Leading the Wireless Future: Securing American Network Technology (Hearing, 2021)
Summary
Record of the virtual hearing "Leading the Wireless Future: Securing American Network Technology" before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, April 21, 2021, Serial No. 117-23. Opening statements came from Mike Doyle, Robert E. Latta, Frank Pallone, Jr. and Cathy McMorris Rodgers. Mr. Doyle said that currently only four major companies, two based in Europe and two in China, build the equipment and infrastructure for 5G deployments. Witnesses were Diane Rinaldo of the Open RAN Policy Coalition, John Baker of Mavenir, Tim Donovan of the Competitive Carriers Association, John Mezzalingua of JMA Wireless and Tareq Amin of Rakuten Mobile.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Leading the Wireless Future: Securing American Network Technology (Hearing, 2021).”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/house-hearing-117th-congress-leading-the-wireless-future-securing-amer-c1e2a6c3f6/
, SHA-256 d52df1d7a295aa603238056524f12c68f4544f6c6541f78267264d306747d760.Full text
[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LEADING THE WIRELESS FUTURE: SECURING AMERICAN NETWORK TECHNOLOGY
=======================================================================
VIRTUAL HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 21, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-23
Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
energycommerce.house.gov
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
47-148PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
ANNA G. ESHOO, California Ranking Member
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado FRED UPTON, Michigan
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
KATHY CASTOR, Florida DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
JERRY McNERNEY, California H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
PAUL TONKO, New York BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York BILLY LONG, Missouri
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
TONY CARDENAS, California MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RAUL RUIZ, California RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
SCOTT H. PETERS, California TIM WALBERG, Michigan
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois, Vice NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
Chair JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California DEBBBIE LESKO, Arizona
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia GREG PENCE, Indiana
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware DAN CRENSHAW, Texas
DARREN SOTO, Florida JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
KIM SCHRIER, Washington
LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
------
Professional Staff
JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
NATE HODSON, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania
Chairman
JERRY McNERNEY, California ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York Ranking Member
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
DARREN SOTO, Florida ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
ANNA G. ESHOO, California BILLY LONG, Missouri
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
DORIS O. MATSUI, California, Vice MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
Chair TIM WALBERG, Michigan
PETER WELCH, Vermont EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
TONY CARDENAS, California JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota (ex officio)
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Mike Doyle, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................ 2
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Ohio, opening statement..................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Washington, opening statement..................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Witnesses
Diane Rinaldo, Executive Director, Open RAN Policy Coalition..... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Answers to submitted questions............................... 140
John Baker, Senior Vice President, Business Development, Mavenir. 20
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Tim Donovan, Senior Vice President, Legislative Affairs,
Competitive Carriers Association............................... 27
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Answers to submitted questions............................... 141
John Mezzalingua, Chief Executive Officer, JMA Wireless.......... 40
Prepared statement........................................... 42
Tareq Amin, Representative Director, Executive Vice President,
and Chief Technology Officer, Rakuten Mobile................... 49
Prepared statement........................................... 51
Submitted Material
Letter of April 20, 2021, from Darryl Gray, Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, AttoBahn, Inc., to Mr. Doyle, submitted by
Mr. Doyle...................................................... 99
Letter of January 8, 2021, from Ms. Matsui to President Biden,
submitted by Mr. Doyle......................................... 102
Letter of April 21, 2021, from Doug Smith, President and Chief
Executive Officer, Ligado, to Mr. Pallone and Mr. Doyle,
submitted by Mr. Doyle......................................... 104
Letter of April 21, 2021, from Eric D. Stonestrom, President and
Chief Executive Officer, Airspan Networks, Inc., to Mr.
Pallone, et al., submitted by Mr. Doyle........................ 107
Brief, ``First and Only American Company to Develop and
Manufacture 5G in the United States,'' JMA, submitted by Mr.
Doyle.......................................................... 109
Brief, ``Some Select Examples of Use Cases for Future Open RAN
NTIA Grants,'' Airspan, et al., submitted by Mr. Doyle......... 111
Analysis, ``Inseego: 5G Born in the USA,'' Moor Insights &
Strategy, May 2020, submitted by Mr. Doyle..................... 113
Report, ``Seize the 5G FWA Opportunity with Inseego,'' Mobile
World Live, submitted by Mr. Doyle............................. 119
Supplement, ``Inseego, Huawei and ZTE: A Side-By-Side Security
and Performance Snapshot,'' submitted by Mr. Doyle............. 135
LEADING THE WIRELESS FUTURE: SECURING AMERICAN NETWORK TECHNOLOGY
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 2021
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:30 a.m., via
Cisco Webex online video conferencing, Hon. Mike Doyle
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Doyle, McNerney, Clarke,
Veasey, Soto, O'Halleran, Rice, Eshoo, Matsui, Welch, Shrader,
Cardenas, Kelly, Craig, Fletcher, Pallone (ex officio), Latta
(subcommittee ranking member), Guthrie, Kinzinger, Bilirakis,
Johnson, Long, Hudson, Mullin, Walberg, Carter, Duncan, Curtis,
and Rodgers (ex officio).
Members present: Representatives Dingell and Joyce.
Staff present: AJ Brown, Counsel; Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff
Director; Parul Desai, FCC Detailee; Jennifer Epperson,
Counsel; Waverly Gordon, General Counsel; Tiffany Guarascio,
Deputy Staff Director; Perry Hamilton, Clerk; Alex Hoehn-Saric,
Chief Counsel, Communications and Consumer Protection; Jerry
Leverich, Senior Counsel; Dan Miller, Professional Staff
Member; Phil Murphy, Policy Coordinator; Joe Orlando, Policy
Analyst; Kaitlyn Peel, Digital Director; Tim Robinson, Chief
Counsel; Chloe Rodriguez, Clerk; Kate Arey, Minority Content
Manager and Digital Assistant; David Brodian, Minority
Detailee, Communications and Technology; Sarah Burke, Minority
Deputy Staff Director; Michael Cameron, Minority Policy
Analyst, Consumer Protection and Commerce, Energy, Environment;
William Clutterbuck, Minority Staff Assistant/Policy Analyst;
Theresa Gambo, Minority Financial and Office Administrator;
Jack Heretik, Minority Press Secretary; Nate Hodson, Minority
Staff Director; Sean Kelly, Minority Press Secretary; Peter
Kielty, Minority General Counsel; Emily King, Minority Member
Services Director; Bijan Koohmaraie, Minority Chief Counsel,
Minority Oversight and Investigations Chief Counsel; Tim Kurth,
Minority Chief Counsel, Consumer Protection and Commerce; Kate
O'Connor, Minority Chief Counsel, Communications and
Technology; Clare Paoletta, Minority Policy Analyst, Health;
Arielle Roth, Minority Detailee, Communications and Technology;
Olivia Shields, Minority Communications Director; Peter
Spencer, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member, Energy;
Michael Taggert, Minority Policy Director; Evan Viau, Minority
Professional Staff Member, Communications and Technology; and
Everett Winnick, Minority Director of Information Technology.
