Breaking Barriers: Streamlining Permitting to Expedite Broadband Deployment (U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Communications and Technology)

Hearing	Breaking Barriers: Streamlining Permitting to Expedite Broadband Deployment
Committee	U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Communications and Technology
Date	April 19, 2023

 

Hearing Takeaways:

• Deployment of Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) Funding for Broadband Infrastructure Projects: The hearing largely considered how the U.S. will deploy the IIJA’s $65 billion for broadband infrastructure projects. Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses stated that this funding for broadband infrastructure is unprecedented and noted how most of this money has not yet been spent.
  • The Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program: Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses expressed particular interest in the IIJA’s BEAD Program, which provides $42 billion in funding for states, Washington, DC, and territories to expand high-speed broadband services to their communities. They expressed hope that this funding can reduce broadband infrastructure deployment disparities in rural areas and low-income neighborhoods.
  • The U.S. Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Affordability Connectivity Program (ACP): Subcommittee Democrats, Mr. Falcon, and Mr. O’Rielly expressed support for the FCC’s ACP, which helps eligible households afford internet services. They stated that the ACP provides a predictable revenue stream to broadband internet providers that enables them to confidently pursue broadband infrastructure investments. They called for long-term authorization and funding for the ACP.
  • Establishment of the FCC’s Digital Discrimination Rulemaking Authority: Mr. Falcon highlighted how the IIJA had provided the FCC with digital discrimination rulemaking authority in response to historical redlining and cherry picking among broadband service providers. He asserted that this authority will ensure the equitable distribution of IIJA funds for broadband infrastructure projects. 
• Broadband Infrastructure Project Permitting and Construction Challenges: Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses expressed concerns that permitting and construction challenges could hinder the U.S.’s ability to deploy the IIJA’s funding for infrastructure projects. They warned that these challenges could result in wasteful spending, project delays, and areas without broadband internet service coverage.
  • Federal Land Permitting Challenges: Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses discussed how broadband infrastructure providers often face challenges obtaining permits for projects involving federal lands. They stated that these permitting challenges especially impact rural areas (that can be surrounded by federal lands) and Western states (where the federal government owns significant portions of land).
  • Environmental and Historical Review Challenges: Mr. Romano, Mr. Saperstein, Mr. Finkel, and Mr. O’Rielly expressed frustration with how many broadband infrastructure projects must undergo reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). They asserted that these reviews can often be unnecessary (particularly when they occur in previously disturbed areas) and can delay the deployment of these projects.
  • Broadband Infrastructure Permitting “Shot Clock” and Permit Tracking Challenges: Subcommittee Chairman Bob Latta (R-OH) and Mr. Saperstein expressed concerns that many jurisdictions are not following their own “shot clock” rules for reviewing permit applications for prospective broadband infrastructure projects. These “shot clock” rules require that jurisdictions review permit applications within a certain period of time and that the applications be deemed granted if the applications are not reviewed within the prescribed period. They alleged that many jurisdictions are refusing to accept applications or claiming that applications have been improperly filed to avoid starting the “shot clock.” Subcommittee Members, Mr. Romano, and Mr. O’Rielly also expressed frustration with the failure of government agencies to provide broadband infrastructure providers with updates regarding the statuses of their permit applications.
  • Government Permitting Agency Staffing Issues: Subcommittee Democrats, Mr. Romano, Mr. Silverstein, and Mr. Falcon expressed concerns that staffing constraints across federal, state, and local government agencies will undermine the ability of these agencies to process and review the expected influx of permit applications in the coming years. They warned that these staffing challenges cause the deployment of broadband infrastructure projects to be delayed.
  • Permitting Coordination Challenges Across Different Levels of Government: Subcommittee Republicans, Mr. Saperstein, and Mr. Finkel expressed concerns that inconsistent rules and fees across different levels of government can impede the permitting and deployment of broadband infrastructure projects. Full Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and Mr. Falcon asserted however that local input is critical for the permitting process as these governments have a better understanding of their community needs.
  • Impact of Weather Conditions on Broadband Infrastructure Project Deployment: Rep. John Joyce (R-PA) and Mr. Romano noted how broadband infrastructure projects in certain regions can only be constructed during warmer months. They stated that the impacts of permitting delays might thus be further compounded if they result in a project receiving approval during a month where construction cannot occur.
  • Broadband Workforce and Supply Chain Constraints: Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI), Mr. Saperstein, and Mr. Finkel expressed concerns that supply chain delays and workforce shortages could delay broadband infrastructure project deployments. Mr. Saperstein mentioned how his organization, the Wireless Industry Association (WIA), participate in federal apprenticeship programs to address these workforce issues.
  • Broadband Construction Challenges for Rural and Underserved Areas: Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY) and Mr. Falcon expressed concerns that broadband internet service providers tend to overlook poorer communities because the communities are often less lucrative than wealthier communities. Mr. Romano and Mr. Finkel stated that the business case for rural broadband can be “incredibly challenging” because rural broadband infrastructure must cover large amounts of distance and may only serve a small number of people.
  • Broadband Map Accuracy: Rep. Rick Allen (R-GA), Mr. Romano, and Mr. Finkel expressed interest in ensuring the accuracy of the FCC’s broadband maps to ensure the efficient deployment of broadband infrastructure projects.
  • Access to Poles and Arbitrary Fee Scales: Full Committee Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Mr. O’Rielly expressed concerns over the U.S.’s high pole attachment rates and that these rates serve as a barrier to broadband internet deployment. Mr. Finkel stated however that electric cooperatives set pole attachment rates based on the true cost of the attachment and stated that electric cooperatives are not seeking to profit from their pole attachment rates. Subcommittee Ranking Member Doris Matsui (D-CA) and Mr. Falcon also expressed concerns that arbitrary fee scales for broadband deployment can disincentivize innovative broadband financial models.
  • Impact of Permitting Delays on Disaster Response Capabilities: Subcommittee Republicans, Mr. Romano, and Mr. Saperstein expressed concerns over how permitting delays can impact the ability of communities to prepare for and respond to natural disasters. They warned that these delays can impact real-time communications systems, which can imperil the lives of affected residents.
• Proposed Permitting Reforms for Broadband Infrastructure Projects: The hearing considered numerous legislative and policy proposals meant to reform the permitting processes for broadband infrastructure projects. Of note, Full Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ) raised concerns that the Subcommittee was providing expedited consideration of the legislative proposals without first spending sufficient time to examine the underlying issues. 
  • Proposals to Ensure the Proper Review of Broadband Infrastructure Permit Applications: Several of the legislative proposals mentioned during the hearing seek to ensure that broadband infrastructure project applications would be completed within a set timeframe and codify existing FCC legal interpretations. These proposals include the Winning the International Race for Economic Leadership and Expanding Service to Support (WIRELESS) Leadership Act, the 5G Using Previously Granted Rulings that Accelerate Deployment Everywhere (UPGRADE) Act, the Cable Access for Broadband and Local Economic (CABLE) Leadership Act, and the Granting Remaining Applications Not Treated Efficiently or Delayed (GRANTED) Act.
  • Proposals to Increase Transparency for the Broadband Infrastructure Permitting Process: The hearing also considered several proposals to bring transparency to the broadband infrastructure permitting process through providing confirmations on submitted applications and establishing portals for submitting and tracking the status of permit applications. These proposals include the Barriers and Regulatory Obstacles Avoids Deployment of Broadband Access and Needs Deregulatory (BROADBAND) Leadership Act, the Deploying Infrastructure with Greater Internet Transactions And Legacy (DIGITAL) Applications Act, and the Federal Broadband Deployment Tracking Act.
  • Expedited Permitting Proposals: The hearing further considered several legislative proposals meant to reduce the need for environmental and historical reviews for broadband infrastructure projects located on previously disturbed lands, existing infrastructure, natural disasters, floodplains, and brownfields. These proposals include the Reducing Barriers for Broadband on Federal Lands Act, the Wireless Broadband Competition and Efficient Deployment Act, the Wildfire Wireless Resiliency Act, the Proportional Reviews for Broadband Deployment Act, the Rural Broadband Permitting Efficiency Act, the Coastal Broadband Deployment Act, the Connecting Communities Post Disaster Act, and the Brownfields Broadband Deployment Act.
  • Community Broadband Projects: Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) stated that these community broadband networks have proven to function very well and lamented that 19 states have enacted laws that restrict or ban community broadband networks. She noted how she had proposed the Community Broadband Act, which would prohibit states from enacting laws that restrict community broadband networks. Mr. Saperstein and Mr. Falcon expressed support for this proposal, while Mr. O’Rielly expressed reservations about it.
  • Support for Local Permitting Capabilities: Rep. Lizzie Fletcher (D-TX), Mr. Romano, Mr. Saperstein, and Mr. Falcon expressed support for the Broadband Incentives for Communities Act, which provides grants for local governments to hire and train employees, purchase software, and upgrade their capabilities. Mr. Falcon expressed particular interest in how this bill’s microtrenching provisions could enable the cheaper deployment of broadband infrastructure.
  • Access to Poles: Mr. O’Rielly called for the U.S. to increase access to pole attachments and commented that high pole attachment rates are impeding the deployment of broadband infrastructure. Mr. Finkel however warned that additional regulation of pole attachments, such as contemplated under the Fair Access to Internet Ready (FAIR) Poles Act, could dissuade cooperatives from participating in recently created federal programs aimed at supporting broadband deployment in high-cost rural areas. He asserted that the enactment of the FAIR Poles Act would unfairly change the “rules of the game” after providers have already undergone the complicated and costly process of applying for federal funding.
  • Franchising Process Reforms: Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX) and Mr. O’Rielly expressed support for the Cable Transparency Act, which would streamline the franchising process for cable operators and franchise authorities. They stated that this legislation could reduce market barriers to entry.
  • Digital Literacy Promotion: Subcommittee Democrats, Mr. Falcon, and Mr. O’Rielly expressed interest in promoting digital literacy to spur broadband internet adoption. Subcommittee Ranking Member Doris Matsui (D-CA) mentioned how she had introduced the Digital Equity Foundation Act, which would establish a non-profit foundation that would channel public and private investments to support broadband internet adoption and digital literacy.
  • Colocation of Infrastructure Projects: Subcommittee Ranking Member Matsui and Mr. Saperstein also expressed interest in collocating broadband infrastructure with other types of infrastructure, such as electrical vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure. They stated that this collocation of broadband infrastructure could address multiple national priorities simultaneously and avoid duplicative permitting requirements.
  • Application of Permitting Reforms to Wireline Networks: Mr. Romano noted how the legislative proposals under consideration a tied to Sec. 6409 of the Spectrum Act of 2012, which primarily deals with wireless issues. He recommended that the Subcommittee consider legislative proposals to amend Sec. 6409 of the Spectrum Act of 2012 to include wireline networks.

