

your testimony. 

We will begin the panel with you, Mr. Pearson. You are recognized for 5 minutes for an opening. 

STATEMENTS OF CHRIS PEARSON, PRESIDENT, 5G AMERICAS; 

COLEMAN BAZELON, PRINCIPAL, BRATTLE GROUP; JONATHAN ADELSTEIN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, WIRELESS INFRASTRUCTURE ASSOCIATION; SHIREEN SANTOSHAM, CHIEF INNOVATION OFFICER, CITY OF SAN JOSE; AND DAVID 

BROEKER, FOUNDING CEO, INDIANA BIOSCIENCES RESEARCH INSTITUTE 

STATEMENT OF CHRIS PEARSON 

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

members of the subcommittee, thank you for having me here today. 

I am Chris Pearson, president of 5G Americas, an association representing mobile operators and vendors from around our region. 5G 

Americas’ board of governors includes AT&T, Cisco, CommScope, 

Ericsson, HPE, Intel, Nokia, Qualcomm, Samsung, Sprint, and Tmobile. 

5G Americas is also a Market Representative Partner of the 

standards forum 3GPP, where 5G is being standardized, and works 

with regulators around the world. 

5G Americas represents our region in the Global 5G MOU Event 

twice a year in countries in Asia, Europe, and the Americas that 

are dedicated to winning the race to 5G. And next year, 5G Americas hosts our event here in the United States. 

12 

5G, or fifth generation of wireless technology, is comprised of 

three use cases: enhanced or faster Mobile Broadband; Massive 

Machine Type Communications, also known as the Internet of 

Things; and Ultra-Reliable Low Latency Communications, often 

called critical communications. 

So 5G is just not about faster broadband, although it would be 

nice to download that movie in seconds before you board that 

plane. It is about other things as well. Machine Type and critical 

communications will enable connected, autonomous vehicles and 

revolutionize our industries and lives with enhanced productivity, 

smarter cities and homes, safer roads, and more effective 

healthcare. Our industry is expected to invest $275 billion in 5G, 

resulting in $500 billion in GDP growth and millions of new jobs. 

But this revolution requires more spectrum and efficient siting of 

wireless facilities. So we are grateful for this subcommittee’s leadership on spectrum and its continued focus on ensuring that there 

is adequate spectrum for 5G. 

We support Mr. Guthrie and Ms. Matsui’s spectrum auction receipts bill, which the FCC needs to hold any further auction, and 

urges the committee to act on that quickly. 

Spectrum will be required for 5G in every range, low band, midband, and high band. Other countries around the world are making 

mid-band available for 5G, and the U.S. should, too. 

The countries that make new globally harmonized spectrum 

available for 5G are the ones that are going to lead this race. And 

thanks to this subcommittee, the U.S. led the way in 4G because 

it made new spectrum available for auction at 700 megahertz and 

also in the mid-bands. 

To create the global economies of scale that benefit U.S. consumers and businesses, we must have globally harmonized spectrum for 5G. In addition to allocating sufficient amounts of harmonized low-, mid-, and high-band spectrum, the U.S. must expedite siting procedures for the small cells that will be necessary for 

5G. And for this reason, 5G Americas also supports the MOBILE 

NOW bill. 

Mobile data traffic is expected to grow seven to eight times in 

just a few short years, and meeting that demand will require operators to densify their networks, requiring streamlined procedures 

for all those new small cells. As we will hear from Mr. Adelstein, 

we must have model siting procedures that allow network 

densification. 

5G Americas supports the FCC’s work in its BDAC advisory 

council bringing together stakeholders to recommend model codes 

for State and local government siting. And as necessary, should 

that effort not result in the streamlined siting required for U.S. 

leadership, 5G Americas supports this Congress or the FCC for establishing some sort of national standards for small cell siting. 

Additionally, 5G Americas supports the FCC’s order on eliminating separate historic review for replacement poles. 5G Americas 

urges the FCC to do even more to eliminate unnecessary reviews 

in rights-of-way without affecting the historic areas. 

Again, thank you, and I look forward to your questions today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pearson follows:] 

13 


28453.001

SG Americas is pleased to address the Communications and Technology Subcommittee on "The Race to 

SG and its Potential to Revolutionize American Competitiveness." The mission of SG Americas is to 

advocate for and foster the advancement and full capabilities of LTE wireless technology and its 

evolution beyond to SG throughout the ecosystem's networks, services, applications and wirelessly 

connected devices in the Americas. SG Americas is a Market Representative Partner of the standards 

forum 3GPP, where SG is being standardarized, and works with regulators and associations around the 

world to foster deployment of wireless technologies. SG Americas represents operators and vendors 

from around the region, not just in the United States. SG Americas' Board of Governors members 

include America M6vil, AT&T, Cable & Wireless, Cisco, CommScope, Entel, Ericsson, HPE, Intel, Kathrein, 

Mavenir, Nokia, Qualcomm, Samsung, Sprint, T-Mobile US, Inc. and Telef6nica. SG Americas represents 

our region in the Global SG Event, held biennially in countries in Asia, Europe and the Americas that are 

dedicated to winning the race to SG. 

Leading countries within Asia and Europe understand that SG will revolutionize their competitiveness. 

We are pleased the Subcommittee is also examining this link. SG Americas believes the deployment of 

SG use cases will indeed revolutionize American competitiveness. SG- or the Fifth Generation of 

wireless broadband- is actually comprised of three broad areas of use cases, or applications: enhanced 

Mobile Broadband (eMBB), Massive Machine Type Communications (mMTC) (also known as Internet of 

Things or loT) and Ultra-Reliable Low Latency Communications (URLLC). The image below diagrams this 

SG triangle, which helps to demonstrate the broad impact on global competitiveness SG will have: 
14 


28453.002

communications communications 

From autonomous, connected cars, to augmented reality in manufacturing, massive loT deployments, 

smart cities and smart homes, SG deployments will enhance productivity, contributing to Gross 

Domestic Product increases. SG applications will have important societal benefits as well, such as 

remote surgery and robotic care for shut-ins or the elderly. Hearing or visually impaired citizens will be 

more mobile through the use of self-driving cars and smart, safer homes. The Subcommittee should 

understand that many of the productivity and societal benefits of SG will be available in the immediate 

and near-term in use cases made possible by SG's foundation, LTE Advanced and LTE Advanced Pro. 

The economic benefits of SG have been estimated by several analysts, including Accenture, which 

concludes that SG could add $500 Billion to the U.S. GOP, through $275 Billion in investment, resulting 

in 3 million new jobs, and result in savings and other economic benefits to local communities of $160 
15 


28453.003

Billion.' With the right spectrum framework and expediting local permitting, SG could add $1.2 Trillion 

in long-run consumer benefits, according to the American Consumer Institute.' 

The Energy &.Commerce Committee has historically led the process for repurposing spectrum to a more 

economic use, whether from one commercial use to another, or from government to commercial use. 

Repurposing additional spectrum is the best way to ensure the U.S. will continue to lead the race to SG, 

whether through additional spectrum auctions or government sharing. The U.S. led the way in 4G 

because it made newly accessible spectrum available at 700 MHz, through this Subcommittee's efforts 

to repurpose the broadcast spectrum in the band, transitioning broadcasting to the more efficient digital 

television of today. 

This Subcommittee is familiar with the growth in wireless broadband. Our members forecast that the 

mobile data traffic in just three to four years out will be 7-8 times more than today. 3 The mobile 

industry continues to improve the spectral efficiency of wireless broadband technology, including 

through antenna, filter, virtualization, slicing and interference cancellation technologies. But ultimately, 

accommodating 7-8 times more mobile traffic will require more spectrum. Ideally, most of the new 

spectrum will be in licensed bands, with additional unlicensed spectrum used to offload traffic from 

licensed bands. licensed spectrum can offer a guaranteed level of service, and facilitates the operator's 

congestion management and load balancing. licensed spectrum traditionally has been mutually 

exclusive, and therefore subject to auctions under the Communications Act. 

1 Accenture Strategy (January 2017). 

'American Consumer Institute Center for Citizen Research (ACI), available at 

https://www.techrepublic.com/article/how-Sg-could-add-533b-to-us-economy-by-2024/ 

3 Ericsson Mobile Report June 2017; Cisco VNI Mobile, 2017. 
16 


28453.004

For this reason, SG Americas supports Rep. Guthrie and Rep. Matsui's Spectrum Auction Receipts 

legislation, which the Commission needs enacted to hold any further spectrum auctions, and urges the 

Committee to act on that quickly, as well as encourage a companion bill in the Senate. 

Spectrum sharing is another opportunity to make sufficient spectrum available for SG, particularly 

where for an array of reasons, relocation of government or commercial incumbents is unusually 

challenging. Incumbents that don't utilize their spectrum very often in both the temporal or 

geographical domain could share those channels with mobile services when the incumbent is not 

operating. As the Committee considers spectrum policy, it should bear in mind that future spectrum 

should be allocated in bands where it can provide the most benefit to wireless consumers. 

It is now widely understood by policy makers such as Members of the Subcommittee that all ranges of 

spectrum will be needed for SG applications and services. No single band will provide a complete 

solution for SG requirements, given the diversity of future applications and their requirements for wider 

bandwidth, reduced latency and extended coverage area. Adequate amounts of low, mid- and highband spectrum will be needed, and necessary to win the Race to 56. Spectrum from 3-6 GHz easily 

supports mobility, and provides a balanced mix of bandwidth and coverage, something that high and 

low-band frequencies alone can't offer independently. Most of the frequency ranges below 6 GHz are 

suitable for all deployment scenarios, because of low and mid-band's wider coverage. The lower part of 

the new "Mid-Band", the 6-24 GHz range, can be used in similar scenarios as the spectrum below 6 GHz, 

and the upper portion has similar characteristics as the spectrum above 24 GHz. 

Very high frequencies in the millimeter waves {30 GHz) support higher data rates, and the lower 

frequencies {1 GHz and below), with their ability to penetrate walls, ensure reliable indoor services. The 

propagation characteristics of spectrum in the 24-86 GHz range are suitable for certain applications, 

mainly outdoor hotspot and indoor micro and pice-deployment environments. The possibility of 
17 


28453.005

identifying bands within the 24-86 GHz range for wireless broadband is currently being studied by the 

United Nations' International Telecommunication Union ("ITU") for decision at the next World 

Radiocommunication Conference in 2019 (WRC-19), as well as by the FCC in its Spectrum Frontiers 

proceeding. Because of its allocation of mmW spectrum thus far, the FCC has positioned the U.S. very 

well for the WRC-19 negotiations. 

Infrastructure 

As SG Americas noted in a filing to the FCC on wireless broadband infrastructure, a streamlined small 

cell siting is critical for U.S. leadership on SG. Our federalism has been a benefit in so many areas of 

economic activity. But other nations, particularly those focusing on SG, have a more top-down 

approach in communications policy. Japan, South Korea and China all have uniform, streamlined 

processes for cell siting. The European Union, which has some of our challenges in federated action, is 

working on a model code for cell siting.4 Congress in its oversight and legislative capacity should ensure 

that the Commission take necessary steps to accelerate SG deployment, and to provide additional tools, 

if needed, to preserve the U.S. lead in deploying advanced networks. 

While American innovation has flourished in our decentralized, market-oriented governance, when it 

comes to government siting processes, the more efficient the better. Accordingly, SG Americas supports 

the FCC and other stakeholders' work at its advisory council, the Broadband Deployment Advisory 

Counsel, in recommending model codes for state and local government siting of broadband stations like 

small cells. As necessary, should that effort not result in the streamlined siting required for the U.S. to 

lead in SG, SG Americas supports this Congress or the FCC establishing national standards for the siting 

4 EUR. PARL Doc. (COM(2016) 590-2016/0288 (COD)). 
18 


28453.006

of small cells needed for SG network densification. Additionally, SG Americas supports the FCC's 

proposed order on eliminating historic review for replacement poles to support wireless antennas. SG 

Americas urges the FCC to do more to eliminate unnecessary reviews in rights-of-way and in other areas 

with no possibility of adversely affecting historic properties. 

The Global Race to SG 

The Race to SG will be won in the countries that have allocated the most useful spectrum for SG. To 

date, countries in Asia and Europe have identified bands in the mid-band range of 3.4-3.8 GHz and in 

either the 26 GHz range or 28 GHz range. Because of the identification for SG in that mid-band range in 

leading countries around the world, SG Americas advocated to the FCC that it revised the existing rules 

for the 3550-3700 MHz band to make the licenses 10 year, with market-size licenses, and power limits 

that encourage investment for SG. Accordingly, SG Americas is pleased with the Commission's Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking that propose these changes. 

Below is a review of the what other regions are doing in their race to SG: 

Europe 

Europe's Radio Spectrum Policy Group (RSPG) is a high-level advisory group that assists the European 

Commission in the development of radio spectrum policy. The RSPG developed an opinion on spectrum 

bands for next generation wireless systems (SG) as agreed to in the RSPG Work Programme for 2016. 

The opinion was finalized November 2016 and identified a strategic roadmap for SG in Europe. In 

particular, the road map identified the following main building blocks for SG spectrum: 1) Medium 

bandwidth spectrum at 3.4-3.8 GHz as a "primary" band, which will provide capacity for new SG services 

and 2) High-bandwidth spectrum at 24.25-27.5 GHz as the "pioneer" millimeter wave band to give 

ultrahigh capacity for innovative new services, enabling new business models and sectors ofthe 

economy to benefit from SG. 
19 


28453.007

With respect to individual European countries, France's spectrum regulator announced plans to allocate 

spectrum for SG by the September 2017 timeframe in the 3400-3800 MHz range. The plan is to establish 

band plan allocations of more than 300 MHz of contiguous spectrum by 2020. Additional reorganization 

is planned to extend the amount of spectrum to 340 MHz by year 2026. 

Germany's federal network regulator published a framework document on June 28, 2017, with plans for 

SG spectrum. In 2018, the 3400-3700 MHz band will be awarded as national licenses in 10 MHz blocks. 

The 3700-3800 MHz band will be awarded at a later stage depending on demand for local/regional 

licenses. The regulator also announced plans to develop an application procedure to allow access to the 

26 GHz (24.25 GHz-27.5 GHz) band for SG. Other millimeter wave bands may be considered over time. 

Ireland completed its 5G auction in the 3.6 GHz band, which included 350 MHz in the 3475-3800 MHz 

band. Three Ireland CEO Robert Finnegan stated that the company wanted to acquire the optimum 

bandwidth for SG of 100 MHz in the auction, in a band that was internationally recognized as capable to 

support 5G use cases below 6 GHz. 

The United Kingdom's regulator is taking a leading role internationally in identifying spectrum bands for 

5G and has published a report on 5G Spectrum in the UK." The telecom regulator has already begun the 

role of identification and allocation of spectrum for SG. In the mid-band, Ofcom has taken action in the 

3.4-3.6 GHz band, where 150 MHz is ready for auction later this year. Ofcom also released a consultation 

in October 2016 proposing to repurpose 116 MHz in the 3.6-3.8 GHz band. A further consultation on this 

topic is planned for later this year. In the millimeter wave band, Ofcom has said that it fully supports the 

identification of the 26 GHz band by the Radio Spectrum Policy Group and has started efforts to 

determine what actions are necessary to make this spectrum available for SG. 
20 


28453.008

The Americas 

In addition to our own FCC, Canada's regulator is looking at the same bands for SG that the FCC adopted 

in 2016. Canada's Innovation, Science and Economic Development (!SED) issued a consultation for 

spectrum in the 28 GHz, 37-40 GHz and 64-71 GHz frequency bands to support 5G deployments. 5G 

Americas urged I SED to make those bands available for SG, as the FCC has done, in order to promote 

global economies of scale. 

Asia 

China 

In July 2017, China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MilT) approved the 4.8-5.0 GHz, 

24.75-27.5 GHz and 37-42.5 GHz bands for China's SG technology research and development testing.21 

This action follows MilT approval of the frequency band 3.4-3.6 GHz in January of 2016, which is to be 

used for 5G trial in both Beijing and Shenzhen. These tests are meant to verify the various aspects of the 

SG technologies and provide a foundation to facilitate early ecosystem development. In June 2017, the 

Ministry of Industry and Information Technology Radio Administration expanded the frequency range to 

3.3-3.6 GHz, with 3.3-3.4 GHz limited to indoor use and 4.8-5.0 GHz. It also issued a public consultation 

to seek comments on the spectrum use for 5G. 

Japan 

Japan's analysis of potential frequency bands nevertheless indicates that the frequency ranges which 

currently have priority for 5G in the millimeter wave bands are 24.25-29.5 GHz, 37.0-40 GHz and 40.5-

43.5 GHz, with 27.5-29.5 GHz receiving priority attention. In mid-band spectrum, Japan is currently 

considering 3.6-4.2 GHz and 4.4-4.9 GHz for SG. Japan also has already allocated spectrum in the 3.5 
21 


28453.009

GHz band, After summer 2017, its Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications plans to identify 

which bands will be available for SG initial deployment and when that will happen for mobile 

broadband. 

South Korea 

South Korea plans to launch a 5G network at the 2018 Winter Olympics, which will be held in 

Pyeongchang in February 2018. In a press release, SK Telecom announced in June 2017 that it has 

successfully demonstrated SG communications using the 3.5 GHz band. SKT plans to use both the 3.5 

GHz and 28 GHz bands for SG network rollouts. A national broadband plan was published early 2017 and 

indicates 3.4-3.7 GHz and 27.5-28.5 GHz, with the latter possibly to be extended by up to 2 GHz to give a 

total of 3 GHz, 26.5- 29.5 GHz. There is an interest in more spectrum for SG in the longer term, though 

not decided which frequency band. 

Australia 

In February 2016, the Australian Communications and Media released the paper SG and Mobile network 

developments-Emerging issues. It recognized that supporting international harmonization played a 

critical role in leveraging the economies of scale achieved and the resulting benefits for Australia arising 

from lower device costs. The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) also issued a 

discussion paper seeking comment on whether and how to proceed with making the 3575-3700 MHz 

band available for mobile broadband services. ACMA is also interested in examining spectrum form 

3400-3700 MHz. 
22 


28453.010

Other regions' fiscal investment: 

SG Americas does not seek any government funding it simply requests adequate spectrum and 

supportive regulatory policy. But for insight into other regions' view of SG as industrial policy, we note 

that in Europe, up to 700 million Euro in public funding is appropriated for SG, with the goal to match 

that 700 Million Euro by the European private sector, including a leveraging factor of 5 of additional 

private investment. Together, the planned European investment results in private value of about 3.5 

billion Euro. 

Internationally Harmonized Spectrum 

Spectrum is internationally harmonized both in our own regional spectrum committee, the Organization 

for American States' Committee on International Telecommunications ("CITEL") and in Geneva at the 

United Nations' International Telecommunication Union ("ITU"). Every four years, the ITU hosts a World 

Radiocommunication Conference ("WRC"), at which U.S. vendors and operators hope to harmonize 

spectrum for wireless broadband. The U.S. prepares for these quadrennial WRCs through CITEL. So U.S. 

participation in CITEL is crucial for delivering U.S. consumers innovative and affordable wireless services. 

At the last WRC, in 2015, the U.S. had the most proposals to CITEL on WRC agenda items, and CITEL had 

the most wins at the WRC. So being well-organized at CITEL is in the economic interest of U.S. 

consumers. 

The benefits of global harmonization are not limited to situations where all regions have identical 

spectrum allocations. These benefits can also be derived from "tuning range" solutions, in which 

adjacent or nearly adjacent bands can be considered harmonized so long as equipment can be 

reconfigured to operate over multiple bands. In other words, they are within the same "tuning range." 

Such operational flexibility may sometimes involve radio equipment that operates across a superset of 
23 


28453.011

band allocations over several regulatory jurisdictions. It may also entail using specific hardware 

configurations that are tailored for one or more markets. In considering spectrum allocations, therefore, 

policymakers should consider not only frequencies that can be allocated domestically, but also the 

possibilities provided by such global tuning range solutions. Based on early 5G strategic plans detailed in 

the previous section, there are several immediate possibilities for global harmonization, considering the 

"tuning range" for bands 3.3-4.2 GHz, 24.25-29.5 GHz and 37- 43.5 GHz. Specifically, 3GPP has included 

24.25-29.5 GHz in its 5G Non-Standalone NR that will be part of its Release 15 to enable large-scale trials 

and commerciai5G deployments as early as 2019. This 3GPP 5G NR is expected to cover the spectrum 

blocks 27.5-28.35 GHz (U.S., Japan, Sweden, Estonia), 26.5- 29.5 GHz (Korea) and 24.25-27.5 GHz (EU, 

China). These are considered for potential 5G deployments by different administrations around the 

world, enabling a larger 5G ecosystem to facilitate service adoption, roaming and achieve greater 

economies of scales. 

Necessary Regulatory Actions 

Since 5G is targeting improvements across three fronts, enhanced mobile broadband, massive-scale 

connectivity, and ultra-reliable low latency service, there are different spectrum requirements than 

previous generations of cellular technology. To meet the new and emerging use cases it will most likely 

be best to utilize a portfolio of spectrum assets consisting of low-band, mid-band, and mm-Wave 

spectrum. 

Low-band spectrum, with its propagation and penetration characteristics, could be used to provide inbuilding coverage in urban areas and wide-area coverage in more rural areas. Mid-band spectrum could 

be utilized for capacity and high speed in both urban and suburban zones. The large bandwidths 

available in the mmWave bands can achieve high data throughput speeds but the somewhat limited 
24 


28453.012

propagation distances and penetration at these higher frequencies could possibly confine usage to more 

concentrated areas. It is therefore important that regulators take actions to ensure adequate spectrum 

resources are available in all bands and allocate adequate bandwidth to support the varied use cases of 

SG. 

Therefore, Congress, the FCC and NTIA should consider how SG services can be harmonized 

internationally, even if identical allocations cannot be used everywhere. To that end, Congress, the FCC 

and NTIA should consider specific allocations within a broader globally harmonized and licensed band 

that accounts for the needs in various regions or countries. Under this approach, each country would 

apply the tuning range concept, with a focus on specific bands appropriate for its needs. The near-term 

bands for mid-band and high-band consideration are 3.3-4.2 GHz, 24.25-29.5 and 37-43.5 GHz. Beyond 

these bands, it is proposed that global harmonization remain as a priority in the identification and 

allocation of spectrum for SG, especially bands that have been identified under WRC-19 Agenda Item 

1.13. 

Conclusion 

The SG use cases of enhanced Mobile Broadband (eMBB), Massive Machine Type Communications 

(mMTC) and Ultra-Reliable low Latency Communications (URLLC) may have different spectrum 

requirements to a varying degree. However all the use cases need spectrum both below and above 6 

GHz. Below 6 GHz, mmWave bands, and the Mid-Band range of 6-24 GHz, the subject of the FCC's recent 

Mid-Band NO I, are all important spectrum resources for SG deployments. One key characteristic of all of 

these potentiaiSG spectrum resources is that they are mainly shared spectrum and require clearing 

and/or development of sharing mechanisms. This leads to the need for the FCC, NTIA and federal users 
25 


28453.013

to take concrete, measurable actions to make sure that a reasonable amount of licensed spectrum 

becomes available for initial SG deployment in licensed spectrum. 

Exponential growth in mobile data demand in conjunction with the spectrum needs of upcoming 

bandwidth intensive applications envisioned for SG necessitate the availability of new licensed spectrum 

pools. To date, the FCC has largely made spectrum available for SG in the mmWave spectrum, at 28, 37 

and 39 GHz, and not as much spectrum below 6 GHz. SeveraiSG Americas Members hold or are 

pursuing through secondary market transactions licenses for the 28 GHz and 39 GHz ranges. Yet, SG 

use cases have varied spectrum needs and effectively require spectrum across all bands. SG Americas is 

pleased that the FCC has proposed changes to the 3550-3700 MHz band rules, and initiated the MidBand NO I, because it is critical that low-band, mid-band and mmWave spectrum resources are available 

for the initiaiSG rollouts. In that regard, the U.S. is fortunate that 600 MHz auction winners have 

announced that once 5G network equipment and handsets are available, they plan to upgrade from 4G 

to SG in that new spectrum. 5G Americas is also pleased that the U.S., led by the FCC, has encouraged 

other countries in our region and globally to examine both the 600 MHz and the 3300-3700 MHz band 

for mobile broadband. Likewise, one Member of SG Americas that holds a significant amount of 2.5 GHz 

spectrum has announced that they will deploy SG in the band, once SG equipment is available. 

As mentioned, it is highly desirable to have globally harmonized spectrum allocations for SG applications 

and thus the FCC should allocate spectrum with international harmonization as a consideration. The 

benefits of global harmonization are not limited to situations where all regions have identical spectrum 

allocations. These benefits can also be derived from "tuning range" solutions, in which adjacent or 

nearly adjacent bands can be considered harmonized, so long as equipment can be reconfigured to 

operate over multiple bands. With the above actions, the U.S. will be well-positioned to win the Race to 

5G, and benefit from services and applications that will ensure American competitiveness. 
26 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Dr. Bazelon, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF COLEMAN BAZELON 

Mr. BAZELON. Thank you. 

I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to testify 

today on this important topic. 

I started my career as an analyst at the Congressional Budget 

Office just as the second generation cellular services were beginning to be deployed. The developments of third and fourth generation technologies have helped fulfill the promise of wireless. 

The same will be true of, 5G which will bring unprecedented 

speeds and low latency to wireless networks, supporting new applications and development of an Internet of Things. And as with 

those earlier developments, additional spectrum is needed to fulfill 

the 5G promise. 

Unlike the previous technological advancements, 5G combines 

new technologies with a new architectural model of how spectrum 

is deployed. The architecture of a robust 5G network will require 

spectrum in a variety of bands: low-band spectrum below 1 

gigahertz for wide-area and long-range communications; mid-band 

spectrum between 1 and 6 gigahertz for applications that would 

benefit a combination of coverage and capacity; and high-band 

spectrum for short-range communications requiring fast data rates 

and low latency. All three pieces of this spectrum trifecta will be 

crucial for the successful deployment of 5G networks. 

The Principle of Spectrum Reallocation states that when the 

value of a band of spectrum in a new use exceeds the value in an 

existing use, plus the cost of transitioning the frequencies, it should 

be reallocated. 

This simple principle, that benefits should exceed costs, can face 

many obstacles in practice. Incumbent users, whether TV broadcasters or government agencies, tend to be reluctant to relinquish 

spectrum assignments. Consequently, mechanisms where incumbents are compensated are beneficial because they overcome resistance. 

In fact, anything that can be done to smooth the transfer of spectrum is helpful. For example, the recently introduced Spectrum 

Auction Deposits Act, which overcomes impediments identified by 

Chairman Pai to holding spectrum auctions, will facilitate future 

auctions, and the Spectrum Reallocation Fund will help provide 

frequencies for those auctions. 

The new 5G deployments will have profound implications for 

spectrum value. On the one hand, being able to integrate massive 

amounts of high-band spectrum into commercial mobile networks 

will flood the market with spectrum capacity, at least in dense or 

more populous areas and for applications that can utilize the higher frequency spectrum. On the other hand, these new networks will 

enable new wireless services and increase consumer expectations 

about throughput and reliability. 

The net impact of these two offsetting effects is uncertain, and 

overall spectrum values could go up or down. But within the overall net impact on spectrum values, there is a clear implication for 

different types of spectrum from increased user expectations for 

27 

throughput, mobility, latency that will be fostered by the new 5G 

deployments. 

The value of mid-band spectrum used for capacity outside the 

areas served by high-band 5G deployments should increase because 

demand for network capacity, reset to a user experience based on 

a higher level of throughput in the urban areas, will be greater in 

those non-urban areas. 

The Principle of Spectrum Reallocation is applicable to all bands 

that make up the 5G spectrum trifecta, but I will focus on midband spectrum, the connective tissue of 5G deployments. 

In my accompanying paper submitted to the committee that 

CTIA released yesterday, I examined the value of making an additional 100 megahertz of mid-band spectrum available in the 1,300 

to 1,350 megahertz and 1,780 to 1,830 megahertz bands. After accounting for a moderation in spectrum value compared to recent 

highs, I find that a 50 plus 50 megahertz paired band would be expected to raise $63 billion in auction receipts. Making those frequencies available is expected to cost up to an estimated $8 billion 

in relocating existing users, providing them with at least equivalent and in many cases improved wireless infrastructure. Consequently, this band could be expected to raise $55 billion in net 

receipts. 

Admittedly, there is some uncertainty about forecasting future 

auction receipts. Frankly, it is not for the faint of heart. But as 

long as the auction of this 100 megahertz of mid-band spectrum 

raises more than $8 billion, a paltry amount for so much spectrum 

that could be used for mobile broadband, reallocating the Federal 

users and auctioning the reclaimed spectrum will create value. 

The application of the Principle of Spectrum Reallocation does 

not end here. For example, all or part of the 3.7 to 4.2 gigahertz 

band could be valuably deployed in support of 5G networks. 

I have investigated this band and found that, even with conservative assumptions about the value of both the existing C band services and potential new deployments, reallocating some or all of this 

band would likely create value. A voluntary mechanism that ensures incumbents benefit from any transition will help facilitate 

making additional needed frequencies available for new 5G networks. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bazelon follows:] 

28 


28453.014

Testimony of Coleman Bazelon before the U.S. House of Representatives, 

Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Communications and 

Technology 

November 16, 2017 

I would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to testify today on this important topic. 

I started my career as an analyst at the Congressional Budget Office just as the second generation 

cellular services were beginning to be deployed. The developments of third and fourth 

generation technologies have helped fulfil the promise of wireless. The same will be true with 

SG, which will bring unprecedented speeds and low latency to wireless networks, supporting 

new applications and the development of an Internet of Things. And as with those earlier 

developments, additional spectrum is needed to fulfill the SG promise. 

