those proposals from the white house as a starting point for negotiations? >> sure, it is a starting point. a lot of ideas like arming teachers, training them to use firearms and weapons, while it is supported by republicans, it's still a really controversial idea. unless the president puts a ton of his political capital behind this idea, uses his bully pulpit to push for this -- the other issue the white house called for is, of course, strengthening background checks through the fix nix. that puts a little heat on them, maybe. we'll have to see. >> we've been speaking with melanie zanona reporting at the hill, and she's on twitter as well. thanks for the update. >> thanks for having me. the federal communications commission up dated a national broadband match which gives detailed information that allows users to see which broadband providers have in their area. broadband infrastructure needs in the u.s., particularly in rural areas.

the senate commerce science and transportation committee is chaired by senator john thune. good morning, good morning.

this hearing of subcommittee will come to order. today the subcommittee will kick off a series of hearings in the commerce committee on rebuilding america's infrastructure. we start here in the communications subcommittee with a focus on how to advance broadband deployment in infrastructure legislation. this congress. i'm glad to convene this hearing with my colleague ranking member schatz. broadband connectivity is the digital engine driving investment, innovation, and productivity in virtually every economic sector in the united states. over the past decade there have been unprecedented advancements in health care, agriculture, transportation and many other industries because of increasingly yubiquitous broadband connections. these connections are helping reduce costs, increase

efficiencies, and opportunities for growth. continuing the success of these developments, and maintaining the nation's global leadership in technological innovation are goals that depend on widespread access to a reliable high speed broadband connection. although we have made significant progress on wireless and satellite broadband deployments, more needs to be done. there's still a disparity in broadband deployment across the country, particularly in rural america. in its 2018 broadband deployment, the fcc concluded far too many americans remain unable to access high speed broadband internet access. and we have much work to do. a direct quote from the federal communications commission. to that end i'm greatly encouraged by the president's support for programs directed toward increasing broadband

infrastructure deployment in rural areas. today i hope to discuss with our witnesses how congress can most effectively and efficiently deploy broadband infrastructure to unserved communities. using lessons learned earlier from broadband projects, president trump's infrastructure proposal is an opportunity to get broadband to communities that truly need it. this process should start with collecting standardized and accurate data. about where the reliable fixed and mobile broadband already exists, and where it does not, both in mississippi and around the country. this is critical to delivering broadband to rural communities that lack service, whether that be through infrastructure legislation, or existing federal programs, like phase 2 of the mobility fund. inaccurate information of where broadband exists would only

exacerbate the digital divide and leave millions of rural americans further behind. we don't have accurate data yet. and i hope we can discuss that today in the hearing. as we seek to close the broadband gap in rural america, we should also plan for the next generation of broadband, such as 5g, the availability of 5g communication networks promises to transform the way we experience the internet because of the projected capacity speed and reliability to make next generation broadband a reality and positioning the united states so it can win the global race to 5g. we should modernize outdated rules that delay and add unnecessary costs to broadband infrastructure deployment. a bipartisan piece of legislation that i introduced called the streamlining permitting to enable deficient deployment of broadband infrastructure, or speed act

does just that. inaction on our part would take the next generation of jobs, innovation and investment out of the united states and put us at an economic disadvantage with respect to our global competitors. clearly, as the fcc concluded in its report that i have just quoted, there is much work to be done. we are almost one fifth of the way through the 21st century. we ought to be able to accelerate the deployment of next generation broadband, get all americans connected now, and close the digital divide once and for all. i'm told that senator schatz has no opening statement. and i think that's because he's concluded that i so completely covered the subject in my opening statement. so we'll get right to our witnesses that include the honorable gary resnik, mayor of willton manors, florida. oh, i see, so the other part of that statement was that senator nelson wishes to make an opening

statement. after i introduce our panel, we'll certainly allow that. although, and i'm crushed now that the conclusion wasn't that i had said all that could possibly be said. mayor resnik will be joined by mr. steve berry, chief executive officer of the carriers association, robert brew, and brad gillen, executive vice president, the wireless association, and mr. mike romano, senior vice president for policy in tca, the rural broadband association. and the chair now recognizes senator nelson, the ranking member of the full committee. >> mr. chairman, i do appreciate it. as you know, florida has many parts, as mississippi, rural

areas where we desperately need advanced broadband networks. we do have advanced networks in our state, but in rural areas, such as -- and we have counties named gill crist, levy, even some cities have little to no access to quality and affordable internet service. and in those areas, students often lack the ability to complete their homework, small businesses cannot compete, and social and political engagement is hampered. we have to close this digital divide, and leave no area of this country behind. that's why we've wanted to

include significant direct investments in broadband deployment in any federal legislature, legislation that is with the subject of infrastructure. because the administration's proposal is simply inadequate on broadband expansion. it is incumbent on this committee to work together in a bipartisan way to provide these critical investments. everyone from those of us in the senate, to our mayors, local officials, we want americans to benefit from the availability of robust broadband. building these networks has always raised a number of very sensitive issues, from historic

preservation and environmental concerns to state and local land use policies to tribal sovereignty, and national security. and the highly anticipated 5g wireless technology brings with it networks that will require installation of much denser wireless infrastructure made up of many more small cell facilities. so we ought to have reasoned discussion about these regulatory issues. that reasoned discussion cannot begin and end with a wiping away of key laws and regulations meant to protect our fellow citizens, and important federal state, local and tribal interests. steps that the fcc seems keen to

take. and that discussion must include fair and fulsome input from all affected parties, including states and localities, and that's why i'm pleased that mayor resnik is here, he is here for a repeat performance. and he's going to provide the committee with the important local government perspective. and i hope that all stakeholders, including those represented before us today can work together to help find ways to effectively balance these competing concerns about citing construction broadband facilities and increasing demand for fast and reliable broadband services. mr. chairman, i thank you. and thank you, senator nelson. mayor resnik, we'll begin with you. i understand you represent a city of about 11,000, just off i-95. is that correct? >> that is correct.

we are broward county, florida. >> mr. chairman, they're not far from the very, very terrible tragic shooting in parkland. >> that is correct, senator, thank you. two of my colleagues that i work very closely with have children that attend that school. fortunately they were fine but they will probably be dealing with the trauma for the rest of their lives. we do appreciate your sentiments with respect to that. >> well, and please do express our concern, and good wishes to all of the people who were involved. >> thank you. >> and to the citizens of your city. >> thank you. >> proceed with your testimony. thank you for coming. >> thank you so much, chairman. chairman wicker, schatz, senator, thank you for your service for floridians. i am gary resnik. i have the honor of serving on the board of the national league of cities, and chairing its

information technology and communications committee. i want to thank you for the opportunity to share some perspective from city leaders across the country. and for calling attention to the importance of broadband infrastructure deployment. i would also like to recognize my fellow city officials who are here today. many of my friends from florida travelled here for nlc's congressional city conference to emphasize the need for infrastructure. no one cares more than local government. we recognize everyone needs affordable, fast internet. cities are not the reason millions of americans lack the necessary infrastructure in their communities, today i would like to outline the challenges cities face in ensuring that all americans have access to affordable broadband. i would like to offer policy solutions to tackle these challenges. first, the cities continue to face preemption by states and

the federal government. many states do not allow cities to build municipal networks, or even to negotiate directly with broadband providers to ensure that all neighborhoods are served. congress must preserve local authority and allow us to do what we do best, solve problems for our residents. second, too many neighborhoods, particularly less dense and lower income areas, have a lack of fiber investment. in rural communities, they're being left totally behind by new leaps in technology. it is simply not sufficiently profitable for private broadband providers to build in many cities and towns. leaving residents with inadequate options or none at all. for too many households, a broadband subscription is simply not affordable. the public libraries in my city are packed after school with children looking for a place to get online to do their homework. to address these gaps, congress should strengthen existing programs to expand broadband

access and to tackle federal barriers. i would like to thank this committee for its work or the mobile now act and the big one legislation which eliminates some federal barriers to deployment. finally, preemption of local authority over small cell deployment is bad public policy. residents and businesses are being asked to subsidize the private sector's deployment of small cell infrastructure, supposedly for 5g. this technology does not even exist, more importantly it will not solve our problems of rural access and digital inclusiveness. small cell technology is called small, not because it is physically small, but because the signal covers a small area. this makes small cells a good technology for improving signal and profitable downtown areas, but terrible for covering communities with few potential customers. the federal government should work with both local governments and the city, an example that does not work is the fcc's broadband deployment advisory committee.

it continues to be structurally dominated by industry. it recently completed a draft model state code that lacked input from a single local official. finally, the federal government must require responsible industry practices. in the recent hurricane season experienced by my community and hundreds of others around the country, we lost power and communications because so many of our utilities are installed aboveground. restoring communications was a challenge, as cable and wireless providers were slow to assist with recovery efforts. companies enjoying access to the incredible valuable public rights of way should be good citizens, particularly in times of emergency. on behalf of the city and national league of cities, i want to thank the committee for inviting me to participate in this hearing, and the cities are committed to ensuring that americans benefit from advances in next generation broadband. thank you, and i look forward to your questions. thank you, mr. mayor. >> chairman wicker, ranking

member schatz and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify on ways to preserve and expand mobile broadband in rural america. i'm here on behalf of the cca, representing nearly a hundred wireless carriers, as well as the companies that make up the wireless ecosystem to say thank you, thank you to you and your colleagues for making broadband services in rural america a priority. like this committee, many and every cca member has an interest in closing the digital divide for communities, families and businesses. on this day, 34 years ago, the very firsthand held cell phone was sold for just under $4,000. yes, wireless has come a long way since the brick. we depend on mobile broadband coverage on every aspect of life, from jobs to public health, safety. tech companies recently announced plans to deploy 4g mobile broadband on the moon, yet too many in rural america are unserved or underserved.