Mr. Doyle. The committee will now come to order. Today the
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology is holding a
hearing entitled ``Leading the Wireless Future: Securing
American Network Technology.''
Due to the COVID-19 public health emergency, today's
hearing is being held remotely. All Members and witnesses will
be participating via videoconferencing.
As part of our hearing, microphones will be set on mute for
the purpose of eliminating inadvertent background noise.
Members and witnesses, you will need to unmute your microphone
each time you wish to speak.
Documents for the record can be sent to Joe Orlando at the
email address that we provided to staff. All documents will be
entered into the record at the conclusion of the hearing.
With that, the Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes
for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Good morning. And first off, I want to thank our witnesses
for appearing before us. Today we are talking about our
Nation's wireless future and, to some extent, the world's as
well. The importance of wireless has never been greater. 5G
networks and beyond will grow our economy and enable
revolutionary advances in technology and connectivity.
However, as a country and a planet, we face growing
challenge. Currently, only four major companies, two based in
Europe and two in China, build the equipment and infrastructure
essential for these deployments. I am glad to see
representatives from three companies working to shake up this
industry are here with us today.
We have seen in the United States, Europe, and around the
world that lack of competition in this space has divided folks
into two camps: those that can afford secure networks and those
that can't. And as more and more communications and commerce
occur via wirelessly connected devices, the security and
integrity of these networks has only become more important.
Last Congress, we came together to pass the Secure and
Trusted Communications Network Act to address concerns about
the security threats posed by Huawei and ZTE equipment in
domestic networks. But that is just the first step. We need
national policies that aren't just built for the moment. We
need to plan and legislate for the future, particularly in
critical and fast-growing areas like 5G and beyond.
It has become clear that lower costs are a driving force
for wireless providers to use cheaper Chinese vendors. And as
we look at networks in other countries, we can see so many
folks struggling with this issue.
Ensuring that the United States and folks around the world
have secure networks depends on vendors' ability to be price-
competitive with equipment from Huawei and ZTE. That is why I
am excited about Open Radio Access Networks, or O-RAN. Last
Congress, we passed the USA Telecommunications Act, which
authorized a range of programs to help accelerate the
development and deployment of O-RAN technologies.
This technology has the potential to level the playing
field, and it is already unleashing the power of American
ingenuity and competition as well as that of our allies. There
are already efforts underway to deploy and integrate this
technology into networks in the United States and around the
world, but we need to do more and we need to do it faster.
I have talked with a wide range of American network
equipment and software companies that want to participate in
this growing space. We have the technology, the ingenuity, and
the ability to build this technology right here in America.
Our leadership in virtualization and cloud technologies
creates tremendous opportunities for O-RAN, and we already
design and deploy the most advanced network equipment in the
world. However, proprietary interfaces and end-to-end networks
built by a single vendor have hampered efforts to apply this
experience and expertise to wireless networks. We need to
change that.
There are a number of opportunities to fund the USA
Telecommunications Act and to expand it. The Biden
administration's infrastructure proposal as well as the
Senate's forthcoming Endless Frontiers Act both provide
opportunities for major investment that can help the United
States reassert leadership in this critical sector. I look
forward to working with the administration, the Senate, and my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle on these important
priorities.
Shifting gears, I would be remiss in this discussion about
our wireless future and our leadership in wireless if I did not
talk about spectrum policy. Spectrum is the fuel that has been
powering our Nation's wireless deployments. We have led the way
in 4G and we have the opportunity to lead it in 5G, but so much
of that will depend on our Government's ability to coordinate
the use of Federal spectrum and to create pipelines for
government spectrum to be made available for commercial use.
Over the last 4 years, we saw too many spectrum squabbles
break out between Federal agencies as established norms and
processes broke down. It is critical that NTIA play the role
given to it by Congress to manage Federal spectrum resources,
and the White House needs to make that clear to all Federal
agencies and stakeholders.
Ultimately, these are technical issues. And as we have seen
time and time again, we can come up with solutions that protect
the Federal incumbents' capabilities while at the same time
making spectrum available for commercial use. These are issues
that are critical to our country, to our economy, and to our
Nation's ability to continue to lead the world in wireless
innovation.
I want to thank everyone for being here today. I want to
thank our witnesses, and I look forward to their testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Doyle follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mike Doyle
Good morning. First off, I'd like to thank our witnesses
for appearing before us.
Today, we are talking about our Nation's wireless future--
and to some extent the world's as well.
The importance of wireless has never been greater--5G
networks and beyond will grow our economy and enable
revolutionary advances in technology and connectivity.
However, as a country and a planet we face a growing
challenge--currently only four major companies--2 based in
Europe and 2 in China--build the equipment and infrastructure
essential for these deployments.
I'm glad to see that representatives from three companies
working to shake up this industry are with us here today.
We have seen in the United States, Europe, and around the
world that the lack of competition in this space has divided
folks into two camps--those that can afford secure networks,
and those that cannot.
As more and more of communications and commerce occur via
wirelessly connected devices--the security and integrity of
these networks has only become more important.
Last Congress, we came together to pass the Secure and
Trusted Communications Networks Act to address concerns about
the security threats posed by Huawei and ZTE equipment in
domestic networks.
But that's just a first step. We need national policies
that aren't just built for the moment--we need to plan and
legislate for the future--particularly in critical and fast-
growing areas like 5G and beyond.
It has become clear that lower costs are a driving force
for wireless providers to use cheaper Chinese vendors.
And as we look at networks in other countries--we can see
so many folks struggling with this issue.
Ensuring that the United States and folks around the world
have secure networks depends on vendors ability to be price
competitive with equipment from Huawei and ZTE.