Unlike the previous technological advancements, SG combines new technologies with a new 

architectural model of how spectrum is deployed. The architecture of a robust SG network will 

require spectrum in a variety of bands: "low-band" spectrum below 1 gigahertz for wide-area and 

long-range communications; "mid-band" spectrum between 1 and 6 gigahertz for applications 

that would benefit from a combination of coverage and capacity; and "high-band" spectrum for 

short range communications requiring fast data rates and low latency. To effectively use these 

spectrum bands, a SG network will require the deployment of millions of small cells along with a 

growing number of macro cells. All three pieces of this "spectrum trifecta" will be crucial for the 

successful deployment of SG networks. 
29 


28453.015

The Principle of Spectrum Reallocation states that when the value of a band of spectrum in a 

new use exceeds its value in an existing use, plus the cost of transitioning the frequencies, it 

should be reallocated. This simple principle-that benefits should exceed costs-can face many 

obstacles in practice. Incumbent users, whether TV broadcasters or government agencies, tend 

to be reluctant to relinquish spectrum assignments. Consequently, mechanisms where 

incumbents are compensated are beneficial because they help overcome resistance. In fact, 

anything that can be done to smooth the transfer of spectrum is helpful. For example, the 

recently introduced Spectrum Auctions Deposit Act-which overcomes impediments identified 

by Chairman Pai to holding spectrum auctions-will facilitate future auctions and the Spectrum 

Reallocation Fund should help provide frequencies for those auctions. 

These new SG deployments will have profound implications for spectrum value. On the one 

hand, being able to integrate massive amounts of high-band spectrum into commercial mobile 

networks will flood the market with spectrum capacity, at least in denser, more populous areas 

and for applications that can utilize the higher frequency spectrum. On the other hand, these 

new networks will enable new wireless services and increase consumer expectations about 

throughput and reliability. The net impact of these two offsetting effects is uncertain and overall 

spectrum values could go up or down. 

2 
30 


28453.016

But, within the overall net impact on spectrum values, there are clear implications for different 

types of spectrum from increased user expectations for throughput, mobility and latency that will 

be fostered by the new 5G deployments. The value of mid-band spectrum used for capacity 

outside of the areas served by high-band 5G deployments should increase because demand for 

network capacity-reset to a user experience based on a higher level of throughput in the urban 

areas-will be greater in those non-urban areas. 

The Principle of Spectrum Reallocation is applicable to all bands that make up the 5G spectrum 

trifecta, but I will focus on mid-band spectrum, the connective tissue of 5G deployments. In my 

accompanying paper submitted to the Committee that CTIA released yesterday, I examine the 

value of making an additional 100 MHz of mid-band spectrum available in the 1.300-1.350 MHz 

and 1,780-1,830 MHz bands. After accounting for a moderation in spectrum value compared to 

recent highs, I find that a 50 + 50 MHz paired band would be expected to raise $63 billion in 

auction receipts. Making those frequencies available are expected to cost up to an estimated $8 

billion to relocate existing users, providing them with at least equivalent and, in many cases, 

improved wireless infrastructure. Consequently, this band would be expected to raise $55 billion 

in net receipts. Admittedly, there is some amount of uncertainty when forecasting future 

auction receipts. Frankly, it is not for the faint of heart. But so long as an auction of this 100 

MHz of mid-band spectrum raises more than $8 billion-a paltry amount for so much spectrum 

that can be used for mobile broadband-reallocating the federal users and auctioning the 

reclaimed spectrum will create value. 

3 
31 


28453.017

The application of the Principle of Spectrum Reallocation does not end here. For example, all or 

part of the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz band could be valuably deployed in support of SG networks. I have 

investigated this band and found that even with conservative assumptions about value of both 

existing C-band services and potential new deployments, reallocating some or all of the band 

would likely create value. A voluntary mechanism that ensures incumbents benefit from any 

transition will help facilitate making additional needed frequencies available for new SG 

networks. 

Thank you. 

4 
32 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Adelstein, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JONATHAN ADELSTEIN 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Ranking 

Member Doyle, members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity 

to testify. This hearing today is historic for a number of reasons, 

not just the topic, but because it is David Redl’s last time on that 

side of the dais and not over here where he will soon be. 

We congratulate Mr. Redl on his rapid confirmation by the Senate. And you wonder why I say ‘‘rapid.’’ By my standards, what I 

went through, it is actually pretty quick. So it is all relative. 

I represent the Wireless Infrastructure Association that represents companies that build, own, manage, and maintain wireless 

facilities across the country. And we applaud the leadership of this 

subcommittee on promoting wireless broadband deployment. 

The wireless industry stands ready to make enormous invest- ments, up to $275 billion to build out 5G. It will lead to 3 million 

new jobs and $500 billion to boost GDP. 

And the U.S. is really well-positioned to lead 5G, especially with 

David Redl as head of the NTIA. It will be something that will face 

stiff competition, though. We have competition from around the 

globe. Fortunately, this subcommittee, the FCC, and the administration have all shown a clear commitment to policies that encourage 5G investment. 

5G could prove one of the most transformational technologies in 

the history of technology. But as promising as the standard for 5G 

is, it is only as good as the infrastructure on which it is deployed. 

5G will involve up to a hundred times more antenna locations than 

3G or 4G, so all types of infrastructure are needed. And fully realizing the potential of 5G depends on how effectively it gets deployed. Responsible infrastructure deployment is key. 

Our industry works very closely with local governments, like San 

Jose. But if a company carelessly circumvents localities, it rightly 

angers the community and creates resistance to siting new facilities, and that can slow 5G.The WIA and its members seek to work 

in partnership with localities, because that is the best way to develop networks over the long-term. 

This subcommittee has long promoted responsible deployment. In 

fact, the great example of that is Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum 

Act. The law clearly sped 4G deployment by allowing upgrades on 

cell towers without burdensome zoning reviews, and it will continue to provide relief for the deployment of 5G through colocation, 

which is preferred by localities. 

Many communities welcome wireless deployments with streamlined siting policies. In fact, 13 States have passed laws to streamline deployment. I think Congress can bring all communities up to 

that same high standard by speeding the approval of permits and 

applications. Congress should provide a deemed granted remedy if 

a locality fails within a prescribed shot clock to approve an application. 

The FCC system for working with tribes who indicate a possible 

historic cultural interest often far outside of tribal lands is not 

working properly. It should be updated to exclude deployments 

33 

with no new ground disturbance and ensure that fees are reasonable and appropriate. 

Congress should also modernize the historic preservation laws by 

excluding certain small cell deployments from unnecessary reviews. 

And Congress should revamp the Byzantine process of siting on 

Federal lands to speed deployment on rural areas, something we 

have concentrated on, on the BDAC, in the subcommittee I chaired. 

Another barrier to 5G is the growing gap between the skills of 

today’s workers and the skills needed to build tomorrow’s wireless 

networks. Many of our members report they are having difficulty 

in filling positions with qualified applicants. 

Now WIA is working to build bridges that will jump across that 

gap so that we can bring apprenticeships for the first time into the 

wireless industry. WIA is also developing training programs to support that, because we can’t afford the lack of trained workers to 

slow the path to 5G. 

We are encouraged that Congress and the administration are 

seeking new ways to partner with industry on job training and on 

apprenticeship programs, because thousands of new high-wage jobs 

await those with the proper skills. 

The movement to 5G has the potential to unleash a wave of job 

creation, economic growth, and greater global competitiveness. 

That is why the subcommittee’s leadership is so critical, and we are 

so grateful that you held this hearing today and invited me to testify. So thank you again for holding this hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Adelstein follows:] 

34 


28453.018

WlAriiJ 

Testimony of 

Jonathan Adelstein 

President and CEO, Wireless Infrastructure Association 

Before the 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

United States House of Representatives 

Hearing entitled 

Wireless 

Infrastructure 

Association 

"The Race to 5G and its Potential to Revolutionize American Competitiveness" 

November 16,2017 

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

holding this important hearing and for the opportunity to testifY on the future of SG and 

American competitiveness. I am the President and CEO of the Wireless Infrastructure 

Association (WIA), the principal organization representing the companies that build, design, 

own, and manage wireless facilities in the U.S. and throughout the world. Our members include 

infrastructure providers, wireless carriers, equipment manufacturers, and professional services 

firms. WIA focuses on ensuring that the infrastructure is in place to make 5G a reality. Our 

mission is to expand wireless broadband everywhere. 

The United States has been a leader in mobile communications and 4G. There is no guarantee, 

however, that the U.S. will stay on top as 5G rolls out. The wireless infrastructure industry is 

honored to work with this Subcommittee on sound policies to encourage deployment of 

broadband for all Americans so that the U.S. can remain on the cutting edge of wireless 

deployment, including 50. This Subcommittee has shown great leadership in promoting 

broadband deployment and the wireless industry applauds your efforts. 

500 Montgomery St., STE 500, Alexandria, VA 22314 

T 800.759.0300 • F 703.836.1608 • WIA.ORG 
35 


28453.019

WlAriiiJ 

The Wireless Data Crunch 

Wireless 

Infrastructure 

Association 

America is facing an economic and technological challenge that can be described as the wireless 

data crunch. The challenge is to meet consumers' increasing demand for mobile data while 

keeping up with the network's capacity to deliver it. According to Cisco, over the next five 

years, mobile data traffic in the U.S. is set to increase five-fold. 1 Much of that growth is coming 

from smartphones, which account for most of the wireless connections today. But the number of 

machine-to-machine connections and machine- or device-to-Internet connections is growing 

exponentially. Cisco found that the number of Internet connected devices will increase three-fold 

by 2021, with smartphone traffic exceeding PC traffic over the next five years.2 

These statistics underscore the need for government policies that consider the growing demand 

for mobile data and address the challenges of meeting it by efficiently deploying wireless 

infrastructure. This tremendous growth in demand is both encouraging and sobering at the same 

time. The issue for the wireless infrastructure industry and for this Subcommittee is how to meet 

this demand. The projections should serve as a wake-up call that industry and the government at 

all levels need to continue to work together to maintain the U.S.'s position as the global leader in 

wireless innovation, as this Subcommittee has long recognized. 

To address the wireless data crunch, there are three basic ways to deliver more wireless data: (1) 

additional spectrum; (2) increased technological efficiency; and (3) more wireless infrastructure, 

or densification. All three are essential. 

We certainly need more spectrum- as much as we can get, as quickly as we can get it. The 

mobile carriers paid high prices for spectrum in the recent auction, which is understandable 

because there may not many available opportunities for significant new spectrum in the near 

future, other than very high-frequency spectrum. With the successful close of the 600 MHz 

Incentive Auction, the last scheduled auction, it is more important than ever to plan for future 

spectrum needs. Technological efficiencies will also help ease the wireless data crunch. But even 

as we build out 40 and soon 50, traffic immediately diverted to these new and more efficient 

standards-there's lag time here, too, with old 30 and even 20 handsets still in usc. 50 will also 

require new handsets that will take many years and significant expense to get into consumers' 

hands. While carriers can inccntivizc customers to use new and more efficient handsets, this 

1 VNl Mobile Forecast Highlights, 2016-2021, available at 

https://www .cisco.com/assets/sol/sp/vni/forecast_high lights_ mobi le/#-Country (Cisco VNI). 2 The Zettabyte Era: Trends & Analysis, available at https://www.cisco.com/c/en!us/solutions/collateral/serviceprovider/visual-networking-index-vni/vni-hyperconnectivity-wp.html. 

500 Montgomery St., STE 500, Alexandria, VA 22314 

T 800.759.0300- F 703.836.1608- W!A.ORG 
36 


28453.020

WlAgJ Wireless 

Infrastructure 

Association 

takes time. Technological innovation alone will not enable the wireless industry to meet growing 

consumer demand, even when combined with any new spectrum. 

Wireless infrastructure immediately addresses the wireless data crunch as soon as it is deployed, 

but deploying infrastructure also takes time. And even with more spectrum or increased 

technological advancements, far more infrastructure is needed to deliver sufficient bandwidth. 

The massive growth in the number of connected devices will strain the capabilities of the 

infrastructure we have today. Supporting the demand for more infrastructure will require major 

investments. We need additional cell towers and poles and more antennas of all types and sizes 

that attach to structures of all sizes. And we need the all-important fiber networks that connect all 

these technologies. We simply need more wireless infrastructure so that these massive amounts 

of data can seamlessly move from point to point. In the 5G world, with the explosion of data 

demand, having robust wireless infrastructure becomes even more important. 

Benefits of 5G 

The benefits of 5G for economic growth, job creation and American competitiveness are welldocumented. The wireless industry stands ready to make the necessary investments to make 5G a 

reality. In fact, Accenture estimates that wireless operators will invest as much as $275 billion 

nationwide over seven years as they build out 50.3 This investment could create direct impacts 

of 350,000 new construction jobs and a total of 850,000 jobs in the U.S. when considering 

suppliers and other partners cumulatively over the seven years of network build-out.4 The 

broader economic benefits from SG could create an additional 2.2 million jobs in communities 

across the country.5 In total, about 3 million new jobs could be created by the 5G revolution and 

lead to a $500 billion boost to the GDP.6 

5G networks will be up to 100 times faster and five times more responsive than today's 

networks. It will be able to support 100 times more wireless devices. It will bring faster speeds, 

greater value, and more choices for consumers. 5G will spur life-altering innovations in 

telemedicine, distance learning, improved public safety response, mobile banking, and a host of 

industrial and manufacturing functions. 

3 How 5G Can Help Municipalities Become Vibrant Smart Cities, Accenture Strategy (Jan. 12, 2017) available at 

https://newsroom.acccnture.com/news/new-rescarch-from-accenture-strategy-highlights-cconomic-and-societalimpact-of-investing-in-5g-infrastructure.htm (Accenture Study). 4 See Accenture Study. 

'Id 

6 Jd 

500 Montgomery St, STE 500, Alexandria, VA 22314 

T 800.759.0300- F 703.836.1608- WIA.ORG 
37 


28453.021

WlArJJ Wireless 

Infrastructure 

Association 

Communities, big and small, will also benefit from 50. "Smart Communities" will emerge 

across the country, providing municipalities the ability to improve quality of life for their 

residents and saving significant taxpayer money. 50 solutions applied to connected cars and the 

management of vehicle tratlic and electrical grids could produce $160 billion in benefits and 

savings through reductions in energy usage, traffic congestion and fuel costs.7 These 50 

attributes will provide cities and towns with opportunities to reduce commute times, improve 

public safety and generate significant smart grid efficiencies. 

The U.S. can lead in 50. Several 50 trials are ongoing across the country, and the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC) opened nearly eleven gigahertz of high-band spectrum that 

serves as an important down payment on the spectrum needed to support 50. America is wellpositioned, but there is growing competition from around the world. If U.S. policy does not 

evolve to encourage 50 investment, then other countries will surpass us and we will have missed 

an opportunity to create millions of jobs and hundreds of billions in economic activity. 

I am confident U.S. policy will rise to meet the challenge. This Subcommittee clearly recognizes 

the challenges and is addressing it. Chairman Pai, all the Commissioners, and the staff of the 

FCC has also risen to the challenge, establishing an aggressive agenda to promote infrastructure 

deployment. The Trump Administration has also taken a strong stand to promote infrastructure, 

including a focus on broadband, and clearly indicating their intention to include broadband in the 

upcoming infrastructure initiative. Given strong leadership we are seeing from Congress, the 

FCC and the Administration, it is clear there is significant policy support that will enable the 

U.S. to lead the world in 50 deployment and innovation. 

Congress' Role in Encouraging 50 Deployment 

50 could prove to be one of the most transformational standards in the history of technology. As 

promising as the 50 standard is, it is only as good as the infrastructure on which it is deployed. 

Building the networks of tomorrow requires sound policies from all levels of government today. 

Accenture estimates that the network deployment build of SG will involve ten to 100 times more 

antenna locations than 30 or 40, meaning that all manner of infrastructure will be required, 

including traditional towers, small cells, distributed antenna systems (DAS), and unlicensed WiFi offload. While the opportunities of 50 deployment present an exciting and historic 

opportunity, we must be mindful of potential warning signs. 50 buildout is capital intensive, and 

operationally demanding. Fully realizing the economic growth and international competitiveness 

of 50, depends on how efficiently the SG infrastructure will be deployed. Therefore, Congress 

7 Accenture Study. 

500 Montgomery St.. STE 500, Alexandria, VA 22314 

T 800.759.0300- F 703.836.1608- WIA.ORG 
38 


28453.022

W/Ariill Wireless 

Infrastructure 

Association 

and the FCC need to enact policies that allow the wireless industry to invest finite private capital 

responsibly and efficiently. 

Congress and the FCC need to speed the approvals of permits and applications so that companies 

can make the needed 5G investments. And we need local governments to recognize how crucial 

access to public rights-of-way to deploy antennas on existing structures will be as we move into 

the next phase of wireless deployment. 

In addition to antennas on towers, poles and the sides or tops of buildings, new networks will 

rely on what is commonly known as "street furniture." Bus stops, man-hole covers, park 

benches, mail boxes, the lights at a local high school or even a gazebo in a public park are all 

candidates to host cellular antennas. Policies need to recognize that all manner of infrastructure 

are needed to reap 5G's benefits. 

There are several specific steps Congress can take that will speed 5G deployment. First, 

Congress can look at Federal 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 time lines for make-ready and other work, and rates in greater harmony with other like 

attachments. However, many local jurisdictions have been slow to adopt the FCC's standards. In 

these states, the telecommunications industry must re-legislate, re-litigate, and otherwise relive 

the efforts taken before the FCC's action. Greater national certainty and clarity with respect to 

the rights of wireless attachers in these jurisdictions would spur SG broadband deployment. 

Next, Congress should look to address the byzantine process of siting wireless broadband 

infrastructure on Federal lands, This Subcommittee on a bipartisan basis has expressed interest in 

this issue and we appreciate your leadership, along with your colleagues in the Senate. The 

Federal government owns or administers nearly thirty percent of all land in the U.S., as well as 

thousands of buildings, many of which arc in desirable locations. Broadband providers currently 

face significant challenges when working to secure access to Federal lands and buildings. 

Deploying wireless infrastructure on these properties is critical for 5G rollout. Wireless facilities 

can be sited on Federal property in an environmentally responsible way that is sensitive to areas 

historic significance. 

In addition, some state and local authorities are erecting barriers to broadband deployment that 

could prevent the full deployment of 5G. For example, some localities are charging fees that are 

500 Montgomery St., STE 500, Alexandria, VA 22314 

T 800.759.0300- F 703.836.1608- WIA.ORG 
39 


28453.023

WI A~ Wireless 

Infrastructure 

Association 

discriminatory, are not technology neutral, or exceed reasonable application processing costs, 

including demands to obtain expensive business licenses for cell sites. The current statute does 

not define ''fair and reasonable compensation" and some localities have used fees as a revenuegenerating measure. Still others impose high costs for unnecessary third-party consultants or 

require unreasonable escrow fees. Congress should clarify that right-of-way use and management 

charges should not include fees based on gross revenues, third party consultancy or review fees, 

travel expenses, business licensing fees, or unreasonable escrow fees. 

An additional concern is that some localities require unreasonable amounts of information from 

applicants, some of which is completely unrelated to the application. Some localities also require 

an applicant to perform services unrelated to the wireless facility for which approval is sought. 

These requirements cause unnecessary and costly delays to the deployment of wireless 

infrastructure and could impede SG. Congress should look at ways to limit the amount and type 

of information that is required by local governments in siting applications and Congress should 

prevent local governments from requiring an applicant to perform services unrelated to the 

wireless facility for which approval is sought. 

Further, the shot clocks created by the FCC under Section 332 of the Telecom Act require an 

applicant to file a lawsuit in court if the locality does not act within the timeframes established. 

While helpful, there are still opportunities within the process that introduce substantial delay 

where the parties unnecessarily end up in court. This process can drag on for years. Congress 

should amend Section 332 to include a deemed granted remedy if a locality fails to act within the 

applicable shot clock. 

Beyond local concerns, Congress can improve a number of Federal policies to expedite SG. For 

instance, the FCC's Tower Construction Notification System (TCNS) aids in connecting wireless 

infrastructure providers with federally recognized Native Nations that have expressed an interest 

in the area in which the deployment would take place. The process as it stands today is fraught 

with inefficiencies and lacks the clarity and certainty needed to efficiently build out 5G 

networks. The TCNS process applies to deployments where a tribe has indicated that they may 

have a historic, cultural interest in the underlying site. Congress should update the TCNS system 

to proactively exclude those deployments that have no new ground disturbance, should clarify 

procedures to better enable completion of the consultation process in a reasonable timeframe, 

and should ensure that fees are assessed only when appropriate, and that where fees are assessed, 

those fees are reasonable. 

In addition, FCC rules and programmatic agreements implementing Section 106 ofthe National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) have created a time-consuming process, often taking many 

months without effective mechanisms in place to close the process. The FCC revised its rules in 

500 Montgomery St., STE 500, Alexandria, VA 22314 

T 800.759.0300- F 703.836.1608- WIA.ORG 
40 


28453.024

WI A~ Wireless 

Infrastructure 

Association 

2014 and recently amended the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for the Collocation of 

Wireless Antennas to categorically exclude certain collocations, including many small wireless 

antennas on existing structures. However, these exclusions do not cover many common and lowimpact collocations or associated support poles. Congress should amend Section 106 of the 

NHPA to specify that the installation of small wireless antennas, including associated equipment 

and support poles, on existing towers, buildings, or other structures, or in a public right-of-way, 

is not an "undertaking" subject to Section 106 review. 

Similarly, while collocations of small cells are categorially excluded from certain environmental 

reviews under FCC rules, associated support poles may still require an environmental review and 

both the small cell and the pole are still considered major Federal actions. Congress should 

amend Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act to specify that the installation of 

small wireless antennas (including associated equipment and support poles) on existing towers, 

buildings, or other structures, or in a public right-of-way, is not a major Federal action subject to 

NEPA review. 

Along with Federal policy, several states are also looking to expedite 50 infrastructure 

deployment. In 2017, nearly two dozen bills have either been enacted or introduced that remove 

regulatory barriers, reduce delays, and rationalize fees. These bills also promote responsible 

deployment, creating height limits and other policies incentivizing deployment in specifics areas, 

including the right-of-way and on existing infrastructure. 

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. 50 infrastructure will 

have the power to transform a municipality 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. 

Collocation and Responsible Deployment Are Important to 50 Deployment 

American wireless networks are the envy of the world. When I speak with industry and 

governments around the globe, I am often asked how we did it. A major reason is the collocation 

model that has become the industry norm in the U.S. This shared infrastructure model works 

well for both the wireless industry and for local communities. Sharing is more economically 

efficient and promotes smart planning. Collocation also lowers barriers for new entrants, which 

leads to competition and innovation. And it supports environmental, historic and cultural 

preservation throughout local communities. 

500 Montgomery St., STE 500, Alexandria, VA 22314 

T 800.759.0300- F 703.836.1608- WIA.ORG 
41 


28453.025

W/ArEJJ Wireless 

Infrastructure 

Association 

Congress, and this Subcommittee, have enabled the improvement of the collocation model by 

approving Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of2012. That 

law expedited deployment of 4G networks by allowing carriers and infrastructure providers to 

upgrade equipment on cell towers without having to undergo onerous zoning proceedings. 

Section 6409(a) is going to provide similar relief in the deployment of 5G networks. 

5G will not only be provided through small cells. The entire network, on all frequencies and 

antennas, will be upgraded to 5G as time and capital allows. In fact, swapping out 5G antennas 

on traditional towers will provide a rapid and efficient means to get the 5G signals to the widest 

swaths of the U.S. population. Further refinements to Section 6409(a), along with the facilitation 

of small cell siting, will provide a further boost to the deployment of 5G networks. 

One way to promote collocation to help boost 5G deployment is to streamline the process of 

compound expansions. The 2004 Programmatic Agreement excluded from review construction 

of a replacement structure that did not substantially increase the size of the existing tower and 

that did not expand the boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the tower by 

more than thirty feet in any direction or involve excavation outside these expanded boundaries. 

This relief has worked well. However, any site expansion to accommodate additional equipment 

associated with the collocation of a new antenna or transmission equipment still requires a full 

review, even if the expansion is as little as one foot. This unnecessary requirement is expensive, 

time-consuming and could slow down 5G. Providing the same thirty-foot allowance exclusion 

for compound expansions for collocation as currently exists for replacement towers, would have 

a significant impact in reducing delays and expenses. 

As the U.S. moves to 5G, it is important to maintain a commitment to responsible infrastructure 

deployment. Siting a wireless facility can be a time-consuming and expensive process. Often, a 

vocal minority of residents express displeasure, or outright disapproval, of locating facilities in 

their communities. The wireless infrastructure industry works very closely with local 

governments and communities to meet their unique needs in terms of location, aesthetics, height, 

type of structure, and many other considerations. If a company carelessly comes into a 

community and circumvents local consultation, it rightly angers community residents and the 

local government. This can lead to a moratorium, either explicit or de facto, on siting new 

facilities in that community. A siting moratorium hurts responsible companies and creates 

resistance on the drive to 5G. It prevents consumers and communities from enjoying all the 

benefits that come with wireless services. WIA has long supported responsible infrastructure 

deployment in partnership with localities because it is the best way to develop the networks, 

including those that will enable 5G. 

500 Montgomery St .. STE 500. Alexandria. VA 22314 

T 800.759.0300- F 703.836.1608- WIA.ORG 
42 


28453.026

Creating the Wireless Workforce of the Future 

Wireless 

Infrastructure 

Association 

5G deployment could create three million new jobs across the economy. Nevertheless, there is a 

dramatic skills gap between U.S. workers and the technical and professional skills needed to 

build wireless networks. This gap could lead to thousands of jobs going unfilled and dramatic 

increases in labor costs. We are already beginning to see this. 

Wireless jobs are changing incredibly quickly. Many of our member companies report that they 

have difficulty filling positions because the applicants do not have the skills they need. A recent 

white paper published by WIA's Innovation and Technology Council found that government and 

industry should work together to develop training and educational programs to draw workers into 

the industry, and to provide the advanced skills needed to improve the safety and quality of 

wireless deploymcnts 8 

WIA is leading the fight to combat this skills gap so that the wireless industry can continue to 

grow and all communities can benefit from 50. WIA is the National Sponsor for the 

Telecommunications Industry Registered Apprenticeship Program (TIRAP) to bring the 

apprenticeship model into the wireless industry for the first time.9 WIA has also developed 

training programs that will support apprenticeships, bolster efforts to train veterans, and provide 

a baseline of knowledge about radio frequency issues among the wireless workforce of the 

future. 

The wireless industry and multiple Federal agencies recognize the critical role apprenticeships 

and workforce development programs can play in bridging the skills gap. On November 28, WIA 

and TIRAP will convene with representatives from the FCC, the Department of Labor, OSHA 

and senior executives from the private sector to celebrate the significant accomplishment of 

adding I ,000 registered apprenticeships to the wireless industry and explore the role 

apprenticeships and training and education will play in developing the skilled workforce the U.S. 

needs as it prepares for the widespread deployment of 5G mobile networks. 

WIA is proud to support H.R. 3174, the CHANCE in Tech Act. This bill would reform the 

registered apprenticeship program by creating technology apprenticeships and help forge publicprivate partnerships to serve as intermediaries between employers participating in the registered 

apprenticeship program, industry, training partners, and government entities. Each intermediary 

would assess and train potential apprentices in coordination with local and regional workforce 

8 The Skills Gap in Wireless Infrastructure Education: A Strategy for Improvement available at https://wia.org/wpcontent/upioads/The-Ski lis-Gap-in-Wireless-I nfrastructure-Education.pdf (May 20 16). 9 See http://www.tirap.org. 

500 Montgomery St., STE 500. Alexandria, VA 22311. 

T 800.759.0300- F 703.836.1608- WIA.ORG 
43 


28453.027

W/AfEJJ Wireless 

Infrastructure 

Association 

demands. The CHANCE in Tech Act would help shrink the skills gap by revitalizing the 

registered apprenticeship program and providing students and workers with the hands-on, 

experiential learning needed to compete in today's economy. 

The only way the U.S. is going to keep up with the ever-increasing demand for more capacity is 

through more wireless infrastructure, which will require a workforce with the skills to deploy 

wireless across the U.S. We cannot afford the lack of skilled workers to slow the path to 5G, so 

WlA looks forward to working with Congress to bolster efforts to train our workforce to expand 

high wage, high skilled jobs in our industry. 

Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee (BDAC) 

On January 31, 2017, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai announced the formation of a new Federal 

Advisory Committee, the Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee (BDAC). The BDAC's 

mission is to make recommendations on how to accelerate the deployment of broadband by 

reducing or removing regulatory barriers to infrastructure investment. I was fortunate to have 

been selected to serve on the Committee and was chosen to chair the Streamlining Federal Siting 

Working Group. The BDAC met and approved significant recommendations on November 9, 

including the entire report my working group and numerous suggestions from the others. My 

working group recommended that fees and rates for deployment on Federal lands need to be 

streamlined and that agencies should keep some of the revenue to help address staff constraints. 

My group also suggested implementing a 60-day shot clock, with a deemed granted remedy at 

180 days for new builds or 90 days for collocations on Federal lands. Another issue with Federal 

land siting is that varying applications and processes exist across different Federal agencies. We 

recommended harmonizing applications and processes across agencies. All agencies should use 

the same application. Congress mandated that the General Services Administration create a 

common application but two years after the common form was released, not all agencies use it. 

Congress should require that the common form be used. 

Some of the other working groups made additional recommendations to speed up the pet·mitting 

process for 50 infrastructure and to ensure broadband networks reach all communities. I 

commend Chairman Pai for convening this Committee and I know he is committed to using all 

FCC's tools to promote broadband deployment and adoption. 

Conclusion 

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 reason for our success. Continuing to upgrade 

500 Montgomery St., STE 500, Alexandria, VA 22314 

T 800.759.0300 • F 703.836.1608 • WIA.ORG 
44 


28453.028

W/ArEIJ Wireless 

Infrastructure 

Association 

America's wireless infrastructure is a necessary component of connecting more Americans with 

broadband and to 5G deployment. 

The move to 5G has the potential to unleash a wave of economic growth, job creation and greater 

global competitiveness in virtually every sector of the U.S. economy, bringing benefits well 

beyond the wireless industry. And wireless infrastructure will enable 5G. This enormous 

opportunity will only happen, however, if sound policies that encourage investment and 

innovation are enacted. Otherwise, the U.S. will fall behind the rest of the world and will not 

realize the full potential that next generation broadband will bring. That is why the leadership of 

this Subcommittee is so critical. You can make the difference by removing obstacles to 

deployment and improving Federal law to enable this industry to upgrade wireless networks. 