Hearing Witnesses:

1. Mr. Michael Romano, Executive Vice President, NTCA—The Rural Broadband Association
2. Mr. Michael Saperstein, Senior Vice President of Government Affairs and Chief Strategy Officer, Wireless Infrastructure Association
3. The Hon. Michael O’Rielly, President, MPORielly Consulting, LLC
4. Mr. Louis Finkel, Senior Vice President of Government Relations, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
5. Mr. Ernesto Falcon, Senior Legislative Counsel, Electronic Frontier Foundation

Member Opening Statements:

Subcommittee Chairman Bob Latta (R-OH):

• He discussed the importance of broadband internet in supporting work, education, and health care and lamented how millions of Americans lack access to broadband internet.
  • He noted how these access challenges are particularly pronounced in rural areas.
• He stated that Congress has made “significant investments” to address these broadband connectivity issues.
  • He highlighted how the recently enacted IIJA had provided over $45 billion for broadband internet deployment.
• He commented that while funding is necessary to increase the deployment of broadband internet, he asserted that broadband internet funding alone is insufficient for ensuring access to broadband internet.
• He remarked that the U.S. must ensure that new broadband networks can be built in a timely and cost-efficient manner.
  • He called the IIJA a “missed opportunity” for enacting permitting reform that would have reduced barriers to broadband internet deployment and would have enabled more efficient federal spending.
• He stated that lengthy application reviews and excessive fees for broadband infrastructure deployment will only delay broadband connectivity and increase costs, which will harm Americans that lack broadband internet access.
  • He warned that the failure to change the permitting process for broadband infrastructure and to provide meaningful oversight can lead IIJA broadband infrastructure funding to be wasted.
• He also remarked that permitting reform is necessary for enabling the U.S. to remain a global leader in next generation wireless technology.
  • He commented that U.S. leadership in this area is especially critical given China’s efforts to become the global leader in 5G communications technology.
• He expressed appreciation for the FCC’s work to streamline state and local broadband infrastructure permitting processes.
  • He called on Congress to codify and build on the FCC’s reforms.
• He mentioned how the hearing would consider over 30 legislative proposals to streamline broadband infrastructure permitting processes at all levels of government.
  • He indicated that these proposals would implement “shot clocks” on state and local reviews of permit applications, cap permit applications fees, remove “burdensome” environmental and historic preservation reviews, and facilitate broadband deployment on federal lands.
• He stated that the legislative proposals under consideration would help broadband internet providers to obtain permitting decisions in a timely manner, reduce the burdens and costs of broadband infrastructure deployment, and ensure that the U.S. could quickly connect people to broadband internet.
• He mentioned how he had introduced the WIRELESS Leadership Act, which he commented would expedite the deployment of wireless infrastructure.
  • He indicated that the legislation would set timelines that state and local governments must abide by in reviewing permit applications and create a deemed grant remedy for reviews that miss deadlines.
  • He also indicated that the legislation would limit the fees those governments can charge for reviewing applications and using a right-of-way.
  • He asserted that this legislation would preserve state and local zoning authority.
• He expressed his hope that Congress can pursue bipartisan reforms to improve the broadband infrastructure permitting process.
• He commended the Biden administration for its recognition of the importance of permitting reform and noted how the administration is encouraging states to streamline their permitting process for broadband infrastructure deployment.
  • He expressed interest in working with the Biden administration on this effort.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Doris Matsui (D-CA):

• She indicated that while she was concerned about the Subcommittee’s process and the representation on the hearing’s witness panel, she expressed hope that the Subcommittee could pursue a more bipartisan approach to address broadband infrastructure deployment issues.
• She discussed how the small towns and hamlets within her Congressional District are “desperate” for modern internet connectivity.
  • She commented that her Congressional District’s broadband internet access issues are not unique and noted how most Subcommittee members receive constituent complaints daily regarding this topic.
• She remarked that Congress must support the efforts of local communities to achieve broadband connectivity and commented that IIJA funding could support these efforts.
  • She mentioned how the IIJA had provided $65 billion to expand access to broadband infrastructure through new deployment and adoption efforts.
  • She indicated that this amount includes $42 billion for the BEAD Program, which supports the deployment of new broadband infrastructure projects.
• She contended that the BEAD Program would be successful because it acknowledges the economic challenges of deploying broadband infrastructure projects in rural areas and provides financial support to private broadband companies that pursue these infrastructure projects in rural areas.
• She called on the Subcommittee to continue its support for the U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and states as they implement the BEAD Program.
  • She asserted that the BEAD Program would be more responsible for closing broadband access disparities than any of the legislative proposals under consideration at the hearing.
• She also recommended that Subcommittee members contact their state broadband offices so that the offices are informed about the needs of their Congressional Districts.
• She then raised concerns that some of the legislative proposals under consideration can undermine collaboration between federal, state, and local governments on broadband infrastructure deployment efforts.
  • She asserted that rigid federal preemption policies will never be as successful in deploying broadband infrastructure as “meaningful” incentives to support local collaboration and engagement.
• She stated however that there exist “ample” opportunities to support a more predictable and sustainable permitting process for broadband infrastructure projects at the federal level.
  • She commented that contradictory permitting requirements, unacceptable deadlines, and confusing layers of federal bureaucracy have inhibited the deployment of broadband infrastructure projects.
  • She added that these permitting challenges are especially pronounced in Western states where federal lands can prevent middle mile broadband connections.

Full Committee Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA):

• She recounted how Congress had provided significant amounts of funding for broadband infrastructure in 2021.
  • She indicated that this funding included over $42 billion for the BEAD Program, $1 billion for middle mile infrastructure deployment, $2 billion for broadband infrastructure deployment on tribal lands, and $2 billion for rural broadband deployment through the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
• She remarked that the U.S. has a “historic opportunity” to connect all Americans to broadband internet services and contended that the U.S. cannot allow for permitting delays and unnecessary costs to ruin this opportunity.
• She lamented how the IIJA increased broadband infrastructure expenditures without making fixes to the burdensome broadband permitting process.
  • She asserted that the U.S.’s failure to remove regulatory barriers to broadband infrastructure deployment will cause federal taxpayer funds to be wasted.
  • She added that this inefficient deployment of broadband infrastructure will especially harm rural areas.
• She discussed how the BEAD Program could begin to award funding for broadband infrastructure projects by the end of 2023 and commented that policymakers should be prepared for the upcoming deployment of broadband infrastructure funding.
• She thanked the NTIA for its recent encouragement of states to identify steps to reduce costs and barriers to broadband infrastructure deployment, promote the use of existing broadband infrastructure, promote and adopt “dig-once” policies, streamline permitting processes, and provide cost-effective access to poles, conduits, easements, and rights-of-way.
  • She asserted however that encouraging these actions alone is insufficient.
• She called on Congress to pass substantive broadband infrastructure permitting reforms, such as the legislative proposals under consideration at the hearing.
  • She commented that these legislative proposals offer a wide variety of needed improvements to existing permitting requirements at the federal, state, and local levels.
• She specifically mentioned her legislative proposal, the Wildfire Wireless Resiliency Act, which would exempt projects to rebuild damaged or destroyed communications facilities from NEPA and historical preservation reviews.
  • She commented that these damaged or destroyed communications facilities have already undergone NEPA and historical preservation reviews during the initial construction phase.
  • She asserted that additional NEPA and historical preservation reviews are therefore redundant.

Full Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ):

• He remarked that Congressional Democrats had delivered on their promise to address digital disparities through passing the IIJA in 2021.
  • He commented that this law had made “historic” investments in broadband infrastructure that will connect millions of Americans to high-speed, affordable, and reliable broadband internet, regardless of income or location.
  • He expressed interest in building upon the IIJA’s investments to further reduce digital disparities.
• He stated that Congressional Democrats have long advocated for the U.S. government to make investments in areas where the private markets have failed to build out equitable and affordable broadband networks.
  • He commented that communities without high-speed and reliable internet are often prevented from engaging in necessary activities, such as applying for jobs, accessing telehealth, and engaging in remote learning.
• He noted how the Biden administration will provide over $60 billion across several programs to bring state-of-the-art broadband networks to families and households in primarily unserved and rural communities, tribal lands, and other unconnected areas.
• He highlighted how most of these broadband infrastructure funds have yet to be distributed and called it critical for Congress to ensure that states and communities are prepared to receive these funds.
  • He commented that funding impediments and delays can jeopardize the smooth implementation of these broadband infrastructure programs.
• He then criticized the Subcommittee for its expedited consideration of legislative proposals to address broadband infrastructure deployment without first spending sufficient time to examine the underlying issues.
• He also asserted that the hearing’s scope is too broad and commented that the legislative proposals on the hearing’s agenda span a vast number of issues.
  • He further expressed frustration with the Subcommittee for rejecting the request from Subcommittee Democrats for a second minority witness.
• He remarked that any discussion of broadband infrastructure deployment issues that does not consider the perspectives of states, municipalities, tribes, environmental justice communities, and other experts is incomplete.
  • He asserted that the actions of Subcommittee Republicans are inconsistent with their calls for bipartisanship on broadband infrastructure issues and warned that these actions could undermine the prospects for future bipartisan legislation.
• He also contended that many of the legislative proposals under consideration propose solutions to problems that do not exist.
• He then stated that a major obstacle to reliable and affordable broadband internet involves state laws that prohibit municipalities from building and operating their own broadband networks.
  • He noted how Rep. Anna Eshoo’s (D-CA) Community Broadband Act would enable communities to build and operate their own broadband networks.
• He also mentioned how Rep. Lizzie Fletcher (D-TX) had proposed the Broadband Incentives for Communities Act, which would provide more resources to communities to deal with the impending influx of broadband infrastructure project applications.

Witness Opening Statements:

Mr. Michael Romano (NTCA—The Rural Broadband Association):

• He remarked that the members of his organization, NTCA—The Rural Broadband Association, have made “extensive strides” in deploying broadband internet to rural areas.
  • He testified that NTCA’s members are actively working to expand broadband internet access to unserved locations in other areas.
• He discussed how NTCA’s members have encountered various issues in navigating current broadband infrastructure permitting laws and procedures.
  • He mentioned how one rural broadband provider had incurred $30,000 in engineering and environmental fees and had experienced a nearly one-year delay to cross land from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for one small part of a large fiber ring.
  • He also mentioned how another rural broadband provider had faced an unnecessarily delayed approval process that was ultimately granted during the winter (which further delayed the project).
  • He further mentioned how another rural broadband provider had faced significant delays due to historical and consultation processes under the NHPA for projects that had primarily been in previously disturbed rights-of-way.
  • He lastly mentioned how a rural broadband provider had faced delays and significant fees simply to bore 15 feet under a railroad crossing.
• He remarked that the aforementioned examples demonstrate how broadband infrastructure providers can face lengthy and frustrating delays and their need to expend substantial sums beyond the cost of construction to access federal lands or other rights-of-way for broadband infrastructure deployment.
• He emphasized that the U.S. is on the precipice of deploying a large amount of broadband infrastructure and commented that these expanded efforts will lead to much greater demands for permits and approvals.
  • He commented that these demands can exacerbate existing permitting backlogs and undermine the U.S.’s goal of universal connectivity.
• He remarked that permitting reforms are critical for facilitating rural broadband infrastructure deployment and expressed NTCA’s appreciation for the Subcommittee’s consideration of legislative proposals to streamline the permitting process.
  • He specifically commended the Subcommittee for its consideration of the BROADBAND Leadership Act, the Broadband Expansion and Deployment Fee Equity and Efficiency (BEAD FEES) Act, and the Reducing Barriers for Broadband on Federal Lands Act.
• He lastly remarked that the Subcommittee should consider ways to improve workforce development for employees in federal, state, and local permitting offices.
• He stated that NTCA members are consistently reporting a lack of staff resources needed to handle the large quantity of broadband project permit applications.
  • He commented that this lack of staff resources has led to confusion, delay, and a lack of effective communication.
• He recommended that the Subcommittee work to ensure that permitting agencies and offices at all levels are adequately staffed, that the staff at these agencies and offices receive training, and that internal systems and procedures are in place within the offices and agencies to ensure more timely and effective communications with applicants.

Mr. Michael Saperstein (Wireless Infrastructure Association):

• He remarked that the U.S. has never been closer to achieving its goal of nationwide broadband connectivity.
• He stated that the U.S. must account for “significant” consumer demand for mobile broadband services and commented that these services have become increasingly available, affordable, accessible, and competitive.
  • He asserted that the U.S.’s broadband potential will ultimately be limited by the barriers that the U.S. fails to remove.
• He noted that while permitting processes serve a function, he commented that “common sense” dictates that not all actions require the same levels of scrutiny.
• He called on the U.S. to provide a predictable permit application process that is proportional to the nature of the project that will be decided in a timely manner.
  • He also stated that the U.S. should explain its reasoning behind permit application rejections and work with applicants to resolve reasonable concerns.
• He remarked that the U.S. could pursue permitting reforms that are built upon existing permitting policies and commented that Congressional action over the previous decade has been effective in reducing the gap between potential and actualized connectivity.
  • He also commended the FCC’s interpretations for helping to reduce this gap.
• He stated that these recent policies had enabled the swift deployment of 5G communications technology and called on the U.S. to maintain and strengthen these reforms as it works to address its unconnected regions.
• He then discussed how the members of his organization, the WIA, have faced numerous permitting challenges in recent years.
  • He stated that many jurisdictions have engaged in “end runs” around broadband infrastructure application “shot clocks” for colocation and minor modifications through claiming that they lack processing procedures (which delayed the start of the “shot clock”).
  • He also stated that many jurisdictions have simply refused to accept broadband infrastructure applications to avoid starting the “shot clock.”
• He also noted how there had been “endless” debate surrounding what constitutes a substantial change to the dimensions of a structure that make it eligible for streamlined review and indicated the FCC’s 5G Upgrade Order had resolved these disagreements.
• He applauded the FCC’s interpretations of Congressional actions to address broadband infrastructure permitting problems.
  • He stated however that the FCC’s orders are subject to challenges and mentioned how the Agency’s 5G Upgrade Order is now being reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
• He expressed appreciation for the WIRELESS Leadership Act, which would codify and make permanent existing FCC interpretations.
• He then remarked that siting on federal lands continues to be a “bedeviling” issue, despite prior Congressional action.
  • He stated that WIA’s members seek clarity, accountability, and transparency with respect to permitting on federal lands.
  • He suggested that simple portals could help to address this issue.
• He further stated that there are resource-driven review issues at the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that require Congressional attention.
• He then expressed WIA’s support for codifying streamlined environmental reviews.
  • He commented that current environmental reviews often make broadband infrastructure projects unworkable and can unnecessarily delay these projects.
• He lastly expressed the WIA’s support for government efforts to prepare for increasing permitting demands across federal, state, and local levels.