That's why I am excited about Open Radio Access Networks or
Open RAN
Last Congress, we passed the USA Telecommunications Act--
which authorized a range of programs to help accelerate the
development and deployment of Open RAN technologies.
This technology has the potential to level the playing
field--and it is already unleashing the power of American
ingenuity and competition--as well that of our allies. There
are already efforts under way to deploy and integrate this
technology into networks in the United States and around the
world--but we need to do more--and we need to do it faster.
I've talked with a wide range of American network equipment
and software companies that want to participate in this growing
space.
We have the technology, the ingenuity, and the ability to
build this technology here in America.
Our leadership in virtualization and cloud technologies
creates tremendous opportunities for Open RAN, and we already
design and deploy the most advanced network equipment in the
world.
However, proprietary interfaces and end to end networks
built by a single vendor have hampered efforts to apply this
experience and expertise to wireless networks. We need to
change that.
There are a number of opportunities to fund the USA
Telecommunications Act and to expand it.
The Biden administration's infrastructure proposal as well
as the Senate's forthcoming Endless Frontiers Act both provide
opportunities for major investment that can help the United
States reassert leadership in this critical sector.
I look forward to working with the administration, the
Senate, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle on
these important priorities.
Shifting gears, I would be remiss in this discussion about
our wireless future and our leadership in wireless--if I did
not talk about spectrum policy.
Spectrum is the fuel that has been powering our Nation's
wireless deployments. We have led the way in 4G and we have the
opportunity to lead in 5G.
But so much of that will depend on our Government's ability
to coordinate the use of Federal spectrum--and to create
pipelines for Government spectrum to be made available for
commercial use.
Over the last four years, we saw too many spectrum
squabbles break out between Federal agencies as established
norms and processes broke down.
It's critical that NTIA play the role given to it by
Congress--to manage Federal spectrum resources--and the White
House needs to make that clear to all Federal agencies and
stakeholders.
Ultimately, these are technical issues--and as we have seen
time and time again--we can come up with solutions that protect
Federal incumbents' capabilities--while at the same time making
spectrum available for commercial use.
These are issues that are critical to our country, to our
economy, and to our Nation's ability to continue to lead the
world in wireless innovation. Thank you and I look forward to
the testimony of our witnesses.
Mr. Doyle. So, with that, the Chair now recognizes my good
friend and partner, Mr. Latta, the ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, for 5 minutes
for his opening statement.
Mr. Latta, you are recognized.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, my
friend, for holding today's hearing. I also want to thank our
witnesses for appearing before us today on securing our
communications networks in the future.
Over the last year, Americans have relied more than ever on
broadband technology to earn a livelihood, educate their
children, and stay connected with their families and
communities.
Wireless connectivity has played a key role. And thanks to
the investment and ingenuity of our Nation's wireless
providers, U.S. networks rose to the challenge of meeting
Americans' unprecedented demand for voice and high-speed data
services.
We must continue to build upon our success to remain the
global leader in wireless innovation. We must lead in
developing 5G and 6G standards and deploying the next-
generation 5G technology.
In large part, our leadership depends on ensuring that all
generations of networks are secure and on having policies that
encourage investment and innovation from trusted companies and
the flexibility to bring new technologies to market right here
in the United States.
Congress and the Trump administration acted in many ways to
protect and diversify our communications supply chain,
including funding the implementation of the Secure and Trusted
Communications Networks Act to support the removal and
replacement of harmful equipment in our Nation's communications
networks.
We also worked with our Democratic colleagues last year to
enact the bipartisan Utilizing Strategic Allied
Telecommunications Act, which created a grant program at NTIA
to facilitate the deployment of Open Radio Access Network, O-
RAN, technologies that would diversify our 5G supply chain,
lower equipment cost, and help us to prevent bad actors like
China from disrupting our networks.
It is crucial that Congress fund this grant program and any
funding programs that move forward. The use of Open RAN
technology represents one such path to reducing threats. By
enabling providers to move away from end-to-end product lines
and mix and match vendors inside their networks, Open RAN can
help reduce reliance on foreign equipment and ensure that
problematic components of a network's architecture can be
easily swapped out.
It will also help trusted suppliers remain economically
competitive against Huawei and others seeking to undermine our
national security. But more work needs to be done to drive 5G
innovation, and we must be forward-thinking in our approach to
network security.
Three years ago, this subcommittee held a bipartisan
hearing examining the communications landscape, economic
competitiveness, and national security. Congress has addressed
many of those concerns that we have heard, in large part
because of that bipartisan focus. However, it is clear that we
must continue to put a focus on these efforts to preserve
American leadership, improve transparency and information
sharing, and remain vigilant in identifying new
vulnerabilities.
We can start by working together on policies to safeguard
America's leadership of standards-setting bodies that are
crucial for setting the technical rules of the road for
equipment and devices.
We should also work to address the challenges that U.S. and
other trusted companies face to compete in a global supply
chain and ensure that the work we have already done is being
implemented effectively and working as intended, such as NTIA's
information-sharing program for small and rural communication
providers. These are important issues that deserve bipartisan
attention. I am grateful for the opportunity to hear from
today's witnesses how we can secure our global 5G leadership.
And one of the great things I have always said about
serving on the Energy and Commerce Committee is when we sit up
on this dais--or virtually sit up on this dais, as we are
today--that we look over the horizon 5 to 10 years. And we want
to make sure the right laws and the right regulations are being
put out there to make sure that our entrepreneurs and
innovators can do what they have got to do to make sure that we
are the leaders in the world.
So, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate today's hearing. I thank our
witnesses for being with us today. And with that, I yield back
the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert E. Latta
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses for
joining us to discuss the future of securing our communications
networks.
Over the last year, Americans have relied more than ever on
broadband technology to earn a livelihood, educate their
children, and stay connected to their families and communities.
Wireless connectivity has played a key role, and thanks to the
investment and ingenuity of our nation's wireless providers,
U.S. networks rose to the challenge of meeting Americans'
unprecedented demand for voice and high-speed data services.
We must continue to build upon our success and remain the
global leader in wireless innovation. We must lead in
developing 5G and 6G standards and deploying next generation 5G
technology. In a large part, our leadership depends on ensuring
that all generations of our networks are secure, and on having
policies that encourage investment and innovation from trusted
companies and the flexibility to bring new technologies to
market here in the United States.