in 2016, americans consumed 1.8 gigabytes of data per month using wireless connections. this is more than 7,000 times the total of information storied in the library of congress each month. wireless usage will grow another five fold. to keep up, to ensure rural areas are not left behind, congress should act on three key issues. provide sufficient and predictable funding for high cost areas. two, base decisions on reliable data, and three, streamline policies to cite equipment and access spectrum. rural america must have mobile broadband as a centerpiece. the 2009 stimulus package failed to fund mobility. we must include specific funding to support, preserve and expand deployment where private capital alone is not enough to make the business case for broadband service. as congress appropriates funds for infrastructure, significant amounts should be made available for mobile broadband deployment.

funding sources for broadband should ensure this committee, with its vast experience, maintains jurisdiction and oversight on over how the funding will be efficiently and effectively spent. additional broadband funding is a must, but it does not replace the long-term need for ongoing universal service funds. the fcc's implementation of the usf must meet congressional mandates for reasonably comparable services. in urban and rural areas, and provide sufficient and predictable support. i thank senators hassan and -- for addressing this issue in their legislation. the fcc should define what is reasonably comparable service, and design usf has wane gretzky to skate where the puck is going, not where it's been. should not base on ready, fire, aim approach. current data and mobile broadband coverage does not

reflect the reality on the ground. you know the job is not done. i agree with concerns my members of this committee last month that a recent fcc eligibility map misrepresents the existence of wireless service. it is so flawed that a challenge process may not be sufficient to correct it. flts in this regard, i thank -- acknowledging the critical need for accurate, reliable data. whether appropriated resources or ongoing support for the mobility fund, too, funding distributions must be made on informed decisions. third, deployment and spectrum, today's carriers faced a lot of red tape to upgrade towers and small cells. i thank the committee for its steadfast focus, and strong support to streamline the process. including the mobile now, the speed act, dig once, and rural deployment act. we also encourage the fcc to act

swiftly to vote to update procedures for modern deployment. remember, small cells are not just for big cities. just last week i was with fcc commissioner carr in shenandoah valley examining how small cells and deployments are wringing new latest services to rural america. all carriers need access to high, midand low band spectrum, the invisible infrastructure, if you will. the fcc should move quickly to auction -- including high band spectrum, for low band access, we must repack the 600 -- improved 30-month timeline. if additional funds are needed, then they should be made available immediately. and finally, access to broadband is the opportunity equalizer in the modern mobile economy. policies established by congress and implemented by the fcc will determine whether rural americans are part of the new economy, or will they be left behind in the pursuit of a

5g iot world. >> thank you, mr. berry. mr. boon. >> chairman wicker, ranking member schatz, and members of the senate committee on science, transportation, i'm robert debroux, director of public affair in telecom. thank you for the opportunity to share insights on how congress can close the digital divide in rural america. i'm not only testifying today on behalf of tds, but also as a member of itta, a washington, d.c. industry association that includes tds as a member. tds owns 108 separate telephone companies that provide broadband, voice and video service. we serve a mix of rural and urban areas, such as the bottom of the grand canyon and islands off the coast of maine and michigan. as well as suburbs of larger cities, madison, wisconsin and nashville, tennessee. we also serve communities such as big creek, calhoun city, and sand hill in mississippi.

tds has a long history of building and maintaining robust voice and data networks in its service areas. recently the administration released the framework for its infrastructure initiative which includes a broadband component. unfortunately the framework does not include dedicated funding for broadband projects in unserved and underserved parts of the country. the administration's infrastructure plan appears to set forth a process whereby rural broadband projects will compete against other infrastructure projects, for example, roads, sewers and airports for $40 billion in state administered block grants. tds and itta do not think this is the most efficient and effective way to provide the dollars needed to close the digital divide and move the nation closer to rural and urban comparability. therefore, congress should specifically designate funds for broadband deployment and ensure the money it designates follows the course that other successful programs to date have followed. those programs which include most importantly theificati --

proven track record of success in turning funds earmarked for broadband into broadband networks. the fcc, through the usf, can maximize the impact of any infrastructure funding bill minimizing waste. the fcc has programs in place to make sure there are specific tangible obligations with associated funding and that funding goes through the appropriate areas, for example areas not already serviced by another broadband provider. one such program created by the fcc in december 2016 is the alternative connect america cost model program. this program allows rate of return carriers the option to receive usf support, to serve high cost rural areas based on a forward looking cost model in return for their agreement to maintain broadband in a specified number of households with service requirements. tds, along with 206 other rural carriers opted into the 10-year

program. in this program tds will receive over $75 million annually to provide broadband to 160,000 households in 25 states. tds has already begun the process of deploying fiber deep into its network with this money, thinks improving broadband in various locations, including wisconsin and mississippi. other companies in arkansas have used the funding to deploy fiber closer to companies. in nebraska, great plains communications have used the dollars to increase broadband capacity to schools and libraries in ponca, nebraska. hundreds of additional examples of this funding being used to bring broadband to consumers in rural america. congress can leverage this program as well as the legacy funding mechanisms in the high cost program to increase broadband deployment to rural america by instructing the fcc to increase the high cost fund

budget and provide the funding necessary for that increase. thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and i look forward toe answering any questions you may have. >> thank you very, very much, mr. debroux. mr. gillen. >> thank you for including the wireless industry as part of this important conversation. we particularly thank this committee for making sure that broadband is not only a national priority, it's an infrastructure priority. from our standpoint, there are two core challenges we face together. the first is the digital divide. despite billions invested and years of work, there are too many americans from northern counties in new hampshire, west virginia, i could do across the dais today, too many americans that don't have access to broadband that we all rely on today. we're working with you on your efforts to close the digital divide and providing more opportunities for americans. the second challenge, the chairman alluded to in his

opening, goes to global competitiveness. we meet the world today in 4g wireless. we are on the cusp of 5g, the fifth generation of wireless, and we are in a race, the head of nokea, we are neck and neck with china. china wants to win this race. they've seen what u.s. leadership has meant for us. they're investing billions. they have over a hundred active trials ongoing today. we like to win too. we have trials ongoing in all four national carriers have announced accelerated deployments of 5g years ahead of schedule starting later this year. in all, the wireless industry is estimated to expend $275 billion of its own private capital -- to we ask you for help to modernize the rules to reflect the new technology.

5g is fundamentally different as a number of witnesses alluded to. built with these, small cells, we'll have 800,000 of these in place by 2026. to put that in perspective, over the last 30 plus years, we've installed 150,000 total cell towers across the country. so in about a third of the time, we're going to need five times the amount of infrastructure. daunting task. and right now, the good news is, a device like this only takes an hour or two to install. the challenge we face is it can take a year or two to gain approval. that's because at every level of government, local, state and federal, these get treated as if they were 275-foot tower along the side of the highway. with your leadership, these new networks will have new rules, and there are a number of proposals before this committee that address the core impediments that make us very optimistic. the first, chairman wicker, and

senator cortez masto have the speed act, which would update federal regulation for these types of devices, the common sense proposal would slash the costs to deploy these by a third and would shave months off deploying each of these. senator -- next turning to senator schatz and senator thune working on local side, how to update the rules and the guidance to local communities. it began in 1992, '96, and most recently 2012, putting the guardrails around local action. senator schatz's proposal addresses proper rate structure, the timelines for devices like this while preserving important local authority and retaining that authority as it should. senator heller and -- are working on federal lands, and making sure the federal assets, particularly in rural america, to extend broadband.