We are deeply grateful for the bipartisan recognition of the importance of infrastructure by this 

Subcommittee, 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 Blackburn and Ranking Member Doyle for holding this hearing and 

inviting me to testify. llook forward to continuing to work with you and the rest of the 

Committee to make additional progress on these very important issues. 

500 Montgomery St., STE 500, Alexandria, VA 22314 

T 800.759.0300- F 703.836.1608- WIA.ORG 
45 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you. 

Ms. Santosham, you are recognized, 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF SHIREEN SANTOSHAM 

Ms. SANTOSHAM. Good morning, Chairman Blackburn, Ranking 

Member Doyle, and members of the subcommittee. I am Shireen 

Santosham. I am chief innovation officer for Mayor Sam Liccardo 

in San Jose, California, the largest city in Silicon Valley. Thank 

you for the opportunity to discuss how cities are creating favorable 

environments to speed deployment of broadband. 

I want to particularly thank Congresswoman Eshoo for her focus 

on this issue and her excellent service for all Californians. We are 

truly fortunate to have her represent us. 

Cities large and small are eager for increased broadband investment and competitive choices for our residents. We understand the 

benefits of broadband to economic growth and creating an on-ramp 

to opportunity for our young people to learn and participate in the 

jobs of tomorrow. 

In San Jose we welcome technological advancement with open 

arms. This year alone we have launched an autonomous vehicle initiative, a crowdsourced civic challenge utilizing drones, entered into 

public-private partnerships with companies like Facebook. Just this 

past Monday our city council unanimously passed our broadband 

and digital inclusion strategy that includes several recommendations to streamline deployment and pave the way for technologies 

like 5G. 

San Jose is excited and ready to welcome 5G to our community. 

But at the same time, we have 95,000 residents in our city without 

broadband access. Think about that. In the heart of Silicon Valley, 

nearly 10 percent of our residents don’t have adequate access to the 

internet. 

It breaks my heart every time I hear about children in our community who are trying to do their homework on a mobile device 

outside their school because they don’t have internet access at 

home. They are losing the race before it starts. 

So while I welcome this next generation of the internet, we can’t 

leave people further behind in the process. How this technology is 

deployed and who benefits matters. 

Unfortunately, much of the State-level legislation that recently 

passed in over a dozen States to streamline deployment goes too far 

and gives telecommunications industries the benefit of a public 

utility without the obligation to serve everyone at affordable rates. 

I am going to tell you about one of these bills, SB 649, which was 

wisely vetoed by our Governor in California and highlights issues 

relevant to Federal action that we believe are important for you to 

consider. 

The first is the extremely low caps that allowed cities to charge— 

that were allowed for placing small cells in the public right-of-way 

at cost. In fact, upon an independent review, these rates were 

found to be below cost, resulting in the State obliged to reimburse 

cities for the difference had it been signed into law. 

Not only would the bill cost cities, but it also stripped away the 

ability of local governments to incentive build-outs in traditionally 

underserved areas. In San Jose, we have digital deserts in the midVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:54 May 30, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-79 CHRIS
46 

dle of our city where low-income Latino families live. By using market-based pricing of assets and negotiating citywide deployments, 

we can incentive the telecom industry to build out in these underserved areas. Preemption of local authorities to charge market 

rates and giving by-right access to industry removes these incentives. 

Second, equipment size and scale matters. Although the industry 

describes small cells as the size of a pizza box, the dimensions listed under SB 659 for small cells were over 21 cubic feet, the size 

of a standard refrigerator. Such massive pieces of equipment need 

adequate safety review, and communities will want input if thousands are deployed on their sidewalks. 

Finally, the public benefits from local governments acting as a 

referee for the competing needs of the finite space in the public 

rights of way. 

So how can we move forward? We need a balanced approach to 

ensure that we are speeding deployment while benefiting the public 

broadly. Cities can create one-stop shops for providers, co-create design standards with industry, negotiate citywide or batch process 

permits, and offer transparent and fair pricing. 

On the Federal level, we must avoid preemption of cities if we 

want to see equitable and safe deployment. The Federal Government should instead focus on developing the capacity of local leaders to manage deployments in community-centric ways. The Federal Government should also be careful not to pick winners and losers through policy. 

On behalf of Mayor Liccardo and the city of San Jose, I want to 

thank the subcommittee for inviting me to participate in this hearing today. I look forward to questions, and we are willing and able 

to help in any of your districts that are also struggling with some 

of these questions of deployment. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Santosham follows:] 

47 


28453.029

STATEMENT OF SHIREEN SANTOSHAM, CHIEF INNOVATION OFFICER, 

SAN JOSE MAYOR'S OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION 

BEFORE THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITIEE ON COMMUNICATIONS & TECHNOLOGY 

THE RACE TO SG AND ITS POTENTIAL TO REVOLUTIONIZE AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS 

NOVEMBER 16, 2017 WASHINGTON, DC 

Good morning, Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle and members of the Committee. I am 

pleased to be here to discuss how cities are leading the country in creating an environment to speed 

deployment of next generation networks. And, how reinforcing local government rights to manage the 

public rights of way, rather than circumventing these rights, will result in faster, cheaper, and higher 

quality broadband for all Americans. 

Personal background 

I am Shireen Santos ham, Chief Innovation Officer for Mayor Sam Liccardo in San Jose, California which is 

the lO'h largest city in America and the largest city in Silicon Valley. In my role, !lead efforts to make San 

Jose the most innovative city in America by embracing technology to improve the lives of our residents. 

In the past two years, we launched efforts to expand broadband for all of our residents, pilot 

autonomous vehicles on our streets, deploy an "internet-of-things" network, and activate our start up 

community to tackle civic challenges. I also currently serve as an alternate representative for Mayor 

Liccardo on the FCC Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee charged with advising the FCC on how 

to speed broadband deployment throughout the United States. 

Prior to joining the City of San Jose, I worked for GSMA, the mobile network operator association 

representing 800 wireless companies globally and an additional300 companies in the broader mobile 

ecosystem. While there I conducted primary research in over 20 countries and authored several reports 

on how to bridge the digital divide for women at the base of the pyramid globally through mobile 

technology and access to the mobile internet. This research was presented at Mobile World Congress in 

Barcelona, the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women 59/Beijing +20, and several other 

forums around the world. In addition, I have worked on several innovative initiatives while working with 

McKinsey & Company, multiple nonprofit organizations, and as an impact investor for Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen's Vulcan Capital. My background working across sectors, on different sides of the 

table with the wireless industry, government, and with communities affords me the unique opportunity 

to look at broadband deployment from a holistic perspective. 

I want to thank the Committee for calling attention to the importance of broadband deployment in our 

communities by holding this hearing and appreciate the opportunity to provide the critical perspective 

of cities and our role in promoting broadband deployment. I want to particularly thank Congresswomen 

Eshoo not only for her focus on this issue, but for her excellent service for all Californians- we are truly 

fortunate to have her represent us. 
48 


28453.030

Cities are embracing technology to improve their communities 

No one wants broadband deployment and competitive broadband choices more than local 

communities. We understand the opportunities that broadband presents for our local communities and 

our residents in terms of public safety, economic development, healthcare, entertainment, and 

education. For years, communities of all sizes around the nation have taken innovative steps to increase 

the deployment of broadband infrastructure, both wired and wireless, while protecting public safety as 

well as providing a fair approach to use of the public rights-of-way. 

We live in an exciting time from a technological perspective. I often say I have the most fun job in the 

City of San Jose because I have a front row seat to the latest and greatest technologies Silicon Valley has 

to offer and get to shape policies to usher in the next generation of the internet. 

In San Jose we welcome technological advancement with open arms. This year, we launched an effort 

to bring autonomous vehicles to San Jose- our initial call for proposals garnered 30 submissions from 

leading companies around the world. We are currently evaluating a short list of companies and will 

make announcements about pilots early next year. We also launched a civic challenge called "Unleash 

Your Geek" to crowdsource solutions from our residents to improve our city. The first challenge was to 

tackle the graffiti problem in the city- an issue that causes us to spend up to $60,000 every time we 

have to shut down a highway to clean a freeway overpass. Out of 140 entries, the winner was a 

husband and wife couple who built a human-controlled, spray-painting drone prototype in their living 

room for Jess than $5,000 that has the potential to save millions while keeping workers safer in the long 

term. The couple is now working with CaiTrans to prove out the solution and scale. 

Additionally, we have several experiments underway to bridge the digital divide and get connectivity to 

our low-income population. Our innovative "demonstration policy" allows us to test and iterate precommercial products in partnership with private sector on a temporary basis. Through this program we 

are collaborating with Facebook to demonstrate and launch their Terragraph network early next year 

that, if it works, has the potential to provide free, outdoor gigabit-speed internet access to our 

downtown. We are also partnering with our largest school district, via a public technology bond, to fund 

the private sector to provide internet access to the children on the east side of our city so they can do 

their homework at home if they cannot afford to pay for a service themselves. 

As the largest city in Silicon Valley, we understand inherently how powerful technology can be to drive 

economic growth and competitiveness. Broadband infrastructure is foundational to unlocking this 

potential. Just this past Monday, we released our Broadband and Digital Inclusion Strategy for the city 

which included recommendations to speed broadband deployment through streamlining our own 

processes, allowing for companies to work with a single point of contact to deploy small cells, and 

creating incentives for them to invest in underserved areas of our city through dynamically pricing our 

infrastructure assets which passed unanimously through our City Council. We know that working 

together with broadband providers is the only way we will be able to provide high quality service to our 

residents and bridge the digital divide and are actively looking for ways to streamline our own processes. 

We are not alone in our approach to creating a more welcoming environment for the private sector to 

work with us and to deploy networks more quickly. The City of Boston has already approved or installed 

656 small cells with 90% approved within 10 business days, 100% within 28 business days. Their 

program is based on the following five principles, which are a good example for all cities: 1) 
49 


28453.031

standardized license agreement, 2) cooperative design process, 3) multiple pricing models, 4) 

community communication, 5) simple, online application system. Many cities have, or are in the process 

of, developing guidelines for small cell deployment that create a balanced approach that speeds 

deployment for corporations while allowing cities to retain local management over the public rights-ofway to ensure that public safety and aesthetic needs are being met, ensuring taxpayers are fairly 

compensated for use of infrastructure they paid for, and incentivizing equitable build out in areas 

traditionally underserved by the industry. 

Given our innovative approach to technology as a city, and the work of cities across the country broadly 

on finding creative ways to ensure their residents get high quality, affordable broadband, we were 

surprised when our forward-leaning city was held up as an example by industry of local government 

bureaucracy and of how cities act as regulatory barriers to broadband deployment-including 

inaccurate claims around the prices we charge for access to our light poles. Certainly, there are always 

ways to improve processes to speed deployment, especially since cities often lack the capacity and 

funding to retool quickly when new technologies like small cells hit the market. But cities and local 

governments alone are not the root cause of slow broadband deployment- and pre-empting their 

authority will likely result in unintended consequences that hurt consumers in the long run. Industry 

players, structural barriers, and competitive dynamics in the American broadband market also 

contribute to the challenges of broadband deployment and these concerns should be carefully 

considered when holistically addressing this issue. 

lncentivizing equitable SG deployment 

Embracing SG and similar forms of millimeter wave technology is a part of the approach we are taking in 

San Jose to enable this next wave of innovation to occur. Ushering in a gigabit future will no doubt have 

wide ranging benefits from enabling new advances like connected and autonomous vehicles, unlocking 

augmented and virtual reality, and creating other new markets. But, there are two critical issues 

around the technology that should be considered, first that SG and millimeter wave technology is in 

early stages of development, and second, how this technology is deployed and who benefits matters. 

Although the promise of SG is widespread, the standards won't be set until 2019. So we still will need to 

see proof points around the technology. While it delivers lightning fast speed in labs and early trials, 

there are real-world problems of scale still to overcome. Generally, as you move to higher frequencies, 

transmission range gets shorter-hundreds of meters rather than kilometers. And signals are unable to 

penetrate walls easily, sometimes even windows treated to block UV rays. Further, some experts 

remain skeptical on the evolution of the technology and the ability to invest at the levels needed to 

deploy at scale' So, how this technology plays out remains to be seen and we should all be cautious 

about making drastic changes to how we historically manage the public rights-of-way in order to 

accommodate one, yet unproven technology that may only serve a narrow portion of our residents. 

A piecemeal approach where service providers can pick and choose where they service a city also has 

another unintended consequence- it is likely to result in wealthier, denser, more profitable areas 

serviced first and more traditionally digitally excluded neighborhoods serviced last (if they are serviced 

at all). In San Jose, historically, we took a laissez faire approach to our broadband market, which 

unfortunately resulted in several neighborhoods underserviced by broadband providers mostly in low1 https:/ /www .rcrwi reless. com/20160616/ carriers/Sg -bear -case-tag28 
50 


28453.032

income Latino communities. It also resulted in low fiber-to-the-premises and little competition in the 

market leading to lower quality of service, consumer choice, and higher prices for our residents. This 

trend is not unique to San Jose. According to the Federal Communications Commission, only 22 percent 

of Americans have more than one option for fast broadband2 Americans also tend to pay more for 

broadband than their counterparts in other developed nations and are less satisfied with their service.3 

is low3

http:/lwww.slate.com/blogs/future tense/2014/11/21/cost of connectivity study 2014 americans pay more 

for slower Internet access.html 

http://www. theacsi .org/news-and-resources/press-releases/press-2017 /press-release-telecommunications-2017 
51 


28453.033

Fiber is ami willllot solve 

Source: Price Waterhouse Coopers Broadband Strategy for San Jose 

Stories of low-income students with no internet access sitting on the steps of their schools at night 

trying to access free Wi-Fi to do their homework are unfortunately widespread in San Jose. The City 

Jose is now taking a new approach. We are working with service providers to build out all areas of our 

city through agreeing to batch processing of permits, network-level planning, and discounts on fees and 

rates based on digital inclusion provisions that benefit both the companies and our residents. 

We take our need to accelerate digital inclusion efforts seriously. We recently completed a survey, in 

partnership with Stanford University, of close to 700 low-income families with children to understand 

how to close the "homework gap" and ensure all our residents have an on ramp to opportunity. It 

shows that the cost of service and cost of devices are the top two barriers to broadband access for lowincome populations. And, we have 95,000 residents without broadband access in our city. 
52 


28453.034

Source: San Jose Digital Inclusion Report 2017, Stanford University & Great Non profits. 

Further, of those in our city without broadband access at home, 60% say they cannot afford even 

$9/month to pay for access to broadband. This means that low-cost plans offered by most service 

providers are still out of reach for a large proportion of our unconnected population. 

Source: San Jose Digital Inclusion Report 2017, Stanford University & Great Non profits. 

Taken together, what this means as we look to SG is that local communities and local governments have 

a role to play to make sure that equitable deployments happen. And, if we are to give breaks to 

corporations on use of public assets, we need to make sure that those benefits go back to the public in 
53 


28453.035

terms of lower prices coupled with access in traditionally excluded neighborhoods. Unfortunately, much 

of the current regulation introduced in states across the country strips away local input over the public 

rights of way and is fundamentally flawed as it does not ensure that the benefits of broadband reach 

everyone. And, there are no guarantees that the public, not shareholders alone, will benefit. 

What we learned from SB 649 

There is currently legislation sponsored by CTIA introduced in 20 states around the country, approved in 

over a dozen, that aim to streamline permitting processes for small cells and, often, pre-empt local 

control over the public rights of way by giving companies "by-right" access to public infrastructure. One 

such bill, SB 649 was introduced in California in this last legislative cycle. 

Fortunately, Governor Jerry Brown vetoed the bill. In his veto message, he stated "There is something 

of real value in having a process that results in extending this innovative technology rapidly and 

efficiently. Nevertheless, I believe that the interest which localities have in managing rights of way 

requires a more balanced solution than the one achieved in this bill." 

We believe the governor hit the right chord with this message- although we actively embrace new 

technology, the rights of local governments and communities to manage the rights of way must be 

preserved to benefit the public broadly. Below I will highlight issues with the bill. 

Cost-recovery fees don't cover costs & con widen digital divides 

In SB 649, the cap on annual pole fee was $250. The flawed legislation also proposed an additional cost 

recovery based pole attachment rate that failed to consider many of the actual costs involved with 

installation attachments to poles such as structural and electrical remediation. The independent 

California Department of Finance assessed that even in totality these rates were, in fact, below cost and 

would result in the state having to reimburse cities for the difference under California law.4 Their 

analysis also highlighted the concerns that digital divides could widen under this bill stating, "The bill 

gives telecommunications providers the power to determine where they deploy small cell technologies, 

which can be highly localized. Providers may cover high-demand neighborhoods first, while low-income 

neighborhoods may be left underserved. This arrangement follows in the path of high-speed internet 

service, which has led to uneven access for rural and lower-income areas. Under current law, cities and 

counties can require, as part of their permitting process, that small cell providers incorporate rural and 

lower-income areas into their service networks. By pre-empting local government authority, this bill also 

limits city and county tools to address those equity issues." 

Small cells are not well-suited for rural areas 

Small cells are best suited to deploy in dense urban and suburban environments given their shorter, 

more powerful signals that require greater density than traditional tower infrastructure. 16%, or over 2 

million California households, live in rural areas and therefore this legislation did not fully address the 

needs of this community. 

4 http://www. ca4safe rtech. com/wp -conte nt/upl oads/2017 /09 /CA-Dept -of -Fin a nce-Bi 11-Ana lysis.pdf 
54 


28453.036

Small cells are not "small" 

Although the industry describes small cells as the "size of a pizza box," the actual dimensions listed in SB 

649 for a small cell were 21 cubic feet (c.f.) for equipment on the pole plus up to a 6 c.f. antenna. 

Additionally, ground-mounted equipment could take this number up to 3S c. f. To put this in 

perspective, below is a screens hot of a refrigerator's dimensions pulled from the internet. Note that the 

dimensions of this large refrigerator match that of what could have be mounted on a pole under this bill, 

not including the additional equipment. Imagine if a telecommunications firm could, by-right, mount 

refrigerator-sized equipment anywhere in a city. In San Jose we estimate that demand for small cells 

will be around 5,000 in the next 1-2 years. Obviously, these dimensions are concerning from an 

aesthetic point of view in a city for residents. And, equipment of this size mounted on a pole also 

requires substantive safety review to ensure structural integrity. Local communities must continue to 

have the ability to control how and when objects of this size are placed in the public rights of way. 

Whirlpool- 21.9 Cu. Ft. Bottom-Freezer Refrigerator- Stainless steel 

SKU: 4,513€7,\ £90oostions, 154Al'I1>\YIHS 

Pre-emption of local governments led to widespread opposition 

Over 300 cities in California came out in opposition of the bill, including the mayors of the largest cities 

in California. Editorials and op-eds appeared in many of the major newspapers in the state opposing the 

legislation including in the LA Times, Sacramento Bee San Francisco Chronicle, and the Mercury News as 

well as the New York Times. Additionally, groups like AARP and the Labor Federation also opposed the 

bill. This opposition highlights how contentious these bills can be and the potential for litigation in 

coming years if legislation is not more carefully designed. 

In summary, our experience with SB 649, highlights a number areas relevant for federal action that we 

believe are important to consider. First, pre-emption ofthe right for local governments to charge for 
55 


28453.037

access to the public rights of way also takes away the ability to incentivize build outs in low-income or 

otherwise marginalized areas. If the industry would like to be charged rates like a public utility, then 

they should also be responsible to serve everyone at affordable prices to consumers. Most of the 

legislation today is unfortunately too one-sided with the industry asking for the benefits of a public 

utility without the obligations. 

Second, aesthetic concerns matter to local communities and bills that are overly permissive in 

equipment size and scale are shortsighted. No community will want thousands of refrigerator-sized 

equipment placed throughout their city with no say in the process. 

Finally, there is a real public benefit to local governments acting as a "referee" to manage the public 

right of way. The public right of way is home to water, sewer, electrical infrastructure as well as traffic 

lights, streetlights, pedestrians, cars, and telecommunications equipment. Only local governments 

understand local needs, preferences, and how best to balance the aesthetic, safety, and wellness needs 

of their communities against all these competing interests. No one company or industry will act in the 

overall interest of the community in the way a local government can act- and rightfully so. Companies 

are incentivized to maximize shareholder value, not public value. 

The way forward- a "balanced approach" 

So, how can we move forward? Obviously, there is tremendous benefits to local governments and 

industry working together to speed broadband deployment and bridge digital divides for all Americans. 

On the local government level, several common-sense approaches make sense to pursue. Jascha 

Franklin-Hodge, CIO of Boston, recently laid out several steps that cities should consider when adopting 

5G: 5 

1. Process: To make SG economically viable, cities will need base station review and approval 

processes that are efficient, predictable, and fair. A well-designed process can protect the public 

interest without subjecting installations to uncertain time lines and excessive negotiation at each 

individual location. 

2. Design: To be accepted by residents, ubiquitous wireless infrastructure must blend in, and not 

undermine accessibility, safety, or historic preservation. With our grounded local knowledge, 

city government can help providers develop designs that blend into the urban fabric and win the 

acceptance of residents. 

3. Competition: Policies that promote a level playing field, and which prevent squatting, exclusive 

access, and land grabs can ensure that SG is a competitive market, not just a new monopoly. 

4. Compensation: While competition is a public good, cities should not give away valuable public 

assets to private for-profit companies. Companies should provide cities fair market 

compensation through some combination of payment, in-kind services, and direct community 

support. 

San Jose is adopting these principles and implementing common sense policies such as digonce, reorganizing staff to manage our poles in a one-stop-shop to ensure safe, timely, and 

predictable wireless attachment permitting and installation. As previously mentioned, we are 

also piloting new millimeter wave technology and community-based free Wi-Fi to our low5 http:/ I statescoop .com/wiii-Sg-allow-citi es-to-ki 11-b road band-man opolies 
56 


28453.038

income families to bridge the digital divide for our residents where the industry is not 

incentivized to do so. 

On the federal level, pre-emption of local governments, either as a result of FCC regulations or new 

federal legislation, will likely have negative unintended consequences for the public. Below-market fees 

and rates charged to telecom companies are essentially a public subsidy, without guarantees that these 

companies build out everywhere and lower prices to consumers. Allowing local governments to 

continue to charge rational market-based rates and transparently price assets to incentivize build out in 

traditionally underserved areas would be more productive. Cities can also incentivize designs for 

deployments that meet the aesthetic needs of their communities and drive innovation over time 

towards smaller equipment. Federal efforts are better spent educating and building the capacity of local 

governments to understand how best to manage deployments of these technologies in ways that work 

for their community. The federal government should work with organizations such as the National 

League of Cities, The United States Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties and 

others to expand local knowledge and best practices. 

Additionally, federal advisory commissions, such as the FCC Broadband Deployment Advisory 

Committee, of which I am an alternate member on behalf of our Mayor, would greatly benefit from 

increased local government and community input as pointed out by Congresswomen Eshoo as well as 

the National League of Cities, National Association of Counties, and the United States Conference of 

Mayors.' 

The federal government should also be careful not to pick winners and losers through law or regulation. 

If Congress or the FCC encourages particular technologies, it will remove incentives to develop better 

technology. For example, prioritizing the deployment of "small cell" wireless infrastructure, which 

covers only a small area of service may have negative consequences. Affording these technologies 

advantages under federal law could limit the deployment of technologies that would provide greater 

coverage and be less physically impactful on our environments. 

Closing remarks 

On behalf of Mayor Liccardo and the City of San Jose I want to thank the Committee for inviting me to 

participate in this hearing today. I will offer any ongoing assistance of my city as you examine ways to 

increase broadband deployment responsibly across our nation. I urge you to consider 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. 

6 https://eshoo.house.gov/issues/telecommunications/eshoo-urges-fcc-chairman-to-include-more-localgovernment-input-on-broadband-deployment/ 

https://naco.sharefile.com/app? /#/share/view /sc363022922a467 c9 
57 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentlelady yields back. 

Mr. Broeker, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID BROEKER 

Mr. BROEKER. Good morning. Thank you, Committee Chair 

Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, and Congresswoman Brooks 

and other honorable members of this committee, for inviting me 

here today to talk about the impact of 5G on the future of life 

sciences and advanced manufacturing. 

My name is David Broeker, and I am the founder and principal 

of a legacy bioscience consulting company. I help entrepreneurs 

and innovators in the life sciences area advance their ideas to the 

marketplace. And I am also the founding president and CEO of the 

Indiana Biosciences Research Institute. 

Indiana is home to one of the most diverse, robust life science 

sectors in the country, with companies in biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, agriculture, animal health, and 

diagnostics. Eleven percent of our workforce are employed by these 

companies. 

The State has consistently been second to our colleagues from 

California as the largest exporter of life science products in the 

United States, exporting more than $9.9 billion in products and 

contributing over $62 billion to the Indiana economy in 2016. 

Across life sciences today, biology and applied data science are 

converging to help researchers and scientists understand the genome and the massive amounts of data that are being generated 

every day. This convergence will require now capabilities and infrastructure like 5G to allow researchers to share these large data 

streams in ways that are better, faster, cheaper. 

The ability to do this will enhance discovery for new medicines 

and treatments for patients and enable the Massive Internet of 

Medical Things that are upon us to create new innovation. 

The development of the Massive Internet of Medical Things will 

connect patients to their physicians through telemedicine, augmented and virtual reality, interventions. It will make digital technologies like smart devices, wearables and sensors a part of the delivery of care to improve patients’ lives. And when combined with 

other enabling technologies like blockchain, data standards, and 

encryption, it will create a shift away from place-dependent electronic medical records to virtual individual health records that will 

improve the quality of care through personalized medicine. 

5G technology will enable life science manufacturers to create 

better and more secure supply chains that will connect patients 

and distribution partners as well as create opportunities to improve 

the quality and productivity of the research and development process and the ultimate tech transfer and manufacturing of these 

products. 

For example, 5G technology will enable the real-time capture of 

appropriate patient information to improve safety monitoring and 

adverse event reporting. It will also allow for 100 percent tracking 

of product distribution to the patient. 

It will improve the efficiency of clinical studies by providing 100 

percent verifiable external data capture and exchange with researchers and development partners like contract research organiVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:54 May 30, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-79 CHRIS
58 

zations. It will improve the technology transfer within companies 

between development teams and manufacturing operations to 

shorten timelines and bring innovations to the market faster. 

5G will also create opportunities to connect the patient literally 

to the shop floor and integrate advanced manufacturing capabilities like 3–D printing to make customized devices, cell-based therapies and therapeutics. 

Finally, 5G will result in more automation of manufacturing, improving the speed and efficiency, creating more manufacturing jobs, 

and enhancing the technology focus within the current manufacturing operations. 

Just like the Nation’s interstate highway system made the fast 

and easy exchange of goods across the country possible, 5G technology will drive innovation in the life sciences by providing a better avenue for exchange of massive amounts of data being generated across the information-rich landscape of healthcare and life 

science innovation. 

I would just like to leave you with one factoid that I researched 

in coming to the committee today. 

I don’t know how many people know what a zettabyte is. But a 

zettabyte is 1 followed by 21 zeros. So it is a pretty big number. 

And if you look at the major internet service providers today, they 

traffic a little over 1 zettabyte of information. 

In the next 3 years, it is projected that that will increase by over 

fiftyfold. So think about that amount of data and the infrastructure 

that is required to exchange, connect, and the convergence that is 

possible in life science and manufacturing. 

5G is critical enabling technology for America and will help drive 

new innovations in healthcare and increase competitiveness in advanced manufacturing. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Broeker follows:] 

59 


28453.039

Key Points: 

House Energy and Commerce Committee 

5 G Testimony 

David A. Broecker 

CEO 

Indiana Biosciences Research Institute 

November 16, 2017 

SG is an important technology for enabling future medical innovations in life 

sciences and to support advanced manufacturing of medical devices, 

pharmaceuticals, and diagnostics. 

Convergence of biological and applied data science will require capabilities and 

infrastructure like SG to send massive amounts of information better, faster, 

cheaper. This enables the Massive Internet of Medical Things (MioMT) and 

creation of new innovations. 

SG technology will enable life science manufacturers to create better and more 

secure supply chains that will connect patients and distribution partners and 

create opportunities to improve the quality and productivity for the development 

and manufacturing of products. 
60 


28453.040

House Energy and Commerce Committee 

5 G Testimony 

David A. Broecker 

CEO 

Indiana Biosciences Research Institute 

November 16, 2017 

Chairman Blackburn, honorable members of the committee, thank you for inviting 

me to join you today to discuss the impact of SG on the future of life sciences and 

advance manufacturing. 

My name is David Broecker, and I am the founder of Legacy Consulting and the 

Founding President and CEO of the Indiana Biosciences Research Institute. 

Indiana is home to one of the most diverse, robust life sciences sectors in the 

country, with companies in pharmaceuticals, medical devices, agriculture, and 

diagnostics. The state has consistently been the second largest exporter of life 

sciences products in the United States, exporting $9.9 billion in products and 

contributing $62 billion to the Indiana economy in 2016. 

In today's life sciences, biology and applied data science are converging to help 

scientists understand the massive amounts of data being generated. This 

convergence will require new capabilities and infrastructure like SG to allow 

scientists to share these large data streams in ways that are better, faster, and 

cheaper. The ability to do that will enable the Massive Internet of Medical Things 

(MioMT) and create new innovations. 

The development of the Massive Internet of Health things will connect patients to 

their physicians through telemedicine and virtual reality nterventions. It will make 

digital technologies like smart devices, wearables, and sensors a part of the 

delivery of care to improve patients' lives. And when combined with other 

enabling technologies like block chain, data standards, and encryption, it will 

create a shift away from place dependent, electronic medical records to virtual, 
61 


28453.041

individual patient records that will improve the quality of care through 

personalized medicine. 

SG technology will enable life science manufacturers to create better and more 

secure supply chains that will connect patients and distribution partners, as well 

as create opportunities to improve the quality and productivity for the 

development and manufacturing of products. 