Congress and the Trump administration acted in many ways to
protect and diversify our communications supply chain,
including funding the implementation of the Secure and Trusted
Communications Networks Act to support the removal and
replacement of harmful equipment in our Nation's communications
networks. We also worked with our Democratic colleagues last
year to enact the bipartisan Utilizing Strategic Allied
Telecommunications Act, which created a grant program at NTIA
to facilitate the deployment of Open Radio Access Network
(known as ``Open RAN'') technologies that will diversify our 5G
supply chain, lower equipment costs, and help us prevent bad
actors like China from disrupting our networks.
It is crucial that Congress funds this grant program in any
funding program that moves forward. The use of Open RAN
technology represents one such path to reducing threats. By
enabling providers to move away from end-to-end product lines,
and mix and match vendors inside their networks, Open RAN can
help reduce reliance on foreign equipment and ensure that
problematic components of a network's architecture can be
easily swapped out. It will also help trusted suppliers remain
economically competitive against Huawei and others seeking to
undermine our national security.
But more work needs to be done to drive 5G innovation, and
we must be forward-thinking in our approach to network
security. Three years ago, this subcommittee held a bipartisan
hearing examining the communications landscape, economic
competitiveness, and national security. Congress has addressed
many of the concerns that we heard, in large part because of
that bipartisan focus. However, it is clear that we must
continue to put a focus on these efforts to preserve American
leadership, improve transparency and information sharing, and
remain vigilant in identifying new vulnerabilities.
We can start by working together on policies to safeguard
American leadership at standards setting bodies that are
crucial for setting the technical rules of the road for
equipment and devices. We should also work to address the
challenges that U.S. and other trusted companies face to
compete in a global supply chain, and ensure that the work we
have already done is being implemented effectively and working
as intended, such as NTIA's information sharing program for
smaller and rural communications providers.
These are important issues that deserve bipartisan
attention, and I am grateful for the opportunity to hear from
today's witnesses on how we can secure our global 5G
leadership.
Mr. Pallone. I can't hear Mr. Doyle.
Mr. Doyle. Can you hear me now?
Mr. Pallone. Now I can, yes.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank my friend for yielding back, and also note
that when I was saying O-RAN I was referring to Open RAN also.
So I just wanted to make that clear.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Pallone, chairman of the full
committee, for 5 minutes for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Doyle.
If the U.S. doesn't lead the wireless future, then rival
nations are posed to lead it for us and dominate the 5G
marketplace in a way that may undermine our national security
and economic prosperity. And China, as we know, has built the
world's largest 5G network and suspect communications provider
Huawei currently leads the current market share for 5G base
stations.
According to reports, China has more 5G subscribers than
the U.S., it has more widespread 5G coverage, and its
connections are, on average, faster than ours. And this is
concerning because history tells us that early adopters and
developers define the marketplace, drive innovation, and reap
the economic benefits of that leadership.
And as we saw with 4G, the global technological leaders in
a given field can define that technology and how it is used.
With 4G, we saw the benefits of that in the booming app economy
that was created.
We all know the positives and the negatives created by the
tech boom. But in this Nation, we have the ability and
structures to publicly debate those issues. And when government
gets involved, it is in full view of the American people. If
the same tech companies were founded and grew under a more
authoritarian regime, the influence of government would be less
apparent and potentially much more dangerous.
The Chinese Government's involvement in Huawei and ZTE has
raised security concerns with their equipment. We also have
seen how China places restrictions that undermine privacy,
security, and intellectual property interests on American
companies entering the Chinese market.
And based on past experience, the Chinese Government cannot
be trusted to set the standards that govern our wireless
future. Instead, we must help our own Nation and like-minded
democracies once again lead in technological innovation and
preserve a secure and free marketplace.
And to this end, we have already made progress. We have
funded the Secure and Trusted Communications Network Act to the
tune of $1.9 billion to replace all suspect equipment in the
U.S. We also enacted the Secure 5G and Beyond Act to require
the executive branch to formulate a whole-government strategy
to protect our 5G networks.
And I am also encouraged by President Biden's focus on
expanding U.S. leadership. The administration's support of
Doreen Bogdan-Martin to lead the International
Telecommunication Union demonstrated a commitment to a more
inclusive and sustainable global digital landscape.
And just last week, President Biden welcomed Japanese Prime
Minister Suga to the White House, where they agreed to work
jointly on the rapid development of 5G technologies. And in
that vein, we enacted the USA Telecom Act last year to help
fund the promotion of Open RAN networks that can be used to
finally bring the United States and more of our allies into the
business of manufacturing network equipment.
Congress must nevertheless fund this legislation so we can
promote and deploy this critical technology to create American
jobs here at home and building the networks of the future.
We also need to make sure that all providers, including
small providers and communities, have the resources and
technical assistance to leverage this technology, but we can't
stop there. We need to leverage our Federal agencies to review
the security issues presented by consumer equipment, especially
equipment produced in suspect countries.
And we must also quickly address the Trump administration's
failure to appropriately coordinate across our Government to
make our airwaves available for these new technologies. It is
important that we work together to put our airways to the best
possible use while addressing legitimate safety concerns.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
If the United States doesn't lead the wireless future,
rival nations are posed to lead it for us and dominate the 5G
marketplace in a way that may undermine our national security
and economic prosperity.
China has built the world's largest 5G network and suspect
communications provider Huawei currently leads the global
market share for 5G base stations.
According to reports, China has more 5G subscribers than
the United States, it has more widespread 5G coverage, and its
connections are, on average, faster than ours.
This is concerning because history tells us that early
adopters and developers define the marketplace, drive
innovation, and reap the economic benefits of that leadership.
As we saw with 4G, the global technological leaders in a
given field can define that technology and how it is used. With
4G, we saw the benefits of that in the booming app economy that
was created.
We all know the positives and the negatives created by the
tech boom. But in this nation, we have the ability and
structures to publicly debate those issues, and when government
gets involved it's in full view of the American people.
If the same tech companies were founded and grew under a
more authoritarian regime, the influence of government would be
less apparent and potentially much more dangerous.
The Chinese Government's involvement in Huawei and ZTE has
raised security concerns with their equipment. We also have
seen how China places restrictions that undermine privacy,
security, and intellectual property interests on American
companies entering the Chinese market.
Based on past experience, the Chinese Government cannot be
trusted to set the standards that govern our wireless future.