i can't have a conversation about infrastructure on wireless without talking about spectrum. senator hassan and senator gardener's airways act is a central proposal to the future of our -- if we want to win the race, that gives us a road map on the spectrum we'll need to do so. if we get these policies right, 5g will be transformative. it will unlock telehealth and precision agriculture, and connected cars on the internet of things, possibility of jobs, we project three jobs in downtown honolulu, 3 million across the country. jackson, mississippi gaining $140 million of local economy in the next ten years, thanks to 5g, 500 billion across the country. we're excited about what it can do and excited about your leadership. working together this year, we can help close the digital divide and win the 5g race

together. thank you for your time, look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much, mr. gillen, and mr. romano, you're recognized. >> good morning, thank you for the chance to testify today. ntca and our 850 small rural telecom rural broadband members are making great strides to reach hard to serve areas in the most rural parts of the united states. as everyone has noted, there's much more to do to deploy and sustain networks. we're eager to be part of a conversation to develop comprehensive coordinated strategies. my testimony highlightself principles and lessons learned. these are based upon members' efforts serving rural hometowns, and their experience of prior and federal state initiatives. no broadband investment can succeed if -- while it is difficult, it is not hard to identify the primary barrier. the challenge of sustaining in rural america. helping to make the case for

rural broadband is job number one. if there is no business case and dedicated funding in the first instance. a proven track record of producing results is important. it's too important a gamble. building and operating a network in an nfl city is very different than doing so in western nebraska. we should leverage the experience and existing assets of those deployed and operated a rural network to the extent possible and verify the technical capabilities of proposals. third, we need to demand the best return in leveraging public resources, broadband networks are long-term investments. they must scale over decades long lives of such assets. investing in networks that seem cheaper up front but cannot keep pace represents resources potentially wasted and risk leaving rural america behind along the way. we should not be paying for a two-lane road when we know a four-lane road will be needed in a short time. many resources made for

broadband should go where they're needed the most. accurate picture of current availability and construction underway. this has been one of the most veking challenges, but it can be done better. it's extremely important to do so. fifth, and on a related note, we must coordinate new programs and existing resources with existing initiatives. there may be no greater waste of money or opportunity in -- market can't sustain one network on its own. to date, most initiatives have complimented one another quite well, as new programs get created or older programs are repurposed, leveraging existing initiatives provides the best means of avoiding such potential conflict and waste. streamlining of permitting is important to help remove barriers and accelerate broadband deployment. this must be part of a comprehensive package, and not be seen as a singular solution -- moreover, my permitting release take into

account 5g goals, why areless needs wires and the new saying these days is 5g needs fiber. seventh, accountability is critical. providers must demonstrate they have used the resources on the promises they have made. these principles in mind, lessons learned, ntca suggests three steps to take in pursuing a broadband infrastructure plan. first any infrastructure package should direct resources for rural broadband to the greatest extent possible. for example, the fcc's universal service program is a proven mechanism with additional support in the face of current short falls can deliver immediate results to more places at more affordable prices. we could certainly use additional resources as well, and such funds, if directed there, should be coordinated with fcc efforts to avoid potential conflict second, we must accurately identify where resources should go. we suggest looking to how the fcc's universal programs have

done this. while not perfect, they at least contain processes to overcome mapping, which prior programs have not. until more precise mapping is available, these programs offer the best start in terms of targeting resources. we can do more to develop better maps to go forward. finally, streamlining of formatting is important. it's true the business case for investment must exist in the first instance, but once that business case is made, providers need the opportunity to hit the ground running as mr. gillen described to deploy networks and deliver services. discussions under way in the administration and congress and at the fcc all offer promise in this regard. the current infrastructure debate represents an opportunity to make great headway on rural broadband. a comprehensive coordinated plan that leverages and take stock of lessoned learned make a significant difference. we look forward to working with you and we greatly appreciate the long standing and ongoing work of the subcommittee on rural broadband concerns. thank you for inviting me to be with you today. >> thank you very much, mr.

romano. and thank you all gentlemen, you all submitted excellent written testimony, which will get included in the record. and your five-minute summaries were just outstanding. so my hat is off to each of you. let's begin, mr. gillen, with something you brought up, and perhaps others would like to comment on this. this race to win 5g, you say we're in a race with china and japan for example, as well as the european union. what are the consequences of letting someone else win this race? what if china wins the race and we come in second? what does this really mean to americans? >> it's a great question. chairman, i think the easiest way to think about it is looking backward. we led the world in 4g, that led to app economy, samsung, we have facilities here in the united

states because we have the best networks to innovate off of. when we talk about 5g and the exciting things happening in health care, transportation and education, we want that innovation to happen here first. and if we aren't first, we risk that innovation going overseas. >> would someone else like to talk about that? all right, okay. if not, we'll move on and i'll get all my questions in. so do all of you agree with mr. gillen? mr. berry. >> yes, senator, i agree that we do want to be in first because we get the first mover benefit in the economy. i'm also concerned about as we move to 5g that we're also ready for 5g in all of rural america. we need to get to 4g lte, the faster we get there, the faster we can have the benefits in rural america and urban suburban

america of the 5g world. i don't think we want to leave half the united states or half the nation behind this economic opportunity for the new mobile world. and so that's my concern. yes, we need to be on the forefront of innovation, but we also need to do it in a way that allows the entire economy to benefit from this great opportunity. >> thank you very much. well, mr. berry, let me ask you, then, to elaborate, on the concern that i expressed, and that you expressed about data collection, and broadband mapping. i think you said it's just -- it's just totally inadequate. so if you'd comment on that first, and then if anyone else would like to follow up, please do. why is it -- why is the data so wrong? >> you know, the simple question to answer is the garbage in,

garbage out. we're not asking -- it's clear, i had great hopes this next round of data requests would actually produce a better quality service maps. what we actually got, though, was very clear that the fcc requested the wrong perimeters in order to define a granular map that has actual meaning on the ground. >> when did that request go out? >> well, it was a whole series of discussions and back and forth with the fcc. you know, our carriers, fcc and our members said, listen, you should measure signal strength and you should measure those types of things that consumers expect for usage on the ground. and we didn't do that in this -- in the map. what you have is the map that the fcc produced that says here's the areas that we think are eligible for usf. and all those other areas, including like 99% of mississippi, is ineligible.

and until someone challenges that, it's like having to prove a negative. i'm very concerned that the map is so disfigured in terms of its reality on the ground that it's almost impossible to have a successful challenge because you're going to have to challenge literally 98% of the united states in order to do so. it's -- we can do better. i would suggest that maybe we need all the resources of the federal government to focus on broadband data and information. ntia just a few days ago, david riddle the new secretary, suggested they have a great database and has access to local state governments and they can help build a better database that's national and more accurate about where is broadband, and where it is not. not just wire lines, but wireless. >> mr. debroux, you seem eager

to jump. >> yes, i think -- i'm not an expert on the wireless side. on the wire line side, i think good starts have been made. we're not there, take, for example, in the a-cam program, the fcc was extremely careful to make sure there was not overbuilding. not given to households that already had other options available. and we are in 25 different states, and we looked very closely at where the locations would be funded. we've actually engaged in their challenge process in various areas, and we actually lost some of those challenges that we thought we should have won. but what that meant was, there was no possibility that any money would be going for duplicative networks. and in that particular context, i think the fcc had done a really good job using 477 data in terms of precisely targeting the money that was available for broadband. so i think there's a start. i don't think it's all, you know, total chaos out there.

i think there are various agencies that are collecting money. in addition, usac, for each location we build, each household we build to we have to provide the geocode location to them. they are building a map as time goes on. so i think with coordination among various federal agencies, i think we're getting there. but we're clearly not there yet. >> there are better maps, you say? >> well, there are better -- there's information that hasn't really made its way into the maps. when i looked at the fcc map, there were definitely flaws with it, and i think it's the way -- partly the way the 477 data was interpreted. for example, tds telecom, our parent company is telephone and data systems. it's also the parent company of u.s. kcellular. there was confusion in the maps.

it could have been wireless or wire line areas. there's refinement that needs to be done. the underlying data is there. it's a matter of evolving the maps and working on them and seeing what needs to be donesee done and moving forward.>> thank you mr. chairman. thank you for all the test the first for being here. i will talk a little bit about the tech infrastructure in the context of the broader infrastructure conversation. it occurs to me that democrats are unlikely to support a shifting responsibility for infrastructure front the federal government to state and local. they are unlikely to support the undermining of labor and environmental protections. and likewise, republicans are unlikely to support at least at this time, a big unpaid fourth straight up $1.5 trillion infrastructure plan. yet, everybody likes the idea of funding usf.

to a greater degree. you have a technical problem i think of being a straight appropriation into a fund which has always operated under a statute of the revenue. that is context. one more point of context is that the usf contribution factor was five and half percent in 2000. 19.5% right now. we've gone from 3 million broadband subscribers at the residential level to about 100 million now. that doesn't count anybody who gets high-speed internet in some other way. so you have this shrinking base of revenue from people who still use traditional telephone service. that is funding broadband infrastructure across the country. we all support that but if the math doesn't work out, and the beauty of this is that the difficulty that a legislative body would normally have in assessing a fee for broadband,

because everybody is freaked out about calling it taxing the internet. it is set aside because these are appointed officials, not elected. the fcc already has statutory authorization to do contribution reform. i can understand elected officials not wanting to stand up and tax broadband. but it is actually unconscionable that we are charging a smaller and smaller number of people who are primarily rural in the first place, elderly, not as wealthy, who just have traditional telephone service to subsidize the rest of the world getting on broadband. we need contribution reform and we need the fcc to step up and act like appointed officials for a quasijudicial commission. and the fcc has already shown that they are not getting into a separate conversation with absolutely determine willingness to do unpopular things. this would be an unpopular thing that would actually make

sense in terms of connecting all of our communities with the internet. i will start with mr. debruyn and mr. romano.>> first of all, i'm not sure i have much to add to what you said because i could not agree more. the current basis shrinking. the need for broadband is there. we have a law that says reasonable comparability. is not just a good idea, it is the law. in order to attain that, in order to get broadband to rural areas, that is comparable it will take a lot of money. there's a lot of things that can be done around the margin in terms of helping get through rights-of-way, getting access and all that stuff. without actual dollars being spent, we are not going to achieve comparability. so i agree 100%. >> mr. romano? >> thank you. so first you are correct, the fcc has the authority, regardless -- at this gets into the question broadband.