For example, SG technology will enable the real-time capture of appropriate 

patient information to improve safety monitoring and adverse event reporting. It 

also will allow for 100 percent tracking of product distribution to the patient. It 

will improve the efficiency of clinical studies by providing 100 percent verifiable 

external data capture and exchange with researchers and development partners 

like contract research organizations. It will improve the technology transfer within 

companies between development teams and manufacturing operations to 

shorten timelines. SG also will create opportunities to connect the patient to the 

shop floor and integrate advanced manufacturing capabilities like 3-D printing to 

make customized devices, cell-based therapies, and therapeutics. Finally, SG will 

result in more automation of manufacturing, improving the speed and efficiency 

of manufacturing, creating more manufacturing jobs, and enhancing the 

technology focus for current positions. 

Just as the nation's interstate highway system made the fast and easy exchange 

of goods across the country possible, SG technology will drive innovation in the 

life sciences by providing a better avenue for the exchange of the massive 

amounts of data being generated across the information rich landscape of health 

care and life science innovation. 
62 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. This concludes our 

opening statements, and we are ready to move to questions and answers. And I will recognize myself for 5 minutes to begin that portion. 

Mr. Broeker, I want to start with you. I am so pleased that you 

mentioned the manufacturing component. We have 341,000 Tennesseans who are in manufacturing. Last year, $30 billion worth 

of exports. So we are not quite to where you are with your Indiana 

number. 

But I want you to talk about this from two sides. You look at one 

of our States and you say: This is the potential if the investment 

is made, and this is what could happen if the investment is not 

made into 5G. Because I think this is something that we all are 

discussing. Mr. Johnson is working on broadband expansion. Mrs. 

Brooks is chairing the effort on 5G. So if you will take it from those 

two sides. 

Mr. BROEKER. Chairman Blackburn, a very good question. 

I have been in and around life sciences my whole career, over 30, 

35 years, and I actually started off as a manufacturing engineer. 

So I was one of those engineers running around the shop floor. 

Manufacturing is both a capital-intensive and a people-intensive 

business. And currently, if you look at manufacturing, most companies can site that manufacturing anywhere in the world. 

And so what really drives companies to make decisions related 

to that manufacturing are a favorable business environment, which 

includes things like tax policy; availability and access to a trained 

workforce and talent; and the infrastructure that is required to 

make all of those things work. 

And so my point would be that if we don’t do this, manufacturing 

will go elsewhere. It will start to—continue to go outside the 

United States, because it is a global opportunity for companies to 

go other places to set up new manufacturing and manufacturing of 

the future. 

So I think 5G enables us to become even more competitive than 

we have. And when you look at the future of the innovation that 

is possible, then we can capture that making it here in the great 

States that all of you represent. 

Just yesterday, I saw that for the very first time the FDA has 

approved a digital pill. This is a pill that is a combination of a 

drug. You swallow it. When it hits your stomach, there is a sensor 

in the pill that releases information to your smartphone that can 

go to the patient, it can go to their family, it can go to your 

healthcare provider. 

These are the kinds of things that are possible even today. FDA, 

as I said, just approved this digital pill yesterday. And so I think, 

without a technology like 5G and the infrastructure that this represents from a manufacturing standpoint, we have the potential to 

fall behind other countries that implement it better and faster than 

we do. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you. 

And, yes, we had watched the development of this in the Software Act this committee passed out as a part of 21st Century 

Cures as a part of enabling that type technology to move forward 

with, I think it is, Otsaku is the company. 

63 

Mr. BROEKER. It is Otsuka. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Yes. 

Mr. BROEKER. It is a new medicine for schizophrenia. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Which is a great opportunity. 

Mr. Adelstein, I have got 19 counties, 10,000 square miles in my 

congressional district. And I was out last weekend talking with one 

of our county mayors and he was all about 5G, so excited about the 

potential that is there for 5G. 

If you were talking to one of my mayors, and economic development, bringing jobs back is something they talk about, they also 

talk about healthcare and educational opportunity, if you were to 

kind of crunch it down, talk about that opportunity. How is this 

going to change what is happening in rural communities with the 

advent of 5G, what is going to be most significant and most notable? 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. I think probably, as you indicated, what is most 

significant is the economic development opportunity for rural areas. 

Suddenly rural areas have at their fingertips the vast amounts of 

data they can both communicate and receive, as anybody anywhere 

in the world, if they can have that level of technology available, if 

it gets deployed to rural America, which we hope it can as quickly 

as possible. 

So there is opportunity for jobs to be located there, for people 

that are visiting to stay longer because they can get their work 

done there, for new businesses to locate there, where it is a better 

quality of life and lower cost of living and lower cost of doing business. 

So it is really an opportunity to revolutionize the way that business is done in rural America. I think it is something that a lot of 

folks that I spoke with when I worked at the Rural Utilities Service, as the head of it, were so concerned about. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you for that. 

And I am going to at this point yield 5 minutes to the ranking 

member. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. 

Ms. Santosham, you are a member of the FCC’s Broadband Deployment Advisory Council, right? And San Jose is the only local 

government on this 30-member council. Is that correct? 

Ms. SANTOSHAM. Actually, we were the only municipal representative when it was first appointed, but now they have added two 

more. 

Mr. DOYLE. Great. 

Ms. SANTOSHAM. One from Kansas and one from Georgia. 

Mr. DOYLE. Tell me, what is the impact of local government representation? How do you think it is impacting the recommendations of the Advisory Committee? 

Ms. SANTOSHAM. It has been a challenge in terms of both the 

process and the output of how we are working. And it is an issue 

that the National League of Cities, National Association of Counties, and U.S. Conference of Mayors, along with 237 bipartisan 

mayors across the country have written to Chairman Pai about. 

And the numbers speak for themselves in terms of the approach 

to how we will deploy broadband. And we really do need more local 

64 

government representation. And we are at the table, we are talking 

to the FCC. But we hope that we can get more representation. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. 

Commissioner Adelstein. Jonathan, welcome back. Good to see 

you. 

You are on the commission too, right? 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Yes. 

Mr. DOYLE. How do you think local government input is being 

handled? 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Well, there are also members of local government on the working groups that aren’t on the full BDAC. There 

is also a State commissioner from the State of Massachusetts sits 

on the group. So there are a number of representatives of municipal and local governments. 

I think the chairman is really seeing this as an opportunity for 

industry to work with localities to try to come up with consensus 

solutions. For example, a State code that would be a model, a municipal code that is a model. There has been a lot of good dialogue 

going back and forth between localities and the industry on that. 

And we have the opportunity to take input from outside of the 

working group as well. I mean, we are listening very closely to localities. We feel that if we can’t get a good State or local code that 

is a consensus document that really is working together, it is not 

going to get adopted anyway. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. 

Mr. Bazelon, let me ask you. In your testimony, you mentioned 

the challenges of freeing up the spectrum resources for deploying 

5G networks. And when we look at the lower part of the C band, 

the 3.7 to 4.2 gigahertz band, do you think it is realistic that satellite users will totally vacate the whole band, as some in the wireless industry have suggested, or do you think it is more realistic 

that the FCC might be able to repack some part of the band to free 

up spectrum that could be used for mobile license usage. 

I mean, I know in your heart of hearts you would like to have 

the whole thing. But I am just curious where you think reality lies 

given the complexities in the incumbent licenses. 

Mr. BAZELON. Thank you. 

So first the economist answer is that the value created by the 

band should be more than enough to compensate the existing 

users. And so from a social perspective, the band probably should 

be freed up. But there are stakeholders there, and they have legitimate and real concerns. And a process where they are working 

with the reallocation process is one that is more likely to be successful. 

So a voluntary mechanism that allows them to share in the gains 

of their efforts to free up the spectrum is one that I think is more 

likely to be successful. Whether that ends up clearing the entire 

band or part of the band I think is for the people who know best 

in the band to figure out. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. 

Mr. Pearson, in your testimony you talk about international harmonization of 5G bands. What part of the C band that I have just 

asked Mr. Bazelon about is being considered for global harmonization? 

65 

Mr. PEARSON. I would have to go back and look at that and study 

it a little bit further. But what we are looking at in most countries 

around the world is they are looking at focusing on low-, mid-, and 

high-band spectrum, all three. And so the C band would be one of 

those things they are looking at. I would have to look at exactly 

where I would go to focus on that, a little bit more research. 

Mr. DOYLE. OK. 

Finally, Ms. Santosham, following up on my initial question to 

you. It seems like San Jose has been identified by some in the 

wireless industry as a problem child, that you are impeding the deployment of broadband technologies. Why do you think you are 

being labeled that way? I mean, from what I can tell, you and your 

city seem to be working very hard to advance the deployment of 

broadband technologies. Where is the disconnect there? 

Ms. SANTOSHAM. Well, it was a surprise to us, to be honest. We 

are one of the leading cities on these issues, on technology issues 

broadly, as I talked about. And we recently hired Smart Cities’ lead 

for our city, who has 25 years of telecomms experience, hadn’t 

worked in government before, is coming in and completely retooling 

how our city is approaching broadband deployment in order to 

speed permitting. 

So we were surprised that we were getting accused of charging 

fees and rates that were actually well in excess of what we actually 

do charge. And it was disappointing that we couldn’t have a more 

collegial conversation about how do we actually deploy broadband. 

Because cities around this country, we want it. We want investment. When I go to neighborhood associations with the folks in my 

community, they want neighborhood fiber, because they are not 

happy about the investment that has been made. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Walden, you are recognized. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Bazelon, in the report you released this week, I understand 

you estimated two bands of spectrum could raise us $54 billion in 

net revenue to the Federal Government after relocation cost to incumbents. Even here in Washington we think that is a lot of 

money. 

I know the focus of your paper was on mid-band spectrum, but 

are there potential low- and high-band spectrum bands we could 

combine with these in spectrum auction legislation? 

Mr. BAZELON. Certainly, as has been said, all three types of spectrum are needed. And to the extent that auctions would facilitate 

reallocations, that would be a good idea. But as with all bands, 

there are incumbent users, and it sort of depends on the specifics. 

I would suggest that, at the low band, the television frequencies 

are still ripe for the economic tests I suggested about the value in 

new use versus current use, but also appreciate that is unlikely to 

be an area of focus any time soon. 

And the FCC, I don’t know what time it is, but they may have 

just reallocated more spectrum from the high band. And should any 

of those be auctioned, that would be about a useful addition. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. 

And, Mr. Pearson, do you have any thoughts on this matter? 

66 

Mr. PEARSON. Yes. I think that, as you said, there is a lot of 

money at stake here, because if you put in auction processes and 

rules that make that spectrum, whether it is low, mid, or high, it 

is very valuable spectrum for the mobile wireless industry. 

I know there has been a lot about 5G just being a millimeterwave story. And if you look at internationally specifically, if you go 

to China, if you look at Japan, if you look at Korea and Europe, 

they are looking at this in all the bands. 

And so specifically, the mid-bands and the millimeter coupled together become part of the story of 5G. It is a bigger story than just 

millimeter-wave. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. 

And, Mr. Bazelon, there is a perennial debate around here about 

authorizing specific bands for auction versus providing the FCC 

with blanket auction authority. The most recent estimate from the 

CBO, Congressional Budget Office, said that if we just gave blanket authority, it would raise a very small amount of money compared to what you have put forward. A blanket extension, I think, 

would be around a billion dollars. 

A billion dollars is still a lot of money. But when you put it up against the potential for $54 billion net to the Treasury just for 

those two bands, do you have a view on whether we should give 

blanket authority or reserve it for auction? 

Mr. BAZELON. There is no reason that the FCC shouldn’t have 

blanket authority, and the two are not actually in conflict. 

The reason, my understanding, and now I have put on my green 

eyeshades from my CBO days as a budget scorer, the reason blanket authority today has such a low score is because, in essence, the 

low-hanging fruit of what can be reallocated and auctioned has already happened. 

So that is why it is important that the incumbents are 

incentivized to cooperate, whether that is through government 

diktat or through a market mechanism, and typically that takes 

additional legislation. But those additional efforts by Congress 

would create a positive score even if—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Are you sure? We did that in 2012, and AWS–3 auction came back at zero from CBO, and it sold for $44.4 billion. 

So I don’t have a lot of faith in taking away our tools, relying on 

others. 

Mr. BAZELON. I don’t think that whether there was blanket authority or not would have changed that score. So it is an issue. And 

as I said, it is a very difficult thing, forecasting receipts, and also 

the clearing costs. But I don’t think the blanket authority is what 

is actually creating the problem there. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. 

Mr. Pearson, do you have any comment on this? Do you care 

about this issue? 

Mr. PEARSON. I don’t have any comment to add any further, no. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. Well, I just think we worry up here about 

losing the incentive to do a lot of this work if we don’t get a score 

out of it. I think that is a driving force really. 

We want to continue to make spectrum available, don’t get my 

wrong. But you have to put a lot of work into a lot of issues, and 

I am afraid if we give blanket authority, CBO is going to say: Well, 

67 

there went your money in the future, and that 54 billion you have 

identified may be there, but you don’t get to count it. And we have 

things we are going trying to get done. 

So I think it does present—Mr. Adelstein, do you want to—— 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. One thought for CBO is that the Guthrie-Matsui 

bill would allow an auction otherwise the chairman is saying can’t 

take place. So it seems to me, if CBO is being accurate, they should 

give a very good score to that, because that auction for high frequency bands could yield a very large sum for the Federal Treasury. 

Mr. WALDEN. And just one, maybe, for the record, because I 

know my time has expired. But is anybody looking at—I heard a 

discussion the other night about, literally, AM radio side bands and 

new technology to do compression on the down wave side that 

doesn’t get counted. 

Is anybody looking at that? Are you aware of any of that? All 

right. 

It was an interesting new theory. Thank you. 

No, no, no. I was hoping to get more information. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And thanks again to our witnesses for being here.RPTR 

TELLEDTR CRYSTAL[10:58 a.m.] 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The chairmanis reminding us that he has that 

broadcast knowledge and information. 

OK, Mr. Welch, 5 minutes. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Adelstein, I think I will start asking questions to you. 

When you describe what the potential benefit is in rural America, that is really the heart of my concern, because we have to have 

the build-out in rural America. We don’t have it. Mr. Latta and I 

have started a bipartisan caucus, the Rural Caucus. 

And the real issue here is, frankly, my skepticism that the investments that will be required for 5G will be made in rural areas. 

And specifically, as I understand it, you need more towers with 5G. 

They don’t have the penetration powers, the signal penetration is 

shorter, and it is much more vulnerable to obstacles. 

So the worry I have is that the same cost-prohibitive obstacles 

to build out in rural areas under existing technology will persist 

with 5G technology. So can you address that major concern and 

how those of us who do represent rural areas can be just absolutely 

certain we are not going to get the short end again? 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Well, I think you identified a very legitimate 

issue. I mean, basically the biggest problem with rural deployment 

is economics. The industry builds to where there is demand, and 

they build where there is a return, especially when it is very costly 

to build these networks and there—— 

Mr. WELCH. No, no, we all understand that. It doesn’t pay economically. So what do we need for build-out rules if, in fact, the 

rural America is going to get the benefits that you described are 

right there if we have the system in place? 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Well, every dollar spent on needless regulation 

is a dollar that can’t be spent on rural America. There is limited 

capital budgets. And so if we are getting caught up—— 

68 

Mr. WELCH. Wait. No, no. Wait. I get it on regulation. But you 

said something that is obviously true. If the market isn’t there, it 

is sort of like electricity, there is no incentive, regulation or not, for 

an investor to go to rural Vermont as opposed to urban Burlington, 

let’s say, right? That is just economics. 

So there has got to be some public policy. And let’s assume we 

have a favorable regulatory system, as you see it, because I don’t 

want extra regulations. How do we guarantee that there will be 

build-out in rural America when there is no money in it for the big 

players? 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. The primary mechanisms for policy are the Universal Service and the Rural Utilities Service that work in concert. 

As a matter of fact, when I was administrator of the Rural Utilities 

Service we provided a grant to VTel in Vermont that was—— 

Mr. WELCH. So what would we need? I mean, look, all of us here 

represent rural America, OK, and this is a problem. So let’s just 

say we agree on regulations because we don’t want to make it more 

expensive, but there has got to be some money that goes into it 

without the rural America having to beg for everything. I mean, 

are we entitled to the same level of services in urban areas or not? 

That is the question. 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Well, the Communications Act says comparable 

service and comparable rates, and that is the purpose of Universal 

Service. So it is in this committee’s jurisdiction to try to ensure 

that Universal Service builds it out. 

Mr. WELCH. Right. But, actually, I loved your testimony, but you 

are not reassuring me, because I am asking the ‘‘how’’ question. 

All right. Dr. Bazelon, how about you? 

Mr. BAZELON. So there are lots of benefits to living in rural 

areas. One of the costs is that some things cost more there. When 

there is a public policy to make sure that is provided to rural areas 

the government is going to have to step in and assure it. 

Mechanisms in the past where there have been internal crosssubsidizations from urban to rural areas have been shown to be 

rather costly, and we have moved away from that model to more 

directly, if you want to create demand in a rural area, you subsidize the cost to providing the service. Once that is in place, 

though, and there is demand from people in rural—— 

Mr. WELCH. How do we get it in place? I mean, the build-out expenses, as I understand it, in rural areas is going to be high, and 

there is not going to be the incentive for the investors to do that 

because they don’t get their return. 

So how do we avoid making the same mistake? A lot of rhetoric 

about the benefits of this build-out in rural America but no followthrough. 

Mr. BAZELON. It is a Universal Service-type program where the 

difference in the cost of serving those customers and what is considered a reasonable price needs to be made up from other users 

or from the public. So that will create the demand. With the demand the carriers will come and build to them. 

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Pearson. 

Mr. PEARSON. Well, the only thing I would like to add to the discussion is when you say it is going to cost more to build out a 5G 

in these areas, really when you look at building out 5G, if you lose 

69 

the low bands or the mid-bands, it is not necessarily more costly 

to go. We already have one carrier that got spectrum from the 600 

auction, and they have said that they are going to build out 5G in 

that band, and it carries waves that will cover—— 

Mr. WELCH. All right. My time has expired. 

I just want to say one thing, Madam Chair. I think we need, 

those of us who represent rural America, some concrete build-out 

rules that can give us concrete confidence that somehow, some way, 

the system is going to serve rural America. 

I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. So noted. 

At this time, Mr. Lance, you are recognized, 5 minutes. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you, Chairman. 

Dr. Bazelon, Congress, and specifically this committee, recognized the need to address more commercial spectrum that resulted 

in the 2012 Spectrum Act, and it spurred three auctions. Now that 

these auctions have run their course, is it your view that we need 

a new spectrum pipeline initiative to meet America’s future spectrum needs? 

Mr. BAZELON. As I think has been pointed out numerous times, 

it takes a long time from when an idea becomes law even to the 

time that the spectrum is reallocated, so the sooner we start the 

better. But, yes, we need more spectrum. We should be thinking 

not just about the next 5 years but the next 10 and 20 years of how 

we are going to transition incumbent users out to be able to make 

frequencies available. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you very much. 

In your recent paper you noted there is skyrocketing global demand for mobile wireless services. And with the coming of 5G it 

is important to find spectrum to fuel that growth. 

The two bands you discuss are complementary to AWS–3 spectrum, which was auctioned for over $40 billion. You estimate the 

two bands you have discussed could auction over $62 billion. What 

drives the price so high for these particular bands? 

Mr. BAZELON. In this case I actually start with the prices paid 

and the AWS auctions and reduce them a little bit to recognize 

that increased supply would reduce prices. In the case of this auction, there is about twice as much spectrum being auctioned, but 

I am only estimating about a 50 percent increase in price. 

Mr. LANCE. Would you insist that they be auctioned together? 

Mr. BAZELON. The current estimate is based on the idea that 

they are auctioned together and paired so that you have the uplink, 

downlink architecture in place, and I think that is still the highest 

valued use for the spectrum. At some future time, and it depends 

how far in the future, that may not be as important, but for now 

I think if you want to maximize the value you should pair them. 

Mr. LANCE. How would the mid-band spectrum identified by the 

Commission in its recent NOI fare in this type of auction in your 

opinion, Dr. Bazelon? 

Mr. BAZELON. I am not sure which specific frequencies you are 

referring to, but the need, I mean, I think as many of us have said, 

the need for mid-band spectrum in this new architecture is going 

to be high. 

70 

This is the spectrum—imagine in the denser areas, it doesn’t 

have to be just urban but anywhere where there is enough people 

to deploy the high frequencies, there is going to be an expectation 

of large bandwidth, low latency, high connectivity, and as you move 

outside those areas you are not going to want your devices to stop 

working. That is actually going to put increased demand on these 

mid-band spectrum frequencies. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. 

Mr. Pearson, as you mention in your testimony, several countries 

in Europe and Asia are taking concrete steps to make lower portions of the mid-band, specifically frequencies between 3 and 6 

gigahertz, available for commercial 5G deployment. 

Do you believe policymakers here in the United States, including 

us, are doing an adequate job to make similar bands available for 

5G? 

Mr. PEARSON. I think we are making progress in the United 

States, and I think we need to do more. If you look at most of these 

countries, they are very proactive and aggressive in their planning 

processes and where they are directing their industry to go and 

their governments to go with the mid-bands, and specifically I 

would say the 3.5 band. 

Recently I think we have made some steps here with the CBRS 

band to improve maybe the opportunity for investment in that, 

whether it is going to be LTE or 5G, and that is helpful. But I do 

think we need to do more in the United States, if you look at the 

competition from around the world and what they are doing, and 

the economies of scale that are going to happen in that band. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. 

And, Chairman, I yield back 40 seconds. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Ms. Matsui, you are recognized. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Congressman Guthrie and I recently held a Spectrum Caucus 

event on 5G, and we had a great panel made up of leading wireless 

providers and a leading chip manufacturer, a leading software company, and a small rural wireless carrier. 

Now, 5G will include spectrum but also rely on advanced chip 

sets, software capabilities, and other innovative technologies. 

Mr. Bazelon and Pearson and perhaps Mr. Broecker, do you 

think that blockchain, since you mentioned it, also will play a role 

in 5G and, specifically, to make efficient use of spectrum sharing? 

Mr. BAZELON. I haven’t examined the use of blockchain in spectrum sharing. Clearly mechanisms that allow more users to share 

the same frequencies are going to increase the productivity of band 

to spectrum, and as demand on spectrum is increasing, anything 

that will help in that way will be useful. But I wouldn’t want to 

comment specifically on blockchain. 

Ms. MATSUI. Right. We are at the beginning stages then is what 

you are saying with that. Thank you. 

Would you like to comment on that. 

Mr. BROECKER. I can’t tell you what the technical details are 

around blockchain, but I can tell you that it is going to be an important technology, just like the internet. The internet is the portal 

71 

for communication and information, and I think blockchain will be 

the internet of value and asset exchange. 

And so I think that the technical details are still—blockchain is 

a still a cumbersome technology. But there are other companies 

that are rapidly trying to advance that technology to make it more 

widespread. And so I think just basic infrastructure requirements 

will have to increase, and I think 5G will be a part of that. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. Great. Thank you. 

And also things like advanced chipsets and software capabilities 

I believe will play an important role, too. Is that right? 

Mr. BAZELON. It has been compared to magic, this technology. 

That is more true as time goes on. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. 

I know we have been talking about the mid-band spectrum, but 

it has unique propagation characteristics that make it ideal for reliable satellite distribution and particularly valuable for terrestrial 

mobile use. Wireless, fixed wireless, satellite services, and others 

have identified certain mid-range bands as ideal for 5G operations. 

But we know there is considerable disagreement over the best 

mechanism to enable 5G deployments to utilize the spectrum, including in the C-band. 

Mr. Bazelon, what would a market-based incentive that would 

allow incumbents to voluntarily clear portions of this band look 

like? 

Mr. BAZELON. So I understand that a joint proposal by Intel and 

Intelsat was put forward that would allow the incumbent users— 

give them the authority to negotiate with new terrestrial wireless 

users. And although I have worked with those companies on this 

issue, I have not developed—worked on developing the mechanisms. 

But the principle behind it, that the incumbent users will benefit 

from their efforts of participating in the process and making the 

spectrum available I think is the key part to having it happen in 

a timely manner. 

Ms. MATSUI. So you think it is possible to devise rules for these 

bands so that you can protect incumbent operations while also allowing mobile broadband use? 

Mr. BAZELON. Yes. I mean, in some cases it is about, say, 

cordoning off geographic areas that are going to be protected. It 

may be about taking an earth station out an urban area and moving to it a rural area and then connecting it back with a fiber optic 

cable and that way you are able to geographically partition the 

spectrum. 

These are really all quite complicated issues with how this band 

could evolve, and it is the incumbent satellite carriers and the new 

terrestrial wireless carriers that will know best how to work that 

out. 

Ms. MATSUI. One of the spectrum bands the FCC is examining 

in its mid-band inquiry is—wait a minute. No, I want to go this 

one here. 

The Citizens Broadband Radio Service, the 3.5 megahertz band, 

as co-chair with Representative Guthrie of the Spectrum Caucus, 

we are very focused on the opportunity that this particular band 

will offer. A mix of low-, mid-, and high-band spectrum is necessary 

72 

both for wireless coverage today and to build network capacity in 

the future; 3.5 gigahertz can be a significant component of midrange bands that facilitate 5G network deployment. 

Mr. Pearson, do you think there is a way to ensure this band is 

open to every innovative wireless opportunity it intends to promote? 

Mr. PEARSON. Yes. Number one, I think when you talk about the 

opportunity for that band in 5G, it is a band that, again, is a great 

emphasis if you go around the world. 

Now, as far as the improvements that can be made in that band 

for investment, I mean, from a mobile wireless industry side, I 

think we need, as we have seen, longer license terms, larger geographic areas, and so forth, and the expectation of renewal on 

those licenses. That is where you get investment in our industry. 

And if you go around the world there are very few other geographic or other countries that have some of the issues that we 

have with the Navy radar and so forth. So they are looking at that 

as pretty much clean spectrum of them moving forward with for 

5G. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. Great. 

Thank you very much, and I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Shimkus, you are recognized, 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I am glad Peter Welch is still here, and I hate to say he is right 

sometimes, but all he does is kind of give voice to frustration in 

rural America that we just don’t get there. But I would also argue 

that there are still some regulatory issues with maintaining copper 

wires that we should have a discussion about, reforming the Universal Service Fund. I think Mr. Adelstein talks about RUS. 

I mean, there are tools, it is just we have got to refine those, and 

I would be happy to work with you on those things. So it is very 

frustrating out there. 

Ms. Santosham, I mean, the real debate for me is industry getting in or the concern of municipalities blocking. So how large is 

San Jose? 

Ms. SANTOSHAM. It is a little over a million people. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And these other communities are now part—they 

must be smaller. Do you know the size of the Kansas—— 

Ms. SANTOSHAM. Lanexa and Valdosta. I think Valdosta is about 

40,000. I am not sure about Lanexa. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. And so your 5G, for lack of a better word, 

desert, or areas that you want to go to that are not served, the 

Latino community that you were mentioning, do you know the population area of that. 

Ms. SANTOSHAM. I don’t, but I am happy to get back to you on 

that. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. My basic point is that is probably bigger than most 

of my communities. That area that should be of your concern. I am 

not saying as a municipal leader. If I was a municipal leader I 

would be concerned about that. And sometimes in rural America 

that is bigger than—I have a county that only has 5,000 people in 

it. 

So it goes to that debate of how do you get there and get deployed. This is a different era than coaxial cables and access to 

73 

poles, which is kind of how this original—how did municipalities 

then give right-of-ways, leverage for dollars and access, versus 

affixing pizza boxes or refrigerators in local communities to provide 

this service. 

So in 2009 the FCC said we should have a shot clock to help 

some deployment, and that shot clock was—the Supreme Court 

supported that in a decision in 2013 and which is kind of the law 

of the land. 

But, Mr. Adelstein, even with the shot clock and the ruling and 

with the Supreme Court, are you still perceiving that there are 

problems in market entry? 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Well, there is still a problem with the shot clock 

if it is not deemed granted at the end, because you have to go to 

Federal Court, and then it is an endless loop that you end up there. 

This committee was responsible for, as I mentioned, enacting 

6409(a), which allowed the FCC the authority, clear authority to 

say at the end of the process, if a locality won’t allow a colocation, 

it is going to be deemed granted, and that means it gets done. We 

haven’t had any pushback on that. 

But on these other shot clocks we have had numerous examples. 

As a matter of fact, the tendency is for the community to go beyond 

the shot clock and for our industry not to sue because we know we 

will be back at that community again later, and we know that the 

Federal court mechanism is not a particularly effective one. So we 

could use additional authority of the FCC to allow for deemed 

granted. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And how would you—so, I mean, I guess you answered it. Deem granting would be the provision that you think 

would help in that. 

Ms. Santosham, you wanted to commend on that. 

Ms. SANTOSHAM. Yes, I just want to take a little bit of a step 

back. 

So the infrastructure that we are talking about now to deploy 5G 

is largely light pole infrastructure, infrastructure that is traditionally used for lights, maybe you put a banner up, right? They are 

not always structurally sound to put a heavy piece of equipment 

on, and they oftentimes need remediation. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. That is true, but if I may, in previous hearings 

here we had talked about the ability of some of these things to be 

placed on the side of buildings. 

Ms. SANTOSHAM. Yes, but by and large it will be mostly street 

lights because of the density that you need to deploy the networks. 

And so when communities—when we say that the communities are 

taking a little bit longer it is partially because we are taking this 

200-year-old infrastructure and then we have got to change the 

way that we have permitted and used that infrastructure. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I only have 12 seconds left, and I appreciate that. 

I guess what we are trying to find is we need to have a balancing 

act. You want your folks to have 5G. We want our folks to have 

5G. 

Mr. Adelstein. 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. One quick point on San Jose. The State of California enacted a deemed granted remedy for shot clocks. So San 

74 

Jose is under that. And so if California can do it, the United States 

can do it. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. McNerney, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I want to thank the chairlady for the hearing. 

And I thank the witnesses. It has been interesting to hear what 

you have had to say. 

Mr. Pearson, in your written testimony you emphasized the importance of U.S. leadership in the global race for 5G. At a hearing 

earlier this fall we heard that the Sinclair merger could delay the 

repack of the 600-megahertz band, slowing down 5G deployment 

and U.S. competitiveness. 

Do you agree that it is important the FCC not take steps to delay 

the clearing of spectrum for 5G? Do you believe that that would 

hurt us? 