Instead, we must help our own nation and like-minded
democracies once again lead in technological innovation and
preserve a secure and free marketplace.
To this end, we have already made progress. We funded the
Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act to the tune of
$1.9 billion to replace all suspect equipment in the United
States. We also enacted the Secure 5G and Beyond Act to require
the executive branch to formulate a whole of government
strategy to protect our 5G networks.
I also am encouraged by President Biden's focus on
expanding U.S. leadership. The administration's support of
Doreen Bogdan-Martin to lead the International
Telecommunications Union demonstrates a commitment to a more
inclusive and sustainable global digital landscape. And just
last week, President Biden welcomed Japanese Prime Minster Suga
to the White House where they agreed to work jointly on the
rapid development of 5G technologies.
And in that vein, we enacted the USA Telecom Act last year
to help fund the promotion of Open RAN networks that can be
used to finally bring the United States and more of our allies
into the business of manufacturing network equipment. Congress
must nevertheless fund this legislation so that we can promote
and deploy this critical technology to create American jobs
here at home, building the networks of the future.
We need to make sure that all providers, including small
providers and communities, have the resources and technical
assistance to leverage this technology.
But we cannot stop there; we need to leverage our Federal
agencies to review the security issues presented by consumer
equipment, especially equipment produced in suspect countries.
We must also quickly address the Trump administration's
failure to appropriately coordinate across our Government to
make our airwaves available for these new technologies. It's
important we work together to put our airwaves to the best
possible use while addressing legitimate safety concerns.
Mr. Pallone. I would like to yield now the rest of my time
to the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Matsui.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for yielding
to me.
While we are still in the early stages of 5G deployment,
the Federal Government must be a driving force in spectrum
policy if we are to win the race to 5G and beyond. That is why
I wrote then-President-elect Biden 4 months ago, urging him to
adopt a unified approach to spectrum policy and a clearly
articulated process for resolving interagency disputes.
Over the past 4 years, significant conflicts between
Federal agencies caused costly delays in making new spectrum
available while also creating severe uncertainty for government
and industry.
Moving forward, I look forward to seeing NTIA resume its
role as manager of the Federal Government's use of spectrum. We
must also take steps to support a secure and diverse supply
chain. As original cosponsor of the USA Telecommunications Act,
I believe we need to fully fund the programs in that bill to
support the development and deployment of Open RAN.
I think the funding authorized by our bill should serve as
a floor, not a ceiling. Recently, a bipartisan group of
Senators called for an increase in funding to $3 billion, and I
hope this chamber can find bipartisan compromise to keep pace.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding to me, and I yield
back. Thank you.
Mr. Doyle. The gentlewoman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Mrs. Rodgers, ranking member of
the full committee, for 5 minutes for her opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, everyone. I too want to join in thanking our
witnesses for coming and being with us today on the Energy and
Commerce Committee.
America's global leadership and ability to win the future
depends on our capacity to harness the wireless technologies
that will help shape our Nation and the world in coming
decades.
Networks will continue to get faster, stronger, and connect
more people and devices than ever before. We are already
preparing for many life-altering and even life-saving benefits
of 5G, from enabling autonomous vehicles and the Internet of
Things to improving access to remote healthcare services,
including life-saving remote surgeries, to empowering farmers
to increase crop yields and fight hunger through precision
agriculture.
And 5G promises to integrate our lives even more with the
digital world. 5G and future generations of wireless networks
will help fuel innovation and entrepreneurship and help connect
millions of Americans, which is why they must be secure.
We must make certain that America, not China, is capturing
this innovation as well as developing and eventually deploying
these technologies. We do not want countries like China making
the rules and leading in technologies like 5G and 6G that could
give them so much control over American lives and industries.
The more we rely on communication infrastructures in our
daily lives, the more critical it becomes to ensure our network
is secure from those who seek to do us harm. We recognize the
potential threats that have come from not only having a robust
and secure supply chain, and we need to find solutions.
We already have a track record of unity on this committee
and success on these issues. Our bipartisan work in the last
Congress helped fund the removal and the replacement of
untrusted equipment through the Secure and Trusted
Communications Networks Act.
We also came together to catalyze the development and the
deployment of Open RAN-compatible technologies by passing the
USA Telecommunications Act. It established a grant program for
deployment of Open RAN capability technology in our networks,
and I urge for that to be funded quickly to spur the
development of a robust, trusted equipment marketplace.
And that is just the beginning. As we remove untrusted
equipment from our domestic networks, we must look to the
future and consider what the availability of trusted vendors
will be in years to come. As our mobile networks advance, we
also must make sure regulations don't hold back new
technologies that have the potential to improve our quality of
life and secure America's leadership.
Cloud-native networks can help push software and security
upgrades more quickly than their predecessors and help speed
the transition to 5G and operators that use them. Multi-edge
computing and networks bring new opportunities.
As the Chinese Communist Party seeks to control our
technological future, it is critical that we encourage trusted
companies to participate and lead in international standards
bodies and make sure Americans are at the helm of these
organizations--Americans like Doreen Bogdan-Martin, candidate
for Secretary General of the International Telecommunication
Union. And I also support her. She would be the first woman and
the first American in a long time.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join together in supporting
her. She shares our values of openness, transparency, and
connectivity for all.
And with that, I just want to say thanks for holding this
important and timely hearing. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers
Good morning, and thank you to our witnesses for coming
before the committee today.
America's global leadership and ability to win the future
depends on our capacity to harness the wireless technologies
that will shape our Nation and the world in the coming decades.
Networks will continue to get faster, stronger, and connect
more people and devices than ever before.
We are already preparing for the many life-altering--and
even life-saving--benefits of 5G...
From enabling autonomous vehicles and the Internet of
Things...
...to improving access to remote health care services,
including life-saving remote surgeries...
...to empowering farmers to increase crop yields and fight
hunger through precision agriculture.
And 6G promises to integrate our lives even more with the
digital world.
5G and future generations of wireless networks will fuel
innovation and entrepreneurship and help connect millions of
Americans, which is why they must be secure.
We must make certain that America, not China, is capturing
this innovation, as well as developing and eventually deploying
these technologies.
We do not want countries like China making the rules and
leading in technologies--like 5G and 6G--that could give them
so much control over American lives and industries.
The more we rely on communications infrastructure in our
daily lives, the more critical it becomes to ensure our network
is secure from those who seek to do us harm.