regardless of what you consider broadband, the fcc has authority under current law to include some form broadband within the contribution and whether it's revenue or connection. that authority is there. you raise a fundamental point. this is about equity. we are talking about funding broadband networks. finding a way to make sure broadband gets to people in rural areas and low income consumers and schools and libraries. the one service that is not contributing is broadband. there's an equity issue there that consumers are left paying for this are those who are not making use of broadband. there's a fundamental disconnect. sustainability is critical to these programs. especially long-term investments like we talked here. if you don't have a sustainable universal funding, we will have a problem. we are talking potentially providing more support for broadband yet right now it operates all levels that were cited in 2011 because it happens to be what 2010

distributions were. we do need to approach this fundamentally as an equity issue. hopefully find a way to make them more sustainable.>> thank you to all of you.>> thank you. it is a great question. in addition to being the mayor and working on lc issues, i serve on the fcc enter government advisory committee for eight years. by committee support of the fcc reforming issues to recognize that people are getting new technology and the programs don't work anymore based on the old technology. including lifeline programs. which the fcc did reform to include broadband support. there is no reason that these programs can't be expanded to cover program service.>> i will take that for the record. >> let's go ahead and let mr. gilliland and mr. berry comment.>> i will give you one more factoid for your

theological rationale. how we are spending more and more broadband with less and less contributions. wireless is actually spending, making a significant contribution to broadband. that's the one area that has gone in. unfortunately, the last decisions have reduced the amount of funds available in the find for wireless. while we are paying 45+ percent we get about a percent now. five years ago, we were paying 45 or 50% and we are getting 23 and half percent. how do you get high-speed mobile broadband and you are right, in a fund is declining, when policies that actually decrease the amount of funds. >> what policies? the mac within the fcc, when we restructured usf. i represent wireless. so i think it is broadband -- i think it is a little wireline bias. but now we are in a broadband world. we do need to address the contribution reform issue. it is but on the table for a

long time. we have a lot of companies out there, especially the over-the- top companies that are making a heckuva lot more on networks than the people that build and operate the networks. we need to address that. >> mr. gilliland.>> it's really for us is technology neutrality. 50% of the funds because we still have telecommunication services where people pay into this and they're getting 10% of the fund back. i think their inequities. we are looking to update the methodology on who is paying it.>> mr. blunt.>> it is highly possible that i don't understand how 5g will work. but what i think i understand about 5g would mean that it would be likely to be even more slowly implemented in rural america than what we are doing now. so, here is the premise.

the premise is if that is right, and you have to have a 5g tower every -- you will can fill in the blank, but it sounds like it's pretty close. it might work in wilton manors florida, it might not work in a rural part surrounding wilton manors florida as an example. so the premise would be if that's explained to me why 5g would be implemented in those last peoples served and if it is not implemented, would we be better off to focus on wired broadband or those kinds of locations knowing that there is likely not to be a tower built for a long time every 500 yards. i think that is a big number based on what i have heard. mr. berry, do you want to start? mr. gilliland i can see your eyes are twinkling.

so your is, too. i would be interested in what you say.>> it is a real interesting issue. i think technology will help us respond and address these issues. 5g iot is a lot of different things. a lot of different services. there is new technology that narrowband technology on the iot, the internet of things, can roll out through lte and on top of lte networks. the narrowband lte. it could reach as much as 10 times for an existing lte technology. it is not necessarily so that 5g iot type of services and capabilities are going to be rolled out in rural america last. i think what we may have is an opportunity to actually enhance broadband service, narrowband service in some of the more cost-effective deployments in rural america.

earlier.>> what you mean narrowband? >> it is a type of technology that runs on smaller slice of spectrum. and will this technology, this is using narrowband technology as well as t-mobile. they just deployed the narrowband technology running side-by-side. essentially on the guard bands of their own lte network. technology is giving us great opportunity here. if we have some revenue and dedicated resources for mobile broadband, i think you will see it sooner than you might otherwise expect. >> mr. chairman, i will have to take this call. [ laughter ] that is a 5g call. [ laughter ]>> go ahead and answer the question and i will read your answer into the record. >> i think 5g will absolutely benefit rural america. if we start with new technology, we go to college

campuses, and then to the town square, places where you need the ability to have 100 times more devices and 100 times more the speed. as steve noted, with the wire lobe and perspective, we have to connect her car, and other applications that will be different technologies. for us, we separate the rural america that absolutely wants 5g and the america that is underserved by any broadband today. those are two different challenges and we need two different solutions. in times of -- in terms of 5g for rural america, absolutely.>> okay. mr. udall.>> thank you. this topic of this hearing is timely and important. in new mexico, we have companies including tribally owned telecommunication companies, rural electric co-

ops, and traditional rural local exchange carriers that are working hard every day to serve the highest cost areas. but basic economics tells us they need more support from federal programs. by support we mean dollars, not simply press releases and rhetoric. as i sit here and listen to some of the testimony, it is striking. major wireless companies are winning the race for 5g, too many people in new mexico and those living on tribal lands are stuck without one g. while carriers have been vocal about what they see as delays, i hear from many rural areas and tribal communities about the same carriers refusing to build towers or serve those areas. for example, the village of reserve new mexico was approached by a wireless company in 2014 to build a tower within village limits. serving was completed but the company failed to return calls from local officials.

that was four years ago. so as we hear from companies asking for more latitude to build in mostly urban areas, everyone in this committee must push the bar to expand to rural areas where sony communities still do not have adequate internet. at this point, mr. chairman, i would seek to put in the testimony of the godfrey and johnny, the general manager of the tribal entities.>> without objection. >> my question to mr. berry and mr. gilliland, there is much talk of the great future and capabilities of 5g. and 5g wireless services and the need for more infrastructure to build out that network. the fcc is currently examining sweeping changes to section 106 requirements that have been a good example of government to government engagement. between tribal entities and the

federal government. how dear member companies view the section 106 historic preservation mandates and tribal consultation requirements in light of the fcc's draft report in order. you believe these mandates should be weakened and are your members seeking to eliminate fees that cities and state charge as well? >> mr. berry mr. gilliland? >> thank you. thank you for the concern you express on the local tribal issues as well as the culture heritage issues. as a success story to be entered into the record, whatever carriers, worked with the tribes in new mexico to actually provide a tower that is commensurate with their historical and cultural acquisitions. we work closely with the -- thing with the surprising requirement to bring the service that was culturally acceptable. most of our carriers are

smaller carriers, they live in the community. if they don't like something, you might hear it at church and you might hear it at the pta. we are very concerned about that. in the local context. but, we do believe that we need to have modification to section 106 because of the need and some of those tribal review requirements should be focused more on actual addressing historical cultural antiquities and preservation. it doesn't make any sense as brad mentioned, sometimes you file an application and two years later, you get approval and the technology has moved so quickly that the antenna that you were going to put up is now no longer the antenna that works in the network. so you have to refile. so i think there are rational regional and logical progression of how we cannot only address the issues but also speed them up and bring the service to rural america.

we are totally in favor of that. i will share with you the story that i think was the model of how we should address the issues. >> thank you, kent. . we need to do better in serving your residence in new mexico. we could support the fcc perspective. it does not actually serve the residential reservation area. the challenge we face is the example of a carrier wanted to site in houston before the super bowl last year. 23 small cells. that process cost $173,000 to site on the parking lot. the fcc is trying to do is find the right balance to retain the important tribal rights and also ensure it's done in a timely manner. we think the fcc has struck the right balance but we are happy to work with you on that issue.>> mr. chairman, i think my time is up but i think the mayor wanted to comment.>>

briefly, i wanted to bring to the attention of the senator and the community is that the issues in deployment is not just rural areas. i happen to be in a public hearing in tallahassee florida, and when asked by the county commissioner whether the company would install 5g technology, inner-city, where residents do not have broadband or reliable service, frankly the industry in a candid moment said no. that is not an economic case for that. we have no intention of deploying 5g technology in the city of tallahassee. there is nothing in florida law that would require buildout. is not just the rural and tribal areas that will suffer from the lack of tech knowledge, it is some inner- city areas, as well.>> senator udall. >> thank you mr. chairman. in nebraska, one in four jobs is agricultural related. meyer that i recently held a

roundtable to explore the needs of ranchers and farmers leveraging new technologies that increase efficiencies and enhance crop yields. as we discussed, rescission agricultural technology are estimated to improve america's farm crop yield by your best average of $40 per acre. mr. gilliland, in your view, how will 5g networks impact precision agriculture to increase productivity and better manage risk? >> thank you senator. and thank you for your leadership on the issue. we are excited about that. we tend to think about 4g changing our lives and making it easier. and 5g will do that for industry. and agriculture will be one. the $40 example you gave is reducing water usage by 50%. and better utilization of data to keep farmers on farmland. so we are excited about

precision agriculture. and we have the challenge of deploying the networks to help nebraska be better farmers. >> how do you think farmers can better manage the risk through iot? >> i think you know better than i but i think the data is here. when we talk about maps. the more data we can give farmers about the crops in the land, and the yield, they know how to do their jobs. the more information we can give them, the better they will be.>> mr. romano, do you feel different metrics or approaches would be needed to properly address network coverage on the nations ranchlands and across lands? do i do. i think there are two fundamental issues. the fcc -- it is the best available source we've got. there are two primary issues. the first is that it is not granular enough. if there's one location served within the census plot, the entire location is deemed served.