Mr. PEARSON. I think that we should do everything we can to 

clear the spectrum to put it to the best use, in this case mobile 

wireless. I think connecting society is some of the best uses. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So the Sinclair merger, which may delay that, 

would be an impediment in this case? 

Mr. PEARSON. I would have to research that. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I know you are not an expert on that. I just 

wanted to make that point. Thank you. 

Where are we in the standards-making process for 5G? 

Mr. PEARSON. In the standards? 

The standards are making great progress. What we are actually 

looking at is a draft of the first release of what is called—I don’t 

want to get too technical—but of a first release of 5G at the end 

of this year. So everyone will know what kind of chipsets and silicon to start producing. 

That will be completed in early 2018. The second phase of 5G 

will then be December of 2019, just in time for ITU to do their 

blessings in 2020. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So is cybersecurity being taken into account in 

the standards process? 

Mr. PEARSON. Pardon me? 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Cybersecurity, is that a significant part of the 

process? 

Mr. PEARSON. Yes, it is. It is part of it. 3GPP has two different 

areas that are working on—well, actually several, but several areas 

that are working on that and security is a mainstay for our industry, as well as the standard. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. 

Ms. Santosham, in your written testimony you noted that the 

city of San Jose has deployed an Internet of Things network. How 

important is IoT data security, for example, that devices be 

patchable and downloadable? 

Ms. SANTOSHAM. It is incredibly important. You know, data is 

the new oil, and cybersecurity is incredibly important to our cities. 

Cities will be obviously a target for cyber threats. And privacy is 

also of concern. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Good. I personally believe that digital device security is critical and that we are late in the game on this process. 

75 

Earlier this year I introduced the Securing IoT Act, which would 

require that cybersecurity standards be developed for IoT devices 

and that those devices be certified. I hope that the committee takes 

up this legislation soon. 

Ms. Santosham, I am aware of the many benefits that the 5G 

has to offer, including faster speeds, but I am worried about the 

costs. For my constituents, there is a real concern because more 

than 21 percent of my households earn less than $25,000 a year. 

How do you expect the 5G deployment to impact the cost of wireless services? 

Ms. SANTOSHAM. Today there are no guarantees that cost to consumers will go down, and cost of service and cost of devices are the 

top two barriers to digital inclusion. And I think when we are talking about subsidizing infrastructure deployment rates for large corporations we should be asking for something back. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, you mentioned, I think, you had 75,000 

residents that don’t have broadband access in San Jose. If the Federal Communications Commission eliminates the Lifeline program 

today, how would that impact these and other residents in San 

Jose? 

Ms. SANTOSHAM. Twenty-nine percent of our low income residents only have access to the internet through mobile phones. And 

so if Lifeline goes away that will have a significant impact on their 

ability to be connected. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you. That is what I thought. 

Mr. Adelstein, you testified that the U.S. is in a position to retain 

our lead moving into 5G. Could you explain what that means exactly? What does it mean quantifiably that we have a lead in 5G? 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Well, the important thing is that other countries 

are making it very easy to move forward. In Japan and Korea, for 

example, that are moving quickly toward 5G, they could site anything, anywhere, any time. And I am not saying we need that here 

because we have always worked in close partnership with localities, 

but some unreasonable impediments are going to slow down the deployment. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. What does leadership mean? What does that 

mean? 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Usually it would mean that we would be the first 

to implement the network. We would be ahead in terms of the 

chipsets, as we already are with our leading chipset manufacturers. 

We would be ahead with the devices that we get into the hands of 

consumers. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I mean, could we include rural access as a part 

of that definition of leadership in this field? 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Ideally it would. I mean, we talked earlier about 

the issues with rural, which is expensive. I mean, the greater costs 

you have to deploy this, the less likely we are to get to rural and 

the longer it will take. 

I mean, rural historically has been the last to get these devices, 

and it is unfortunate, but the costs are extremely high to provide 

this type of network. And we need to do everything we can to lower 

those costs to allow that capital budget that the companies do 

have, which is the largest of any industry, 30 billion a year being 

invested, and a lot of that in rural America. 

76 

Mr. MCNERNEY. My time has expired, and I am sure the chair 

is anxious to move on. So thank you for the answer. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mrs. Brooks for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you Madam Chairwoman. Thank you so 

much for holding this hearing today. 

Mr. Broecker, wonderful to have you here. You noted in your testimony the exponential growth of the Internet of Things, which we 

have talked about a bit—smart devices, wearables, and sensors, 

and thank you for sharing with us the issue of the new discovery 

and use of the digital pill—will increasingly be part of the delivery 

of care to improve patients’ lives. We have had quite a discussion 

also about rural America. 

How do you believe that these innovations are going to have the 

power to bring better care, better healthcare to patients in rural 

areas? I represent rural areas, as well, in central Indiana. And do 

you have any specific examples of scenarios where 5G can improve 

that doctor-patient relationship and improve the delivery of care in 

rural areas? 

Mr. BROECKER. Absolutely. You know, there is an emerging 

trend, and it is increasing, and it is the notion of telemedicine 

where patients don’t actually have to go to a hospital or to a doctor’s office and through internet connection and other technologyenabled solutions they can have a consult. 

There is robotic surgeries occurring where surgeons in completely 

different parts of the United States can be doing surgery in a hospital someplace else. 

So as I mentioned in my testimony, healthcare is going to be 

driven less about place and more about the connection to a 

healthcare system, and that doesn’t necessarily need to be right 

next door. I mean, it is great if it is, but there are going to be technologies and solutions and innovations that are going to allow people and patients and healthcare systems and physicians to be connected in completely different ways. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Switching gears a little bit to the focus that you 

put on automation of manufacturing and that 5G will result in 

even more automation, some become nervous about increased automation as it relates to jobs and the people on the manufacturing 

floor, so to speak. And we also know automation increases speeds 

and efficiency of manufacturing to create these jobs. 

Are there any policy areas Congress should be looking at to help 

the workforce adapt as we continue to push and believe in the importance of implementation of 5G to the world of innovation, automation, and manufacturing? What should Congress be doing for 

the workforce and how do we help the workforce adapt? 

Mr. BROECKER. I mean, the general trend is toward STEM education and enhanced STEM education and starting early in a student’s life, whether that is in grade school or high school and getting involved in things like robotics and getting familiar with technology. You can now do biology genome experiments in eighth 

grade, whereas before you needed to have a Ph.D. and be at MIT, 

where I went to school. These things are now possible. 

77 

But it really gets back to an educated workforce, starting with 

the next generation. But it also means skills and developing the 

skills amongst the current workforce to be able to do that. 

You know, I said I started off in manufacturing, and I saw lots 

of innovation come over my 20-plus-year career. And the same debate was argued, you know, OK, we are going to get all these fancy 

pieces of equipment and machines to do the work. It never replaced 

people. At the end of the day it still took people overseeing, managing, making sure that the machines did what they were supposed 

to do. But it takes an educated workforce in order to do that. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you very much. 

I am going to yield back the balance of my time so others can 

ask their questions. Thank you. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thanks. 

Ms. Eshoo, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

And thank you to all of the witnesses. It is good to see Jonathan 

again. 

And a very warm welcome to Ms. Santosham from San Jose, 

California. I think you gave very important testimony today. And 

I appreciate the warm words that you directed toward me, and I 

return them to you. 

First, I want to make a couple of comments about the whole 

issue of 5G. I believe that it has—it holds the potential for many 

benefits, and several of you have mentioned them, and how it will 

lead to competition and bridging the digital divide and unlock the 

Internet of Things. 

So I think that it represents a real opportunity for all of us. And 

of course I always say I am not satisfied with America being 5th 

or 12th or 17th. I want us to be number one and lead the world 

in whatever it is, whatever the undertaking is, and whatever the 

sector is. And obviously we are all going to have to work together 

to move in a direction that is going to make this a reality. 

But I am also concerned that there are some things that are 

being pushed aside in the race to 5G. And I want to associate myself with some of the comments that both our ranking member, Mr. 

Doyle, and also Mr. Welch made. 

We have two problems, two big problems. And I think that as we 

move forward with this and any other initiative that has anything 

to do with spectrum, which is the gold in all of this, because there 

is an insatiable appetite for it, and as we continue to innovate, you 

have to have spectrum. Spectrum is the platform, it is the fuel that 

makes everything go. 

But Mr. Welch spoke about one. How do we assure that there is 

accessibility in rural communities? No matter what we do, this 

issue keeps coming up. We are not making progress there. I mean, 

it is like the 10,000-pound gorilla in the room. 

I also have concerns about how we are going to deal with local 

communities. I have a reverence for local government. I came from 

it. I spent a decade in local government. We cannot run roughshod 

over local government. And I think that there is, most frankly, a 

rush to do that. 

In fact, what Mr. Doyle raised about how did San Jose get this 

reputation and this attack on them for being whatever, I don’t 

78 

know where that came from. But it seems to me, because you 

raised your voice about, wait a minute, we have to be considered 

in this, we have citizens that we need to respond to, and you can’t 

just run roughshod over us. 

So to Ms. Santosham—first of all, I want to ask for unanimous 

consent to place in the record a New York Times editorial by the 

mayor of San Jose, Sam Liccardo, dated 10/3/17, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LANCE [presiding]. So ordered. 

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

Ms. ESHOO. Wireless providers have been accused of redlining 

certain neighborhoods, a practice that obviously exacerbates the 

digital divide. And I would like you to comment on that, but also 

tell us what the importance of cities like San Jose is implementing 

market-based infrastructure leases to ensure that private industry 

is enhancing broadband access for all communities. 

It is not just San Jose. San Jose is speaking up. But they have 

an issue, and they are not rural, of 95,000 people in their city that 

have nothing. They have no access to it. This is the largest city in 

Silicon Valley. 

So would you comment on that? Because I find that deeply disturbing. 

Ms. SANTOSHAM. Yes. So, first of all, market-based rates and incentives are things we should all believe in. And there is a little 

bit of an irony that we as a city government are asking for marketbased rates and the private sector is asking for cost-based. 

And market-based rates allow us to incentivize buildouts, especially when we are allowed to build out entire communities. So we 

are able to say: Hey, hereis all the space in the city we would like 

to build out, and we will give you a discount on some of this infrastructure if you are willing to go to the communities that need to 

be served. 

And so I think that is what is missing in this conversation, is by 

speeding the deployment and running roughshod over local government you are then taking away the ability to shape and manage 

where deployment happens in communities so that communities 

benefit. 

Ms. ESHOO. So is the BDAC the place where this will be decided? 

Ms. SANTOSHAM. The BDAC? I don’t think so, but I am concerned 

about the direction there because of the lack of representation both 

on the voting body and in the subgroups. 

Ms. ESHOO. I wrote to the chairman about that. And I think if 

you have mostly industry people then it is just going to be weighted that way. I am not opposed to industry people, but you have to 

have some kind of balance in this. And that is another red flag. 

Thank you to all of you. 

I think, Mr. Chairman, that more work needs to be done in the 

areas that have been raised. They are legitimate concerns. I don’t 

think it is a Republican or a Democratic concern. I think they are 

concerns that we need to build in solutions so that they are addressed. 

And I think that then the promise that is being spoken of here 

today about 5G will be kept. Otherwise we are going to have another new generation but plagued with the same issues that we 

keep talking about. 

79 

So thank you. And I thank you for your patience in giving me 

extra time. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you very much. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 

Costello. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. 

Could all of you share a little bit about WiFi enabled by unlicensed spectrum and what role that may play in the 5G world? 

Mr. PEARSON. Well, if you look at the standard in what they are 

going to be doing in 5G, they are actually including unlicensed 

spectrum in the 5G. 

Now, when you start specifically, you say WiFi, well, WiFi is actually integration—has integration capabilities right now with 

LTE. There is also LTE in a license, again separate from WiFi. 

So all of these things are being done for basically to provide the 

consumer the best experience they can. Sometimes it is anchored 

with what would be LTE today and at some point would be 5G. 

Sometimes it is specifically unlicensed, which would be only WiFi. 

And other times it is actually another type of aggregation tool of 

interoperating. But it is usually one or the other. 

Mr. BAZELON. WiFi is a very important access technology, and 

unlicensed spectrum is very important to allow for that. And there 

is clearly a lot of demand for it. And it should be something that 

grows. Whether or not it ends up being actually integrated in with 

the commercial mobile networks I think is just an open question. 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Some of the high frequency spectrum that is 

being set aside is being set aside for unlicensed use, and that allows for individuals to use that to offload some of the demand that 

is going on in the broader networks that are being designed by the 

cellular industry. So it is very helpful to have unlicensed and licensed in a proper balance. 

Ms. SANTOSHAM. I am going to defer to my colleagues here who 

know much more about the issue than me. 

Mr. BROECKER. Same. 

Mr. COSTELLO. We have heard a lot about State and local impediments to the deployment of wireless infrastructure. Is the same 

true for next-generation wireline infrastructure? 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Well, fiber is a major part of 5G. I mean, 5G 

really can’t function to its highest potential without fiber because 

of the latency requirements. 

So virtually every one of these little antennas is going to have 

a fiber connection. We are talking about potentially millions of antennas, if not hundreds of thousands. The estimates range between 

those. And so you are talking about very many antennas close to 

the end user, all of which require fiber connections. 

So impediments to the deployment of fiber are impediments to 

the deployments of 5G. And we do see those. We see those as well 

as—sometimes I think when the antenna gets attached at the end 

there is even more resistance for a number of different reasons 

from localities, even though they provide such a great opportunity 

for consumers and there is so much demand for it. 

So we do need policies, such as Dig Once, that allow for a fiber 

deployment to take place rapidly, because I think we are going to 

80 

see another huge build-out of fiber in the United States preparing 

for 5G. 

Mr. COSTELLO. So your testimony is that wireline equipment 

does also face delays in permitting and access to rights of way? 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. It certainly does, yes. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I have one more question. Can you, Mr. 

Adelstein, share with me your familiarity with the way that spectrum transactions between various companies and the need to be 

able to do through like kind exchange? 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. The FCC has done a very good job of allowing 

for a very fluid secondary market in spectrum, and they readily approve transactions that are within the caps that they have placed 

that are informal. They can go beyond that if they have to. So they 

have really done a great job on a bipartisan basis and under both 

administrations of allowing for a very fluid secondary market. 

I mean, our concern right now is getting more spectrum into 

market. And the issue is with 5G, you have understood there is 

this bill that is needed to get it done. Because we would like to see 

by December 2018 the opportunity for the FCC to hold an auction 

of these high frequency bandwidths. And if it is possible the 

chipsets will be ready by then, the equipment will be ready, the 

standards will be in place. So if we can get the Guthrie-Matsui bill 

through that would pave way for even more high frequency spectrum that could then be put into that mix. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Good. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you very much, Congressman Costello. 

Does anyone else on the committee wish to ask further questions? 

Seeing there are no further questions from members, I thank our 

witnesses for being here today. It has been a very informative 

panel by a distinguished group of guests. 

Before we conclude, I ask unanimous consent to enter the following letters into the record. 

The recently released white paper from the Brattle Group. 

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

Mr. LANCE. A letter from Mayor Kevin Davis of Hardin County, 

Tennessee. 

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

Mr. LANCE. And thank you, Dr. Bazelon, for the white paper. 

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. LANCE. Yes. 

Ms. ESHOO. May I just add my best wishes to everyone here— 

I know the committee is all gone, but in absentia—for a wonderful 

Thanksgiving. We have much to be grateful for in our great and 

good country. So happy Thanksgiving. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you, and I share that sentiment. And among 

the major holidays it is my favorite holiday because it is the traditional American holiday. 

And to all in the audience, I certainly agree with Congresswoman Eshoo. 

Pursuant to committee rules, I remind members that they have 

10 business days to submit additional questions for the record. And 

I ask that witnesses submit their responses within 10 business 

days upon receipt of the questions. 

81 

Seeing no further business before the subcommittee today, without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

82 


28453.042

11115/2017 Why Does Verizon Care About Telephone Poles?· The New York Times 

itl}e New ilfork litimes https:llnyti.msl2xPW7U u 

Opinion I OP-ED CONTRIBVTOR 

Why Does Verizon Care About Telephone 

Poles? 

By SAM LICCARDO OCT. 3, 2017 

SAN JOSE, Calif. - Like every other 8-year-old whom I tutored at a local school, 

Omar didn't know anything - and didn't care much - about high-stakes disputes 

over net neutrality, free speech and privacy that have consumed much of the news 

coverage of the telecommunications industry in recent years. Yet the inability of 

Omar's parents to afford broadband internet access lies at the heart of a battle that 

will have a far greater impact on his future: the tight over street poles. 

Public street poles may not look like much, but to "ireless service providers, 

they're valuable real estate. Companies like Verizon want low-cost access to them to 

install equipment to handle the rapidly growing demand for mobile data. But poles 

are owned locally, and cities and counties aren't eager to give away access at belowmarket rates. Doing so would essentially subsidize an already wealthy industrynationwide, as much as $2 billion a year, money that could otherwise go to 

expanding low-cost broadband access for people like Omar's family. 

As a result, the industry is waging a war for those poles, at all levels. Big 

Telecom and its allies in the White House have quietly carried out a campaign to 

secure rapid and cheap access to those poles, at taxpayer expense. Here in California, 

state legislators recently advanced a bill introduced by Senator Ben Hueso that 

would allow wireless service providers to install their equipment on public street 

https:/ fv.Mrw. nytimes.com/2017/1 0/03/oplnion/Wireless-verizon-telephone-poles .htm! 1/4 
83 


28453.043

11/15/2017 Why Does Verizon Care About Telephone Poles?- The New York Times 

poles at below-market rates- and to do so nearly wherever and whenever they 

choose- all in the name of "streamlining" local permit approvals. 

8 We"ve seen similar efforts in Texas, Fhrida, v SIGN UP nens of other . subscriber Jogm 

ART!CL~{Kf!~~:"l.:vhere telecommunications industry lobbyists spent more man $24.5 million 

in campaign contributions last year, according to the National Institute on Money in 

State Politics. At the federal level, Trump administration appointees to the Federal 

Communications Commission have publicly cheered these proposals, while releasing 

their O\Vn draft regulations to carry out additional industry-friendly rules nationally. 

What do our taxpayers get in return for this sweetheart deal? Wireless 

companies insist that these legislative proposals will reduce costs for consumers, and 

deliver better-quality cellular voice and data service. Yet, in truth, they do nothing to 

actually ensure that customers will benefit from a single dollar of the cost savings 

that the corporate telecoms will pocket. 

Moreover, service improvements will benefit only those customers able to afford its 

service. Despite the windfall that wireless providers receive at taxpayer expense, 

these industry-backed proposals do not require, or even encourage, the companies to 

expand broadband access to underserved rural and low-income neighborhoods. 

There's no provision in the California legislation, for example, for broader 

deployment for low-income neighborhoods. In San Jose alone, over 40 percent of 

low-income residents lack broadband access. While the industry will respond by 

pointing to its discounted internet service plans, they remain of such poor quality 

that students like Omar cannot download their teachers' video-recorded lesson 

plans, or a Khan Academy instruction on algebra, particularly when multiple family 

members are sharing the same account. 

In essence, these wireless service providers seek all of the privileges of a 

regulated water or electric utility - taxpayer-subsidized use of public infrastmcture, 

deployment in locations of their choosing, overrides of the local government's 

authority- but without the accompanying responsibility: to serve everyone. 

It gets worse. The push by industry and the Tmmp administration to override 

local authority to set lease rates "ill undermine many cities' efforts to expand digital 

https:/1\Mf./\N.nytimes.com/2017/10/03/opinionfw!reless~verizon~telephone-po!es.html 2/4 
84 


28453.044

11/15/2017 Wny Does Verizon Care About Telephone Poles?~ The New York Times 

access. That's because San Jose; Tacoma, Wash.; and many other progressive cities 

seek to use lease revenues from street poles to finance the expansion oflow-cost 

broadband to poorer neighborhoods. Otherwise, the wealthy will receive better 

service, and the poor -will remain shut out. 

These proposed regulations also supplant local communities' authority ~'ith 

industry fiat to determine how to deploy telecommunications equipment over public 

streets, sidewalks and parks. HomeO\>ners surprised by the sight of refrigerator-size 

equipment installed on poles outside of their windows will have no ability to seek 

redress from City Hall to change the location or to mitigate the aesthetic impact of 

these unsightly fixtures. And because signals from of these de>ices can disrupt the 

operations of others, they can preclude cities from installing public-serving de>ices 

-such as gunshot-spotters or traffic safety sensors- on their 0\\TI street poles. 

These are just a few of the reasons a gro-wing number of local elected leaders 

have opposed the industry's efforts in state legislatures and at the F.C.C. Here in 

California, the mayors of six of our largest cities -Los Angeles, San Jose, San 

Francisco, Oakland, Long Beach and Santa Ana - have joined leaders of 150 other 

cities in opposing California's version of this industry-backed effort. 

There is a better way. If the industry wants the same access to taxpayer-funded 

infrastructure that public utilities enjoy, it should bear the concomitant 

responsibility to make its services available to everyone in that jurisdiction. 

Alternatively, if Big Telecom doesn't want the responsibility of deploying broadband 

in low-income neighborhoods, then the states and the F.C.C. should continue to 

allow cities to charge market-rate fees and leases to generate municipal dollars 

needed to broaden access, as San Jose is doing in several low-income 

neighborhoods. 

We should all embrace the opportunity of greater broadband deployment, at 

better speeds, -with the latest technology. Yet how we deploy this technology - and 

whether families like Omar's' will benefit- matters. If we're going to provide the 

telecom industry -with unfettered access to public property, then the public's interest 

must come first. 

https://VMW.nyfimes.com/2017/10103/opinion/wire!ess~verizon-telephOne~poles.htm! 314 
85 


28453.045

11/15/2017 Why Does Verizon Care About Telephone Poles? ~ The New York Times 

Sam Liccardo is the mayor of San Jose, Calif., and a member of the Federal 

Communications Commission's Broadband Development Advisory Committee. 

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), 

and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter. 

© 2017 The New York Times Company 

https:!lwww.nytimes.com/2017/10/03/opinionfwireless~verizon~!elephone~poles.html 414 
86 


28453.046

GROUP 
87 


28453.047

This report was prepared for CTIA. All results and any errors are the responsibility of the author 

and do not represent the opinion of The Brattle Group or its clients. 

Acknowledgement: I acknowledge the valuable contributions of many individuals to this report, 

and to the underlying analysis, including Valerie Tate. 

Copyright© 2017The Brattle Group. Inc. 
88 


28453.048

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. ii 

I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 

II. Assessment of Relocation and Accommodation Costs .............................................................. 1 

A. 1,300 MHz-1,390 MHz ...................................................................................................... 2 

B. 1,780 MHz-1,830 MHz ...................................................................................................... 4 

III. Assessment of Spectrum Value ................................................................................................... 6 

A. Baseline Spectrum Valuation Model ................................................................................. 6 

1. Upper Bound: A WS 3 Auction ................................................................................. 7 

2. Lower Bound: Incentive Auction ............................................................................ 7 

3. New Demand: 5G and the Internet of Things ......................................................... 9 

4. Conclusion: The New Spectrum Value Baseline ................................................... 14 

B. Valuation of 1,300 MHz-1,350 MHz Paired with 1,780 MHz-1,830 MHz .................. 16 

C. Realizing Value ................................................................................................................ 17 

Appendix A: Additional Details by Band .......................................................................................... 19 

A. 1 ,300 MHz-1 ,350 MHz .................................................................................................... 19 

B. 1,780MHz-1,850MHz .................................................................................................... 20 

Appendix B: Effect of Impairments on Spectrum Value .................................................................. 22 

A. Relative Price Analysis .................................................................................................... 23 

B. Statistical Analysis ............................................................................................................ 25 

Appendix C: Cost Estimates for Relocation of the 1,780 MHz-1,830 MHz Band and 1,300 

MHz-1,350 MHz Band .............................................................................................................. 30 

A. 1,780 MHz-1,830 MHz Band .......................................................................................... 30 

B. 1,300 MHz-1,350 MHz Band .......................................................................................... 34 

i I brattle.com 
89 


28453.049

Executive Summary 

Skyrocketing global demand for mobile wireless service, coupled with the coming of 5G 

networks and growth of the Internet of Things (IoT), underscores the continuing need and 

demand for licensed radio spectrum, including the need for a robust pipeline of spectrum below 

3 GHz for exclusive, licensed services. Even after the A WS-3 auction significantly exceeded 

expectations, raising more than $40 billion, and an Incentive Auction that raised almost $20 

billion, mid-band spectrum will continue to be an integral and valuable component of wireless 

networks. Consequently, I anticipate, based on two decades of experience predicting spectrum 

auction outcomes, that demand will stay strong for spectrum, including the mid-band 

frequencies needed to support mobile broadband networks. Given the significant transition 

times often required, now is the time to stan the reallocations that will meet future spectrum 

demand beyond those auctions. 

The ·spectrum bands identified herein are complementary to the A WS-3 spectrum in many 

ways. The 1,780 MHz-1,830 MHz band is directly adjacent to the AWS-3 band (at 1,755 MHz1,780 MHz), making it a logical extension for mobile broadband services. Additionally, the 1,300 

MHz-1,350 MHz band is a lower frequency than the 2,155 MHz-2,180 MHz portion of the 

A WS-3 band, providing additional propagation benefits and offering the ability to provide more 

robust services to consumers with fewer base stations. Moreover, these spectrum bands are 

populated by federal incumbents that are similar (if not precisely the same) to those in the A WS3 band, allowing the previous accrual of knowledge concerning sharing and relocations to be 

leveraged as part of the accommodation of these incumbent federal users. 

To that end, the analysis below provides an overview of the gross and net auction receipts 

expected from reallocating specific bands at 1,300 MHz-1,350 MHz and 1,780 MHz-1,830 MHz 

that are currently used by federal users. Specifically, after accounting for a moderation in 

spectrum value compared to recent highs, pairing 1,300 MHz-1,350 MHz with 1,780 MHz-1,830 

MHz to provide a 50 MHz + 50 MHz paired band would be expected to raise $62.6 billion in 

auction receipts. Making those frequencies available would cost up to an estimated $7.93 billion 

to relocate existing users, providing them with at least equivalent and in many cases improved 

wireless infrastructure. Consequently, this band could be expected to raise $54.7 billion in net 

receipts. 

ii 1 brattle.com 
90 


28453.050

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has a very good track record, having raised over 

$100 billion from spectrum auctions to date. Furthermore, demand for wireless broadband 

capacity will continue to grow at a robust pace, and increasing industry revenues will support 

acquisitions of additional spectrum. The direct carrier revenues for the wireless industry are 

approaching $200 billion per year, generating significant cash flows over the coming years to 

support further spectrum acquisitions of the levels estimated here. 

iii I brattle.com 
91 


28453.051

I. Introduction 

Licensed radio spectrum is the keystone of the fabulously successful wireless industry in the 

United States. Before accounting for the recent Incentive Auction, the 645.5 MHz of already 

licensed spectrum currently available for mobile broadband (worth almost $500 billion) supports 

an industry with almost $200 billion in direct revenues each year and an overall $400 billion 

annual economic footprint.' To sustain this economic juggernaut and meet the fantastic growth 

in demand for wireless broadband capacity, additional frequencies will be needed. 

Virtually all desirable spectrum bands have incumbent users. Identifying bands to reallocate 

therefore requires assessing the costs of either relocating or accommodating incumbent users and 

comparing those costs to the value created by using the available frequencies for mobile 

broadband networks. 2 In what follows, Section II assesses the costs of relocating and/or 

accommodating incumbent users in a set of spectrum bands potentially available for reallocation 

to mobile broadband.3 Subsequently, Section III assesses the value of each band upon 

reallocation. The mid-band spectrum bands considered here share important similarities to the 

A WS allocations and have the potential to generate similar interest from the wireless industry.4 

II. Assessment of Relocation and Accommodation Costs 

I focus on the 1,300 MHz-1,350 MHz and 1,780 MHz-1,830 MHz bands in particular as they 

represent crucially needed mid-band spectrum that are already being considered for reallocation 

by Congress and have been identified as candidate bands for reallocation by the NTIA. Proposed 

legislation introduced in August 2017 the Advancing Innovation and Reinvigorating 

Coleman Bazelon and Giulia McHenry, "Mobile Broadband Spectrum: A Vital Resource for the U.S. 

Economy," Prepared for CTIA, 2015. 

For a more detailed discussion of the appropriate framework for assessing when to relocate 

incumbents versus sharing with them, see Coleman Bazelon and Giulia McHenry, "Spectrum Sharing: 

Taxonomy and Economics," The Brattle Group, 2014. 

Detailed analysis of these bands, and several additional bands, is provided in Section II and Appendix 

A. 

The definition of mid-band spectrum has evolved. At one time the limits of mid-band spectrum were 

considered to be about 3 GHz, but now 'mid-band' typically refers to the frequencies from l GHz up 

to6GHz. 

I I broltle.com 
92 


28453.052

Widespread Access to Viable Electromagnetic Spectrum ("AIRWAVES") Act identifies these 

bands for relocation from federal users.5 Furthermore, both bands would be eligible for auction 

under the previously-enacted Spectrum Pipeline Act of 2015 and under the MOBILE NOW Act, 

passed in the Senate in August 2017. The Spectrum Pipeline Act of 2015 required the 

identification of 30 MHz of spectrum for reallocation from federal use to be auctioned in 2024; 

the MOBILE NOW Act requires the FCC and NTIA to make at least 255 MHz below 6 GHz 

available for mobile and fixed wireless broadband.6 Finally, the NTIA identified both bands as 

candidates for reallocation in October 2010.7 

A. 1 ,300 MHz-1 ,390 MHZ 

This band is part of the larger 1,300 MHz-1,390 MHz allocation. The 1,300 MHz-1,350 MHz 

band is used by federal agencies to operate various types of "long-range radar systems that 

perform missions critical to safe and reliable air traffic control (ATC) in the national airspace, 

border surveillance, early warning missile detection, and drug interdiction."" 