We recognize the potential threats that come from not
having a robust and secure supply chain, and we need to find
solutions.
We already have a track-record of unity and success on
these issues on the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Our bipartisan work in the last Congress helped fund the
removal and replacement of untrusted equipment through The
Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act.
We also came together to catalyze the development and
deployment of new Open RAN compatible technologies by passing
the USA Telecommunications Act.
It established a grant program for the deployment of Open
RAN compatible technology in our networks.
I urge for that to be funded quickly to spur the
development of a robust, trusted equipment marketplace.
And that is just the beginning! As we remove untrusted
equipment from our domestic networks, we must look to the
future and consider what the availability of trusted vendors
will be in the years to come.
As our mobile networks advance, we must also make sure
regulations don't hold back new technologies that have the
potential to improve our quality of life and secure America's
leadership.
Cloud-native networks can push software and security
upgrades more quickly than their predecessors and can help
speed the transition from 4G to 5G for those operators that
utilize them.
Multi-edge computing and network slicing will allow
operators to manage the influx of devices and new industries
all demanding access to high performance network resources.
While the benefits of virtualized networks bring new
opportunities, regulators should resist the urge to create
unnecessary, burdensome regulations that hamper American
innovation and give other countries a competitive edge.
As the Chinese Communist Party seeks to control our
technological future, it is critical that we encourage trusted
companies to participate and lead in international standards
bodies...
...and make sure Americans are at the helm of these
organizations.
Americans like Doreen Bogdan-Martin, candidate for
Secretary General of the International Telecommunication Union,
who I support.
Doreen shares the values of openness, transparency, and
connectivity for all--and she would represent us well in this
role.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding such an important,
timely hearing on how to secure our wireless future.
I look forward to continuing this work.
I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady yields back, and I thank her for
her opening statement.
Now I would like to introduce our witnesses for today's
hearing: Ms. Diane Rinaldo, executive director, Open RAN Policy
Coalition; Mr. John Baker, senior vice president, business
development, Mavenir; Mr. Tom Donovan, senior vice president,
legislative affairs, for the Competitive Carriers Association;
Mr. John Mezzalingua, chief executive officer, JMA Wireless;
and Mr. Tareq Amin, executive vice president and group chief
technology officer, Rakuten Mobile.
We want to thank our witnesses for joining us today. We
look forward to your testimony.
At this time, the Chair will recognize each witness for 5
minutes to provide their opening statement, and we will start
with Ms. Diane Rinaldo. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF DIANE RINALDO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OPEN RAN
POLICY COALITION; JOHN BAKER, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT, MAVENIR; TIM DONOVAN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT,
LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, COMPETITIVE CARRIERS ASSOCIATION; JOHN
MEZZALINGUA, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, JMA WIRELESS; AND TAREQ
AMIN, REPRESENTATIVE DIRECTOR, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, AND
CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER, RAKUTEN MOBILE
STATEMENT OF DIANE RINALDO
Ms. Rinaldo. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, as well to
Ranking Member Latta, full committee Chairman Pallone, ranking
member full committee McMorris Rodgers, and members of the
committee.
On behalf of the 60 members of the Open RAN Policy
Coalition, I would like to thank you for holding this important
and timely hearing today. My name is Diane Rinaldo, and I have
the pleasure of serving as the executive director of the Open
RAN Policy Coalition, a coalition that not only spans the globe
but also the mobile ecosystem.
We are a diverse group of information and communications
technology companies that have a common goal of breaking down
technological barriers to promote a varied and competitive
wireless marketplace and create a future in which radio access
network architecture is based on a more modular design with
open and interoperable interfaces.
Our coalition members include carriers, vendors,
cybersecurity providers, tower operators, cloud providers,
innovators, startups, and legacy tech companies that have come
together because they understand the health of the entire
ecosystem is reliant on a secure, robust, and diverse supply
chain. We have been working together for nearly a year to
educate policymakers across the globe on the benefits of Open
RAN.
Today, I look forward to discussing the reasons why we
believe that Open RAN will provide significant public-interest
benefits, namely driving increased competition, providing
technologic improvements, making services and products more
affordable for consumers, including those in rural and
underserved communities, and serving as a complement to
parallel advances and enhancing network security and network
management of 5G.
The world is on the precipice of the fourth industrial
revolution that will be driven by advanced wireless
communications. While these advancements will require a faster
and more resilient network to flourish, the continued growth of
telecommunications networks is also predicated on certainty and
stability within the supply chain.
This certainty is currently in question. The small pool of
existing vendors for wireless network build-outs has fueled
concerns over supply chain resiliency and competition. Network
operators are left with a limited choice for next-generation
networks, posing economic risks and creating barriers for
smaller firms in the 5G space.
We are seeing firsthand that disaggregating the radio
access network lowers the barrier to entry for new vendors in
the marketplace. Increased vendor choice, in turn, drives
competition and innovation, which will lead to lower prices.
Fortunately, the United States, its partners, and the
communication companies that serve those markets have reached
an inflection point in the development and deployment of Open
RAN. In short, this technology is not only ready for prime
time, but is actively being deployed in the commercial
communications ecosystem, thereby advancing the national
interests of the United States and partners.
I want to applaud the hard work done by this committee and
staff with the introduction and passage of the USA
Telecommunications Act last year. Fully funding the two
programs at $3 billion will help bolster advanced wireless
networks and futureproof our telecommunications system. I would
also like to add that NTIA is the right agency to be
administrating this program, but I promise that I have no
biased opinions on that.
Additionally, I would like to commend the recent bilateral
engagement of President Biden and Japanese Prime Minister Suga.
The realization of Open RAN being a common advancement for our
two nations is further proof that collaborative approaches in
technology is good policy.
Promoting diversity and security in the 5G supply chain is
of global interest and will require a common solution. The
challenge for policymakers today revolves around a central
question: How can we use competition and innovation to drive
the next generation of networks?
In order to promote this technological evolution and
accelerate a stable, sustainable, and successful transition to
5G and beyond, Government initiatives and policy priorities
must support new and existing technology suppliers as well as
small and large network operators offering open and
interoperable RAN solutions as well as integration of those
open components; create a competitive global ecosystem of
diverse and trusted suppliers and service providers; and
encourage building, maintaining, and investing in U.S. and
technological allies' leadership for the deployment and
development of both 5G and future wireless networks.