that's a pretty big census block. the second issue is the fact that it is self supported. there is no verification process. they are certified but there is no verification of that. as we have seen in the process and other processes, the statements of coverage leave to false positives. that means that agricultural committee does not have the service throughout. in fact, it might be only in the town and not the surrounding areas.>> how can we get better mapping? how can we find the dead spots that are out there? because in my area, they certainly are there. that there are two things. how do we get better data set beyond the 477. the fcc has sought comments. we suggested that mr. debruyn mentioned, there is -- this notion of geocoding.

what we found is that in a going for basis, figuring out where customers are served, it's not a substantial process. it could help to provide transition to figuring out each and every location. does this have what the provider says. >> mr. romano, in your testimony you referenced important distinctions in the fcc's usf and usda and programs. in terms of persistent rural broadband challenges. you also stated that it is essential that these long- standing complementary relationships between are you as and usf initiatives continue. how do you envision improved coordination going forward between the two federal agencies? so that we can avoid possibly overbuilding so we can look for more enhanced accountability, but still maintain the integrity of these programs? >> thank you, senator.

they have worked very well together in the past. there have been times where communication might have been improved. but by and large, the communication has been highly effective and relatively consistent. the question now is we are entering a new program with a farm bill coming up. this an opportune to make sure we have the right -- we have two different programs providing two different providers. we will be pitting programs against each other. we will help with the affordability of the network. having guard rails in place, having guard rails in place to make sure that a program recognizes for example while this is a fcc cat to build going on over here is something else over there, it's important that the two programs work in concert.>> havel we make sure that this is extended to the state level so that those dollars can be maximized.

you have any thoughts? >> yes. we have been looking at the potential state block grant. the states will be racing to get money out the door as fast as they can. we will have to make sure the same sorts of guardrails are in place so for example, new york had to do this, they made sure they coordinate the program with the cat to initiative. to avoid the very prospect of overbuilding.>> thank you.>> thank you very much. thank you to all of the witnesses for being here this morning. since joined the senate, connecting americans to robust broadband services for me is the central focus of mine. i think both mr. gilliland and mr. berry mentioning these efforts. for starters, i work closely with senator gardner to introduce the air was asked which would free up more spectrum resources to power the nations 5g.

and the bill would also set aside a portion of auction proceeds to invest in rural broadband initiatives. additionally, i worked with senator o to introduce this. the rural reasonable and comparable violence ask of 2018. which would help close the digital divide and expand access to broadband in rural parts of the country. so i'd like to give you both an opportunity to talk to us about how these bills would assist us if we can -- if we can get our connectivity goals. let's talk with mr. guillen. >> thank you. airways and spectrum policies are key to solving the puzzle. when you look at the low band spectrum we saw last year, that is enabling carriers to reach rural americans like out to montana right now. the spectrum goes a great deal of distance. the spectrum is deftly a key part of the puzzle. as you alluded, one of the unique things in airways is the

rural dividend. money raised through the auction would go back into rural deployment. and two center shots point earlier, where is the money coming from. this is the wireless industry supporting the bill where you guys one is to build. i think it is a unique way of doing this. and you're able to do both spectrum. >> thank you, mr. barry. >> thank you so very much for your interest in those two bills but in generally in support of broadband deployment. we have totally agreed the air was asked is a roadmap for the type of spectrum that you can reasonably expect to be coming up. it will give carriers an opportunity to say this is where i will go in my deployment scenario. we would love to see band 27 and i think 47 included in that because i think those two are usable high-speed mobile

broadband bands. so we appreciate that and we appreciate the 10% set-aside that you included in the bill. i think it will focus a lot of attention on how to we get that new service out there sooner rather than later thank you for your help. i think if the secretary had read your bill, on comparable wireless services, we might have had a little more do thought to designing the two perimeters around the data requested that he made. thank you.>> i appreciate that. i would add my voice to the chorus to speak about how inaccurate the data and the maps are. at the end of last year, as you know, i held a field hearing to examine the state of broadband in the granite state. mapping came up frequently throughout the conversation. it continues to be a serious challenge that throws off our efforts. at ensuring adequate coverage, particularly in rural areas. last week i joined a bipartisan

group of senators with a letter to the fcc regarding this map which shows that most of new hampshire is covered and therefore ineligible for further support through the universal service program mobility find. i will tell you that you can drive from concord new hampshire, the capital, to the biggest city in the southwest corner of the state, team, along 0202 and nine, and you cannot get cell phone coverage for most of that trip. as governor, i had to try to respond to public safety emergencies while traveling. if it hadn't been for state police radio in the car, it would have been extraordinarily difficult. so your own members mr. berry testified at our field hearing about their own lack of mobile service between manchester and king. so how can we work together to address these issues so that small carriers are not overburdened and states like new hampshire are not left to bear the brunt of the digital divide?>> thank you for the

question. years ago, my grandfather owned an old 2 ton truck up every time he wanted to take it out of the ground, he would go faster, you would have to change the gear but you had to double clutch it. i think we need to double clutch this data access requirement. we need to get the right data to put this thing into higher gear. are curious want to build out. so i think we double clutch it by getting all sources of federal data and information included. david randall as i mentioned, suggested that nti has a lot of data, they have a good relationship with the states and counties. and they already have that information, it has not been tapped or utilized. i think we can do a better job with that and we can come up with a better map of where there is and is not. one thing i would mention the day that mr., romano mentioned,

it is easier to identify for you have a fiber or a wire. wireless is a lot different in the measuring devices. and their measuring scenarios are different. want to thank the fcc for changing the wireless measuring devices away from the centroid so they finally recognize that measuring the centroid, so we are working on it and trying to do better. i think we could use some help from the other agencies.>> i know that i'm overtime. thank you and i look forward to hearing the rest of the hearing. >> thank you centre hassan. i now recognize myself. [ laughter ] let me direct this to mr. romano. the fcc in its finishing stages, it seems of the high- cost program, as you have testified, there have been insufficient funding resulting in cuts, uncertainty, for small and local broadband providers.

we know it is clearly true in rural kansas. so the lack of sustainability puts the investment that has been made at risk for it creates an unwillingness, could create an unwillingness for additional investment in the arena. this may be that she may have answered this question in response to senator shot. what is the long-term solution for making certain that the investments made have a return and that there is enough certainty that will make future investments? mac thank you. there are two parts. the answer i gave to senator shot was related to sustainability and the funding mechanism. i think your question goes to or a certainly related issue, the sustainability of the networks. and the reliance upon the program ultimately to make the investment. they're talking about measurement in decades. these are assets that will be long-term infrastructure

assets. there will be cost recovery over decades. the fcc try to reposition those for 2016. they rebuilt the engine but did not put enough gas in the engine. is worse than average. in terms of what it means both for recovery of existing investment and the ability to plan for future investments. we are deeply gratified that the fcc is inclined to take steps perhaps to mitigate some of the budget shortfalls in the rural states. we are hopeful that the actions will come through. but we still will be in the case to your point, so come july 1, the budget control hits again. we will be right back with providers think can i make investments for the next year. should i hold up because i don't know what the budget controls will bill -- be. so we hope the fcc will act. give us an opportunity for conversation as soon as possible about what long-term sustainability really means.>>

you have any basis for that hub? the map they have been talking about an order that would address these issues in the near-term and mitigate some of the budget shortfalls that it cold that occurred for this year. our hope is that that will meet the standard and act within a comparable service rate. and predictability. >> thank you mr. romano. mr. barry, i will talk about the spectrum. your testimony indicates that cca supports completing the 39 month broadcaster repacked in a timely fashion with adequate resources provided to broadcasters to expedite transition and prevent delays. i am an advocate for the repacked and for adequate funding. cca members made up most of the winning bids for this particular spectrum. can you confirm and explain how funding certainty for relocated broadcasters translates into competitive wireless carriers

expeditiously deploying broadband? >> thank you, senator. thank you for sponsoring the geo protection act. 600 mhz was the second largest auction that actually ever occurred in the u.s. it is critical for the members to get 600 mhz deployed on the network. it is great propagation aspects in rural american. that's one it will be a great opportunity to get high-speed mobile broadband. we need to repacked. we think that 39 months timeframe that congress set is the right timeframe. we were very supportive of the broadcasters efforts to not only repack but do it in a timely fashion and a safe fashion. i think additional funds, my understanding is that they've identified the cost of additional funds needed and i think it is reasonable to

respond to that. we may -- the u.s. treasury made $13 billion net on that. $7 billion went into the first responder program as you remember out of that auction. i think it is fair and reasonable to get that spectrum out there as soon as possible. let's build those networks. >> thank you. i will make a comment. there has been a theme about the map or mapping or data accuracy. senator wicker had a letter which a number of us joined, we can send a message to this hearing to the fcc in regard to the accuracy of the map. but now we are talking about the mobility phase 2 map. i heard what mr. debris said about it. there is a standard there, a place to start that we can work from. let me a particular complaint about the appeals process or trying to get the map changed. has put the burden on the people -- i think you start with imap that is improperly

determined. the accuracy or the value of the map is nearly nil in my view. even if you start with the baseline, the ability to modify the map, the action will be necessary for a carrier or community to get it changed, i don't think it will be something that will be easily done. so my hope is that we start with a different map as compared to try to correct this one through an appeals process. i don't think it will work and will leave behind the folks that we are trying to provide service to. >> we might as well say it that the map is utterly worthless. in terms of giving us good information.>> you one up to me, mr. chairman. >> kudos to you mr. barry for the double clutching and getting out of groundhog. that is more politically correct. [ laughter ]>> my first question is to mr. guillen.