• The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Department of Defense (DoD) operate 

long-range aeronautical radionavigation radar systems that use a continually rotating 

antenna mounted on a tower to monitor aircraft and other targets. Specifically, Air 

Route Surveillance Radar (ARSR) systems measure targets' range, bearing, and velocity.9 

• The Tethered Aerostat Radar system, consisting of balloon -mounted radars, also operates 

in this band and is used for monitoring the southern borders and Caribbean airspace for 

drug interdiction. 10 

S.1682 - AIRWAVES Act, 2017. See 

The Spectrum Pipeline Act also requires the FCC and NTIA to submit two additional reports in 2022 

and 2024, each identifying an additional 50 MHz for reallocation. H.R.1314 Bipartisan Budget Act of 

2015, Title X. See S.19 - MOBILE 

NOW Act. See ilt!ps:.u"<N\V.\C•JI1};rqrLi4DYi 

NTIA, "Plan and Timetable to Make Available 500 Megahertz of Spectrum for Wireless Broadband," 

2010. See 

NTIA, 

I d. 

10 Jd. 

"Spectrum Use Report: 1300-1350 MHz," 2015. See 

2 I brattle.com 
93 


28453.053

The military also operates tactical radar systems in this band. These tactical radars "are 

designed to be more easily tuned than air traffic control radars, since they may have to 

operate in a battlefield environment with many other systems and they need to be able to 

change frequencies to reduce their exposure to hostile forces." 11 

• Finally, the FAA and DoD hold frequency assignments in this band for research and 

development purposes in addition to their operational radars. This includes "examining 

new waveforms and testing new signal processing techniques." 12 

Though one major use of the 1,300 MHz-1 ,350 MHz band is radar used by the FAA for air traffic 

control, the FAA is implementing a program known as NextGen to improve the safety and 

efficiency of the national airspace. In particular, this program aims to replace ground radar with 

a satellite-based system known as Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) as the 

primary way of tracking and managing air traffic. 13 All aircraft are mandated to be equipped 

with ADS-B technology by 2020. 14 The implementation of ADS-B for air traffic control and 

other applications will likely reduce the need for the ground-based radars that currently operate 

in the 1 ,300 MHz-1 ,350 MHz band and will cost an estimated $2.67 billion. 15 

In addition, the federal government is studying the feasibility of making a minimum of 30 MHz 

in the 50 MHz 1,300 MHz-1,350 MHz band available for non-federal use.16 This feasibility study 

is a multi-agency program, called the Spectrum Efficient National Surveillance Radar Program 

(SENSR), created as a response to the Spectrum Pipeline Act of 2015, which stated that the 

Department of Commerce (DoC) must submit plans to free up 30 MHz of spectrum below 3 GHz 

for auction in 2024." An amendment to the proposed FAA Reauthorization Act of 2017 

ll !d. 

12 Jd. 

13 FAA, "NextGen Works," 2017. See 

14 ld. 

" Audit Report, Office of Inspector General, FAA, "Total Costs, Schedules, and Benefits of FAA's 

NextGen Transformational Programs Remain Uncertain," 2016. See 

16 FAA, "Spectrum Efficient National Surveillance Radar Program (SENSR) Industry Day," 2017. See 

17 Jd. 

3 I bratfle.com 
94 


28453.054

recommends that the SENSR program assess reallocating the entire 1,300 MHz-1,350 MHz band 

for non-federal use. 18 The SENSR program aims to study the possibility of consolidating existing 

radar systems in the 1,300 MHz-1,350 MHz band. 19 The 2,700 MHz-3,100 MHz band is one 

possibility for relocation of surveillance systems currently operating in the 1,300 MHz-1,350 

MHz band.20 

If these efforts are demonstrated to be feasible, at least 30 MHz, but as much as 50 MHz, of 

spectrum could be freed up for mobile broadband services. Although the ADS-B technology is 

expected to cost $2.67 billion to develop and implement, there are no firm costs currently 

associated with vacating the remainder of the Federal uses in the 1,300 MHz-1,350 MHz band 

for non-federal use. 21 In the current analysis, I rely on estimates of clearing costs provided by 

CTIA and described in detail in Appendix C. According to those estimates, clearing the band of 

these remaining uses will cost between $1 and $1.5 billion, resulting in a total cost to clear the 

band of between $3.67 and $4.17 billion.22 

B. 1,780 MHz-1,830 MHz 

More than 20 federal agencies as of March 2012 were utilizing more than 3,100 individual 

frequency assignments in the 1,755 MHz-1,850 MHz band.23 Primaty uses of the band included 

fixed point-to-point microwave, military tactical radio relay, air combat training systems, 

18 As of this writing, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation has approved the 

FAA Reauthorization Act subject to Senate confirmation. U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science, & Transportation, "Committee Approves FAA Reauthorization Through 2021," 2017, Gardner 

2. See 

In addition, legislation proposed in the Senate has suggested clearing the entire 1,300 MHz-1,390 

MHz band. S.l682 - AIRWAVES Act, 2017. See 

19 FAA, "Fact Sheet - Spectrum Efficient National Surveillance Radar (SENSR)," 2017. See 

20 NTIA, "Quantitative 

21 See supra. at footnote 15. 

22 See Appendix C. 

Assessments of Spectrum Usage," 2016. See 

23 DoC, "An Assessment of the Viability of Accommodating Wireless Broadband in the 1755-1850 MHz 

Band," 2012. See 

4 1 brottle.com 
95 


28453.055

precision guided munitions, tracking telemetry and commanding, aeronautical mobile telemetry, 

video surveillance, unmanned aerial systems, and other DoD systems including electronic 

warfare, software defined radio, and tactical targeting networking technology. 24 In 2014, the 

1,755 MHz-1,780 MHz band was auctioned for commercial use as part of the AWS-3 auction,25 

providing important experience working with these agencies on reallocating and sharing such 

spectrum-based systems. After the auction, it is likely that some systems operating over the 

entirety of the 1,755 MHz-1,850 MHz band are being re-tuned to operate solely in the 1,780 

MHz-1,850 MHz portion of the band. For example, the relocation of some systems from the 

1,710 MHz-1,755 MHz band to accommodate the AWS-1 allocation was apparently less 

expensive than originally estimated because it was possible to re-tune many federal systems to 

operate in the 1,755 MHz-1,850 MHz band and still meet federal mission requirements. 26 

According to estimates described in Appendix C, the costs associated with clearing the 1,780 

MHz-1,830 MHz band are estimated to be between $2.26 and $3.76 billion.27 These include 

remaining costs from the 1,755 MHz-1,780 MHz band transition, including costs to move fixed 

point-to-point microwave systems and the military tactical radio relay from the band.28 In 

addition, some services currently operating in this band can be moved to the 1,830 MHz-1,850 

MHz portion of the band or re-tuned to operate in other bands. 29 

Assuming that the incumbent satellite systems remain, the 1,780 MHz-1,850 MHz band will 

require coordination zones for these systems to protect their operations from potential 

interference caused by new commercial wireless broadband operations. According to the 

"Spectrum Use Report: 1755-1850 MHz," 2014. See 

25 FCC, "Factsheet for Auction 97: Advanced Wireless Services (AWS-3)," 2014. See 

26 United States Government Accountability Office, "Spectrum Management: Federal Relocation Costs 

and Auction Revenues," 2013. See Dt'Jli:LW_::LY•::,J;-::;:._g::::;::::?:'::,;/_t}(2\:L::::·,:u.~~-J'il!· 

27 See Appendix C. 

28 Id. The total costs associated with clearing the 1,755 MHz-1,780 MHz band were estimated to be $4.58 

billion. Letter to Tom Wheeler, FCC, from Lawrence E. Strickling, Nf!A, "Notice of Estimated 

Relocation or Sharing Costs and Timelines for the 1695-1710 MHz and 1755-1780 MHz Bands," 2014, 

Attachment B2. See 

29 Jd. 

5 I bratfle.com 
96 


28453.056

Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee (CSMAC), "using existing national 

coordination procedures ... satellite control systems and Electronic Warfare operation can coexist with [Long-Term Evolution (LTE)] operations in the [1,755 MHz-1,850 MHz band]."30 

Therefore, the sharing parameters developed to protect the satellite systems from operations in 

the 1,755 MHz-1,780 MHz segment should be able to be applied to mobile broadband operations 

in the 1,780 MHz-1,830 MHz segment. Thus, absent additional information on the undeveloped 

coordination zones for the upper portion of the band, the coordination zones from the lower 

portion of the band act as a reasonable proxy. 31 

Ill. Assessment of Spectrum Value 

In this section, I apply an approach to spectrum valuation that I have developed and refined over 

the past two decades as a spectrum valuation expert. This approach is outlined in the peerreviewed article, "Spectrum Value."32 I have applied variations of this basic approach to 

spectrum valuation as an Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office, in numerous policy 

analyses, and as an advisor to bidders in spectrum auctions. 33 

A. BASELINE SPECTRUM VALUATION MODEL 

The value of a swath of spectrum is derived from the profits that can be made by deploying it. 

The A WS-3 and Incentive auctions provide recent market-based estimates of the bounds of 

spectrum value. But additional developments that will play out in the coming years, including 

SG and the IoT, will further impact spectrum values. In this section, I consider recent auction 

experience and future industry developments to estimate the baseline value of mid-band 

spectrum that will be used to value specific bands at auction. 

3° CSMAC, "Report on 1755-1850 MHz Satellite Control and Electronic Warfare," 2013. 

31 

32 

33 

For a detailed discussion of the coordination zones developed for the lower portion of the band, see: 

FCC and NTIA, "Coordination Procedures in the 1695-1710 MHz and 1755-1780 MHz Bands," 2014. 

Coleman Bazelon and Giulia McHenry, "Spectrum Value," Telecommunications Policy, 2013. 

1 have a long track record of estimating spectrum receipts. For example, I accurately predicted the 

revenues from the 700 MHz auction three years prior to the auction. See Coleman Bazelon, "Analysis 

of an Accelerated Digital Television Transition," 2005. I have also significantly underestimated 

auction revenues, as was the case with my estimate of the value of AWS-3 spectrum of $12 billion, 

when the auction generated bids of almost $43 billion for the paired licenses. Coleman Bazelon, "The 

Economic Basis of Spectrum Value: Pairing AWS-3 with the 1755 MHz Band is More Valuable than 

Pairing it with Frequencies from the 1690 MHz Band," 2011. See infra, at footnote 36. 

6 I bra!tle.com 
97 


28453.057

1. Upper Bound: AWS 3 Auction 

The A WS-3 auction ended in early 2015 and received gross bids of $44.9 billion for 65 MHz of 

spectrum.34 Approximately $2.4 billion of that total was for unpaired up-link frequencies at 

1,695 MHz-1,710 MHz.35 Putting those frequencies aside and focusing on the paired licenses, 

the total revenue was $42.5 billion or $2.71/MHz-pop.36 Consequently, I start with an estimate 

of the upper bound of mid-band spectrum value of $2.71/MHz-pop. 

2. Lower Bound: Incentive Auction 

The recent Incentive Auction sold up to 70 MHz of low-band 600 MHz spectrum for mobile 

wireless networks. The total amount bid was $19.8 billion or $0.93/MHz-pop.37 This price point 

provides a lower bound estimate of value for at least three reasons. 

First, this is low-band spectrum. As described in more detail below, 5G network architecture 

makes use of a mix of low-, mid-, and high-band frequencies. The low-band frequencies provide 

34 For details on the A WS-3 auction, see the FCC's "Factsheet for Auction 97" at 

35 

Total net bids in the 

auction were $41.3 billion. The gross amount included $3.6 billion in bidding credits-$3.3 billion of 

which was for DISH related entities. Those entities were denied their bidding credits and in response 

chose to turn in licenses of an equivalent value. Consequently, the total value of the band will be 

$41.3 billion plus the amount the FCC raises when those returned licenses are re-auctioned. Herein, I 

assume those licenses will receive bids in the same amounts they received in the original auction, 

implying a total value of $44.9 billion. 

Total bid values for the AWS-3 A1 and Bl blocks are calculated using the following FCC auction data: 

36 Based on 2010 U.S. population of approximately 313 million within the Partial Economic Areas 

(PEAs) defined by the FCC. $2.71/MHz-pop $42.46 billion I [(65 MHz-15 MHz) x 313 million pops]; 

FCC, "Incentive Auction: Forward Auction Markets," 2017. See 

37 For details on the Incentive Auction, see the FCC's "Auction 1000" page at 

Between four and seven licenses with 10 MHz were 

licensed in each of the 416 PEAs, resulting in a total of 21.2 billion MHz-pops auctioned. $0.93/MHzpop $19.8 billion /21.2 billion MHz-pops. FCC, "Incentive Auction: Assignment Phase- Results by 

License," 2017. See 

FCC, 

"Incentive Auction: 

See 

FCC, "Incentive 

2017. See 

7 I brattle.com 
98 


28453.058

a coverage layer, which are crucial for providing access to the network but are not the primary 

spectrum that will be used for meeting significant capacity needs. These frequencies would be 

most valuable to entrants and existing players that need to enhance their coverage layers. 

Consequently, demand for these frequencies should be lower than demand for mid-band 

spectrum. 

Second, specific issues with this auction made it more difficult for the auction to realize the full 

value of the frequencies being sold. Among other factors, the iterative nature of the auction's 

process, which endogenously discovered the market-clearing amount of spectrum, meant that 

significant time lapsed from when the up-front deposits were due from bidders on July 1, 2016 to 

when final bidding ended on February 10, 2017.38 This unusually long auction process created a 

dynamic where existing bidders could exit or reduce their demand in response to changing 

circumstances-such as the resolution of the FirstNet frequencies that would be commercially 

accessible-but no new bidders could join the bidding. This one-way ratchet of demand risks 

artificially depressing demand in the auction. 

Third, recent transactions of similar spectrum in the 700 MH z band suggest that prices leading 

up to the auction were higher, albeit trending downward. See Table 1 

38 FCC, "Upfront Payment Instructions for the Forward Auction (Auction 1002) of the Broadcast 

Television Spectrum Incentive Auction," June 8, 2016. See 

'·""'.~"-"-'"c .. o.l/lJ.ClJ!;l'll.(.tqs;I}:JEtt.~t~,~:lLJ,t:!ilo.'l.(:\LJ'tltt. FCC, "Incentive Auction: Forward 

Auction Announcements," February 10, 2017. See 

8 1 brattle .com 
99 


28453.059

Table 1: T-Mobile 700 MHz A-Block Spectrum Purchases 

Implied 

Purchase National 

Price Relative Average 

Sold By Year of Sale MHz-pops ($mm) $/MHz-pop Value Index $/MHz-pop 

[1) [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] 

[A] AT&T /Leap licenseco Inc. 2016 129,097,416 $420 $3.25 1.98 $1.64 

[B] Multiple Transactions, Nov 2015-2016 834,446,352 $1,300 $1.56 0.63 $2.48 

2015-Apr 2016 

[C] Actel and 1-700 2014 90,107,976 $51 $0.56 0.23 $2.48 

[D] Verizon I Cellco Partnership 2014 1,790,166,204 $3,315 $1.85 1.36 $1.36 

Sources and Notes: 

[1]- [3]: Includes 700 MHz A-Block spectrum transactions involving T-Mobile and with financial information available. FCC ULS 

License Databases. 

[4][A]: Colin Gibbs, "T~Mobile's $420M price tag for Chicago's 700 MHz may not point to 600 MHz auction value: analysts," 

[4][8]: T-Mobile reports having spent approx. $1.3 billion for licenses in the first half of 2016, with some deals potentially made 

in 2015, for licenses covering approx. 68 million people. It is unclear which transactions are included in this sum, so all T -Mobile 

transactions from November 2015 to Apr!! 2016 are included. Mike Dano, "T-Mobi!e's 700 MHz buildout in 2016 revealed: Over 

$1B spent in Utah, Southeast and elsewhere," Fierce Wireless, 2016, See ht!rcllxY~'~£'1 hcG1'~£Yir<t'.sclli:2Etl'!'!!HDL~1ilJTI£l'~'Lq2 

[4J[C]: It is possible that the purchase price covers additional transactions, as T~Mobi!e reported spending $505 million on 

licenses covering 8,7 mll!ion pops, The transactions with Acte! and Jw700 appear to only cover 7,6 million pops, Phi! Goldstein, 

"T-Moblle scores more 700 MHz A-Block spectrum from Centuryllnk unit," Fierce Wireless, 2014, See 

[4][D): Phil Goldstein, "T-Mobile buys Verizon's 700 MHz A Block spectrum for $2.48," Fierce Wireless, 2014. See 

[5): [4) I [3). 

[6]: Composite relative value index for all licenses in each transaction. Calculated as the total price per MHz-pop for all SEAs 

covered in each transaction from the FCCs Auction 97 (AWS-3) divided by the national average price per MHz-pop from the 

same auction. The price per MHz-pop is calculated as the weighted average price across the gross winning bids for the H-, 1-, 

and J-blocks. 

[7J: [5J I [6]. 

3. New Demand: SG and the Internet of Things 

The most recent technological development that will impact spectrum value is the creation and 

deployment ofSG networks. The current mobile network, fourth-generation (4G) LTE, provides 

"more capacity for faster and better mobile broadband experiences."39 A 4G wireless network 

39 Qualcomm PowerPoint Presentation, "The Evolution of Mobile Technologies," 2014. See 

9 I bra!tle.com 
100 


28453.060

using LTE technology will soon be able to transmit at speeds as high as 1.2 gigabits per second 

(Gbps). 40 The next SG wireless networks, however, are expected to support speeds that can reach 

20 Gbps downlink and 10 Gbps uplink per base station in ideal conditions, while still well 

outpacing 4G networks in more typical settings. 41 In addition to faster data speeds, a SG network 

is envisaged to have several other key capabilities, including: (i) ultra-low latency (as low as one 

millisecond); (ii) increased capacity; and (iii) increased connection density (as high as one million 

devices per square kilometer).42 

The development of new SG technology is also predicted to speed the growth of two budding 

data-intensive applications: the IoT and mission critical control. The IoT refers to the linking 

and communication between physical objects, such as roadways and buildings, using wired and 

wireless networks.43 By 2020, there could be over 26 billion connected devices, with some 

estimates ranging as high as 100 billion - "anything that can be connected, will be connected."44 

Mission critical communications are envisioned to allow for the real-time control and 

40 Aaron Pressman, "Qualcomm Is Trying To Speed Up Current Mobile Nerworks Ahead of SG," 

41 

Fortune, 2017. See 

User experienced data rates are often not as high as the peak data rate in a given nerwork. The 

International Telecommunications Union (ITU) envisions SG to have peak down-link data rates of 20 

Gbps and user experienced rates as high as 100 Mbps. ITU, "IMT Vision - Framework and Overall 

Objectives of the Future Development of IMT for 2020 and Beyond," 2015. See 

("ITU, IMT 

Vision"); and ITU, "Draft new Report ITU-R M.[IMT-2020.TECH PERF REQJ Minimum 

requirements related to technical performance for IMT-2020 radio interface(s)," 2017. See 

("ITU, Draft !MT-2020 Minimum Requirements"). 

42 The other key capabilities listed by the ITU include: increased spectrum efficiency, increased 

mobility, and increased nerwork energy efficiency. See ITU, IMT Vision; and ITU, Draft IMT-2020 

Minimum Requirements. 

43 Michael Chui, Markus Leffler, and Roger Roberts, "The Internet of Things," McKinsey Quarterly, 

2010. See The 

ITU refers to these two usage scenarios as "ultra-reliable and low latency communication" and 

"massive machine type communications." See ITU, IMT Vision; and ITU, Draft IMT-2020 Minimum 

Requirements. 

44 Jacob Morgan, "A Simple Explanation of 'The Internet of Things,"' Forbes, 2014. See 

I 0 I braftle.com 
101 


28453.061

automation of dynamic processes, such as autonomous vehicles and robotics. 45 Some estimates 

suggest that by 2025, there could be as many as 3 million autonomous vehicles alone. 46 

Future wireless networks must satisfy both a rise in demand for mobile data and a rise in demand 

for faster mobile data speeds; satisfying both of these needs will require more spectrum and 

different types of spectrum. That is, the architecture of a robust SG network will require 

spectrum in a variety of bands: "low-band" spectrum below 1 GHz for wide-area and long-range 

communications; "mid-band" spectrum between 1 GHz and 6 GHz for applications that would 

benefit from a combination of coverage and capacity support in mobile broadband networks and 

mission critical communications; and "high-band" spectrum for short range communications 

requiring fast data rates and low latency.47 A SG network will be based on a dense heterogeneous 

network structure that includes the dense deployment of small cells in connection with the 

growing number of macro cells to increase network efficiency and to make connectivity more 

uniform across users. 48 All three pieces of this "spectrum trifecta" will be crucial for the 

successful deployment of a SG network, as stated by Ericsson: 

It is important to understand that high frequencies, especially those above lOG Hz, 

can only serve as a complement to lower frequency bands, and will mainly 

45 Qualcomm PowerPoint Presentation, "Building a unified SG platform: For the next decade and 

beyond," 2015; and Osman Yilmaz, "5G Radio Access for Ultra-Reliable Low-Latency 

Communications," Ericsson Research Blog, 2015. See hnrKih•.~v"' 

46 ABI Research, "5G to be Unifying Connectivity Technology for Future Cars; To Enable V2X 

47 

48 

Communication," 2016. See 

Letter to Marlene H. Dortch, FCC from Reed Hundt, "Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for 

Mobile Radio Services, GN Docket No. 14-177; IB Docket Nos. 15-256, 97-95; WT Docket No. 10-112; 

RM-11664," 2016. See 

Tom 

Wheeler, "The Future of Wireless: A Vision for U.S. Leadership in a SG World," prepared remarks at 

the National Press Club, Washington, D.C., 2016. See 

GSMA 

Boyd Bangerter, Shilpa Talwar, Reza Arefi, and Ken Stewart, "Networks and Devices for the SG Era," 

IEEE Communications Magazine, February 2014 ("Bangerter, Talwar, eta!., "Networks and Devices 

for the 5G Era"). GSMA Public Policy Position, "5G Spectrum," 2016. See 

11 I brottle.com 
102 


28453.062

provide additional system capacity and very wide transmission bandwidths for 

extreme data rates in dense deployments. 49 

Until last year, all spectrum currently allocated to mobile wireless networks was concentrated in 

the low-and mid-bands below 6 GHz. 50 Until recently, spectrum above about 3 GHz was not 

seen as viable to deploy in mobile networks. This was primarily because the propagation 

characteristics of high frequencies would require cell sites that would be too limited in coverage 

to be economical. However, developments in SG technology are making it possible to 

economically deploy high-band spectrum, specifically spectrum above 24 GHz, for mobile 

wireless. 51 In its Spectrum Frontiers proceeding, the FCC opened almost 11 GHz of licensed and 

unlicensed spectrum in the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, 39 GHz, and 64-71 GHz bands for wireless 

broadband. 52 

High-band spectrum is expected to be deployed for SG first in dense areas and spaces like 

stadiums and public transportation stops where the wireless data demands are greatest.53 Such 

dense areas make it economical to deploy high-band spectrum since there will still be many users 

49 Ericsson White Paper, "SG Radio Access," 2016. See 

The term "spectrum trifecta" was coined 

by FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler in his June 20'h, 2016 remarks at the National Press Club. Tom 

Wheeler, "The Future of Wireless: A Vision for U.S. Leadership in a SG World," prepared remarks at 

the National Press Club, Washington, D.C., 2016. See 

50 Bangerter, Talwar, et a!., "Networks and Devices for the SG Era"; and FCC, "Fact Sheet: Spectrum 

Frontiers Proposal to Identify, Open Up Vast Amounts of New High-Band Spectrum for Next 

51 

Generation (SG) Wireless Broadband," 2016. See 

See, for example, Thomas K. Sawanobori and Paul V. Anuszkiewicz, "High Band Spectrum, The Key 

to Unlocking the Next Generation of Wireless," CTIA, 2016. See mtp:c;~iVC''{I~,!;U'k'll:t;l!lC'I;SI 

52 FCC, "Fact Sheet: Spectrum Frontiers Proposal to Identify, Open Up Vast Amounts of New High-Band 

Spectrum for Next Generation (SG) Wireless Broadband," 2016. See 

53 See, for example, Thomas K. Sawanobori and Paul V. Anuszkiewicz, "High Band Spectrum, The Key 

to Unlocking the Next Generation of Wireless," CTIA, 2016. See l'l!Pdc':'Y''VI!J 

12 I brattle.com 
103 


28453.063

in the smaller coverage areas necessary for higher frequencies. 54 However, not all SG and loT 

deployments will be concentrated in dense urban areas. Mobile operators like Verizon are 

conducting SG trials in cities with a range of population densities. 55 Many of the anticipated 

hallmarks of the loT, such as connected devices, integrated road networks, and driverless cars, 

will be deployed in less dense urban and suburban areas in addition to urban cores.56 Thus, 

although the ultimate economic boundaries of where the highest frequencies will be deployed 

for SG are still uncertain, less dense urban and suburban areas are likely to be included in SG 

deployments as they prove commercially successfu\.'7 The question of where SG is deployed may 

ultimately be one of timing, with urban areas seeing earlier deployments and applications for 

suburban and rural areas evolving later. 

These new SG and loT deployments will have profound implications for spectrum value. On the 

one hand, being able to integrate massive amounts of high-band spectrum into commercial 

mobile networks will flood the market with spectrum capacity, at least in denser, urban areas, 

and for applications that can utilize the higher frequency spectrum. On the other hand, these 

new networks will enable new uses of wireless networks and increase consumer expectations 

about throughput and reliability. The net effect of these two implications is uncertain, and 

overall spectrum values, especially for mid-band capacity spectrum, could go up or down. 

54 See, for example, Thomas K. Sawanobori and Paul V. Anuszkiewicz, "High Band Spectrum, The Key 

to Unlocking the Next Generation of Wireless," CTIA, 2016. See lJI!JCSiiYC\Y'V"'~lE'"9lgjJ12f.lliil£li'lllt:. 

55 See, for example, Diana Goovaerts, "V erizon Announces 5G Customer Trials in 11 Cities with 5G 

Forum Partners," Wireless Week, 2017. See 

56 For example, it has been argued that the shift toward driverless cars may even encourage urban sprawl 

as it becomes easier to live far from city centers. Noah Smith, "Like the Suburbs? You1ll Love 

Driverless Cars," Bloomberg View, 2015. See 

57 For example, an analysis by Plum Consulting finds that C-band spectrum would be deployed in all 

non-rural areas of the UK, and although C-band is considered mid-band in the 5G rubric, I take the 

analysis here as indicative of where new, higher frequencies will generally be economical to deploy. 

Plum Consulting classifies these non-rural areas as any area with a population density of at least 202 

people per square kilometer. Tony Lavender, Paul Hansell, lain Inglis, and Sarongrat Wongsaroj, "Use 

of C-Band (3400/3600-4200 MHz) for mobile broadband in Hungary, Italy, Sweden and the UK," Plum 

Consulting, 2015. See 

13 I braille .com 
104 


28453.064

But within the overall net impact on spectrum values, there are clear implications from increased 

user expectations for throughput, mobility, and latency for different types of spectrum. The 

value of mid-band spectrum used for capacity outside of the urban areas served by SG 

deployments should increase because demand for network capacity-reset to a user experience 

based on a higher level of throughput in the urban areas-will be greater in those non-urban 

areas. Consequently, the flood of high-band frequencies that may enter service will not 

substitute for the mid-band frequencies analyzed here. 

4. Conclusion: The New Spectrum Value Baseline 

Expectations about overall spectrum values are somewhere between $0.93/MHz-pop seen in the 

Incentive Auction and $2.71/MHz-pop seen in the A WS-3 auction. There are several reasons to 

believe spectrum values for mid-band spectrum are at the higher end of this range. First of all, 

the high end of the range was set by a mid-band spectrum auction. Also, as noted above, the 

lower end of the range likely understates the real value of low-band spectrum. Furthermore, 

developments with SG and the loT suggest a tilting of demand toward mid-band spectrum 

relative to low-band spectrum. Taking this all together, and using a bit of judgment based on 

more than two decades of estimating spectrum values, I will use $2.00/MHz-pop to value the 

mid-band spectrum analyzed here. Given the larger overall base of spectrum that will be used in 

mobile markets in 5G deployments, the increases in the quantity of spectrum available for mobile 

broadband is relatively small, so I make no adjustments to price for any quantity effects of new 

spectrum and use the $2.00/MHz-pop estimate of mid-band spectrum value throughout the 

analysis. 

As noted above, there is some degree of uncertainty about the future development of spectrum 

prices. My estimate of $2.00/MHz-pop represents my expectation about spectrum values after 

weighing factors that could lead to higher or lower values. That is, $2.00/MHz-pop is my 

expected value for the frequencies considered here. But there is some uncertainty around that 

expectation. If prices are higher than expected, as was the case with the A WS-3 auction, 58 then 

realized auction receipts would contain a windfall-a happy occurrence from a budgetary 

standpoint. But prices could be lower than expected, leading to less revenue than originally 

planned. To illustrate the downside risk, I also present a downside scenario. This would be 

realized if the impact of SG developments were less dramatic in increasing both relative and 

58 For instance, see supra, at footnote 33. 

14 1 bratfle.com 
105 


28453.065

absolute levels of demand for mid-band spectrum, leading to lower prices. In this case, the value 

of mid-band spectrum would be closer to the low end of the range discussed above, and I use 

$1.00/MHz-pop to illustrate this downside scenario. 

Other typical considerations when comparing the relative value of different spectrum bands 

includes the size of the allocation, whether it is paired, and potential international 

harmonization. None of the allocations considered are unusually small or large; the evolution of 

Time Division Duplex (TDD) (including in SG standards59) suggests changing dynamics of TDD 

versus Frequency Division Duplex (FDD); and one of the two bands analyzed is harmonized, 

suggesting additional benefits in equipment development from international uses of the band.60 

Consequently, in the case of the bands evaluated here, I make no further adjustment for these 

issues to the baseline. 