The United States is at a critical juncture. The issues
that we are discussing today and which reside under your
jurisdiction no longer pertain only to telecom policy but also
to economic policy and economic security. As we move to the
digitization of everything, mobile networks are the lifeblood
of our ecosystems. Ensuring a healthy supply chain has never
been more important, and working with our allies to sync on
these issues has never been more critical.
Thank you again for your continued work on this issue, and
I look forward to participating in this hearing.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Rinaldo follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Ms. Rinaldo.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Baker for 5 minutes for his
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF JOHN BAKER
Mr. Baker. Thank you, Chairman Doyle, Ranking Member Latta,
Chairman Pallone, and Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers. Thank
you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
My name is John Baker, and I lead the 5G team at Mavenir.
Mavenir is a U.S.-headquartered company founded 16 years ago.
We are a trusted software vendor for the U.S. mobile operators,
serving more than 250 operators around the world.
We are also a pioneer in providing solutions using open
interfaces, including radio access networks, known as Open RAN.
We have Open RAN deployments in India, Germany, the United
Kingdom. In the United States, we are helping Dish build the
Nation's first stand-alone 5G Open RAN network.
Today's hearing comes at a critical time for the mobile
network supply chain. Because of industry's consolidation and
the banning of untrusted vendors, two companies supply nearly
100 percent of the United States' radio access networks. These
companies, both headquartered overseas, provide proprietary RAN
products that lock out other suppliers, limiting competition
and narrowing the supply chain. However, there is a solution,
and that is called Open RAN.
Today I will focus on three points: one, how Open RAN will
help build a more robust and diverse supply chain; two, why
interoperable standards will help the U.S. lead in 5G; and
three, how the U.S. Government can help support Open RAN
deployments.
Firstly, Open RAN will help build a more robust and diverse
supply chain. To be clear, Open RAN is not a technology but,
rather, a shift in how we design and build mobile networks,
using interoperable subcomponents from multiple vendors.
The current RAN market in the United States is a prized
one. We have the highest margins and profitability globally.
But at the same time, it is limited to two incumbents who have
locked up the market with proprietary systems.
In contrast, the Open RAN ecosystem numbers more than 60
companies, including several U.S. suppliers, such as Dell,
Intel, JAM Wireless and Mavenir. Open RAN not only supports a
diverse supply chain but also brings significant cost savings,
increased security, and future-proof networks. An important
benefit is that rural carriers undergo a taxpayer-funded rip
and replace.
Secondly, advancement of interoperable standards will help
the United States lead in 5G and beyond. For the U.S. to lead
in next-generation networks, Congress must facilitate U.S.
participation in international standards. Global standards for
mobile technologies are set by 3GPP, which used to support open
interfaces. However, the dominant manufacturers now control the
standard-setting process, which means the current global
standards foster proprietary products and limit the global
supply chain.
To help advance interoperability, more U.S. companies need
to participate in 3GPP, but participation is expensive. To
increase U.S. participation in setting these important global
standards, the United States should work more closely with
industry and financially support involvement in 3GPP. Without
more United States companies at the table, we are at the risk
of being eliminated completely in the U.S. RAN market.
Finally, the United States Government must take further
action to support Open RAN. Around the world, allied nations
are advancing aggressive policies to build their next-
generation networks with Open RAN. Five major European
operators have committed to deploy Open RAN, but some are
preparing local suppliers. But sadly, the full embrace of Open
RAN has not happened in the United States.
To help advance Open RAN and ensure a diversified supply
chain, we strongly recommend three actions in the United States
Government. Firstly, we must fund the public Wireless Supply
Chain Innovation Fund.
Last year, thanks to the leadership of this committee,
Congress created a critical grant program to help companies
like Mavenir scale, reshore manufacturing of network
components, and advance U.S. standardization leadership.
Congress should quickly appropriate the requested $3 billion
for this fund.
We also promote competition in the supply chain. While
there are no dominant U.S. companies selling into the 5G
equipment market, there are many vying to engage. The best way
to engage leadership as a core industry is to encourage
competition fostering Open RAN.
Lastly, the United States Government can provide financial
incentives like loan guarantees and tax incentives to propel
our mobile operators to pursue Open RAN. This will help small
companies scale and have the ability to compete with the
dominant incumbent suppliers.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baker follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Baker.
Now the Chair recognizes Mr. Donovan for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF TIM DONOVAN
Mr. Donovan. Chairman Doyle, Republican Leader Latta, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify about how the United States can lead the world in
future wireless services.
CCA is the Nation's leading association for competitive
wireless providers, representing carrier members ranging from
small rural providers serving fewer than 5,000 customers to
regional nationwide providers serving millions of customers, as
well as vendors and suppliers that provide products and
services throughout the wireless communications ecosystem.
Wireless communication services have become inextricable
parts of our lives, with functionality that has experienced
tremendous growth from the humble roots of the first mobile
phone call placed 48 years ago this month. Americans now have
an average of 1.3 mobile devices per person and use those
devices not only to place calls and send texts, but to work,
learn, monitor health, connect to public safety, and access
millions of applications.
Through American leadership, the jobs and growth powered by
the wireless industry and the application economy have been
centered here in the United States. America's continued
leadership as the industry advances to fifth-generation
networks will be crucial to support continued innovation and
economic growth.
To lead the wireless future, we must focus on three
critical pillars: Mobile infrastructure, access to secure
equipment and devices, and a unified spectrum strategy.
First, infrastructure. At a foundational level, the United
States cannot lead the wireless future without ubiquitous
advanced wireless services for all Americans.
As you consider generational investments in infrastructure,
I applaud the bipartisan support for broadband, based on
reliable maps. Expanding the fiber footprint will advance
connectivity and provide backhaul needed to expand wireless
coverage and speeds.
But a generational investment in digital infrastructure
that focuses on fixed broadband alone will be incomplete.
Simply put, there are exciting and important innovations and
services that rely on wireless connectivity and cannot be
supported through fixed broadband technology at any speed.
As wireless services continue to develop, some of the
greatest potential for 5G technologies exist beyond consumer
use. And while the most transformational services that will
depend on mobile broadband may not even be invented today, we
do know this: Mobility will continue to be a catalyst for
economic growth in rural America, and any infrastructure
efforts that do not ensure ubiquitous mobile broadband could
create a new digital divide of technology denial.