Mr. Ernesto Falcon (Electronic Frontier Foundation):

• He remarked that fiber infrastructure underlies the advancement of all broadband access options, including fixed wireless, satellite, and wireline.
• He applauded the IIJA’s priority broadband projects provision and noted how the IIJA requires federal funds to be spent on future-proof networks.
  • He highlighted how the U.S. had previously billions of dollars on infrastructure that quickly became obsolete following deployment.
• He remarked that there exists general agreement regarding the need for predictable construction timelines and standardized costs when accessing public land for broadband infrastructure projects.
  • He commented that project delays constitute an unnecessary cost driver and suggested that standardizing fees could be beneficial.
  • He also warned that poorly designed fee structures can “actively undermine” fiber infrastructure deployment efforts.
• He then contended that increasing staffing resources to relevant perming agencies will yield better results than policies that require expeditious reviews of broadband permitting projects.
  • He indicated that while most communities are eager to work with internet service providers (ISPs) to expand broadband internet access, he commented that these communities tend to be resource constrained.
• He also stated that ISPs cannot know all of the possible complicating factors a public land might hold without involving the public agency in charge of managing the land.
  • He further noted how ISPs are not fully aware of a city’s infrastructure or the status of the rights-of-way in that city and therefore need the help of the city’s government.
• He then recounted how most states had consolidated their franchise authorities nearly 20 years ago following the advent of home fiber internet.
  • He noted how multiple studies had found that the large ISPs had favored the most lucrative communities while forgoing equal upgrades to less desirable areas.
• He stated that this situation has created a two-tiered broadband market where wealthy areas enjoy fiber-based broadband with faster speeds and reduced prices while low-income areas have legacy access that is both slower and more expensive.
  • He noted how Congress had sought to address this problem as part of the IIJA through creating the digital discrimination rulemaking authority at the FCC.
• He contended that local governments must therefore be involved in the permitting process to ensure equitable outcomes in broadband infrastructure permitting decisions.

Mr. Louis Finkel (National Rural Electric Cooperative Association):

• He discussed how rural electric cooperatives are member-owned, not-for-profit, and formed to provide safe, reliable, and affordable electric services to their members.
• He noted how rural electric cooperatives had been formed to bring affordable electricity to high-cost, low-density rural areas that are not being serviced by the large investor-owned utilities.
  • He asserted that these same dynamics are currently present within the rural broadband space.
• He discussed how the costs of building and maintaining infrastructure networks in sparsely populated areas with difficult terrain is prohibitive for many infrastructure providers.
• He testified that more than 200 electric cooperatives in more 39 states are involved in rural broadband infrastructure deployment efforts.
  • He indicated that some of these cooperatives can serve as the ISP.
• He remarked that these electric cooperatives are choosing to provide broadband internet services to rural areas because no other broadband internet providers are offering to service these areas.
• He stated that the existing federal permitting process for broadband infrastructure takes too long, remains too expensive, and impedes the ability of broadband internet providers to meet the needs of their consumers and communities.
  • He called for the permitting process to be modernized to give more certainty and predictability to broadband providers.
• He remarked that NEPA regulations present a significant challenge to rapid broadband deployment and explained that electric cooperatives face NEPA requirements when seeking federal permits, approvals, and assistance.
  • He specifically mentioned how cooperatives can face challenges accessing power line rights-of-way on federal land.
• He noted how existing rights-of-way and easements often only apply to electric service (and not to broadband).
  • He indicated that this situation forces utilities to renegotiate the right-of-way or easement agreement with all jurisdictions and land lowers.
  • He commented that these negotiations can take years to complete and cost millions of dollars.
• He remarked that improving coordination across federal agencies can alleviate many challenges to rural broadband deployment and reduce delays and costs for rural broadband infrastructure projects.
  • He testified that cooperatives have often experienced differing applications of rules when dealing with multiple regional or state offices within the same government agency.
• He also stated that duplicative reviews by federal agencies for broadband infrastructure placed on existing poles and existing infrastructure can delay these infrastructure projects and make these projects more expensive.
  • He asserted that streamlined approaches to actions that are known to have minimal environmental impacts will enable federal agencies to focus their time and resources on proposals that truly have significant environmental impacts.
• He further stated that the U.S. should ensure that broadband maps are accurate before BEAD Program funds are distributed.
  • He commented that Congress should provide flexibility to states to use their own broadband maps and local knowledge in addition to the FCC’s maps when determining eligible locations for BEAD Program projects.
• He then discussed how electric cooperatives own and maintain utility poles and rights-of-way for the safe and reliable distribution of electricity and noted how electric cooperatives will lease out excess pole space to communications providers.
  • He commented that this relationship provides communications companies with cheaper access to an existing pole distribution network.
• He stated that the fees imposed on the use of cooperative poles reflect the unique geographic and demographic characteristics of each cooperative service territory.
• He warned that the FAIR Poles Act could dissuade cooperatives from participating in recently created federal programs aimed at supporting broadband deployment in high-cost rural areas.
  • He asserted that the enactment of the FAIR Poles Act would unfairly change the “rules of the game” after providers have already undergone the complicated and costly process of applying for federal funding.
• He lastly remarked that the federal permitting process becomes even more challenging when multiple federal agencies are involved.
  • He commented that lengthy reviews coupled with unclear timelines and administrative burdens only contribute to these challenges.

The Hon. Michael O’Rielly (MPORielly Consulting, LLC):

• He first expressed support for most of the legislative proposals under consideration at the Subcommittee’s hearing.
  • He expressed appreciation for the Subcommittee’s efforts to ease the broadband permitting process and address pole attachments.
  • He asserted however that several of the legislative proposals under consideration could go even further, especially regarding pole attachments.
• He discussed how the U.S. has long sought to expand access to broadband service for all Americans.
  • He noted that while Subcommittee Republicans have introduced several of the legislative proposals under consideration, he stated that Biden administration officials are supportive of broadband infrastructure permitting reforms and are intending to take action on the issue.
• He remarked that inefficient and costly permitting and pole fee requirements extend broadband buildout timelines, raise overall costs, reduce willingness to participate in federal and state broadband programs, alter bids being submitted, and waste broadband company resources.
  • He commented that the legislative proposals under consideration can help remove a known and legitimate set of obstacles to broadband infrastructure deployment.
• He also asserted that the U.S. could not be a global leader in broadband connectivity without making necessary upgrades to its existing wireless infrastructure.
• He highlighted how the creation of modern wireless networks and the satisfaction of consumer wireless needs requires approval from numerous government entities.
  • He stated that the siting of towers and antennas (regardless of size) has generated “unnecessary” opposition from certain groups.
  • He also mentioned how the operators of these towers and antennas have encountered outdated and discriminatory processes.
• He further noted how application costs have served as an impediment to broadband infrastructure deployment.
• He then discussed how new fiber routes and fiber connecting wireless communication towers and networks will need to be buried underground or attached to existing infrastructure to support wireline centric networks.
  • He noted how these fiber routes will need to receive approval from various levels of governments.
• He remarked that improvements to permitting processes (such as those included within the BROADBAND Leadership Act and other draft bills” will be “exceptionally” helpful to broadband infrastructure deployment efforts.
  • He commented that these legislative proposals are meant to address well-known issues and mentioned how he had confronted these issues directly throughout his professional career.
• He called on the U.S. to streamline federal citing provisions and codify the FCC’s recent actions related to timelines, deemed granted procedures, application fee amounts.
  • He also called for the U.S. to minimize the upgraded approvals needed for broadband infrastructure projects and to address historic preservation and NEPA restrictions.
  • He also mentioned how several of the legislative proposals under consideration at the hearing would address wireless siting procedures on federal lands.
• He stated that one of the legislative proposals would effectively apply Sec. 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, which he commented would sidestep the current exemption for multiple municipal systems, cooperatives, and non-utilities from pole attachment rate regulations.
  • He indicated that while he was concerned that the scope of this proposal might be too narrow, he criticized a recent joint letter from many electric utility and cooperative organizations opposing the proposal.
• He called the proposal a moderate step and called for the complete elimination of the current exemption.
  • He stated that Congress at a minimum should exclude the exemption for areas deemed unserved or underserved.

Congressional Question Period:

Subcommittee Chairman Bob Latta (R-OH):

• Chairman Latta called the IIJA a “missed opportunity” to enact meaningful permitting reforms. He asked Mr. O’Rielly to address how Congress’s failure to eliminate certain permitting requirements could jeopardize broadband internet deployment efforts in difficult-to-reach areas.
  • Mr. O’Rielly remarked that permitting reforms are necessary and commented that the last time that Congress had addressed this issue was its 2012 work on siting provisions. He asserted that the U.S.’s failure to enact permitting reforms will cause broadband infrastructure deployment efforts to be delayed and broadband infrastructure providers to incur higher costs. He mentioned how broadband providers in the FCC’s Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) Program are already facing permitting challenges. He stated that these delays in broadband infrastructure deployment will ultimately cause many Americans to remain unconnected to broadband internet.
• Chairman Latta then discussed how the FCC had taken several actions over the previous decade to streamline permitting processes for wireless infrastructure. He noted how these actions include the imposition of “shot clocks” for reviewing applications, the use of deemed granted remedies when the FCC fails to adhere to its application review deadlines for modifications to existing wireless towers, and limitations on fees. He asked Mr. Saperstein to address how these policies have helped to accelerate the deployment of wireless infrastructure. He also asked Mr. Saperstein to explain why Congress should codify these changes.
  • Mr. Saperstein stated that Congress had influenced the FCC to adopt several interpretations to streamline the siting process for wireless infrastructure. He noted however that these reforms from the FCC are not necessarily permanent and called on Congress to codify the FCC’s existing interpretations. He stated that the FCC’s current interpretations had supported the U.S.’s swift deployment of 5G communications technology. He raised concerns that Congress’s failure to codify the FCC’s existing interpretations could result in federal courts invalidating the interpretations. He mentioned how the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is currently reviewing the legality of the FCC’s 2020 5G Upgrade Order.
• Chairman Latta also expressed concerns over Mr. Saperstein’s claim that many jurisdictions are refusing to accept broadband infrastructure applications so that the “shot clock” on the review process does not commence. He asked Mr. Saperstein to comment on how Congress could address this refusal from jurisdictions to accept these applications.
  • Mr. Saperstein remarked that many of the legislative proposals under consideration at the hearing would provide accountability. He specifically stated that deemed granted measures would help to ensure that applications will be reviewed within a certain period. He noted that applicants would have projects approved if the jurisdictions did not provide the required review within the prescribed period under the deemed granted process.
• Chairman Latta lastly mentioned how the FCC had taken actions to streamline wireline deployment, including one-touch make-ready rules and prohibiting moratoria on deployments. He asked Mr. Romano to identify additional reforms that Congress should consider for streamlining the wireline permitting process.
  • Mr. Romano expressed support for the BROADBAND Leadership Act and commented that the legislation would advance many necessary permitting reforms. He noted how this legislation would provide a clear definition for when applications could be considered complete. He also stated that this legislation would provide clarity to applicants regarding the status of their broadband infrastructure project applications.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Doris Matsui (D-CA):