it has been referred to that we need to win the race to 5g. we are that's what constitutes a when? people covered, businesses covered? the geographic area covered? what constitutes a when? do it is the next generation and the opportunity that happened here first. it's a matter of having enough scale that we have enough after mayors and innovators to build on the platform. it starts with a number of people covered in a timely manner.>> by the way, that is the definition of expect. the number of people covered in a block in new york city is far more than the county i live in. my county is bigger than most of the states, not most but a fair number of states. so, the question is, how do we give -- how we got 5g into rural america. how do we get it there. the senator from nebraska talked about precision farming. but it is more than that.

how do we get there? >> let me put it this way. wii u, dwight powell program? on 5g?>> i will be happy to work with you in funding.>> i think 5g starts with areas like town squares, places like missoula. just like 4g and we continue to work on getting 4g and more and more places. the job is not done by far.>> i'm thinking about verizon but i happen to have one of your phones in my pocket. have you seen the map on the advertisement? i'm not picking on you but did you see that advertisement? do you agree with the map? >> i have not been in missoula which has great coverage.>> missoula and big sandy or a big difference. 75 mile drive for me from great falls to my farm. i don't have coverage for 25 miles. yet that map is already.

do to talk about that? >> i do appreciate the question. this is something that cities and governments are facing. there is a real misunderstanding about 5g. especially when they asked the states and local governments about deployment. the industry comes in and said we will have 5g in your community and throughout the state. is the next-generation broadband and we needed. then really what they're doing is the identification of 4g networks in very dense city areas for the most part. to give you an example, the state of nebraska is currently debating a preemption, small cell deployment as similar to florida last year. the cities led by the city of lincoln, talked about lowering the rates for attachment to city on poles. city and county owned polls. they're willing to reduce the rate from the market rate of about $2000 a poll to $95 a poll. if the industry would agree to build out the entire city and a reasonable period of time.>>

that is the problem. did you look at the bars of the phone? when i go home, there are nine. there are no bars on the phone. we are not even close to talking about 4g or 3g or any g. riley. we are not even close. i might be able to get a text message but unless i'm standing in the right corner of my house or my mouth help in the right direction, this phone does not work. it is that way that i live in one of the more populated areas of the state.>> senator, getting back to the eligibility map, which you raise an important point. it says it is covered and a lot of places are covered. what the fcc did -- >> how do we getting screwed because they screwed up how do we fix it?>> you have to get better data. what they decided what to collect data that was not what i would call -- usable data.

who did they collected from.>> they requested the parameters from the data from all the carriers. the curious gave them what they requested. we suggested that that was the wrong conclusion. what they chose was the recommendation from the two largest carriers on how to measure coverage. i will tell you that in the last eight years, the fcc time and time again, under several administration said we had 90% coverage through the entire united states.>> you made a statement garbage in, garbage out. there's got to be a way to get the fcc's attention on this. it is come up and almost every one of these questions. we are not going to solve the problem of wireless broadband, anything at rural america if we don't have good information. i would say i have for and requested to ask you guys. i won't be able to do it. as well put them in writing and you will have a lot of work to

do. if we don't get this right, -->> you are limited to 300 questions. [ laughter ]>> i will parrot back to 299. the truth is i know there are plenty of folks that say things like why do these guys even live in rural america, they knew they didn't have the coverage when they move there. i looked at my grandfather's diary from 1915. he said dammit, there is no cell coverage out here. [ laughter ] we have to do better, folks. it is not working. >> senator klobuchar.>> i think he said at all. i noticed that mayor, you mentioned the bill that i have been leading for quite a while. and i'm hoping we can finally get it done. it included in the mobile now act. and recently passed the house and the fcc reauthorization bill. as you know, this allows for better coordination between

state departments of transportation and broadband providers during construction. i know you think -- i know you have a comment on this but mr. berry, you want to add anything?>> i appreciate it, senator. it's nice when common sense makes its way into law.>> really?>> it doesn't happen that often. this is around the country. we receive federal funds through the npo's to do about $10 million in road improvements. i want to put in conduits. we are digging up the road, no real extra expense. we were frankly told that because these were transportation federal dollars that we are not allowed to put in conduits. we appreciate the bill and the new legislation. i think that will go a long way around the country to speed up deployment of broadband. >> same here. natalie thank you for that but also signing the letter to the fcc on eligibility map was greatly appreciated. believe or not, it does have a

real impact in rural america. when you're building that road, and you dig once, it makes a huge difference. what we are talking about is how do you get that initial cap ex investment down so you can use that money to build out. i was just in shenandoah valley last week with commissioner carr, and chantel, which is a small carrier, said if they could decrease their cost of deployment to comply with federal prison regulation, they could put 13 more towers in just on that one area. so that is significant broadband. thank you.>> mr. romano, we just got the roll call for the accountability act past. that is something i did with food and castor. all the dropped calls that have been going on in dropped areas that's rural areas, it was just signed into law. it will establish some basic

quality standards and a registry of the fcc. could you talk about how that will be helpful? thank you. thanks to all of you who supported that bill. thank you for introducing it. the back of the comments, another case of common sense making it into law. we should have reasonable expectations that the calls would go through. that was an epidemic that we saw in rural america. they were not going through. they still are today. in effort to try to improve the situation, it spread like wildfire. and then it pops back up. what this bill will do, it is critical, it brings transparency to the marketplace. it helps the fcc, the state, the industry to understand who is involved in taking these calls. makes them register and find out if they're doing the basic job of completing the calls. we have basic business registration for conducting business in jurisdictions. this bill does a similar thing. it makes people be able to be

found.>> mr. gillick, in the run-up to super bowl lii, i like to mention that we have 50 to where i can. hundreds of small cells were installed to accommodate the increase in demand before, during and after the game. the deployment effort will lay the groundwork for 5g communication capability. how do small cells help address surges in data usage.>> thank you. we should all visit minneapolis because it has the best wireless network in the country. that is the result of what the state did and the city of minneapolis to create a structure and a timeline to allow those small cells to be invested. five times more capacity in minneapolis today than last year. you so 71 times more traffic during the super bowl than you did last year's super bowl. in terms of where minneapolis is with the small cell infrastructure, there ready for 5g. where other cities are not.>>

how could that be helpful in rural areas? we don't have that coverage in rural areas? mac absolutely. i think it goes to part of it is starting in the rural town centers, college campuses in areas that are denser. when we talked about truly uncertain areas, we need to talk about how mobility funds work. getting the data right to make sure that we have funding in the right places. truly uncertain area, we need your help. when the area is more dense, where there's more covers, 5g will serve rural america.>> thank you very much for>> the item sitting on your witness table there, that alone won't solve the question that senator klobuchar asked about the rural coverage.>> this would be rural coverage in a town square. this would be more traditional technology for truly coverage areas. >> why will that work in a town square and not 5 miles out of

town? >> this is only supposed to go meters in terms of how far the signal will go. in terms of serving rural mississippi, we need to go miles.>> well, darn. [ laughter ]>> the technology is getting better every year.>> mr. romano.>> one thing is that there are many tools in the toolkit to solve broadband problems. small cell may help with small towns the average density comes from about seven people per square mile. were to that 40% u.s. landmass. it will be difficult to have the small cells out there. we hope they will but it will require -- densification. identified fiber network. they will feed the small cells. you are almost talking about a fiber to home network because the cells will need to be several hundred feet apart to achieve the promise of 5g in rural areas. it will take an integrated solution of wired and wireless

networks to achieve the universal broadband that we are talking about.>> thank you mr. chairman. thank you all. i think we work with everyone on the panel. again echoing what many of my colleagues have said, i have not figured out how to get rural broadband to west virginia. hosted the super bowl. [ laughter ] it is that easy. i was recall the conversation as i listen to your testimony, several years ago that i had with one of the major providers. i said what will it take, what will it take. two things. time and money. you know, i get tired of hearing the same thing, time and money. that's what you tell us. time and money. so we try to focus the money and we have a rule broadband conference center on the -- it is bipartisan, we have the desire but i hear about 5g development and i know 5g

obviously is the presidents decision this morning to disallow a merger because of security reasons around 5g. that tells me how important that is on one end. and mr. gillick, you have spoken to that. it tells me when you keep talking about density and town squares in college campuses, we are still not that they will have 5g but we are still not even going to have the ability to do a lot of what we want to do. i am frustrated as i'm sure you all are. we want to get to that last mile. let's talk a little bit about the -- we have the same issue. we have a broadband counsel in our state. it has asked people to do a self test to see how fast and how slow it goes. the results are terrible. so we know the data is not reflective and better yet, what they are paying, on the bill, the service to receive, is not matching what their data test is.