Finally, impairments in a band may cause a diminution in band value. For the bands considered 

below, the exact areas of impairment are not yet known. However, analysis of the A WS-3 

auction suggests a somewhat surprising result: the levels of impairment in the A WS-3 band do 

not appear to have caused any reduction in prices paid. As detailed in Appendix B, I analyze the 

relative prices of licenses in the A WS-3 auction compared to the relative prices of similar licenses 

in the A WS-1 auction and find no evidence that impairments impacted relative prices. Given 

the differences in impairments and that there is no evidence of a difference in relative prices, I 

conclude that the level of impairments seen in the A WS-3 auction did not impact prices. In a 

complimentary analysis, I utilize econometric techniques to test whether or not the presence or 

level of impairment has a statistically significant negative impact on the prediction of prices in 

the A WS-3 auction. Similarly, I find no evidence that impairments impact the realized value of 

licenses in the auction. Therefore, to the extent that the impairments in the bands examined 

below are not significantly worse than expected, I do not expect impairments to negatively 

impact auction prices for these bands. Should impairments of bands be significantly worse, some 

adjustment to the estimated value may be warranted. 

59 Qualcomm, "Making 5G NR a reality," 2016. See 

60 The 1,780 MHz-1,830 MHz band is harmonized. FCC, "FCC Online Table Of Frequency Allocations," 

2017. See 

15 I brattle.com 
106 


28453.066

B. VALUATION Of 1,300 MHZ-1 ,350 MHZ PAIRED WITH 1,780 MHZ-1 ,830 MHZ 

This section will value the pairing of the 1,300 MHz-1,350 MHz and the 1,780 MHz-1,830 MHz 

bands. I apply the estimated price of mid-band spectrum of $2.00/MHz-pop to the quantity of 

spectrum available and subtract the costs of making the spectrum available. I also present a 

downside scenario based on a value of $1.00/MHz-pop. 

This pairing, which uses mid-band spectrum that is adjacent to the AWS allocation with lower 

down-link frequencies at 1,300 MHz-1,350 MHz, would have more favorable propagation 

characteristics for coverage than the A WS allocations. Somewhat offsetting this advantage, this 

new allocation does not have a current ecosystem developed. The Spectrum Pipeline Act of 2015 

directed federal agencies to examine clearing at least 30 MHz of spectrum for mobile use; to that 

end, four agencies- FAA, DoD, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) are studying the feasibility of clearing a minimum of 30 

MHz of the 1,300 MHz-1,350 MHz band. 61 Consequently, any amount between 30 MHz and 50 

MHz of that band may be made available, but because Congress is recommending that the SENSR 

program examine clearing all 50 MHz in the 1,300 MHz-1,350 MHz band, I will focus on the 

case where 50 MHz is made available.'2 In doing so, I will assume that the frequencies from the 

1,300 MHz-1,350 MHz band are evenly paired with frequencies from the 1,780 MHz-1,830 MHz 

band, creating a total allocation of 100 MHz. It is worth noting that even though I am assuming 

these frequencies are "paired," they could be sold as TDD bands-doing so would not likely 

change the analysis significantly. 

With 313 million people covered, this allocation represents 31.3 billion MHz-pops. 63 

Consequently, the value before accounting for impairments or incumbent reallocation costs is 

$62.6 billion. 64 

61 FAA, "Spectrum Efficient National Surveillance Radar Program (SENSR) Industry Day," January 5, 

2017. See and H.R.1314 Bipartisan 

62 See supra, at 18. 

63 31.3 billion MHz-pops 100 MHz x 313 million people. For total US population, see FCC, "Incentive 

Forward Markets," 2017. See 

64 $62.60 billion $2.00/MHz-pop x 100 MHz x 313 million people. 

16 I brattle.com 
107 


28453.067

I make no further adjustment for impairments. I do not have any evidence that the coordination 

zones will be significantly worse than for A WS-3, so I make no further adjustments for them. If 

coordination zones are significantly larger than for A WS-3, then some further adjustment would 

be warranted. 

As noted in Section II, the costs of clearing the 1,300 MHz-1,350 MHz band and 1,780 MHz1,830 MHz band would be between $3.67 and $4.17 billion and between $2.26 and $3.76 billion, 

respectively-amounting to a total expected cost of between $5.93 and $7.93 billion. On net, 

this band would therefore be expected to raise between $54.7 and $56.7 billion for 100 MHz.65 

For a downside scenario, the auction receipts would be estimated to be $31.3 billion, with net 

receipts between $23.4 and $25.4 billion for 100 MHz. 66 

C. REALIZING VALUE 

Whether or not any given auction will realize the value of the spectrum licenses being sold 

depends on a number of specifics that cannot be known ahead of time. The auction rules matter, 

including set-asides or reserved spectrum (which will likely decrease revenues) and bidding 

credits (which may raise revenues). Macroeconomic and industry conditions at the time of the 

auction can also impact auction outcomes. And of course auction participation, and the budgets 

that participants bring, is also important. Consequently, it would be inappropriate to try to 

forecast such auction -specific details years in the future. 

Nevertheless, at a high level, there is cause for optimism for future FCC auctions realizing value. 

The FCC has a very good track record with auctions, having raised over $100 billion to date. 67 

Furthermore, their sophistication with auction design and implementation grows with timeand was taken to a new level with the Incentive Auction. The macroeconomic and industry 

expectations in coming years also support high revenues. Demand for wireless broadband 

capacity, especially for the relatively scarce mid-band frequencies, will continue to grow at a 

robust pace and increasing industry revenues will support acquisitions of additional spectrum. 

The direct carrier revenues for the cellular industry are approaching $200 billion per year, 

65 

66 

$54.67 billion= $62.60 billion- $7.93 billion. $56.67 billion= $62.60 billion- $5.93 billion. 

$31.30 billion $1.00/MHz-pop x 100 MHz x 313 million people. $23.37 billion = $31.30 billion-

$7.93 billion. $25.37 billion= $31.30 billion $5.93 billion. 

"Auctions Summary," 2015. See 

I 7 1 brattle .com 
108 


28453.068

generating significant cash flows over the coming years to support further spectrum acquisitions 

of the levels estimated here.6B 

68 CTIA, "Annual Year-End 2016 Top-Line Survey Results," 2017. See 

18 I brattle.com 
109 


28453.069

Appendix A: Additional Details by Band 

In what follows, for each type of operation or system (e.g., long range radar systems or polarorbiting weather satellites) within a particular band of spectrum, I provide additional detail on 

what is known about the incumbent users and the possible restrictions or coordination zones for 

each such user.69 Specifically, in cases where incumbent users are expected to remain upon 

reallocation of a particular band of spectrum, I describe the coordination zones that are likely to 

result. 

A. 1 ,300 MHZ-1 ,350 MHZ 

Long Range Radar Systems 

Spectrum contours for all radar systems operating in the 1,300 MHz-1,390 MHz band have been 

computed by the NTIA for a generic ground-based receiver (see Figure 1).70 These contours 

represent the locations where the signal level of the radar system will cause the receiver to 

exceed an interference threshold of 1 dB-they do not, however, represent the physical coverage 

area of the radar. 71 Therefore, if any incumbent radar systems were to remain in the band upon 

reallocation, these contours would serve as a reasonable proxy for the terrestrial coordination 

zones associated with each radar system. 

69 The only exception is in the 1,780 MHz -1,850 MHz band, where I lump all such operations together 

due to the vast quantity and variety of incumbent systems in the band. 

70 NTIA, "Spectrum Use Report: 1300-1350 MHz," 2014; NTIA, "Spectrum Use Report: 1350-1390 

MHz,"2014. 

7! Id Actual receiver tolerance may be higher or lower, depending on the specific wireless broadband 

system deployed. 

19 I brattle.com 
110 


28453.070

Figure 1. Spectrum Contours for Radars Operating in the 1,300 MHz-1,390 MHz Band Segment 

Source; NTIA, 2014. 

B. 1,780MHz-1,850MHz 

All Users 

The CSMAC conducted several studies to evaluate sharing compatibility between commercial 

LTE systems and federal systems operating in the 1,755 MHz-1,850 MHz band, in addition to 

considering effective transition and/or relocation strategies. In summary the studies found: 

Video surveillance systems would need to be relocated to facilitate sharing.72 

• Satellite control systems and electronic warfare operations could co-exist with LTE 

operations, as i) LTE devices were shown to produce only "negligible interference to all 

satellite programs except possibly a few experimental spacecraft," ii) several technologies 

were identified to mitigate harmful interference from LTE base stations, and iii) 

electronic warfare operations could continue on a non-interference basis using existing 

national coordination procedures.73 

CSMAC, "Working Group 2: 1755-1850 MHz Law Enforcement Surveillance, Explosive Ordinance 

Disposal, and other short distance links," 2013. These systems would likely first be consolidated into 

the 1,839-1,850 MHz band and may ultimate be moved to other bands, such as the 2,025-2,1100 MHz 

band, the 2,200-2,290 MHz band, or the 2,360-2,390 MHz band. See Appendix C. 

CSMAC, "Report on 1755-1850 MHz Satellite Control and Electronic Warfare," 2013. 

20 I brattle.com 
111 


28453.071

Fixed point-to-point microwave operations would need to be relocated to facilitate 

sharing, but tactical radio relay and joint tactical radio systems could not share spectrum 

with commercial LTE systems without requiring separation distances of hundreds of 

kilometers.74 

• Certain federal airborne systems may need to be relocated to facilitate sharing-however 

the identification and consideration of such alternate spectrum was not directly 

addressed. 75 Further, sharing of frequencies between commercial LTE and airborne 

systems (e.g., air combat training systems, small unmanned aircraft systems, precisionguided munitions, and aeronautical mobile telemetry) would not be feasible without 

requiring separation distances of hundreds of kilometers.76 

Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the entirety of the band will be cleared other than the 

incumbent federal satellite systems-which will entail the establishment of coordination zones. 

Prior to the A WS-3 auction, coordination zones were established for the incumbent federal 

satellite systems in the 1,755 MHz-1,780 MHz portion of the band.77 Given the conclusions of 

the CSMAC, and pending further study, these coordination zones appear to be reasonable proxies 

for the coordination zones that are likely to be established in the upper portion of the band upon 

reallocation. 

74 CSMAC, "1755-1850 MHz Point-to-Point Microwave Tactical Radio Relay (TRR) Joint Tactical Radio 

System I Software Defined Radio (JTRS/SDR)," 2013. Fixed point-to-point microwave operates will be 

relocated to the 4,400-4,490 MHz or 7,125-8,500 MHz bands, and tactical radio relay will be relocated 

to the 2,025-2,110 MHz or 2,200-2,290 MHz bands. DoC, "An Assessment of the Viability of 

Accommodating Wireless Broadband in the 1755-1850 MHz Band," 2012. See 

75 CSMAC, "1755-1850 MHz Airborne Operations," 2013. 

76 ld 

77 FCC and NTIA, "Coordination Procedures in the 1695-1710 MHz and 1755-1780MHz Bands," 2014. 

21 I braltle.com 
112 


28453.072

Appendix B: Effect of Impairments on Spectrum Value 

The A WS-3 auction provides a unique opportunity to empirically investigate the impact of 

impairments on the value of spectrum. In the A WS-3 band, certain licenses are shared between 

license winners and the incumbent federal operations that currently operate in these areas. 78 

Sharing between auction winners and the federal operations occurs via a coordination process 

that takes place over a specified "transition timeline."79 Licenses are potentially impaired by the 

DoD in two ways: via interference from A WS-3 up-link transmissions that may create noise for 

DoD receivers and from DoD transmitters to A WS-3 receivers. 

Because the level of impairment generated by interference from A WS-3 transmitters to DoD 

systems is used to define federally regulated protection zones where successful coordination is 

required among users during the transition time period, I focus my attention on this 

measurement of impairment in my analysis.80 Information on potential interference, and 

transition time (i.e., the time it takes a DoD operation to migrate to another frequency or 

medium), is available on a census tract level provided by the NTIA. 81 Transition times vary by 

operation, ranging from zero to 120 months. 82 

Virtually all of the licenses offered in the A WS-3 band are impaired for at least a period of time. 

Approximately 309 million people in 172 license areas (out of 176 total licenses offered for each 

block) are estimated to be potentially impaired to some degree. 83 However, the population 

impaired over the longer term is significantly less. The total population potentially impaired for 

78 NTIA, "DoD Workbook Information File In Support of A WS-3 Transition Planning for 1755-1780 

MHz Band," 2014. See 

79 ld. 

oo Id. 

81 

82 The reported maximum transition time ("Max TT") in the NTIA data ranges from 0 to 120 months. 

Analysis based on NTIA, "DoD Workbook Tab!," 2014. 

83 Id. 

22 I brattle.com 
113 


28453.073

at least 10 years ranges from approximately 8.5 million to 16.7 million, depending on license 

block.84 

It is possible to build a picture of an Economic Area (EA) license by examining its component 

census tracts' populations and transition times. As a result, it is possible to estimate the 

population that is "impaired" for a given license over given transition times. 

I examined the patterns of prices in the A WS-3 auction and can find no evidence of impairments 

having any impact on license values. I performed two distinct analyses: First, I assessed the 

patterns of relative prices within the auction and compared them to the patterns of relative 

prices in previous auctions of similar spectrum licenses; Second, I used econometric techniques to 

test whether or not the presence or level of impairment resulted in a meaningful decline in 

license prices in the A WS-3 auction. 

A. RELATIVE PRICE ANALYSIS 

Each FCC license covers defined geographies and a specified bandwidth. As a consequence, 

differences in value of different licenses depends on factors such as the number of people 

covered, the demographics and distribution of the population, as well as the bandwidth of the 

license. Because many of the drivers of the value of a specific license do not change from auction 

to auction, the relative prices of spectrum licenses follow regular patterns across auctions. For 

example, historically a license covering New York City would sell for a relatively predictable 

amount more than a license covering Atlanta, GA, which in turn will go for a predictable 

amount more than a license covering Des Moines, IA. 85 This regularity of relative prices persists 

even after license prices are adjusted for the amount of population in the license area. Here I 

exploit this regularity in relative prices to look for evidence of impairments on license prices. 

I compared licenses in like bands across the A WS-1 and A WS-3 auctions. Specifically, 

compared the A WS-3 J Block to the A WS-1 B Block (both licensed as 20 MHz Economic Areas) 

and the A WS-3 H & I Blocks to the A WS-1 C Block (all three licensed as 10 MHz Economic 

Areas). I then calculated the $/MHz-pop value for each license and divide that by the specific 

84 

85 

ld. 

As note earlier, this historical relationship between relative spectrum prices will change with the 

advent of 5G. At the time of the A WS-3 auction 5G was not well developed, so I can rely on the 

historical relationships for the analysis in this Appendix. 

23 I brattle.com 
114 


28453.074

band average $/MHz-pop value to create an index of relative license values. 86 If impairments 

have an impact on license prices, I would expect the licenses in the A WS-3 auction with the 

greatest impairments to have relatively lower index values than for the similar licenses (without 

impairments) in the A WS-1 auction. 

As shown in Table 2, 14.8% of licenses will still have impairments after 10 years. I segregated 

the licenses where the AWS-1 index value was greater than 120% of the AWS-3 index value.87 A 

20% price difference covers potential differences in bid increments for the licenses sold in the 

different auctions.88 If there was no impact from impairments, I would expect the prevalence of 

impaired licenses in this subset to be the same as for the licenses overall-which is in fact what I 

find. The actual number of impaired licenses with more than a 20% higher relative price in the 

A WS-1 auction compared with the A WS-3 auction is 1 or 2 more or less than expected if 

impairments have no impact. 

86 I use an index of license values instead of actual license values to extrapolate from any overall or sea 

level changes in spectrum value. 

87 In other words, I isolated the licenses where (AWS-1 index price I AWS-3 index price)~ 1.20. 

88 In FCC auctions, the prices of licenses rise by increments determined by the FCC. Such price 

increments vary, but can be up to 20% of the previous license price. As a consequence, variation in 

license prices of up to 20% can be an artifact of the auction rules and not necessarily reflecting 

underlying value differences. See, for example, the A WS-3 and A WS-1 auction procedures: 

24 1 bratfle.com 
115 


28453.075

Table 2. Impairment Analysis: Indexed Value Differences 

AWS-3 

I Block 

[I] Total Licenses in A WS-3 Auction 176 

Count Impaired- Total 26 

[2] %of Total Licenses Impaired After 10 Years 14.8% 

[3] Total Licenses where A WS-1 License Index Value 

> 120% of AWS-3 License Index Value 61 

[4] Expected Impaired 9 

[5] Count Impaired in Sample 8 

[6] Difference 

Sources & Notes: 

[ 1]: Total licenses for each BEA block in auction. 

[2 J: Based on impairment analysis and data provided by NTIA. 

[3]: Based on comparison of A WS-3 J Block with A WS-1 B Block, and 

A WS-3 I and H Blocks with A WS-1 C Block. 

[4]: [21 x [3], rounded to nearest whole number 

[5]: Based on impairment analysis and data provided by NTIA. 

[6]: [4]-[5]. 

8. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 

AWS-3 

H Block 

176 

26 

14.8% 

67 

10 

11 

-] 

AWS-3 

J Block 

176 

26 

14.8% 

59 

9 

ll 

-2 

A second approach to finding evidence of impairments on spectrum licenses uses statistical 

techniques. The approach here is to predict specific license prices in the A WS-3 auction using 

standard explanatory variables and then to test if the inclusion of information on impairment 

levels result in a meaningful decline in the prediction of license price. If the impairment of a 

license does not reduce the price of that license, all else equal, then I must conclude that such 

impairments were not a significant consideration in bidders' behavior in the auction. In practice, 

this is exactly what I find. 

There have been a number of studies that use econometric techniques to predict spectrum license 

prices.89 Based on a review of those studies, I specified the following linear regression model of 

spectrum license prices: 

89 ). Pierre de Vries and Cheng-Yu Chan, "Edge License Discounts in Cellular Auctions," Presented at 

Telecommunications Policy Research Conference, 2010; Peter Cramton and Jesse A. Schwartz, 

"Collusive Bidding in the FCC Spectrum Auctions," Comributions in Economic Analysis & Policy, 

2002; and Scott Wallsten, "Is There Really a Spectrum Crisis? QuantifYing the Factors Affecting 

Spectrum License Value," Technology Policy Institute, 2013. 

25 I brattle.com 
116 


28453.076

Price = a+ {31 • TotalPops + {32 • TotalPops 2 + {33 • PerCapincome 

where 

Price 

TotalPops 

TotalPops 2 

PerCapincome 

AWSJBlock 

Impairment = 

+{34 * AWSlBlock + {35 • Impairment+ E 

AWS-3 Spectrum License Price, measured in $j(MHz Pop) 

Parameters to be estimated 

Total Population in Licensed Area 

(Total Population in Licensed Area)2 

Average per Capita Income in Licensed Area 

Price of A WS-1 B Block when estimating A WS-3 J Block, 

measured in $j(MHz Pop); Price of AWS-1 C Block when 

estimating AWS-3 Hand I Blocks, measured in $j(MHz Pop). 

Percent of Licensed Area Population Impaired for more than 5 or 

10 years 

Residual or Error Term 

This model was tested for the A WS-3 H, I, and J Blocks and for the percentage of population 

impaired after 5 and 10 years, respectively.9° Regression results for each of the six model 

specifications are reported below. In each specification, the coefficient estimating the impact of 

the level of impairment on license prices was statistically indistinguishable from zero (see bolded 

rows in the following tables).91 Consequently, I find no evidence of license impairments 

impacting the value of A WS-3 spectrum. 

90 I ran the model using the impairment variable that captures the level of interference from A WS-3 

transmitters to DoD receivers. However, model results remain the same when I use the other 

impairment variable that captures the level of interference from DoD transmitters to A WS-3 

receivers. 

91 I also ran alternative specifications analyzing whether the presence of impairments above specified 

thresholds (as opposed to the percentage of license area impaired) would generate observable impacts 

on license prices. Each of these models returned insignificant parameter estimates, further 

strengthening my finding that impairments have no statistical impact on license prices. 

Continued on next page 

26 I brattle.com 
117 


28453.077

Table 3. AWS-3 J Block, 10 Year Impairment 

Parameter Units Estimate 

Intercept 

Total Population 

Total Population' 

Per Capita Income 

Dollar_MHZpop .. AWSl_B 

Impaired I Oyr 

No. of Observations: 171 

Residual Std. Error: .737 

Adjusted R-squared: 0.638 

-0.50 

billions 436.63 

trillions -0.01 

$,millions 26.08 

$/MHzPop 1.33 

% 0.00 

F·statistic: 60.807 on 5 and 165 DF, p·value: < 2.22e-16 

Statistically significant at the 1% (*)or 5% (**)level 

tOne-tailed p-value (p < t) 

Std. Error 

0.41 

53.35 

0.00 

10.28 

0.48 

0.31 

Table 4. AWS-3 J Block, 5 Year Impairment 

Parameter Units Estimate 

Intercept 

Total Population 

Total Population2 

Per Capita Income 

Dollar_MHZpop_AWSl_B 

Impaired Syr 

No. of Observations: 171 

Residual Std. Error: .737 

Adjusted R-squared: 0.638 

-0.48 

billions 437.27 

trillions -0.01 

$,millions 25.72 

$/MHzPop 1.34 

% -0.02 

F-statistic: 60.817 on 5 and 165 DF, p·value: < 2.22e-16 

Statistically significant at the 1% (*)or 5% (**) level 

t One-tailed p-value (p < t) 

Continued from previous page 

Std. Error 

0.44 

53.29 

0.00 

10.59 

0.48 

0.13 

t-stat p-value 

-1.23 0.22 

8.I8 0.00** 

-5.69 0.00** 

2.54 0.01* 

2.77 0.01** 

-0.01 O.SOt 

t-stat p-value 

-1.10 0.27 

8.21 0.00** 

-5.69 0.00** 

2.43 0.02* 

2.79 0.01** 

-0.13 0.45t 

Conceptually, if impairments were to impact prices it would be in a negative manner. Therefore, I 

conducted one-sided (as opposed to two-sided) statistical tests for the impairment variable, whereby 

my alternative hypothesis was that the parameter estimate was< 0 (as opposed to * 0). 

27 I brattte.com 
118 


28453.078

Table 5. AWS-3 H Block, 10 Year Impairment 

Parameter Units Estimate 

Intercept 

Total Population 

Total Population' 

Per Capita Income 

Dollar_MHZpop _A WS I_ C 

Impaired_lOyr 

No. of Observations: 171 

Residual Std. Error: . 7 41 

Adjusted R-squared: 0.606 

-0.47 

billions 431.68 

trillions -0.01 

$.millions 24.16 

$1 MHz Pop 0.96 

% 0.02 

F-statistic: 53.241 on 5 and 165 DF, p-value: < 2.22e-16 

Statistically significant at the 1% (*)or 5% (**) level 

t One-tailed p-value (p < t) 

Std. Error 

0.41 

52.33 

0.00 

IQ.42 

0.38 

0.31 

Table 6. AWS-3 H Block, 5 Year Impairment 

Parameter Units Estimate 

Intercept 

Total Population 

Total Population' 

Per Capita Income 

Dollar_ MHZpop _A WS 1_ C 

Impaired Syr 

No. of Observations: 171 

Residual Std. Error: . 733 

Adjusted R-squared: 0.615 

-0.79 

billions 432.13 

trillions -0.01 

$,millions 27.24 

$1 M!-Iz Pop 0.84 

% 0.29 

F-statistic: 55.206 on 5 and 165 OF, p-value: < 2.22c-16 

Statistically significant at the 1% (*)or 5% (**) level 

t One-tailed p-value (p < t) 

Std. Error 

0.44 

51.58 

0.00 

10.35 

0.38 

0.15 

t-stat p-value 

-1.14 0.25 

8.25 0.00** 

-6.05 0.00** 

2.32 0.02* 

2.51 0.01* 

0.08 0.53t 

!-stat p-value 

-1.81 0.07 

8.38 0.00** 

-6.12 0.00** 

2.63 0.01** 

2.23 0.03* 

1.94 0.97t 

28 I bratlle.com 
119 


28453.079

Table 7. AWS-31 Block, 10 Year Impairment 

Parameter Units Estimate 

Intercept 

Total Population 

Total Population2 

Per Capita Income 

Dollar_MHZpop_AWS1_C 

Impaired IOyr 

No. of Observations: 171 

Residual Std. Error: .651 

Adjusted R-squared: 0.665 

billions 

trillions 

$.millions 

$1 Mflz Pop 

% 

-0.25 

414.12 

-0.01 

17.43 

1.24 

0.30 

F-statistic: 68.510 on 5 and 165 DF, p-value: < 2.22e-16 

Statistically significant at the I%(*) or 5% (**) level 

t One-tailed p-valuc (p < t) 

Std. Error 

0.36 

45.96 

0.00 

9.15 

0.33 

0.27 

Table 8. AWS-3 I Block, S Year Impairment 

Parameter 

Intercept 

Total Population 

Total Population2 

Per Capita Income 

Dollar_MHZpop_AWSl_C 

Impaired Syr 

No. of Observations: 171 

Residual Std. Error: .653 

Adjusted R-squared: 0.663 

Units 

billions 

trillions 

$,millions 

$/MHzPop 

% 

Estimate 

-0.17 

410.40 

-0.01 

16.13 

1.28 

-0.01 

!'-statistic: 67.780 on 5 and 165 DF, p-value: < 2.22c-16 

Statistically significant at the 1% (*)or 5% (**)level 

t One-tailed p-value (p < t) 

Std. Error 

0.37 

46.10 

0.00 

9.13 

0.33 

0.12 

t-stat [!-value 

-0.68 0.50 

9.01 0.00** 

-6.67 0.00** 

1.91 0.06 

3.71 0.00** 

1.10 0.86t 

t-stat [!·value 

-0.47 0.64 

8.90 0.00** 

-6.60 0.00** 

1.77 0.08 

3.83 0.00** 

-0.10 0.46t 

29 I brattle.com 
120 


28453.080

Appendix C: Cost Estimates for Relocation of the 1,780 MHz-1 ,830 

MHz Band and 1 ,300 MHz-1 ,350 MHz Band92 

This appendix seeks to provide detailed estimates for relocation costs associated with the Federal 

government use of the 1, 780 MHz-1 ,830 MHz and 1,300 MHz-1 ,350 MHz spectrum bands. As 

these estimates will require further refinement based upon actual relocation requirements for the 

Federal agencies, the values provided are ranges rather than specific costs. Specifically: 

Anticipated relocation clearing costs for the 1, 780 MHz-1,830 MHz band of $2.26 to 

$3.76 billion; and 

Anticipated relocation clearing costs for the 1,300 MHz-1,350 MHz band of $3.67 to 

$4.17 billion. 

The estimated cost ranges provided above are based on conservative assumptions due to the lack 

of information about the number of Federal systems remaining in the 1,780 MHz-1,850 MHz 

band, the amount of operations that can be shifted to the 1,830 MHz-1,850 MHz band, the 

number of Federal incumbent users who are only in the 1,830 MHz-1,850 MHz band (and that 

will not require relocation), and due to a lack of certainty on costs associated with 

accommodating the Defense Department's incumbent use of the 1,300 MHz-1,350 MHz band. 

Providing an approximation of Federal relocation costs within a conservative range should allow 

future detailed estimates to be reduced as more precision is provided on incumbent usage and 

relocation requirements. 

A. 1, 780 MHz-1 ,830 MHZ BAND 

Cost estimates for the 1,780 MHz-1,830 MHz band have been derived based on information 

gathered by NTIA in the 2011 timeframe. At that time, Federal agencies estimated it would 

require $18 billion to allow full relocation from the entire 1,755 MHz-1,850 MHz band. NTIA 

and the Federal agencies subsequently created more refined estimates for relocation of the lower 

25 MHz of that band, from 1,755 MHz-1,780 MHz, which was then auctioned as part of the 

92 CTJA has provided the analysis and estimates in this Appendix. I have reviewed the analysis, and it 

seems reasonable, but I am unable to independently verify the accuracy of these estimates. 

Consequently, I use them as provided. 

30 1 brattle .com 
121 


28453.081

A WS-3 auction. The resulting process for relocating Federal systems out of the lower 25 MHz 

officially began in October of 2015 and is now well underway. 93 Therefore, the portion of the 

initial $18 billion estimate that was dedicated to the 1,755 MHz-1,780 MHz band, as adjusted for 

the intervening developments, can be removed for purposes of making the current estimate. 94 

There are a variety of Federal incumbent operations within the 1,780 MHz-1,830 MHz band. 

The table below identifies each of these operations and, for each such operation, quantifies; the 

number of corresponding assignments prior to the A WS-3 auction; the number of those 

assignments relocated pursuant to the AWS-3 auction; the initial 2012 cost estimates for 

relocation of Federal systems out of the entire 95 MHz band, and updated cost estimates for 

relocation out of the lower 25 MHz (1,755 MHz-1,780 MHz); and, finally, the estimated 

relocation costs for the 1,780 MHz-1,830 MHz band: 

93 NTIA, "A WS-3 Transition." See b.lJ:]2$:Ii'i~'cYYYc'llLl~LQL!;Q'V.lL?tcll\VCt/ccLC>.~l.:Tiil11'litign. 

94 The cost estimate for the 1,755 MHz-1,780 MHz band was approximately $4.5 billion which is 

covered by revenues from the Commission's A WS-3 auction. NTIA, "Initial Estimated Costs and 

Tirnelines for the 1755-1780 MHz Band," 2014. See 

Letter to Torn Wheeler, FCC, from Lawrence E. Strickling, NTIA, 

"Notice of Estimated Relocation or Sharing Costs and Tirnelines for the 1695-1710 MHz and 1,755 

MHz-1,780 MHz Bands," 2014, Attachments B1 and B2. See 

31 I brattle .com 
122 


28453.082

Table C 1; Estimated Relocation Cost for the 1,780 MHz-1,830 MHz Band 

Federal Estimated 

Assignments 2012 Relocation Relocation Cost 

Federal Relocated from Costs for 1,755 1,755 MHz-1,780 for 1,780 MHzAssignments 1,755 MHz-1,780 MHz-1,850 MHZ MHz Relocation 1,830 MHz Band 

Operation (2012) MHz Band($ mm) Costs($ mm) ISmm) 

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] 

Fixed Point-to-Point Microwave 360 68 $186 $95 None 

Military Tactical Radio Relay 579 310 $160 $175 None 

Air Combat Training Systems 707 147 $4,500 $81 $1,000-$1,500 

Precision Guided Munitions 21 16 $518 $42 $5-$10 

Tracking, Telemetry, and Commanding 269 57 $2,350 $26 None (Sharing) 

Aeronautical Mobile Telemetry 514 187 $3,140 $485 $500-$1,000 

Video Survelllance 178 179 $5,097 $1,604 $500-$750 

Unmanned Aerial Systems 475 248 $1,511 $810 None {Sharing) 

Other DoD Systems 80 195 $364 $773+$485 other $250-$500 

costs 

Total 3,183 1,407 $17,826 $4,576 $2,255-$3,760 

Sources and Notes: 

[2): DoC, "An Assessment of the Viability of Accommodating Wireless Broadband in the 1,755-1,850 MHz Band; 2012, at Table 

2-1. {"NTIA, 1,755 MHz1,850 MHz Report"). 