• Ranking Member Matsui mentioned how she had previously written a letter to the Biden administration urging the U.S. Department of Transportation, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the NTIA to coordinate on the deployment of EV charging and broadband infrastructure. She asserted that much of the broadband access disparities are also present in EV charging infrastructure. She stated that colocating broadband and EV charging infrastructure can address multiple national priorities simultaneously and avoid duplicative permitting requirements. She commented that this would in turn maximize the impact of federal infrastructure funding. She asked Mr. Saperstein to indicate whether coordinating the IIJA’s infrastructure deployment efforts with broadband expansion would reduce deployment barriers and ensure the more efficient use of federal funds.
  • Mr. Saperstein answered affirmatively. He stated that one of WIA’s core tenants is to make shared use of infrastructure.
• Ranking Member Matsui commented that the colocation of broadband and EV charging infrastructure would expedite the deployment of broadband infrastructure. She then mentioned how she had introduced the Digital Equity Foundation Act, which would establish a non-profit foundation that would channel public and private investments to support broadband internet adoption and digital literacy. She asked Mr. Falcon to discuss the role that equity and adoption plays in closing the U.S.’s “digital divide.” She also asked Mr. Falcon to indicate whether additional resources are needed to support these efforts.
  • Mr. Falcon expressed support for efforts to promote digital literacy and to help people recognize the value of internet usage. He also expressed support for broadband infrastructure adoption efforts.
• Ranking Member Matsui then remarked that the “significant” permitting discrepancies across federal agencies can be “extremely” burdensome for broadband deployment efforts involving public lands. She asked Mr. Saperstein to address how diverse and conflicting permitting requirements across federal agencies hinder broadband deployment efforts on federal lands. She also asked Mr. Saperstein to indicate whether these requirements have a disproportionate impact on rural broadband access.
  • Mr. Saperstein remarked that the last remaining areas that are unserved by wireless infrastructure are often in rural areas. He noted that these rural areas often interact with federal lands. He indicated that while there are success stories involving federal agencies that support broadband deployment efforts on federal lands, he asserted that the current lack of clarity, accountability, and transparency is harming the siting process on federal lands.
• Ranking Member Matsui then asked Mr. Falcon to discuss how arbitrary fee scales can disincentivize innovative broadband financial models.
  • Mr. Falcon noted how fiber infrastructure provides longevity from a financial planning standpoint, which can create long-term financing opportunities. He stated however that the existence of fees that make it more expensive to deploy additional fiber infrastructure can undermine long-term planning efforts. He noted how many fiber infrastructure projects will need to look for subscribers and opportunities to sublease during their initial years.
• Ranking Member Matsui noted that while permitting barriers can prevent the deployment of broadband infrastructure in certain circumstances, she contended that the biggest impediments to broadband infrastructure deployment have always been economic considerations. She highlighted how the BEAD Program is attempting to reduce broadband infrastructure deployment disparities in rural areas and low-income neighborhoods. She asked Mr. Falcon to discuss the limitations of permitting reform in addressing broadband infrastructure deployment in underserved areas. She also asked Mr. Falcon to address how the BEAD Program could address broadband access in these underserved areas.
  • Mr. Falcon stated that local governments have always negotiated on behalf of their communities. He called it important for these governments to be part of broadband infrastructure discussions to ensure that the infrastructure will be deployed in an equitable manner.

Full Committee Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA):

• Chairman McMorris Rodgers noted how the federal government owns a significant amount of land in the Western U.S. and highlighted how many Western areas lack broadband internet access, despite billions of dollars of public and private investments into broadband infrastructure deployment. She asked Mr. Romano and Mr. Saperstein to discuss the challenges that the members of their organizations face when attempting to deploy broadband infrastructure on federal lands. She also asked Mr. Romano and Mr. Saperstein to provide recommendations for improving the process for deploying broadband infrastructure on federal lands.
  • Mr. Romano noted how fiber infrastructure constitutes a long-term investment and highlighted how broadband infrastructure providers must plan for build cycles and seasons. He asserted that predictability is key to support this planning for broadband providers (especially for smaller broadband providers). He noted how broadband providers must schedule contractors and suppliers and commented that this uncertainty can discourage their participation in public broadband infrastructure programs.
  • Mr. Saperstein expressed support for the legislative proposals under consideration at the hearing that would create portals so that broadband infrastructure projects could track their application statuses. He noted how broadband infrastructure projects currently cannot view the status of their applications under review by federal agencies.
• Chairman McMorris Rodgers then mentioned how some broadband internet providers have told her that the high cost of pole attachments serves as a barrier to broadband deployment. She also noted how the FCC, states, municipalities, and electric cooperatives can each set different types of pole attachment rates. She asked Mr. Finkel to discuss how electric cooperatives determine their pole attachment rates and to address how these rates compare to regulated pole attachment rates.
  • Mr. Finkel remarked that electric cooperatives set pole attachment rates based on the true cost of the attachment. He noted how many rural areas have more poles than people, which means that the attachment costs in these regions will be high. He stated that electric cooperatives are not seeking to profit from their pole attachment rates. He described electric cooperatives as providers of last resort for rural areas and stated that other broadband providers are not servicing these areas. He asserted that electric cooperatives try to set pole attachment rates that will maintain the safety of poles and recoup the true cost of the attachment.
• Chairman McMorris Rodgers asked Mr. O’Rielly to opine on the topic of pole attachment rates.
  • Mr. O’Rielly noted how there are broadband infrastructure providers that maintain infrastructure next to providers that are exempt from pole attachment rate regulations. He stated that these providers can comply with the FCC’s pole attachment rules and rates, are not facing bankruptcy, and are not imperiling health and safety. He asserted that the current exemption for certain municipal systems, cooperatives, and none-utilities from pole attachment rate regulations does not result in reasonable pole attachment rates. He stated that studies had found that these exempt entities maintain pole attachment rates that were twice or three times as high as non-exempt entities. He remarked that Congress must address these high pole attachment rates considering the U.S.’s significant impending expenditures on broadband infrastructure deployment. He commented that the U.S. would continue to rely on poles to serve many areas moving forward.
• Chairman McMorris Rodgers lastly remarked that the U.S. needs to maintain its global leadership in wireless technologies and noted how the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is attempting to challenge the U.S.’s leadership in this area. She asked the witnesses to address how permitting reform is key to the U.S.’s global competitiveness in their future answers.

Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY):

• Rep. Clarke remarked that access to affordable high-speed internet is essential in the U.S.’s increasingly digital society and applauded the Committee’s work to address broadband internet access disparities. She highlighted how the IIJA had provided billions of dollars in federal funding to bring high-speed internet to millions of Americans lacking broadband access, including those living in historically disadvantaged communities. She asked the witnesses to identify the factors that the Subcommittee should consider as part of broadband infrastructure deployment efforts to ensure that low-income and minority communities would obtain broadband internet access.
  • Mr. Falcon remarked that the fundamental goal for broadband infrastructure applications and funding should be to ensure that broadband infrastructure is built in an equitable fashion. He stated that Congress had provided the FCC with digital discrimination rulemaking authority in response to historical redlining and cherry picking within the broadband infrastructure space.
  • Mr. Romano remarked that Congress and federal funding agencies should continue to ensure that recipients of federal broadband infrastructure funding service the entirety of the areas for which they receive funding. He specifically stated that these recipients should not differentiate their provided services across the communities within a given service area. He asserted that policymakers will need to track how federal broadband funding is being distributed.
  • Mr. Saperstein remarked that one of the chief benefits of wireless infrastructure (and particularly shared wireless infrastructure) is that it allows for multiple service providers to attach to the same facility, which enables multiple network providers to serve a given community. He noted that this dynamic had enabled the U.S. to have very high 4G LTE coverage rates and commented that this dynamic is supporting the fast deployment of 5G communications technology.
• Rep. Clarke then mentioned how Mr. Falcon had asserted that previous deregulatory efforts had failed to spur industry competition and had failed to mitigate digital redlining. She asked Mr. Falcon to discuss how digital redlining perpetuates poverty in low-income and minority communities. She also asked Mr. Falcon to explain why the FCC’s previous efforts to streamline permitting for broadband infrastructure deployment have not led to more infrastructure projects in digitally redlined communities.
  • Mr. Falcon remarked that broadband infrastructure providers are naturally inclined to target the most lucrative portions of a community first. He stated that these providers will only service these lucrative portions of a community absent regulation. He noted how studies have shown this dynamic has repeatedly played out throughout the U.S. He remarked that the ramifications of this dynamic are significant and noted how this limited deployment of broadband infrastructure can impact property values. He stated that the COVID-19 pandemic had exposed the problems of weaker broadband internet networks as many families had been forced to rely on home broadband internet services for both work and education.

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

• Rep. Bilirakis recounted how Pasco County in his Congressional District had waited 22 years to receive federal approval for an emergency flood evacuation route. He indicated that this approval had only been granted following an Executive Order (EO) from former President Trump. He contended that the U.S. should not need to rely upon EOs to streamline its permit approvals (especially for projects that promote public safety). He mentioned how he had proposed the Coastal Broadband Deployment Act, which would remove barriers to deploying or modifying communications facilities within a floodplain. He commented that this legislative proposal would help people to remain connected to broadband services during weather events. He noted how Mr. Romano had indicated that NTCA’s members have experienced two-year delays on their broadband infrastructure projects because of the federal review processes. He asked Mr. Romano to discuss the potential regulatory problems that a company may face when seeking to modify an existing communications facility.
  • Mr. Romano remarked that NTCA’s members often face challenges restoring and upgrading networks and commented that this process should be easy considering that the networks had previously received regulatory approval. He expressed support for legislative proposals (such as the Coastal Broadband Deployment Act) and commented that these proposals would be critical for enabling broadband infrastructure projects to obtain regulatory approvals for upgrades under NEPA and the NHPA. He then noted how these legislative proposals under consideration are tied to Sec. 6409 of the Spectrum Act of 2012, which primarily deals with wireless issues. He recommended that the Subcommittee consider legislative proposals to amend Sec. 6409 of the Spectrum Act of 2012 to include wireline networks.
• Rep. Bilirakis expressed receptiveness to Mr. Romano’s recommendation. He then discussed the importance of real-time communications during emergency periods. He asked Mr. Saperstein to indicate whether there are instances where regulatory delays in approving the build outs or disaster mitigation for communications facilities can unnecessarily threaten lives through hindered communications.
  • Mr. Saperstein answered affirmatively. He noted how many parklands (particularly in Western areas) remain unserved and called this situation a public safety threat. He expressed support for policies that could expedite siting on federal lands as a means to avoid public safety problems.
• Rep. Bilirakis then mentioned how the federal government had allocated tens of billions of dollars in recent years for broadband infrastructure buildout and for addressing broadband internet access disparities. He asked Mr. O’Rielly to estimate how much of this federal funding is going towards efforts to obtain permit approvals (as opposed to going towards efforts to deploy the infrastructure).
  • Mr. O’Rielly estimated that between 15 percent and 20 percent of federal broadband infrastructure funding is going towards efforts to obtain permit approvals.

Rep. Darren Soto (D-FL):

• Rep. Soto recounted his recent visit to Kenansville, Florida in his Congressional District and noted how the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) is supporting broadband internet deployment in this rural area. He stated that rural businesses often have significant data needs. He also highlighted how the IIJA is building upon these investments through providing $65 billion to improve internet access. He noted how this amount includes $42 billion for the BEAD Program. He applauded his state of Florida’s work to participate in the BEAD Program and noted how the NTIA had estimated that Florida could receive as much as $1.5 billion from the BEAD Program. He also highlighted how Spectrum had worked to provide broadband internet services to many rural areas of his Congressional District. He asked Mr. Romano to indicate whether NTCA’s member companies are prepared to deploy broadband internet to rural regions.
  • Mr. Romano answered affirmatively. He stated that some of the biggest challenges associated with rural broadband internet deployment will involve supply chain issues, trained workforce availability, and permitting issues. He remarked that NTCA’s member companies have probably been the most active participants in the USDA’s ReConnect Loan and Grant Program and expressed their interest in rural deployment issues. He noted how a very large amount of broadband funding will be made available shortly. He asserted that the U.S. must ensure that it can adequately permit broadband infrastructure projects through having appropriate procedures, staff, skill sets, training, and portals in place.
• Rep. Soto asked Mr. Finkel to address how National Rural Electric Cooperative Association’s (NRECA) member cooperatives are preparing to deploy broadband infrastructure. He also asked Mr. Finkel to indicate how the customers of NRECA’s member cooperatives view the prospects of obtaining higher speed internet.
  • Mr. Finkel noted how electric cooperatives are community-owned and stated that these communities dictate when electric cooperatives build out their broadband infrastructure.
• Rep. Soto then mentioned how the Biden administration had released a permitting action plan and how the Subcommittee is currently considering numerous legislative proposals to reform broadband infrastructure permitting processes. He asked Mr. Falcon to provide his thoughts on the Biden administration’s proposed permitting actions. He also asked Mr. Falcon to recommend principles that should guide policymakers as they work to reform permitting processes.
  • Mr. Falcon remarked that the broad interest in permitting reforms from both the Biden administration and Congress demonstrates a shared commitment to the success of the BEAD Program’s implementation. He recommended that policymakers should focus on predictability in terms of permitting schedules and costs to ensure the best outcomes for broadband infrastructure projects.
• Rep. Soto lastly commented that Congressional oversight will remain important as the U.S. works to deploy broadband infrastructure.

Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI):

• Rep. Walberg discussed how U.S. broadband internet providers are experiencing significant permitting delays and partially attributed these delays to a lack of interagency cooperation. He asked Mr. Romano to address how the U.S. could improve coordination between federal agencies on broadband infrastructure deployment efforts. He also asked Mr. Romano to indicate whether requiring all government broadband programs to make distributions based on the FCC’s new broadband maps could address overbuilding problems.
  • Mr. Romano remarked that a singular data source could support interagency coordination on broadband infrastructure deployment efforts. He acknowledged that the FCC’s maps are static in nature and will need to be updated periodically. He also noted how the BEAD Program contains processes for states to challenge the FCC’s maps. He remarked however that a singular data source would serve a key starting point for interagency coordination on broadband infrastructure deployment efforts. He also stated that federal agencies should share information regarding their enforceable commitments and grants to prevent duplicative spending.
• Rep. Walberg then asked Mr. Saperstein to indicate whether the Subcommittee should be concerned about other potential “bottlenecks” to broadband infrastructure deployment, including supply chain issues and workforce shortages. He also asked Mr. Saperstein to discuss efforts underway to ensure that the U.S. possesses a sufficient broadband workforce.
  • Mr. Saperstein mentioned how WIA participates in the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DoL) Telecommunications Industry Registered Apprenticeship Program (TIRAP), which has thousands of apprentices working with over 80 employers. He expressed agreement with Rep. Walberg’s concerns that a limited workforce could constrain the U.S.’s broadband infrastructure deployment efforts.
• Rep. Walberg then mentioned how he had introduced the Brownfields Broadband Deployment Act, which would streamline the deployment of broadband infrastructure projects in brownfield sites thorough eliminating the requirement to prepare an environmental or historic preservation review. He noted how brownfield sites are often located in digitally underserved areas and commented that the legislative proposal’s changes will help to promote greater digital connectivity. He highlighted how a brownfield site in Vicksburg, Michigan is being converted into a lodging and entertainment facility and noted how this facility faces broadband connection challenges. He asked Mr. Romano to discuss the importance of broadband internet connection to rural areas. He also asked Mr. Romano to address how a longer regulatory approval process for broadband infrastructure projects can destroy economic opportunities in rural areas.
  • Mr. Romano discussed how rural broadband networks provide communities with access to telehealth, remote work, and economic development. He asserted that broadband infrastructure deployment will be key to attracting people to rural areas and stated that permitting can serve as a barrier to broadband infrastructure buildouts. He elaborated that many broadband internet providers might be afraid to pursue infrastructure projects due to uncertainty around the regulatory approval process.

Full Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ):

• Ranking Member Pallone expressed concerns that the legislative proposals that usurp local authority on broadband infrastructure permitting decisions will create more problems than they solve. He noted how Mr. Falcon’s testimony had discussed examples of when previous deregulation efforts have exacerbated broadband access disparities. He asked Mr. Falcon to address how Congress should view the role of municipalities and local leaders in broadband internet deployment efforts. He also asked Mr. Falcon to discuss how proposals to remove local consultation and authority hinder efforts to connect all Americans to high-speed internet.
  • Mr. Falcon recounted how New York had retained local authority for broadband franchising while California had consolidated this authority under its state government. He stated that New York City is now successfully deploying fiber internet to hundreds of thousands of low-income households while Los Angeles has less than half of their residents connected to broadband internet. He asserted that this situation demonstrates the important role that local governments can play in ensuring that broadband internet is being deployed equitably.
• Ranking Member Pallone then discussed how a lack of government agency resources is contributing to permitting delays. He asked Mr. Falcon to identify the risks posed to communities and the general public if the U.S. ignores resource constraints and focuses only on strict approval timelines and deemed granted provisions.
  • Mr. Falcon remarked that the upcoming deployment of broadband infrastructure will constitute the largest public works project in decades for many areas. He noted that these areas currently lack the necessary staffing to review and approve these broadband infrastructure projects. He stated that the government must play a necessary role in reviewing and approving these broadband infrastructure projects and that government staffing would therefore be key to the deployment of these projects.
• Ranking Member Pallone asked Mr. Falcon to indicate whether the U.S. would be able to address delays in broadband infrastructure permitting without first providing federal, state, local, and tribal permitting agencies with additional resources through personnel and training.
  • Mr. Falcon remarked that there would occur “unforeseeable complications” associated with broadband infrastructure deployment efforts if government permitting agencies remain under-resourced. He noted how much of the new federal broadband infrastructure funding is going toward construction in new areas. He stated that local government agencies possess significant knowledge about these areas. He warned that the failure to engage these local agencies as part of the permitting process can undermine broadband infrastructure deployment efforts.
• Ranking Member Pallone then expressed concerns that many Americans will remain unable to access newly constructed broadband infrastructure if these Americans cannot afford broadband internet service. He asked Mr. O’Rielly to discuss the importance of the FCC’s ACP.
  • Mr. O’Rielly expressed support for the ACP and for providing the ACP with additional funding. He noted how many Americans cannot access broadband internet because they cannot afford it. He stated that the ACP is a well-structured program that improves access to broadband internet services.

Subcommittee Vice Chair Buddy Carter (R-GA):

• Vice Chair Carter noted how FCC Chairman Jessica Rosenworcel had previously asserted that the U.S. needs to address delays in state and local permitting processes. He stated that one of his top priorities is to reduce digital disparities, particularly in rural America. He also called it “extremely important” for the U.S. to maintain its global leadership on broadband internet and wireless innovation, investment, and competition. He mentioned how he had proposed the Proportional Reviews for Broadband Deployment Act, which would expedite the process for certain modifications to wireless towers and base stations. He noted how this legislative proposal would exempt the addition, removal, or replacement of transmission equipment on those towers and stations from environmental and historic preservation reviews. He asked Mr. Saperstein to indicate whether this policy would improve the quality and timeliness of broadband infrastructure deployment.
  • Mr. Saperstein answered affirmatively. He stated that many of the legislative proposals under consideration at the hearing would make reviews more proportional. He commented that not all broadband infrastructure projects require the same levels of review. He stated that colocations and projects that have already undergone reviews do not require the same levels of review as new projects. He commented that the legislative proposals under consideration would apply a “common sense” approach to the infrastructure review process.
• Vice Chair Carter expressed agreement with Mr. Saperstein’s assertion that the legislative proposals under consideration at the hearing would provide a “common sense” approach to the infrastructure review process. He then discussed how the New Jersey state assembly had passed a bill in June 2021 that would institute cost-based fees, “shot clocks,” and deemed granted remedies for wireless and broadband network facilities. He noted how this New Jersey bill had sought to meet the growing consumer demand for wireless data and increase the availability of competitive options for communications services available. He also mentioned how Subcommittee Chairman Bob Latta (R-OH) had introduced the WIRELESS Leadership Act that contains many of the same principles as the aforementioned New Jersey bill. He asked Mr. Saperstein to indicate whether enacting the policies in the aforementioned bills would help meet the needs of consumers and promote competition.
  • Mr. Saperstein answered affirmatively. He expressed WIA’s appreciation for the WIRELESS Leadership Act and noted how the legislation would codify many of the FCC’s actions to encourage reasonable fees and to streamline permitting procedures.
• Vice Chair Carter also noted how the aforementioned New Jersey bill had been amended to accommodate concerns from the state’s residents and municipal leaders. He asked Mr. Saperstein to describe how broadband permitting laws can balance state and local concerns with the need for timely and fair permitting processes.
  • Mr. Saperstein noted how many broadband infrastructure permitting reforms have exempted collocated facilities from permitting review requirements. He called these reforms sensible because they involve existing infrastructure. He stated that none of the legislative proposals under consideration at the hearing would remove a community’s ability to raise legitimate aesthetic concerns.

Rep. Ann Kuster (D-NH):

• Rep. Kuster mentioned how Congress had invested a “historic” $65 billion to build out the U.S.’s broadband infrastructure through the IIJA. She noted how the IIJA had established the BEAD Program for states to expand high-speed broadband services to their communities. She stated that the BEAD Program would ensure that rural and difficult-to-reach communities will have access to broadband internet services. She noted how Mr. Falcon had discussed how deploying the broadband infrastructure envisioned under the IIJA would constitute a major endeavor for many small communities. She asked Mr. Falcon to address how Congress should ensure that local governments are equipped to meet this challenge.
  • Mr. Falcon remarked that Congress could provide resources to local governments for personnel to satisfy the impending surge in permitting demand. He noted that a large volume of broadband infrastructure projects would occur within a short period of years and commented that the U.S. would not be revisiting these projects after they are constructed for a long time.
• Rep. Kuster then discussed how local governments would play an important role in bringing high-speed broadband service to their communities. She stated that broadband services will remain inaccessible to families that cannot afford them. She highlighted how the IIJA had established the ACP to help eligible households afford internet services and noted how the ACP has already connected over 16 million Americans to broadband internet services. She stated however that the ACP’s funding is set to run out absent Congressional action. She asked Mr. O’Rielly to elaborate on the importance of funding the ACP.
  • Mr. O’Rielly expressed support for the ACP and called it important for the U.S. to address broadband internet affordability. He commented that the ACP is critical for enabling many Americans to afford broadband internet. He then mentioned how he had personally spent a lot of time in New Hampshire and stated that the state’s local governments are very competent. He asserted that subsidies for broadband internet coverage would be more effective for increasing broadband internet access in the state than increasing the state’s number of local government personnel.
• Rep. Kuster commented that New Hampshire was fortunate to have volunteers support their local governments. She then mentioned how she is a co-chair of the Congressional Rural Broadband Caucus. She called it critical for Congress to both address the challenges associated with deploying rural broadband infrastructure and make broadband internet services more affordable. She stated that the IIJA had established policies to reduce the U.S.’s digital disparities and expressed interest in building upon this law in a bipartisan fashion. She then yielded the remainder of her time to Subcommittee Chairman Bob Latta (R-OH).

Subcommittee Chairman Bob Latta (R-OH):

• Chairman Latta noted how Mr. Finkel had stated that electric cooperatives need to renegotiate for broadband on pre-existing lines located on federal lands. He asked Mr. Finkel to explain this situation.
  • Mr. Finkel noted how many rural electric cooperatives are either crossing or abutting federal lands. He stated that rural electric cooperatives can have existing electric infrastructure, existing rights-of-way, and existing easements and still be required to undergo a greenfield review to put up broadband on those existing lines.

Rep. Neal Dunn (R-FL):

• Rep. Dunn discussed how natural disasters (such as hurricanes) can damage communications infrastructure and stated that this infrastructure must be restored quickly and efficiently following such disasters. He expressed his intention to reintroduce the Connecting Communities Post Disaster Act, which would exempt projects to replace and improve communications facilities from environmental and historic preservation review requirements after a major disaster declared by the President. He asserted that these review requirements create “needless” delays during periods where swift action is necessary. He also noted how these damaged communications facilities had already received environmental and historic preservation reviews at the time of their construction. He asked Mr. Saperstein to indicate whether wireless connectivity is especially important during and immediately following a natural disaster.
  • Mr. Saperstein answered affirmatively. He stated that the Connecting Communities Post Disaster Act makes several “common sense points” regarding NEPA reform.
• Rep. Dunn mentioned how he had lost cellular phone service for 13 days following Hurricane Michael. He asked Mr. Saperstein to indicate whether there exist any regulatory barriers to wireless deployment during natural disaster recovery periods.
  • Mr. Saperstein noted that the physical infrastructure is generally resilient during natural disasters and stated that the major challenge during natural disasters involves the loss of power.  He commented that policymakers need to support power recovery efforts during these periods.
• Rep. Dunn requested that the Subcommittee support the Connecting Communities Post Disaster Act and stated that the legislation will improve the U.S.’s ability to respond and rebuild following natural disasters. He then asked Mr. Romano to identify the greatest regulatory burdens, challenges, and inefficiencies that are impacting wired connectivity in rural areas.
  • Mr. Romano stated that it is difficult to make rural broadband networks financially attractive to businesses because these networks must cover large distances and the coverage areas for these networks have low population densities. He also stated that broadband internet providers face challenges when seeking to obtain the needed permits to deploy their infrastructure in rural areas. He noted how many NTCA members have been present in their communities for decades and must undergo NEPA and NHPA reviews when seeking to replace or upgrade their existing facilities. He added that these members must undergo regulatory reviews when attempting to restore their networks following a natural disaster.