so what would it take, is that no one person served -- what would be a better metric? 50%, 51%? mr. romano? mac the geocoding opportunity, this method is a good opportunity. they require the carriers to receive universal support. with the latitude and longitude of every fixed location. fix broadband, you are then required to show that you have the service that you are saying you are delivering to each of those locations. if we can get the level, and it will take time because of the transition. . >> would you consider that a third-party verification?>> it is not. each carrier has a geocode and they do a new installation to a rooftop. they are geocoding that they have installed service. there reflecting what they have

installed. it is still carrier reported. the verification process ultimately would be -- you would need to set up a more robust challenge process. there isn't service there. but there providers that there is service and it comes forward to validate, guess there is service. such that you should not put federal dollars toward the program.>> the other thing is money. we talked a lot about the universal service fund and the connect america find. and where the dollars are going to go. and we had dice guess what, a lot of it was wasted. it was a wasted opportunity for our state. and sort of embarrassing. especially when the stories cannot. i would put together and that coffee go at, it's an opportunity to try to use the tax code to drive investment to

these last areas. so the governor could designate much like he does, and he will do under the opportunity zones that we created in the tax reform bill, so the governor will designate the deserts of development. so the governor could designate an unserved area in the broadband area and you could create a fund that would draw investment through the tax code into those gigabit opportunities. i would ask you want to take a look at that if you haven't looked at it to try to drive for private investment into these areas before we give 5g to everybody else and we are still sitting there with very little or no service. last question is, mr. gillick, you mentioned telehealth. that is really important to an elderly state. chronic conditions can be monitored so well to people who like transportation. and mobility and physical

mobility. no family members nearby to take them to their healthcare provider. how do you see that rolling out into the really remote areas? >> thank you. it goes to the challenge that you just faced. we need telehealth the most. so absolutely, what you talked about on the global scale, it's a huge amount of savings and better outcomes for patients. the challenges connectivity. we do see great promise to revolutionize healthcare and drive down costs by bringing healthcare closer to you. and not having to drive to anywhere else to get care. it will be transformative.

being connected, so thank you for bringing that up. and thank you for your testimony for that and i think it's clear from the panel here we all agree that broadband internet and high speed internet in rural area absolutely critical. i equate it to our country's efforts to make sure in the last century you had access to electricity, that it was

absolutely critical everybody had access to it and today high speed internet is in that same category, so i'm disappoint today seems as if president trump doesn't share that and the infrastructure package doesn't include any, none, zero, dedicated funding for rural broadband, which is a big mistake. my question for you though is i've heard from many local business leaders in michigan that have reached out to me about the rural utility service community connect grant program, which prioritizes grants to communities which has zero or veryth access to broadband. certainly an important goal, but they have identified a problem with that grant and i want to run that by you and get your thoughts on it. as it currently stands, if any one household within the defined 0 has at or above 41 megabytes,

the entire community becomes in eligibility to be approved for the funds. the 41 speed threshold has not been updated in years. it's substantially blow fcc's definition of broadband coverage of 25-3. what i'm considering now is legislation that'll modernize the grant program. the eligibility cutoff is considered to be the base minimum for broadband courage, however it is my understanding, it is no longer a bare minimum. do you think the 41 threshold currently should be updated? what do you think about that? that's to anyone. >> i'll start out. thank you for your question. you know, i do think we need to take the law seriously and the worlds reasonable comparable, there's a little bit of

fuzziness on the end, but there's no wade 41 is reasonable comparable to major metropolitan areas, president acc tracks speeds and prices in major metropolitan areas and there needs to be something in place to make sure the speeds in rural areas get ratcheted up in met toll pan areas. there needs to be a connection there. >> any others agree? >> yes, senator, thank you. we do agree. our members have made effective use of the community grant program as instituted so far, but i think refresh and update would be helpful to make sure we continue to rise the bar. the question goes again do you ban an entire area because one location may be lucky enough to be served. you've got a school that happens to have a state regional network but the surrounding community doesn't have service. that would disqualify them if i

understand appropriately. we would look forward to working with you on that. >> i go back to reasonable comparable service, but how about data? how do you set a standard and know what it is unless you have qualified data? we may be to the point a third-party verifier -- collector and verifier of data, maybe ntia has put $50 million in there budget for data collection and producing a new broadband map. maybe the time has come so we'd have a third-party verifier that would collect the data and information, authenticate it, and provide that information to everybody in the federal government saying this is and where there is not broadband coverage and you put the speeds with it. 41 is in most urban, suburban areas would not be considered useable video streaming capability, so you have some definitional problems there and i think the data is a the key to whether or not you can make that

happen. >> so it's pretty clear that is simply a worthless standard. any idea we should set the threshold? >> i wouldn't say it's a worth else spend. when you as well no connectivity at all that's a pretty important standard. we're still going back to no connectivity versus 41. 41 sounds pretty good. it would be nice if you considered where those speeds were and where that connectivity level was and have that in a map you could utilize for all different types of funding programs, not only the r.u.s. program, but the f.cc program and the other two sources you'll make available, under the budget act, $20 million, and identified additional funds in the infrastructure bill. we don't know what they are, but wouldn't it be nice to have the ability to put all these

programs together on a map that says here's how we can reach those most unserved areas in the united states. >> thank you so much. >> thank you, senator. senator blum blumenthal. i >> i want to talk about urban areas, which are as important as rural areas in lack of adequate service. ellen cats, the consumer council for the state of connecticut recently testified at the house energy and commerce at closing the digital divide with the gap in hartford. she called at this time homework gap. i think that's a common way of

putting it. her report observed many students lack adequate broadband tone. they go to fast food restaurants or they sit outside in all kinds of weather trying to pick up wifi in order to do their online schoolwork. if this problem exists in connecticut where fiber services are available in excess of 90% across the state they must be an even bigger problem in other urban areas around the country. would you agree the urban divide exists in urban areas, as well as rural areas? >> i in excluded that in my testimony today we are seeing within urban areas the lack of broadband access by so many simply because it's just unaffordable. as indicated between the library

in my city, the libraries being packed with children just trying to get online to do homework. we actually, through the national interleague of cities had a conversation about this very issue and the representative from connecticut, made very strong statements confirming so many children don't have the capability to do online homework. a wifi hot spot certainly is not the answer. it happens in inner cities, and urban areas. this is a significant problem to address, as well. >> what's the best way of meeting that urban need? >> i think we need to focus on ways to possibly reduce the cost of broadband. currently to get 10 megs cost

many families over $100 a month. that's just not affordable. it costs easily $100. my neighbor who is required, talking about connectivity for seniors, of course he wants to have facebook to stay in touch with his grandchildren around the country, to stay involved in want community. he spends over $400 for communication services and he's not getting anything special. he's getting basic service. we have to address the afford ability. >> the connecticut office of state broadband, which is a division of the office of consumer counsel headed by ellen cats assessed this homework app in hartford and the report noted a lot of connecticut families is that a smart phone is existed from policymakers and a home connection for broadband

internet access. of course smart phones are typically expensive and difficult to use to write schoolwork. i don't know how anyone could use a smart phone to do a paper. would you agree a smart phone is no home connection for homework? >> yes, and some members wanted to include broadband members as satisfying requirements for meeting broadband deployment. children cannot do homework on a mobile device, especially on a smart phone. it's just impossible to do papers, to do significant research. it's really going to create more of a digital divide if some students will be relegated to the full technology to have broadband access to do the work they need to do. it's just now substitute. we do recognize that. >> it's a form of sort of

second-class citizens. >> exactly. >> in the broadband world. >> exactly. thank you senators. >> i'm going to go back to the rural focus, which has been a lot of the discussion here in this hearing. sometimes we talk about rural, and i'm not sure how would you define it, but extreme in terms of size, we're about almost one-third of the continental u.s. and have 730,000 people, dozens and dozen of communities that aren't connected by roads. so if you can put yourself in the shoes of alaskans like this, talking about 5g sighting and

cells and a lot of my communities don't have 2g yet. excuse us if we're not getting fired up about 5g when we're not far down the line at all on some of the previous technology. i'll start with you, mr. romano. what would be some of the most important ways to address this -- just anywhere big country, obviously. connecticut is a lot different than alaska. what would be ways to really address kind of the challenges that we have in the most extremely rural parts of america, whether alaska or some of the communities you have here? i always look at this as a balance as streamlining the permitting, actually getting technology out and not delay, delay, delay, which is an

enormous problem with infrastructure, whether telecommunications or funding. looking at some of the extreme rural communities like in alaska, what would you say are the big issues? and what are the problems? is it nipa? is it the national perez er preservatio nrksn act? my constituents are still waiting for 2g. >> we have 13 members that cover a significant footprint in your state. we're very familiar with the challenges they face, your constituents face. alaska has some very unique challenges, but generally speaking, we believe an infrastructure package could contain two, maybe three

elements. first is funding, and tax incentives. there's going to be different tools in reference to what the particular challenge is. with respect to alaska, funding is a big issue. there's no way around it. these remote villages are very tough to build in. supplies are costly. all of those strive higher costs, never mind distance and density alone. infrastructure funding and in that regard we look at leveraging initiative is going to be critical. in those places in alaska where we've seen the best success has been predictable universal funding for those carriers that can invest there. the villages left behind are those where the universal services have not worked well. the one last piece is middle mile. this is a challenge that's often overlooked because everybody always talks about local telephone service. we need those connections to connect rural alaska, rural montana, everybody else to the