[3): NTIA, "Initial Estimated Costs and Timelines for the 1755-1780 MHz Band," 2014, See 

_:l_V_liUJQ[ {"NTIA, AWS-3 Cost Estimates"). 

[4): NTIA, 1,755 MHz-1,850 MHz Report, at xi. 

(5]: NTIA1 AWS-3 Cost Estimates, at 1. The costs for Robotlcs were added to the costs of Other DoD Systems. 

Discussion of Cost Estimates 

As can be determined from the table above, NTIA and the Federal agencies have provided a great 

deal of historical data and relocation costs for the 1,755 MHz-1,850 MHz band. For each 

particular Federal incumbent use, below is a discussion of how the cost ranges provided in the 

table above were derived and what assumptions were used, 

Fixed Microwave. A variety of Federal incumbents have utilized the 1,755 MHz-1,850 

MHz band for point-to-point fixed microwave services, As part of the A WS-3 process, 

the 1,755 MHz-1,780 MHz band was repurposed and all the Federal operations were 

relocated at a cost of $95 million. Therefore, there should be no additional relocation 

costs for these systems, 

• Tactical Radio Relay (TRR). TRR systems have the capability to tune to other spectrum 

and were relocated almost entirely out of the 1,755 MHz-1,850 MHz band during the 

A WS-3 transition by means of an arrangement that was brokered with broadcasters to 

32 I bra!tle.com 
123 


28453.083

share the 2025-2210 MHz band. The costs expended for the A WS-3 transition exceeded 

the costs associated with the 2012 estimates for relocating all Federal assignments out of 

the entirety of the 1,755 MHz-1,850 MHz band. As such, the expectation is that there 

should not be additional costs to complete the relocation process for these systems as they 

simply have the capability to tune to new channels. 

• Air Combat Training Systems (ACTS). Unlike other systems, Air Combat Training 

Systems were not extensively relocated during the A WS-3 process. Only about 20% of 

systems were moved/relocated at a cost of approximately $80 million. Since the 2012 

estimate for complete relocation was approximately $4.5 billion, significant additional 

relocation costs are likely for this Federal usage. Based on expectation that ACTS will 

need to be redesigned to operate in the 4,400 MHz-4940 MHz or other aeronautical 

bands, an approximate cost for relocation would be from $1 to $1.5 billion. 

• Precision Guided Munitions (PGM). These systems, similar to TRR, were almost 

completely relocated during the A WS-3 transition. This fact is borne out by the fact that 

nearly 80% of Federal assignments were relocated at a cost of about $42 million. The 

expectation is that there may be a few remaining operations to be relocated to the 1,435 

MHz-1,525 MHz band at a cost of $5 to $10 million. 

• Tracking, Telemetry, and Commanding (TT&C). TT&C is used to manage and control 

Federal satellite systems. During the A WS-3 process, the commercial industry and 

Federal incumbents worked to create a detailed methodology to protect existing TT&C 

facilities while still permitting the use of the 1,755 MHz-1,780 MHz band for commercial 

wireless services without a need for relocation of satellite systems. For the 1,780 MHz1,830 MHz band, this same sharing framework should negate the need for any additional 

Federal relocation. 

• Aeronautical Mobile Telemetry (AMT). Approximately a third of the Federal 

assignments for AMT were relocated during the A WS-3 transition at a cost of 

approximately $484 million. The majority of the remaining AMT systems will need to 

retune to the 4,400 MHz-4,940 MHz band (or other aeronautical bands) at an estimated 

cost range from $500 million to $1 billion (or one to two times the cost of the initial 

relocation). 

33 I brattle.com 
124 


28453.084

Video Surveillance. While video surveillance systems had the highest cost of any system 

in the 2012 cost estimates, based on technical feasibility issues, it is expected that many of 

these systems will remain in the 1,830 MHz-1,850 MHz band rather than face relocation 

to another band. As a number of these systems were replaced/updated due to the A WS-3 

transition (as well as the AWS-1 transition, for the 1,710 MHz-1,755 MHz band), the 

expectation is that a large portion of this equipment already has the capability to retune 

to just the 1,830 MHz-1,850 MHz band. However, some systems will require relocation 

(would expect to use the 2,200 MHz-2,290 MHz band) and/or costs to retune to the 1,830 

MHz-1 ,850 MHz band. Based on the A WS-3 transition costs, would expect these costs in 

the range of $500 to $750 million (or roughly one-half to one-third of the previous costs). 

• Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS). The majority of these systems were transitioned 

during the A WS-3 process to the 2,025 MHz-2,110 MHz band. Those that remain have 

the ability to retune to the 1,830 MHz-1,850 MHz band as well as continuing to utilize 

the 2,025 MHz-2,110 MHz band. Therefore, there should be no estimated relocation 

costs for this equipment. 

• Other Systems (and Transition Costs). During past transitions (A WS-1 and A WS-3), 

there have been additional systems or transition costs that have arisen. There is therefore 

an estimate of $250 to $500 million to accommodate such unexpected systems or 

additional transition costs. 

B. 1,300 MHz-1 ,350 MHZ BAND 

To allow for the use of this spectrum by commercial systems, existing high-powered radar 

systems must relocated. 95 The primary entities utilizing radar systems in the 1,300 MHz-1,350 

MHz band are the FAA, and the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Commerce. 

There is an ongoing feasibility study for a Spectrum Efficient National Surveillance Radar 

(SENSR) that could be part of a potential reallocation opportunity for the band.96 Should this 

91 The U.S. Department of Commerce has found that the 1,300 MHz-1,350 MHz offered no opportunities 

for frequency/geographic/time sharing. DoC, "Quantitative Assessments of Spectrum Usage," 2016, at 

7. See 

96 /d. at 7-8. FAA, "SENSR Team Gets Green Light for Spectrum Analysis," 2017. See 

34 I brattle.com 
125 


28453.085

effort be successful, much of the radar operations in the 1,300 MHz-1,350 MHz could be 

relocated into other comparable spectrum, freeing up this 50 MHz for commercial operations. 

Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation has conducted a recent 

study on the FAA's Next Generation Air Transportation System and has determined that it would 

require approximately $2.67 billion to develop and implement the new radar system known as 

the Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) system.97 The ADS-B system would 

obviate the need for current ground-based radar system of Air Traffic Control (using the 1,300 

MHz-1,350 MHz band) with a satellite-based system for Air-Traffic Management (using other 

spectrum). However, in addition to radar for normal tracking, DoD will have an ongoing 

mission requirement to track non -cooperative targets that will require enhancements to the 

ADS-B system as well as relocation of systems in the 1 ,300 MHz-1 ,350 MHz band that provide 

other non-radar uses. There is no publicly available discussion of the costs to enhance ADS-B 

nor for the costs to relocate other DoD use of the 1,300 MHz-1,350 MHz band. However, 

consultation with DoD personnel indicates that an estimated cost range of $1 to $1.5 billion 

would be an acceptable approximation of potential relocation and transition costs. 

97 Office of Inspector General, FAA, Audit Report, "Total Costs, Schedules, and Benefits of FAA's 

NextGen Transformational Programs Remain Uncertain," at 5. See 

35 I bratfle.com 
126 


28453.086
127 


28453.087

November 15,2017 

The Honorable Marsha Blackburn 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Communications 

and Technology 

2266 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Representative Blackburn: 

For economic development, 5G technology is the way of our future. Hardin County is a 

regional draw for surrounding counties because of our robust commercial and healthcare 

industries. 

As mayor of a rural county in Western Tennessee, we face challenges every day; one of 

which is accessibility to the internet. Broadband is not readily available to all of our citizens. We 

have a K-8 school in Pickwith with limited download and upload capabilities, and we have a 

technology company that moved from Pickwith to Savannah to increase its internet capabilities. 

HMC, a county owned hospital, is the only hospital between Savannah and Memphis. 5G 

is paramount to be able to share medical test results and information with other providers in 

larger hospitals. 

Access to broadband and 5G is crucial for our continued growth. Thank you for your 

support of these technologies and your concern for rural Tennesseans. 

Regards, 

/S/ -- --

Kevin Davis 

Mayor 

Hardin County, Tennessee 
128 


28453.088

<!rnngrenn nf t~e lftniteb §taten 

Dantriugtou, ID<!t 20515 

November 7, 2017 

The Honorable Ajit Pai, Chairman 

Federal Communications Commission 

445 12th Street, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20554 

Dear Chairman Pai, 

We write to express serious concerns with the Federal Communications Commission's lack of 

coordination with local governments relating to the Commission's effotts to improve deployment of 

broadband internet service. We are concerned about local representation on the Broadband 

Deployment Advisory Committee (BDAC), particularly in the context of the Commission's ongoing 

wireless and wireline infrastructw·e proceedings. 1 

We believe the BDAC, as it is currently designed, lacks sufficient input from local governments and 

could result in recommendations that unduly preempt local authority. We therefore urge you to 

implement reforms to the BDAC to provide local governments with adequate opportunity to offer their 

perspectives regarding this important matter. We also urge you to enhance transparency by reforming 

the BDAC's internal procedures and ensure the public has ample opportunity to comment on any 

BDAC proposals before they are used as the basis or justification for Commission actions. 

Broadband intemet access is an essential service that American consumers and communities need to 

compete and fully participate in the 21" century. As Members of Congress who are committed to 

enacting policies that enhance broadband internet access across the U.S., we were encouraged by your 

decision in January to form the BDAC to advise the Commission on current regulatory barriers 

impeding the deployment of broadband. 

However, we are concerned that the composition of the 30-member BDAC relies too heavily on the 

input of industry voices and less on public officials who are responsible for protecting the public 

interest and who understand the issues and perspectives of local communities nationwide. Speaking 

directly to these concerns, a recent report by the Center for Public Integrity noted that: 

"More than three out of four seats on the BDAC are filled by business-friendly representatives 

from the biggest wireless and cable companies such as AT&T Inc., Com cast Corp., Sprint 

Corp., and TDS Telecom. Crown Castle International Corp., the nation's largest wireless 

1 In the Matter of Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment By Removing Bairiers to Infrastructure 

Investment, WT Docket No. 17-79; In the Matter of Accelerating Wire/ine Broadbr md Deployment by Removing 

Barriers to Infrastructure Development, WC Docket No. 17-84. 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPfR 
129 


28453.089

infrastructure company, and Southern Co., the nation's second-largest utility firm, have 

representatives on the panel. "2 

The same report found that of numerous local government representatives that applied to join the 

BDAC, only one was originally selected to serve on the 30-member committee. While two more local 

officials were later appointed to the BDAC, this constitutes only ten percent of the voting membership. 

This imbalanced roster does not adequately represent the broad array of voices whose input is 

necessary to conduct a reasoned and comprehensive analysis and develop inclusive solutions which 

can earn acceptance from a broader array of stakeholders. 

There is also the problem of the BDAC's lack of transparency and restri~tions on public access to the 

BDAC's working documents. We're concerned that the BDAC will serve as a vehicle to advance laws 

and policies that serve the needs of industry at the expense of the public interest. This is reflected in the 

language of the BDAC overview itself, which states the purpose of the Committee is to "eliminate 

regulatory barriers," -presuming that regulatory protections are an inherent obstruction- other than to 

examine or address regulatory policy through a more holistic approach. This premise happens to 

adhere closely to the longtime anti-regulatory efforts of the very interests who make up the 

overwhelming majority of the BDAC. Taken together, those facts underscore the need for a more 

transparent process to reassure stakeholders that the final proposals will have resulted from a fair and 

measured debate. 

In order to allow for a fair and balanced perspective of all stakeholders both on and off the BDAC who 

are committed to accelerating broadband deployment, we call on you to do the following: 

• Immediately expand representation of state and local government officials on the BDAC and 

all five of its working groups; 

• Make all meetings, submissions, and drafts of working documents relied upon by the BDAC 

and its working groups publicly available and accessible to allow for input from a broader 

group of stakeholders; 

• Provide the public with ample time to comment on recommendations and reports adopted by 

the BDAC before using those materials to inform, justifY, or guide Commission action; and 

• Refocus the work of the BDAC to create more industry accountability for increasing quality 

network coverage and lowering costs to all Americans, including in rural and low-income 

areas, instead of solely focusing on tying the hands of state and local governments. 

We believe these reforms are critical to ensuring the BDAC incorporates diverse and balanced input 

that will ultimately lead to policies that promote the increased deployment of broadband Internet 

service in a manner that is consistent with the Commission's statutory obligation to serve the public 

interest. We're concerned that the current composition and operation of the BDAC and aggressive 

time line pursued by your office will undermine the legitimacy of any eventual recommendations if the 

concerns we have raised here are not promptly addressed. 

2 Blake Dodge, FCC packs broadband advisory group with big telecom firms, trade groups, The Center for 

Public Integrity (Aug. II, 20 17), https://www.publicintegrity.org/20 17/08111/21 057/fcc-packs-broadbandadvisory-group-big-telecom-firms-trade-groups. 
130 


28453.090

Thank you for your attention to this important request, and we look forward to your timely response. 

Sincerely, (/ 

- --><... 

'·/Ann Me~ 

a 

~G' ./"'s 

of 

}h' 

Congress 

oo ' d~ // // ./f"~- ~$-~. / << 

"RoKh • 

rry c erney 

Memb " f Congress , 

.· 1 / .· .. ··xi: (. .. ~t~MM:rd Jeis~lrowk~ / 

!yfefber of Congress . 

cc: The Honorable Mignon Clyburn, Commissioner, FederakCommul\icaJi~ns 

Commission · 

The Honorable Michael O'Rielly, Commissioner, Federal Communications 

Commission 

The Honorable Jessica Rosenworcel, Commissioner, Federal Communications 

Commission 

The Honorable Brendan Carr, Commissioner, Federal Communications 

Commission 
131 


28453.091

GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

Mr. Chris Pearson 

President 

50 Americas 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

(;ongress of tbe mntteb .i>tates 

j!'ouiie of l\cprciientati!Jeii 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HousE OFFICE BuiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 Majority \202) 225-2927 

Mmority (202) 225··3641 

December 13,2017 

1750 ll2th Avenue, N.E.; Suite 8220 

Bellevue, W A 98004 

Dear Mr. Pearson: 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology on 

Thursday, November 16, 2017, to testify at the hearing entitled "The Race to 50 and its Potential to 

Revolutionize American Competitiveness." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains 

open for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the record, which are 

attached. The format of your responses to these questions should be as follows: (1) the name of the 

Member whose question you are addressing, (2) the complete text of the question you are addressing in 

bold, and (3) your answer to that question in plain text. 

To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions with a 

transmittal letter by the close of business on Friday, January 5, 2018. Your responses should be mailed to 

Evan Viau, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House Office 

Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed to Evan.Viau@mail.house.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

~ 

Sincerely, 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

cc: The Honorable Michael F. Doyle, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Communications and 

Technology 

Attachment 
132 


28453.092

ta~ ... J 

~Cfli<, 

1750 1121

h Avenue, N.E. 

Suite B220 

Bellevue, WA 98004 

The Honorable Marsha Blackburn 

Chairman 

January 5, 2018 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Blackburn: 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on Communications and 

Technology at the hearing, "The Race to SG and its Potential to Revolutionize American 

Competitiveness." Please find enclosed my response to the additional question from 

Representative Bilirakis for the record, formatted pursuant to your request. 

Thank you again for the chance to give the Subcommittee my perspective on the importance of 

making globally-harmonized spectrum available for SG, so the U.S. is positioned to lead on this 

impactful, revolutionizing technology. 

Enclosure 

Sincerely, 

Chris Pearson 

President 

5G Americas 
133 


28453.093

Answers to Additional Questions for the Record 

The Honorable Gus Bilirakis 

1. As discussed, the FCC has opened an inquiry for the possible use of mid-band 

spectrum, particularly the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz band. Satellite companies currently make 

use of these frequencies. Do you have any thoughts on how to quickly and efficiently 

proceed with 5G in this band in light of these incumbent users? 

Answer: The 3.7-4.2 GHz band (called the C-Band by satellite companies) includes spectrum 

that is being reviewed in Asian and European markets for 5G. Accordingly, 5G Americas has 

noted its interest to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 3.7-4.2 GHz being 

repurposed for licensed mobile broadband. However, because there are satellite incumbents in 

the band (receive earth stations), sharing mechanisms that protect satellite incumbents and uses 

while still permitting some terrestrial mobile usc in the band should be explored. The FCC's 

rules should be revised to promote efficiency. 

5G Americas believes there is the potential for some dynamic sharing of the band, given the 

coordinated nature of the earth stations in the bands. The FCC should take further steps to 

investigate flexible use, slatting with conducting a rigorous audit of C-Band use, and the 

interference susceptibility of such uses, and working with industry to develop protocols for 

interference tests in the lab and in real world environments. Once the range of uses is fully 

understood and characterized, workable sharing mechanisms should be explored that would 

allow for terrestrial use of the band. 

5G Americas would support rule changes designed to de-authorize satellite facilities that arc no 

longer in use. Further understanding the extent of actual C-Band use may ultimately allow the 

FCC to adopt measures that would permit more efficient shared use of the band among existing 

services. 

With respect to other incumbents, the FCC stated in its Mid-Band Notice of Inquiry that there is 

limited incumbent usc of the 3.7-4.2 GHz for fixed services like microwave, and that usc has 

been declining steeply over the last two decades as operators migrate to fiber or other spectrum 

bands. Incumbents' relocation could be paid for through winning bidders' auction proceeds for 

access to the band. As a globally harmonized band for 5G, 3.7 GHz could be very valuable at 

auction as it will offer coverage, capacity, roaming and economies of scale. For fixed services 

with current stations in the band, relocation to another band entirely, such as 7.1-8.4 GHz, may 

be an appropriate solution, paid for out of auctions proceeds. 

Because the 3.7-4.2 GHz band is adjacent to the 3550- 3700 MHz band, already identified by the 

FCC and a number of other countries' regulators for mobile broadband, the 3.7-4.2 GHz band 

is particularly of interest to 5G Americas for licensed broadband service to efficiently serve the 

connectivity needs of American citizens. 
134 


28453.094

GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

Dr. Coleman Bazelon 

Principal 

The Brattle Group 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

<!ongtcss of tbe mniteb ~tates 

j!'oufSc of 1\cprcfScntatt\Jcs 

COMMITIEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HousE OFFICE BuiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 Majori:y (202) 225-292"1 

Minority (202) 225-3641 

December !3, 2017 

1800 M Street, N.W.; Suite 700 North 

Washington, DC 20036 

Dear Dr. Bazelon: 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology on 

Thursday, November 16, 2017, to testifY at the hearing entitled "The Race to 5G and its Potential to 

Revolutionize American Competitiveness." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains 

open for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the record, which are 

attached. The format of your responses to these questions should be as follows: (I) the name of the 

Member whose question you are addressing, (2) the complete text of the question you are addressing in 

bold, and (3) your answer to that question in plain text. 

To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions with a 

transmittal letter by the close of business on Friday, January 5, 2018. Your responses should be mailed to 

Evan V iau, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Ray bum House Office 

Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed to Evan.Viau@mail.house.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

~ 

Sincerely, 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

cc: The Honorable Michael F. Doyle, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Communications and 

Technology 

Attachment 
135 


28453.095

January 5, 2018 

Evan Viau 

Legislative Clerk 

Committee on Energy & Commerce 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

USPS and email to: 

THE Brattle GROUP 

Re: Communications and Technology Subcommittee hearing 

Dear Mr. Viau: 

Please see my response provided herein to the requested questions for the record from the November 16, 

2017, Communications and Technology Subcommittee heating entitled, "The Race to 5G and its 

Potential to Revolutionize American Competitiveness." 

The Honorable Greg Walden 

Does blanket extension of FCC auction authority derive the most value from spectrum auctions and 

incentivize additional auctions. that unlock commercial spectrum? Or is it preferable for Congress to 

authorize specific auctions of specific spectrum bands? 

Answer to Mr. Walden 

The FCC requires authority to hold spectrum auctions. Historically, the estimated revenues as~_ociated 

with such authorizations have provided an impetus for Congress to direct that specific frequencies are 

made available for auction. Once blanket authority is authorized, the incentives for Congress to 

authorize specific reallocations can be blunted. Consequently, more spectrum is ultimately likely to be 

reallocated, and more value generated, by authorizing specific auctions of specific bands, as opposed to 

granting blanket auction authority. 

The FCC effectively uses its blanket auction authority to assign licenses in many bands, not all of them 

large high-dollar auctions. It would be overly burdensome for Congress to specifically authorize each of 

these smaller auctions. Consequently, authorizing blanket authority for auctions expected to raise 

revenues under some threshold would preserve the FCC's ability to effectively manage spectrmn, but 

without diminishing the incentives to facilitate larger spectrum reallocations. 

!800 M Street NW, Suite 700 North 

Washington, DC 20036 USA 

+ l 202.955,5050 

+ 1.202.955.5059 

office@brattle.com 

brattle.com 

BOSTON NEW YORK SAN fRANCISCO WASHINGTON TORONTO .ONDON MADRID ROME SYDNEY 
136 


28453.096

Page2 

The Honorable Gus Bilirakis 

As discussed, the FCC has opened an inquiry for the possible use of mid-band spectrum, particularly the 

3.7 to 4.2 GHz band. Satellite companies currently make use of these frequencies. Do you have any 

thoughts on how to quickly and efficiently proceed with SG in this band in light of these incumbent 

users? 

Answer to Mr. Bilirakis 

I have investigated this band on behalf of some of the interested parties and my research found that 

reallocating some or all of the 3. 7 GHz to 4.2 GHz band to support SG services is expected to create 

significant value. Incumbent users have made investments and planned business operations based on 

legitimate rights and expectations about the availability of the 3.7 GHz to 4.2 GHz band. Any transition 

of the frequencies in this band that does not include the incumbent users as active partners is likely to 

get bogged down in legal and reguiatory proceedings. Consequently, a framework that includes 

incumbent and new users of the C band as partners is more likely to efficiently and quickly reallocate 

these frequencies. 

The Honorable Billy Long 

1. Unlike the U.S., many other countries competing in the race to SG don't auction their spectrum 

- it is simply allocated to commercial users by their government. How does the U.S. method of 

competition affect our ability to lead in SG? 

a. What are the long-term gains by auctioning spectrum? 

2. As a former analyst at the Congressional Budget Office, how can we maximize the value of 

limited spectrum for bidders at auction? 

3. All we identify more spectrum to develop a solid formation for SG deployment, how should the 

FCC think about pending proposals to bring mid-band spectrum to market quickly? Specifically, 

I'm interested in your view about the potential ofL-band spectrum to support an advanced 

satellite-terrestrial network providing mission-critical connectivity for SG and loT applications. 

Answer to Mr. Long 

Auctions are an effective and efficient way to assign frequencies to specific users because when properly 

implemented they get frequencies to those who can most productively use them as quickly as 

possible. To the extent auctions also raise revenue they can be helpful in facilitating allocations to new 

THE BrattleGRour 
137 


28453.097

Page3 

uses, including making additional frequencies available for SG. The use of auctions in the U.S. has 

facilitated our historic leadership in wireless by making frequencies available to entities determined to 

develop valuable wireless networks. The same benefits should be expected in auctioning frequencies for 

SG. 

As with any scarce resource, maximizing its value requires putting it to its highest valued uses and with 

the least delay possible. In the case of spectrum needed for SG services, private and public interests are 

largely aligned, suggesting putting the frequencies into private hands quickly through an auction would 

be expected to maximize value. As with other bands sought after for SG, this is also true of L-band 

spectrum. As I noted in my Testimony, the central innovation of SG is one of architecture, integrating 

different spectrum bands to meet different needs. In that context, any action to facilitate an advanced 

satellite-terrestrial network in the mid-band would be expected to add desirable complementary 

spectrum and services that would make a SG and loT network more robust and valuable. 

Sincerely, 

Coleman Bazelon 

CB/cmm 

!HE BrattleGRouP 
138 


28453.098

GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

FRANK PALLONE, JR .. NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

\!l:ongress of tbe mntteb ~tates 

~ousc of ll\cprcscntatibcs 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HousE OFFICE BuiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 

The Honorable Jonathan Adelstein 

President and CEO 

Wireless Infrastructure Association 

500 Montgomery Street; Suite 500 

Alexandria, VA 22314 

Dear Mr. Adelstein: 

Majority (202) 225-7927 

Minonty {202l 225·-3641 

December 13, 2017 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology on 

Thursday, November 16, 2017, to testify at the hearing entitled "The Race to 50 and its Potential to 

Revolutionize American Competitiveness." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains 

open for ten business days to penn it Members to submit additional questions for the record, which are 

attached. The format of your responses to these questions should be as follows: (I) the name of the 

Member whose question you are addressing, (2) the complete text of the question you are addressing in 

bold, and (3) your answer to that question in plain text. 

To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions with a 

transmittal letter by the close of business on Friday, January 5, 2018. Your responses should be mailed to 

Evan Viau, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House Office 

Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed to Evan.Viau@mail.house.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

Sincerely, 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

cc: The Honorable Michael F. Doyle, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Communications and 

Technology 

Attachment 
139 


28453.099

WlAriJJ 

Additional Questions for the Record 

The Honorable Gus Bilirakis 

Wireless 

Infrastructure 

Association 

l. An Accenture report concluded that municipalities con attract investment across 

industries by facilitation SG infrastructure. As you mention in your testimony, a 

handful of states, including Florida, have taken action to quicken SG deployment. 

Have these states begun to see that benefits of their actions in telecom operator 

investments? 

a. Is that any state action that specifically stand out as a model that we should 

consider for federal action? 

In 2017, nearly two dozen bills were either enacted or introduced in state legislatures that would 

remove regulatory barriers, reduce delays, and rationalize fees for wireless broadband 

deployment. As more states enact sound, pro-investment legislation, the pace of 5G deployment 

will continue to speed up. WIA members report that states with streamlined and expedited siting 

policies will be at or ncar the top of the list for the rollout of 5G networks. 

For example, AT&T plans to launch 5G Evolution in parts of Minneapolis in the coming months, 

including areas near the host stadium for the Super Bowl. Minnesota recently enacted a 5G bill 

that was supported by the wireless industry. As is evident in states across the country, proinvestment policies will attract greater, and faster, investment. 

These bills enacted by states promote responsible deployment, creating height limits and other 

policies incentivizing deployment in specifics areas, including the right-of-way and on existing 

infrastructure. Specifically, helpful state laws would provide timelines and deadlines for local 

review of wireless facility application. It would also prohibit municipalities from instituting a 

moratorium on new wireless facilities and charging review fees not required for other types of 

commercial development. These provisions promote responsible deployment and will help 

unleash the potential of 5G in communities across the country. WIA fully expects that states that 

enact supportive legislation will sec greater investment in wireless broadband networks that will 

benefits their citizens and enhance economic growth. 

500 Montgomery St.. STE 500, Alexandria, VA 22314 

T 800.759.0300 • F 703.836.1608 • WIA.ORG 
140 


28453.100

GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

Mr. David Broecker 

CEO 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

({ongre~~ of tbc mtnttcb $tate~ 

r!)ousc of l\cprcsentatibcs 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HousE OFFICE BuiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 MaJority (202} 225-2927 

Minority (202) 225~3641 

December 13,2017 

Indiana Biosciences Research Institute 

6827 West 96th Street 

Zionsville, IN 46077 

Dear Mr. Broecker: 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology on 

Thursday, November 16, 2017, to testify at the hearing entitled "The Race to 50 and its Potential to 

Revolutionize American Competitiveness." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains 

open for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the record, which are 

attached. The format of your responses to these questions should be as follows: (I) the name of the 

Member whose question you are addressing, (2) the complete text of the question you are addressing in 

bold, and (3) your answer to that question in plain text. 

To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions with a 

transmittal letter by the close of business on Friday, January 5, 2018. Your responses should be mailed to 

Evan Viau, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House Office 

Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed to Evan.Viau@mail.house.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

cc: The Honorable Michael F. Doyle, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Communications and 

Technology 

Attachment 
141 

Æ 


28453.101

The Honorable Gus Bilirakis 

Your testimony focuses on how SG improves quality of care. Healthcare affordability continues 

to be a major concern for my constituents. A Deloitte study suggests that telehealth programs 

can have a 50% reduction in medical costs associated with chronic heart failure. A separate poll 

states that most healthcare executives believe SG will reduce patient costs. Can you tease out 

how SG will equate to better health outcomes at lower cost? 

This is very good question. Unlike previous improvements to wireless technology, SG represents 

a transformational change that will enable significant gains (i.e.; orders of magnitude) for the 

transmission of data and information. Because healthcare is extremely data- and informationrich, SG technology will create new opportunities to deliver care remotely. This means a patient 

doesn't need to go to their doctor or to the hospital every time they need care. 

You reference the Deloitte study regarding chronic heart failure {CHF) as an example of how 

telehealth programs have reduced medical costs. This is a great example of what is possible. 

Patients with CHF need to be monitored frequently to ensure that they do not develop 

complications to their disease or to treatment. Rather than having a patient come back to the 

doctor's office to be monitored, telehealth enables the patient to be monitored at home. Every 

morning, a patient can have their blood pressure, heart rate, oxygen levels, and overall body 

weight measured through at-home devices and this information is automatically sent to the 

doctor or nurse for their review. If they see a problem, then they will ask the patient to come to 

the hospital or office. This is only possible if the infrastructure exists to send this amount of 

information safely, securely, and effectively. SG technology enables this to be possible. 

Other diseases where telemedicine is showing promise include diabetes, obesity, stroke, cancer, 

asthma and COPD, and addiction treatment. All these examples present opportunities to deliver 

better health outcomes at lower costs and improved quality of life for patients and their care 

givers, including family members. 

Thank you for your interest in this important topic.