Rep. Tony Cárdenas (D-CA):

• Rep. Cárdenas discussed how the IIJA had provided $65 billion for addressing digital disparities and improving access to affordable, reliable, and high-speed broadband internet. He noted how the NTIA will soon begin providing grants to states and territories to deliver broadband access to underserved areas. He stated however that Congress must do more to expand access to affordable broadband services. He noted how broadband infrastructure projects must undergo permitting review processes before the projects can be deployed. He called these processes important for keeping communities safe, maintaining robust competition, and ensuring that stakeholders are not being ignored. He asserted however that the permitting process should not be overly burdensome and commented that the U.S. must balance the need to protect communities with the need to expand broadband internet access. He then mentioned how Mr. Falcon had stated that New York City’s broadband internet deployment policies had yielded more equitable results than Los Angeles’s broadband internet deployment policies. He asked Mr. Falcon to provide additional examples of broadband internet deployment policies from state and local governments that can serve as models for expanding broadband internet access.
  • Mr. Falcon remarked that local governments are valuable partners in deploying broadband infrastructure projects. He highlighted how Brentwood, California had required broadband infrastructure providers to build an underground conduit and deed the conduit to the city. He commented that this conduit had enabled a competitive fiber internet provider to deploy fast and cheap private internet options. He stated that the local government in this instance had eliminated the most expensive part of broadband infrastructure construction. He remarked that more communities should make their rights-of-way accessible and pre-plan for new market entrants.
• Rep. Cárdenas then asked Mr. Falcon to discuss the importance of the ACP in helping the U.S. to achieve universal broadband internet connectivity. He also asked Mr. Falcon to address how a permanent ACP would enable low-income communities to better attract broadband internet providers.
  • Mr. Falcon remarked that making the ACP permanent would “radically” change the financial planning of many broadband internet providers. He indicated that both public and private industry stakeholders had told him that the temporary nature of the ACP prevents them pursuing long-term broadband infrastructure projects based on ACP funds. He stated that making the ACP permanent would lead broadband internet providers to expand their networks to currently unserved and underserved areas because there would exist a predictable revenue stream from these areas.
• Rep. Cárdenas asked Mr. Falcon to indicate whether longer-term funding for the ACP would spur public-private partnerships to expand broadband internet accessibility.
  • Mr. Falcon remarked that a permanent ACP would expand the capacity of all broadband internet providers to deploy fiber infrastructure because it would create a dependable revenue stream for these providers.

Rep. John Curtis (R-UT):

• Rep. Curtis noted that half of his Congressional District is classified as frontier and that the federal government owns 90 percent of the land in his Congressional District. He stated that his Congressional District therefore experiences significant permitting challenges involving federal lands. He mentioned how he had proposed the Rural Broadband Permitting Efficiency Act, which would enable states to perform the NEPA review process. He noted that states already perform NEPA reviews involving transportation matters. He mentioned how the U.S. House of Representatives had previously advanced this legislation on a bipartisan basis during the 115th Congress. He asked Mr. Finkel to discuss the costs associated with prolonged permitting processes.
  • Mr. Finkel remarked that permitting delays can significantly increase a broadband infrastructure project’s cost and commented that this higher cost exacerbates current supply chain challenges. He noted how federal broadband infrastructure funding will eventually expire and stated that permitting delays can jeopardize a broadband infrastructure provider’s ability to complete their project within this funding window. He also remarked that construction costs are likely to increase in the future, which means that permitting delays will result in broadband infrastructure projects that exceed current cost estimates. He further commented that the aforementioned problems apply to projects that involve existing rights-of-way.
• Rep. Curtis emphasized that these broadband infrastructure permitting delays impact many Americans who must wait longer to obtain broadband internet services. He asked Mr. Saperstein to discuss how broadband infrastructure permitting reforms would benefit WIA’s members.
  • Mr. Saperstein stated that broadband infrastructure permitting reforms could support universal broadband connectivity.
• Rep. Curtis then mentioned how the NTIA and the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) had announced an agreement in August 2022 to streamline NEPA reviews for tribal broadband grants. He asked Mr. Saperstein, Mr. Romano, and Mr. O’Rielly to address the impact of this agreement and comment on the wisdom of this agreement.
  • Mr. Saperstein expressed support for actions to streamline permitting processes and noted how many projects involving federal lands have faced permitting challenges.
  • Mr. Romano stated that the NTIA and BIA’s agreement to streamline NEPA reviews for tribal broadband grants should serve as a model for other federal programs. He also stated that many consumers experience frustration when they hear about local broadband infrastructure grants being awarded and then they still must wait years for the infrastructure to be built out.
  • Mr. O’Rielly commented that coordination across federal agencies is beneficial in terms of promoting broadband infrastructure deployment. He also asserted that Congressional action to address permitting challenges would be very helpful to supporting broadband infrastructure deployment efforts.
• Rep. Curtis called on Congress to advance the permitting reform proposals under consideration at the hearing.

Rep. Marc Veasey (D-TX):

• Rep. Veasey remarked that the IIJA is delivering on its promises to combat digital disparities and improve access to broadband internet. He stated that the ACP has been successful in making broadband internet affordable for low-income households. He mentioned how his state of Texas has among the highest ACP enrollment rates in the U.S. He also noted how nearly 50,000 households are enrolled in the ACP in Subcommittee Chairman Bob Latta’s (R-OH) Congressional District. He called on the Subcommittee to consider the ACP’s sustainability. He then noted how Mr. O’Rielly had previously asserted that more broadband infrastructure deployment would not necessarily equate to greater broadband internet adoption. He also noted how Mr. O’Rielly had stated that broadband internet would remain inaccessible to poor families if affordability concerns are not addressed. He expressed agreement with Mr. O’Rielly’s views. He asked Mr. O’Rielly to elaborate on the importance of extending the ACP’s funding. He noted how the ACP’s funding is projected to be depleted by the middle of next year (if not sooner).
  • Mr. O’Rielly first stated that the ACP has long-term authorization and that the ACP’s challenges involve long-term funding. He then discussed how many Americans (in both urban and rural areas) will face challenges affording broadband internet and called it important for the U.S. to address broadband internet affordability. He stated that the ACP is a well-structured program to promote broadband internet affordability and called on Congress to increase the ACP’s funding.
• Rep. Veasey remarked that there exist positive externalities associated with broadband internet adoption. He indicated that these positive externalities include more efficient government operations and the generation of economic activity. He asked Mr. O’Rielly to elaborate on these positive externalities and to discuss how the loss of the ACP would harm the families that rely upon the Program. He further asked Mr. O’Rielly to address how this loss of broadband internet connectivity for families might impact local businesses and communities.
  • Mr. O’Rielly noted how increased broadband internet adoption would reduce the need for government agencies to offer certain services in paper forms, which will reduce costs and enable government agencies to deploy their resources more efficiently. He also mentioned how increased broadband internet adoption would enable many people to access services and products that might not be available in their local communities. He further noted how increased broadband internet adoption would enable many Americans to pursue remote work opportunities that are currently inaccessible to them.

Rep. John Joyce (R-PA):

• Rep. Joyce discussed how virtually every facet of American life now requires fast and reliable access to broadband internet. He called it incumbent on Congress to support their constituents in accessing broadband internet. He noted however that permitting delays often serve as barriers to the deployment of broadband infrastructure. He mentioned how he had proposed legislation to streamline the permitting process for broadband infrastructure deployment. He asserted that Congress must ensure that rural areas have access to broadband internet and commented that this access would benefit students, small businesses, farmers, seniors, and families. He asked Mr. Saperstein to recount positive interactions that WIA has had with state and local permitting agencies. He also asked Mr. Saperstein to indicate whether there are lessons to be drawn from these experiences.
  • Mr. Saperstein discussed how many communities now recognize the “intense value” associated with mobile and wireless connectivity. He testified that WIA maintains positive relationships with many local communities and stated that the legislative proposals under consideration at the hearing would help to maintain successful reforms nationwide. He remarked that WIA recognizes both the importance of local input into siting processes and the need to construct broadband infrastructure to support universal coverage goals.
• Rep. Joyce asked Mr. Saperstein to recommend actions that Congress could take to reduce broadband internet deployment costs for broadband internet providers.
  • Mr. Saperstein remarked that colocation has proven to be an effective strategy for expediting the siting process and increasing wireless coverage. He also recommended that Congress make permanent the FCC’s interpretations of Congressional actions.
• Rep. Joyce then discussed how broadband infrastructure construction can often only occur in certain weather conditions. He asked Mr. Romano to address how loan application review wait times, environmental reviews, and/or historical preservation reviews delayed the ability of NTCA’s members to deploy broadband infrastructure projects in areas where the construction period might only be half a year.
  • Mr. Romano noted how Northern states tend to have more limited construction windows for broadband infrastructure projects due to their more intense winter seasons. He mentioned how a North Dakota broadband infrastructure project had to wait nine months for a NEPA review relating to an item that should have been categorically excluded. He indicated that this project had needed to wait several additional months to commence construction because the NEPA review approval had come at the start of the winter season. He remarked that the adoption of more concrete “shot clocks” and more established definitions will give broadband infrastructure providers more predictability.
• Rep. Joyce called predictability “ultimate” in enabling the U.S. to expand broadband internet access. He asked Mr. Romano to describe federal permitting regulations that are impeding the deployment of broadband infrastructure.
  • Mr. Romano remarked that reviews under both NEPA and the NHPA can serve as barriers to the deployment of broadband infrastructure. He commented that while these reviews are important, he asserted that the U.S. should make these reviews proportionately. He stated that the U.S. should not provide these reviews for projects in previously disturbed right-of-way or to projects meant to restore networks. He commented that reviews under NEPA and the NHPA will greatly contribute to the cost of these types of projects and noted how these projects had already been reviewed under these laws. He stated that requiring these projects to undergo NEPA and NHPA reviews will drive delays, which will increase the cost of projects.
• Rep. Joyce emphasized that time delays for broadband infrastructure projects result in increased costs.

Rep. Lizzie Fletcher (D-TX):

• Rep. Fletcher remarked that broadband infrastructure constitutes essential infrastructure. She mentioned how she had supported the IIJA and noted how the law includes almost $43 billion for the BEAD Program. She indicated that the majority of BEAD Program funding will soon be distributed to states, territories, and tribal governments. She stated that there will occur a “flood” of applications to use BEAD Program funds to deploy broadband infrastructure (including towers, fiber, and small cells). She expressed concerns that local government agencies will be “strained” in reviewing these applications. She mentioned how she had proposed the Broadband Incentives for Communities Act, which provides grants for local governments to hire and train employees, purchase software, and upgrade their capabilities. She called this legislation “essential” for supporting permitting processes and ensuring the effective deployment of broadband infrastructure funds. She noted how Mr. Romano and Mr. Saperstein had described the challenges that the members of their respective organizations had faced when obtaining authorizations and permits for broadband infrastructure projects. She asked Mr. Romano and Mr. Saperstein to address how new legislation (like the Broadband Incentives for Communities Act) could address these challenges and prevent permitting backlogs at the local level.
  • Mr. Romano remarked that legislative proposals like the Broadband Incentives for Communities Act would help to ensure that local government agencies are prepared to approve permits for broadband infrastructure projects in a streamlined fashion. He expressed support for efforts to equip local government agencies with systems, training, online portals, and better staffing. He commented that these resources would enable better communication from the government agencies.
  • Mr. Saperstein expressed agreement with Mr. Romano’s response. He called it critical for local governments to have the resources and expertise to review broadband infrastructure projects quickly so that this infrastructure can be deployed. He also mentioned how the NTIA had recently emphasized the importance of having local government agencies be “broadband ready” and applauded the NTIA’s emphasis in this area.
• Rep. Fletcher then mentioned how the Broadband Incentives for Communities Act would convene stakeholders through the NTIA to establish the Local Broadband Advisory Council. She commented that this body would enable problems to be addressed in a collaborative manner and indicated that the body is modeled after work done in Houston, Texas. She asked Mr. Falcon to discuss the importance of public-private partnerships, particularly in the early stages of broadband infrastructure projects.
  • Mr. Falcon noted how cities often have crowded rights-of-way and stated that Congress needs to explore alternative ways to deploy wires. He mentioned how the Broadband Incentives for Communities Act includes provisions to improve microtrenching. He commented that microtrenching is cheaper to deploy and will expand access to broadband internet services. He also mentioned how there are proposals to deploy broadband infrastructure through stormwater systems. He concluded that public-private partnerships are key for broadband deployment and can benefit all involved parties.

Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX)

• Rep. Weber discussed his legislative proposal, the Cable Transparency Act, which would streamline the franchising process for cable operators and franchise authorities. He commented that the expensive and burdensome nature of this process deters new entrants in this space. He stated that this legislation would reduce digital disparities through encouraging new cable providers to enter markets and commented that the resulting competition would drive down consumer costs. He asked Mr. O’Rielly to discuss the barriers to entry that cable providers face when entering new markets or attempting to modify their franchises in existing markets.
  • Mr. O’Rielly noted how many cable franchises experience challenges when attempting to add obligations and expressed support for efforts to simplify the franchise process. He added that transparency constitutes an important element of these simplification efforts. He also discussed how many cable providers face challenges obtaining access to pole infrastructure when seeking to expand the size of their networks. He concluded that the legislative proposals under consideration at the hearing (including the Cable Transparency Act) would be helpful in improving the broadband infrastructure permitting process.
• Rep. Weber also asked the witnesses to indicate whether a lack of access to capital serves as a barrier to broadband infrastructure deployment.
  • Mr. Romano remarked that the business case for rural broadband can be “incredibly challenging” because rural broadband infrastructure must cover large amounts of distance and may only serve a small number of people. He stated that the operating expenses and the ability to maintain affordable rates associated with rural broadband infrastructure makes many broadband internet providers unwilling to pursue rural broadband infrastructure projects.
• Rep. Weber asked the witnesses to indicate whether workforce availability serves a barrier to broadband infrastructure deployment.
  • Mr. Saperstein discussed how WIA is working to develop the next generation of technicians that will be deploying broadband infrastructure. He mentioned how WIA maintains its Registered Apprenticeship Program and is working with states to become a registered intermediary through the BEAD Program.
• Rep. Weber asked the witnesses to indicate whether supply chain issues serve as a barrier to broadband infrastructure deployment.
  • Mr. Finkel remarked that supply chain challenges are impeding broadband infrastructure deployment efforts. He noted how the federal government is soon set to spend $65 billion on broadband infrastructure and that this government spending is on top of private sector spending. He further noted how there would occur upgrades of existing broadband infrastructure and how the supply chain is global in nature.
  • Mr. Falcon recommended that policymakers consider alternative means of deploying broadband infrastructure. He stated that policymakers need to consider ways to share this infrastructure (particularly for 5G communications technology in rural markets). He commented that small broadband internet providers could not be solely responsible for deploying broadband infrastructure in rural areas.
• Rep. Weber asked Mr. Falcon to explain microtrenching.
  • Mr. Falcon noted how many of the rights-of-way currently in existence are very crowded. He stated that microtrenching involves the deployment of smaller broadband networks in an expedited fashion. He commented that his approach enables broadband infrastructure providers to connect areas to broadband internet outside of traditional conduits. He noted how many communities lack familiarity with microtrenching. He mentioned how California had established safety protocols around microtrenching and had distributed these safety protocols to local jurisdictions to make the jurisdictions more comfortable with this approach.

Rep. Robin Kelly (D-IL):

• Rep. Kelly discussed how the IIJA provides $65 billion in investments for expanding broadband internet access and addressing digital disparities. She mentioned how her Congressional District contains urban, suburban, and rural areas and commented that broadband internet access problems exist in all of these areas. She expressed concerns that many communities will not participate in the U.S.’s upcoming efforts to expand broadband internet access. She asked Mr. Falcon to provide recommendations for ensuring that broadband internet access will be delivered universally.
  • Mr. Falcon mentioned how the IIJA had created the digital discrimination rulemaking authority at the FCC. He asserted that the FCC’s “vigorous” enforcement of this authority would be key to ensuring equitable outcomes in broadband internet deployment.
• Rep. Kelly asked Mr. Falcon to discuss how the FCC can use its rulemaking authority to combat digital disparities.
  • Mr. Falcon remarked that there currently exists a debate surrounding when liability is triggered under the FCC’s digital discrimination rules. He noted that civil rights stakeholders argue that liability should be based on a disparate impact standard while industry stakeholders argue that liability should be based on a disparate treatment standard. He asserted that the use of a disparate treatment standard would make it very difficult for a broadband infrastructure provider to trigger liability. He also remarked that a disparate treatment standard in this context is inconsistent with Congressional intent under the IIJA and stated that the BEAD Program was designed to provide equal access to broadband internet services for all people.
• Rep. Kelly then discussed how millions of Americans (many of whom are older or lower income) have access to broadband internet service and choose not to use broadband internet service. She explained that these Americans often do not understand how to use broadband internet or the value it can provide. She expressed support for digital literacy and skills training efforts. She asked Mr. Falcon and Mr. O’Rielly to comment on the challenges associated with broadband internet adoption and to provide recommendations for addressing these challenges.
  • Mr. Falcon stated that many Americans do not know how to use the internet and require internet training. He identified senior citizens as a group with lower digital literacy rates. He mentioned how South Korea had provided people with free computers and training as a way to boost their economy.
  • Mr. O’Rielly remarked that there are several reasons why people have not yet adopted broadband internet and indicated that these reasons include the inability to afford broadband internet services and a lack of digital literacy. He stated that Congress could provide funding to increase digital literacy.

Rep. Rick Allen (R-GA):

• Rep. Allen mentioned how two of his top priorities are expanding access to rural broadband services and expanding cellular service. He expressed particular interest in ensuring the accuracy of the FCC’s broadband maps. He also expressed concerns about the fees that some state and local governments charge for processing broadband infrastructure applications and for using space in public rights-of-way. He commented that these fees could increase the cost of broadband infrastructure deployment and reduce access to broadband internet services. He asked Mr. Saperstein and Mr. Romano to describe the typical application fees associated with building broadband infrastructure at the state and local levels. He also asked Mr. Saperstein and Mr. Romano to indicate whether these fees could vary across states and localities.
  • Mr. Saperstein remarked that the FCC’s reforms have helped to standardize fees across states and localities and make the fees cost-based. He stated that Congress should codify these reforms to ensure that significant fee disparities do not return.
• Rep. Allen expressed concerns that state and local government fees could undermine the U.S.’s ability to fully achieve its goals for broadband infrastructure deployment. He asked Mr. O’Rielly to explain why it is necessary to cap the fees that state and local governments charge under the BEAD Program.
  • Mr. O’Rielly remarked that the U.S. should focus on ensuring that the BEAD Program’s funds go to deserving broadband infrastructure projects. He stated that using BEAD Program funds for purposes other than broadband infrastructure construction (such as on permit applications) would undermine the BEAD Program’s broadband infrastructure deployment efforts.
• Rep. Allen called for Congress to develop legislation to cap the fees that state and local governments charge under the BEAD Program. He then noted how Mr. O’Rielly had worked to prevent state and local governments from blanket banning the deployment of telecommunications services and/or facilities during his tenure as an FCC Commissioner. He asked Mr. O’Rielly to indicate whether regions that have previously been unfriendly to the deployment of telecommunications facilities have been less responsive in processing permit applications in a timely manner.
  • Mr. O’Rielly remarked that permitting barriers cause broadband infrastructure providers to shift their infrastructure funds elsewhere. He commented that the communities with the permitting barriers would suffer as a result. He stated that the receptiveness of communities to broadband infrastructure projects will thus influence how infrastructure funding will be distributed.
• Rep. Allen commented that federal broadband infrastructure project funding involves interstate commerce. He asked the witnesses to indicate whether there should exist standard and reasonable permitting fees for broadband infrastructure throughout the U.S.
  • Mr. O’Rielly answered affirmatively.
  • Mr. Romano mentioned how NTCA had been a member of the FCC’s Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee (BDAC) and indicated that the BDAC had recommended the adoption of cost-based fees for broadband permitting. He noted that several of the legislative proposals under consideration at the hearing would have the U.S. take such an approach.

Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA):

• Rep. Eshoo remarked that there is broad agreement across the political spectrum and stakeholders regarding the importance of universal high-speed broadband internet for the U.S.’s global competitiveness. She stated that the COVID-19 pandemic had further underscored the importance of universal high-speed broadband internet. She noted how an estimated 24 million Americans lack internet access and commented that this problem is more acute in rural and tribal communities. She further noted how many additional Americans cannot afford broadband internet service. She mentioned how Congress had approved billions of dollars during the previous 117th Congress to improve access to broadband internet services for these Americans. She stated that local communities could pay a key role in bolstering broadband internet services and mentioned how over 900 counties, cities, local utilities, cooperatives, and neighborhood associations are building their own broadband networks. She commented that community broadband networks expand internet access to unserved and underserved areas and promote competition for broadband services. She stated that these community broadband networks have proven to function very well. She lamented however that 19 states have enacted laws that restrict or ban community broadband networks and called these laws “protectionist.” She mentioned how she had proposed the Community Broadband Act, which would prohibit states from enacting laws that restrict community broadband networks. She asked Mr. Falcon, Mr. Saperstein, and Mr. O’Rielly to indicate whether they support the Community Broadband Act.
  • Mr. Falcon answered affirmatively.
  • Mr. Saperstein expressed support for enabling all broadband service providers to service all areas.
  • Mr. O’Rielly expressed receptiveness to permitting states to maintain their bans on community broadband networks. He commented that community broadband networks might possess some unfair advantages.

Rep. Diana Harshbarger (R-TN):

• Rep. Harshbarger asked Mr. Saperstein to indicate whether the U.S.’s broadband infrastructure permitting process is too slow.
  • Mr. Saperstein answered affirmatively.
• Rep. Harshbarger mentioned how the FCC under the Trump administration had instituted a 60-day “shot clock” for making technology updates on existing cellular towers. She called it “crucial” for the telecommunications industry to be able to make updates to their towers as part of the transition to 5G communications technology. She mentioned how she is leading the 5G UPGRADE Act, which would codify this 60-day “shot clock.” She commented that this legislation would automatically update state and local government permits for updating technologies on existing cellular towers after 60 days. She asked Mr. Saperstein to explain why it is important to codify this 60-day “shot clock” for permit applications involving existing cellular towers.
  • Mr. Saperstien noted how many of the FCC’s recent statutory interpretations are currently being litigated.  He stated that codification of these interpretations is essential to enable colocations to receive streamlined reviews and to promote 5G communications technology upgrades in more places.
• Rep. Harshbarger mentioned how her Congressional District is very rural and commented that the permitting reforms under consideration at the hearing would support 5G communications technology deployment efforts.

Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX):

• Rep. Pfluger expressed support for permitting reform efforts and commented that government delays and inaction are inhibiting the deployment of key technologies. He asked the witnesses to discuss the challenges associated with tracking permit applications after the applications have been submitted to federal agencies for review.
  • Mr. O’Rielly stated that federal agencies vary in terms of their permitting processes and that many providers face challenges tracking the statuses of their permit applications. He noted how the FCC has no way to determine the status of permit applications under review from other government agencies.
  • Mr. Romano expressed agreement with Mr. O’Rielly response. He mentioned how NTCA has a Michigan-based member that had applied for a permit in August 2022 and could not obtain an update on the status of this permit until December 2022. He noted that this permit’s review 270-day “shot clock” had thus started in December 2022. He indicated that if the permit is ultimately approved after 270 days, then construction will need to be further delayed. He explained that it is impractical to pursue broadband infrastructure projects during Michigan’s winter months. He remarked that having greater transparency, responsiveness, and levels of communications in the permitting process would therefore be helpful.
• Rep. Pfluger mentioned how he had proposed legislation that would establish a tracking mechanism for broadband permit applications. He noted how billions of dollars had been spent to deploy broadband infrastructure to his Congressional District and commented that the region wants to see the results of this spending. He asked Mr. Finkel to indicate whether the deployment of broadband infrastructure had been intentionally delayed in rural areas.
  • Mr. Finkel commented that while deployment delays of rural broadband infrastructure are likely not intentional, he stated that many permitting agencies move slow and have duplicative processes. He indicated that NRECA has members in 48 states and discussed how the permitting experience across field offices within the same government agency can vary significantly.
• Rep. Pfluger remarked that Congress should address permitting delays and the lack of application tracking for broadband infrastructure projects. He mentioned how broadband infrastructure deployment is key for his Congressional District given its role in energy and agriculture production. He also stated that the U.S. must quickly deploy broadband infrastructure so that it can compete with China.