rest of the world. those are connections not supported sat all. those are connections going to be critical, increasingly critical in terms of agriculture data, connectivity, streaming video, whatever it is, that's a big challenge in particular of course. >> would you place one area above the other or all of the above, taxes, streamlining the permitting process and funding? what would you say -- is there hierarchy there or have to attack all three? >> financing and funding is first. that's going to be first and foremost, where it is needed. if the business case is not there you need funding to help make the business case. then if the case is there whether through funding or the ability to make it on its own in the marketplace you move to permitting, the ability to hit the ground quickly, reduce barriers and get those networks working for consumers and the

third piece is tax incentives. it's in deeper rural areas. there are areas it's hard to make any money and invest in the first place. you don't need a tax break on the money you're not going to make. >> thank you very much. >> senator gardner. >> thank you for all of your time and testimony today. mr. gilliam you talked about connectivity in the future, and the infrastructure for wireless, the juice that's going to keep satellite running, wifi and other technologies. i'm grateful for the leadership on the issue, including the mobile now act that recently passed as part of the ray bombs act. ray is a -- was a beloved figure in the house and great person. it's neat for this recognition to have happened. i believe to keep up the pressure to free even more spectrum and help close that

digital divide, that's why senator hassin and i freed up the license and spectrum to invest in rural broadband networks. do you agree we should consider air waves like the legislation act to continue to evaluate the future spectrum policy? >> airways is the roadmap for the future of our country when it comes to spectrum policy. the opportunity to make a difference in terms of a 5g race, and the other is a rural dividend to make sure money coming in will serve rural america, to serve the plains, to serve the parts of colorado that don't have coverage today. that's not something we've seen before. >> thank you for that and following up on the rural comment, mr. barry, the fcc released a new map for the dispercental of funds. it didn't reflect actual coverage on the ground in my

home state of colorado. i can tell you that because i can tell you the mile marker according to the town that has excellent coverage but somehow i don't have coverage, mile, mile, mile when i'm driving it. on the eastern plains nearly the entire region is shown it's served, although i know firsthand large service gaps exist. pleased about this decision, but are many of your member companies planning participate in the challenge process? what would that look like what, and what do you expect? >> i can add 24 and 47 gigahertz in there. >> you're absolutely right. i was going to congratulate you on getting 100% coverage in yuma, because that's what the map says, but obviously that was premature in my congratulations. >> my neighbors think i'm nuts because i have to walk to the end of the block to get cell phone signal. >> many of our carriers will

participate in the challenge process. the map is so distorted in terms of reality of the coverage it will be exceedingly difficult for smaller carriers to challenge vast territories of the map and this is one thing that we mentioned today and i think senator hassin also mention if you'd don't challenge it you're not going to be eligible for ten years because that reverse option that is going to occur, they're going to make a decision, those areas that are not deemed eligible, if they're not challenged, the auction will occur $4.53 billion will go over the next ten years. >> how do we fix this? >> i suggested you need to utilize all the free resources we have available at the federal government. the nti indicated they have information and data points that could contribute and inform the fcc on that and i think we need

to do that. the problem is the 2009 stimulus act, the money went out the door before the broadband map came in. we should not -- you commit the same error this time. let's try to get the data right as we're trying to provide the funds available and those are some of the areas, innovative ways we could inform the database. >> thank you, for that. mr. romano. when the btop program was created in 2009, many remember hopeful about the money it would bring in the underserved areas. $100 million went to eagle net in colorado. obviously they over billed existing providers, failed to meter is vis obligations and now are gone -- service obligations and now are gone. i strongly supported any infrastructure package but i want to make sure we never had a situation like eagle net both

from a competition standpoint, although the cherry creek school district was underserved. would you provide any robust grants for survivors. >> while it has shortcomings in terms of the data and the challenge processes, it is by far we're targeting the money in the right places and has continuity in the back end on where broadband is deployed and whether the network can do. >> thank you for the time. i'm out of time. thank you for the time in colorado. >> senator baldwin. >> thank you chairman and ranking members and to the panel of witnesses for sharing your expertise. i want to particularly welcome bob debrew, fellow wisconsinite from the mad son based telecom. i'm pleased to have a wisconsin voice at the table today and

thank you also for your membership on the broadband deployment advisory committee. i also want to associate myself with remarks of my colleagues earlier during this hearing who's have emphasized the need for dedicated funding for broadband as part of any infra stuff infraure that moves forward. i -- infrastructure to move forward. i won't to the president trump in particularly broad bond and particularly on rural america. while i'm disappointed chose not to do so, the senate democrats in putting together our own proposal did include broadband and as congress advances on an infrastructure package we must address this critical need for our communities. now we're not starting from

scratch regarding federal support for broadband deployment. in fact we have current or historic programs at the fcc and historic commerce that have concluded broadband in rural areas. these can include how we take future investment. it's a significant recipient of funds under the phase two of the fcc's connect america fund, specifically through the it's alternative connect to model program and i'm wondering if you can tell us how you believe your company's experience with this program should inform how any new resources are employed, with entering the most defective deployment to broadband areas who are particularly underserved? >> thank you senator baldwin. apparently you have a lot of

clout. it tripled my work, but that was okay. i think there's a lot of things the fcc got right. i think their programs have evolved and i think the accountability that's built into their programs -- and especially certainty. one, it's difficult for companies where how much money you got depended on a lot of things like how much your neighbors spent on their programs and things went up and down to really make predictable investments. with the acam program and now some of the improvements hopefully coming with legacy program it will be easier to have more certainty in terms of how many dollars you have. and with the acam program, the number of locations are specified and with each extra dollar that goes into there, the number of higher broadband speed

goes up. it's a program that's scaleable, in which you can feed more money in it and you get more broadband. at the end of the day you have to report how many locations you served including the exact locations within feet of where those locations are. usac is collecting that data and they will know going forward what is served. the program utilized the 477 data to make sure we weren't building do you knowuplicate networks. i think those are the -- building duplicate networks. those are the types of features critical if any money goes to r.u.s. or ntia. in turn having specified dollars, sent out for infrastructure, specifically. >> thank you.

last year, i had opportunity to meet with a variety of community stake holders in different ringions -- regions in the state of washington county, washburn county, eagle river, and vilas county, in the far northern part of my home state. one thing i heard from participants in this particular round table was their frustration that local and state planning efforts like the one they undertook in eagle river, which helped identify the unique needs of an area, and how best to address them aren't necessarily taken into account when distributing federal supports for broadband deployment. so mayor, do you agree there should be more engagement with local and state planning processes, and if so what steps can congress take to ensure local 90s are a part of the broadband deployment process? >> thank you, senator, and thank you for your support of so many members of my community.

it's tremendously important local governments and counties, cities, have a seat at the table. i appreciate being invited here to be part of this panel but so often we are not. look for example -- and no offense to my colleague, we appreciate his work on the bdac. it's the ratio to industry members, to government-level members is 10 to 1. they draft a model without the input of any state official. we do not feel the fcc is serious about engaging with dialogue in little governments and we think that's going to result in bad broadband policy frankly. we do any efforts that you could make to try and ensure that local governments have more of a voice and a seat at the table we would appreciate. also you cannot forget we've heard throughout the hearing today, about the frustration of getting affordable broadband available in every area.

purral areas, intercity areas,et set ra. the federal programs are not providing enough incentive to make the business case for the private investment the industry is looking for, but municipal broadband does have a way of solving the needs of their communities. local governments are very good. being creative with solving their communities. mayors like to get things done and if a problem exists in available broadband for my community we're going to get it done, if we have to build the municipal effort we're going to try to undertake efforts to do it. when you're talking about ways and the needs of our communities are met we should not forget about the possibility of municipal broadband systems. too often we are preempted from doing so, especially at the state level. there's an example in wilson, north carolina, where the taxpayers supported building a

municipal network. it was operating great service and because of state law they had to discontinue using it. there are plenty of levels like that where municipalities want to take the effort and spend their residents' funds on these networks and state law simply does not allow them. if there's something we with rep to that we could appreciate it. >> thank you very much senator baldwin and thank you to members of the panel and members of the subcommittee. i'll tell you that almost one fifth of the united states senate attended this hearing today. so i think that tells us of the interest we have in this subject. now according to our procedures, the hearing record will remain open for two weeks. during this time senators are asked to submit and questions

for the record. receipt, the witnesses are requested to submit their written answers to the committee as soon as possible. so we invite your cooperation there. thank you for very excellent temperature and for valuable information provided to the members. this hearing is now adjourned.

a senate panel looks at school safety following the february mass shooting in parkland, florida. live coverage from the senate judiciary committee beginning wednesday at 9:30 a.m. eastern on cspan-3. monday we'll explore the 1896-case of plesse, he was arrested in new orleans for taking a seat on a train car reserved for whites. the supreme court's 7 to 1 decision, allowed segregation through most of the 20th century. this narrow interpretation of the 14th amendment wasn't overturned until the brown versus