Rep. Troy Balderson (R-OH):

• Rep. Balderson discussed how lengthy permit and franchise applications, zoning problems, and pole access issues can delay or prevent the buildout of new broadband networks. He remarked that Congress must address these issues and applauded the legislative proposals under consideration at the hearing. He mentioned how he had proposed the CABLE Leadership Act, which would create a “shot clock” for franchising authorities to grant or deny franchise to broadband infrastructure. He noted how franchise applications must be submitted and approved before a broadband infrastructure provider can commence the construction of their new networks. He asked Mr. Romano to provide examples of how NTCA’s infrastructure projects have been delayed and to address how “shot clocks” could be deployed to prevent such delays.
  • Mr. Romano remarked that the legislative proposals under consideration at the hearing would provide definitional certainty and transparency into the permitting process, which he commented would be helpful. He noted how NTCA’s members are smaller companies and stated that improved certainty and transparency would enable these companies to better plan their construction activities, which would in turn allow for cheaper and more timely infrastructure buildout.
• Rep. Balderson noted how broadband infrastructure providers must obtain approvals from numerous government agencies across all levels of government before they can commence the buildout of a new network. He asked Mr. Romano and Mr. Saperstein to indicate whether permitting delays are more common at the federal level or at the state and local levels.
  • Mr. Romano remarked that NTCA’s members tend to experience more permitting delays involving federal government agencies because their members tend to serve many federal lands in the Western U.S. He also mentioned how NTCA’s members faced permitting challenges involving state highways and railroad systems. He further noted how many federal permitting reviews do trigger state historical preservation reviews.
  • Mr. Saperstein remarked that WIA’s members also tend to experience more permitting delays involving federal government agencies. He discussed how the FAA must approve communications towers that are over a certain height, use certain frequencies, or are within a certain proximity of airports. He noted that the FAA reviews of these communications towers had previously taken three weeks to complete and indicated that these reviews now take between nine months and a year to complete. He attributed these lengthy FAA reviews to resource constraints and stated that the U.S. should address these resource problems to ensure the swift deployment of 5G communications technology.
• Rep. Balderson lastly asked Mr. O’Rielly to discuss whether the FCC should be provided with more latitude to address barriers to broadband infrastructure deployment.
  • Mr. O’Rielly expressed support for the legislative proposals under consideration at the hearing and commented that he would strengthen several of these proposals. He remarked that the FCC could be very helpful in terms of supporting broadband infrastructure deployment. He specifically stated that the FCC could expand access to poles across the U.S. He recommended that Congress provide the FCC with direction and limitations (rather than broad authorities).

Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL):

• Rep. Cammack remarked that the broadband infrastructure permitting process is too complicated, opaque, and time consuming. She asked the witnesses to identify the single most urgent change needed to the permitting process to best deploy broadband infrastructure across the U.S.
  • Mr. O’Rielly called on the U.S. to address access and rates for pole attachments. He mentioned how he had previously provided input on Florida’s efforts to address these issues.
  • Mr. Finkel remarked that the U.S. should expedite the process for reviewing existing rights-of-way on existing poles.
  • Mr. Falcon recommended that the U.S. work to increase the number of personnel and resources available at government agencies. He noted how the U.S. is expected to receive a “surge” in broadband project proposals and commented that this increased personnel and resources could help to shorten review times.
  • Mr. Saperstein remarked that the U.S. should provide clarity, accountability, and transparency for its review process of broadband infrastructure projects on federal lands. He further stated that the U.S. should provide more resources to the FAA for permitting reviews.
  • Mr. Romano remarked that the U.S. should improve how it handles reviews for previously disturbed rights-of-way and previously disturbed earth. He commented that the U.S.’s ability to quickly upgrade networks will be key to delivering on next generation capabilities and capacity.
• Rep. Cammack then mentioned how she had proposed the DIGITAL Applications Act, which would establish an online portal to accept, process, and dispose of the common form application for deploying a communications facility on federal property. She asked Mr. Finkel to discuss the current challenges with the common form application Standard Form 299 (SF-299) and to address how an online portal for permit applications would benefit broadband infrastructure deployment on federal property.
  • Mr. Finkel stated that establishing an online portal for broadband infrastructure permit applications is “common sense.”
  • Mr. Saperstein remarked that online portals for permit applications would constitute a “simple fix” that would improve transparency and predictability within the application process.
• Rep. Cammack asked the witnesses to indicate whether they support legislation to modernize the broadband infrastructure permitting process.
  • Mr. Romano called the gaps in communication for federal broadband infrastructure permit applications “incredibly frustrating.” He contended that the U.S. should be able to provide better transparency into its broadband infrastructure pipeline.
  • Mr. Saperstein expressed agreement with Mr. Romano’s comments.
  • Mr. Falcon expressed agreement with Mr. Romano’s comments. He also stated that an online application portal needs to involve some degree of interagency coordination. He suggested that the establishment of a single point of contact could augment the value of a portal.
  • Mr. Finkel remarked that an online portal would provide transparency for both applicants and other government agencies regarding the status of broadband infrastructure permit applications.
  • Mr. O’Rielly expressed his support for the DIGITAL Applications Act.
• Rep. Cammack lastly asked the witnesses to identify the risks and challenges that the U.S. could face if it fails to make broadband infrastructure permitting reforms.
  • Mr. O’Reilly warned that the U.S.’s failure to adopt broadband infrastructure permitting reforms could lead to overbuilding, as well as waste, fraud, and abuse.
  • Mr. Finkel expressed concerns that the U.S.’s failure to adopt broadband infrastructure permitting reforms would prevent broadband infrastructure funding from being deployed.
  • Mr. Falcon stated that the U.S.’s failure to adopt broadband infrastructure permitting reforms could cause infrastructure projects to become more expensive, which would minimize the effectiveness of federal broadband investments.
  • Mr. Saperstein expressed concerns that the U.S.’s failure to adopt broadband infrastructure permitting reforms would undermine its goal of universal broadband connectivity.
  • Mr. Romano expressed concerns that the U.S. would be unable to handle the expected increase in broadband infrastructure permit applications absent permitting reforms.

Rep. Russ Fulcher (R-ID):

• Rep. Fulcher remarked that broadband infrastructure permitting delays can undermine the U.S.’s ability to achieve rural broadband internet deployment. He mentioned how nearly two-thirds of his state of Idaho is owned by the federal government and stated that Idaho rural broadband carriers and utilities often struggle to obtain permit approvals for their broadband infrastructure projects on federal lands. He asserted that streamlining the permitting process for broadband infrastructure projects on federal lands would be helpful in deploying broadband internet services to his rural constituents. He mentioned how he had proposed the Reducing Barriers for Broadband on Federal Lands Act, which would remove the requirement to conduct a NEPA review for the deployment of broadband projects on previously disturbed federal lands. He explained that the phrase “previously disturbed” means that the land has already undergone a NEPA review process for other purposes. He stated that this current NEPA review requirement stymies the development of many broadband infrastructure projects. He asked the witnesses to indicate whether they foresaw any problems with the Reducing Barriers for Broadband on Federal Lands Act.
  • Mr. Romano expressed NTCA’s support for the Reducing Barriers for Broadband on Federal Lands Act. He emphasized how many rural communities are surrounded by federal lands, which can make broadband infrastructure deployment efforts more difficult in these areas (especially for smaller broadband infrastructure providers). He stated that the Reducing Barriers for Broadband on Federal Lands Act’s limited exemption for previously disturbed areas would help projects involving these areas to avoid heavy levels of scrutiny.
  • Mr. Saperstein remarked that the permitting process for broadband infrastructure projects should be predictable, proportionate, and timely. He commented that the Reducing Barriers for Broadband on Federal Lands Act would ensure that permit reviews are being conducted in a proportional manner. He stated that NEPA reviews are unnecessary for broadband infrastructure projects involving previously disturbed federal lands.
  • Mr. Finkel called it redundant and wasteful for the U.S. to require broadband infrastructure projects to undergo further reviews when the projects involve areas that have previously undergone NEPA reviews.
  • Mr. O’Rielly expressed support for the Reducing Barriers for Broadband on Federal Lands Act.
  • Mr. Falcon remarked that the U.S. should treat broadband infrastructure upgrade projects differently than broadband infrastructure greenfield projects.

Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-CA):

• Rep. Obernolte described his Congressional District as “extremely rural.” He stated that the fact that 90 percent of his Congressional District’s land is publicly owned exacerbates broadband internet access problems for his constituents. He remarked that broadband infrastructure grants alone would not be sufficient for improving broadband internet access for his constituents and that the U.S. must address broadband infrastructure permitting issues involving public lands. He mentioned how he had proposed the GRANTED Act to address permitting delays involving public lands. He noted how Congress had already directed the FCC to expedite the processing of broadband infrastructure permit applications involving federal lands. He mentioned how Congress had directed the FCC to provide a common application for these permits and had established a 270-day “shot clock” for processing these permit applications. He stated however that many federal agencies involved in reviewing these applications take more than 270 days to process these permit applications and that there exist no penalties or consequences for exceeding this 270-day limit. He explained that the GRANTED Act would deem approval for any broadband infrastructure project application involving public lands that has been pending for more than 270 days provided that the application had been full and complete at the time of submission. He asked the witnesses to indicate whether they support the approach being proposed under the GRANTED Act.
  • Mr. Romano expressed support for the approach being proposed under the GRANTED Act. He also discussed how many of the legislative proposals under consideration at the hearing refer to Sec. 6409 of the Spectrum Act of 2012, which deals with wireless facilities. He noted how one of the other legislative proposals under consideration at the hearing would attempt to apply permitting reforms to wireline facilities and expressed support for this proposal.
  • Mr. Saperstein expressed support for the GRANTED Act and stated that the legislation would bolster accountability for the federal land management process.
  • Mr. Falcon remarked that permits could be reviewed and processed faster if federal agencies possess sufficient levels of staffing. He stated that a lack of government agency staffing is causing the issuance of many permit applications to be delayed.
  • Mr. Finkel expressed agreement with Mr. Romano’s comments regarding the need to provide permitting reforms for both wireless and wireline facilities. He then noted how the 270-day “shot clock” under the GRANTED Act would commence when an application is submitted that is deemed full and complete. He stated that government agencies are often poor at communicating when and how an application is full and complete, which can delay the start of the 270-day “shot clock.” He recommended that Rep. Obernolte consider how federal agencies communicate whether a broadband infrastructure permit application is full and complete.
• Rep. Obernolte stated that he has worked to define what constitutes a full and complete application under the GRANTED ACT in a thoughtful and deliberate manner. He expressed receptiveness to suggestions for differentiating between the “shot clock” for declaring an application complete and the 270 days required to review said application. He raised concerns that unclear statutory language could enable federal agencies to effectively extend their permitting review processes though claiming that an underlying application is not full and complete.
  • Mr. O’Rielly expressed support for the GRANTED Act. He suggested however that the legislation’s 270-day “shot clock” might be too generous.

Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH):

• Rep. Johnson mentioned how he had proposed the Wireless Broadband Competition and Efficient Deployment Act, which would remove the requirement for environmental and historic preservation reviews when parties seek to add or upgrade wireless facilities on existing infrastructure. He stated that this legislation would eliminate reviews that are repetitive and that unnecessarily slow down broadband expansion. He remarked that Congress must address barriers to broadband infrastructure deployment that are impeding rural Americans (including many of his constituents) from accessing broadband internet services. He expressed frustrations with the U.S.’s lack of progress regarding rural broadband infrastructure deployment. He asked Mr. Romano to indicate how often broadband infrastructure providers must undergo environmental or historic preservation reviews when simply seeking to add or upgrade wireless facilities on their existing infrastructure.
  • Mr. Romano noted that broadband infrastructure projects involving federal lands or federal funds trigger NEPA and NHPA reviews. He indicated that while there do exist categorical exclusions for NEPA review requirements, he stated that it can be difficult to determine whether a broadband infrastructure project falls under one of these exclusions.
• Rep. Johnson asked Mr. Romano and Mr. Saperstein to indicate whether the time, effort, and cost associated with NEPA and NHPA reviews detract from the incentives for providers to upgrade existing wireless infrastructure. He also asked Mr. Romano to address how these review requirements ultimately impact consumers.
  • Mr. Romano remarked that uncertainty around the length and required actions of NEPA and NHPA reviews can discourage wireless infrastructure projects and investments. He commented that this uncertainty can particularly deter investments in wireless infrastructure expansions.
  • Mr. Saperstein remarked that the time, effort, and cost associated with NEPA and NHPA reviews detract from the incentives for providers to upgrade existing wireless infrastructure. He stated that colocation would constitute an effective strategy for expanding the deployment of broadband infrastructure.
• Rep. Johnson then asked Mr. O’Rielly to identify broadband infrastructure permitting reforms that will be helpful for future 6G communications technology deployment efforts.
  • Mr. O’Rielly noted how 6G communications technology is expected to use higher frequencies (which includes both mid-band and high-band spectrum). He stated that these higher frequencies will require more towers and more infrastructure and commented that these additional towers and infrastructure will need to receive regulatory approval.
• Rep. Johnson asked Mr. O’Rielly to identify any reforms that the U.S. could undertake to increase the efficiency of 5G communications technology deployment.
  • Mr. O’Reilly recommended that the U.S. reform its broadband infrastructure permitting processes and pole access policies. He further stated that the U.S. should address broadband infrastructure permitting issues related to railroads.
• Rep. Johnson called on the U.S. to approve more broadband infrastructure projects.