Second, equipment must be available and secure. CCA
commends this committee for its focus on network security,
including passing and funding the Secure and Trusted
Communications Networks Act. While the FCC has worked
diligently to implement the program, participating carriers may
struggle to lock in plans to move forward, due to uncertainty
regarding the final application process, structure and timing
of reimbursements, and other decisions that will be made by the
FCC in the coming months. CCA encourages further transparency
and guidance so that all stakeholders can efficiently complete
the replacement and removal of covered equipment.
Completing the program is a critical priority, and a
broader look at the equipment market can help ensure
sustainable alternatives to equipment and services deemed to
pose a national security threat. This includes research and
development, and CCA urges Congress to fully fund the programs
created through this committee's bipartisan leadership and the
USA Telecommunications Act. As that legislation recognizes, O-
RAN presents exciting new potential to disaggregate
functionality to increase competition and reduce costs.
The prospect of introducing new vendors into the ecosystem
has tremendous potential benefits, but policymakers should not
mandate specific technologies. If new technologies like O-RAN
live up to their promise, they will succeed in the marketplace.
Meanwhile, carriers will continue to rely on existing trusted
vendors.
Third, we must have a unified spectrum strategy. With
increased wireless use, spectrum needs will only accelerate.
These needs will be met, in part, from spectrum that is
reallocated from Federal users. As a timely example, the 3450
to 3550 megahertz band, which the FCC plans to auction later
this year pursuant to your directive, will involve sharing
between incumbent Federal users and new commercial operations.
For that auction to be successful, industry needs more
information about exactly where and how the spectrum will be
available and needs that information now.
Unfortunately, there are too many recent examples where
NTIA and FCC adopted science-based spectrum policies that were
questioned after the fact, even after auctions have been
completed, including in the C-band, 24 gigahertz band, L-band
and 5.9 gigahertz band. Congress must take steps to restore
trust in the process, ensuring NTIA is the voice and authority
for spectrum management and use across the Federal Government,
just as the FCC is for commercial use.
In closing, mobile wireless infrastructure, secure and
innovative wireless network equipment, and effective spectrum
coordination and management across the Government are three
elements critically important for the United States to lead the
wireless future. Thank you for your leadership on these issues
and holding today's hearing, and I welcome any questions you
may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Donovan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Doyle. OK. Thank you, Tim.
Next, we will recognize Mr. Mezzalingua.
You are recognized for 5 minutes, sir.
STATEMENT OF JOHN MEZZALINGUA
Mr. Mezzalingua. Thank you. Chairman Doyle, Ranking Member
Latta, Chairman Pallone, Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers and
other distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me to testify.
My name is John Mezzalingua. I am the CEO of JMA Wireless,
and I am honored to be here today. We are grateful for all that
Congress and the administration are doing to promote the
adoption of 5G in the U.S. and the transition to O-RAN.
We are at an inflection point in both our industry and our
country. As the world transitions to 5G and O-RAN, technology,
market, and political forces are aligning to create a new era
in communications. The policy choices we make now will
determine the new global leaders in this industry.
I am here today because I believe we have the opportunity
to bring leadership in this industry back home. Technology
designed in the U.S., manufactured in the U.S. by American
companies will help secure our supply chain, promote high-speed
internet for all Americans, and transform how businesses
operate, all while creating jobs.
We are in the early but critical stages of this
transformation, and we believe that government has a meaningful
role to play in helping the American people realize the
potential benefits.
JMA is an American wireless technology company based in
Syracuse, New York. We design and manufacture products only 30
yards away from where I am sitting right now that are deployed
on virtually every cell tower in the country.
But more to the point of today's hearing, we are also
designing and manufacturing advanced software network-based
solutions that are beginning to have a revolutionary impact in
the transition to 5G for carriers, businesses, and government.
This technology is O-RAN compliant. It is disrupting the
marketplace, and we believe it will play a major role in
restoring U.S. telecom leadership.
We currently employ about a thousand people globally, with
facilities in six cities across this country, including
Syracuse, Dallas, Austin, Chicago, Boulder and Richmond. In an
opportunity zone in downtown Syracuse, we are building the
country's first U.S.-owned 5G campus, including a smart factory
with production to begin this fall.
Now, others on this panel have spoken about the benefits of
O-RAN. What unlocks the real magic of O-RAN is when you take
what has been done in hardware and do it in software. We refer
to this as virtualization, and it is the key to restoring
American leadership.
This is not pie-in-the-sky stuff, it is happening now. For
example, JMA is deploying a wireless network to the city of
Tucson that in its first phase provides high-speed internet to
5,000 households and businesses, largely in school districts
most affected by the digital divide. Using CARES Act funding
for this project, Tucson is now poised to become a world-class
connected city.
We have been talking about the digital divide in America
for decades. This is the time to finally solve it, with U.S.
companies providing the latest technology. Other cities are
following Tucson's lead already.
JMA was also selected by the Pentagon as a supplier for a
5G testbed at the Marine Corps facility in Albany, Georgia, as
part of an all-U.S. team that includes Amazon, Cisco and
Federated Wireless. JMA is deploying our software-based RAN
solution for a 5G network which will support warehouse
robotics, barcode scanning, and virtual reality applications.
As these examples suggest, we are making real progress, and we
believe the right policies can go a long way to securing and
accelerating U.S. telecom leadership.
We have the following suggestions: First, focus on U.S.
manufacturing. We are proud of our American roots as an
innovator and U.S. manufacturer, but we are up against foreign
competitors who benefit from industrial policies that give them
unfair advantages.
We believe our Government should enact policies that
promote American innovation while staying true to our
international obligations of fair play. For example, projects
funded by American taxpayers should be awarded to domestic
manufacturers.
Second, funding the USA Telecom Act. We commend Chairman
Pallone, Representative Guthrie, Representative Matsui, and
many others in Congress for pushing this forward. Now it needs
to be fully funded.
Third, the additional funding for broadband access. We
encourage Congress to continue finding ways to fund this
critical infrastructure so no American is left behind.
Last, additional spectrum. We encourage the administration
and Congress to work together to maximize the amount of
spectrum available.
Thank you for your time. I welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mezzalingua follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Amin for 5 minutes for his
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF TAREQ AMIN
Mr. Amin. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify to you today. My name is Tareq Amin. I am the group
chief technology officer for Rakuten, and I am honored to be
here with you today.
To start, let me say Rakuten doesn't think of itself as a
mobile operator. We are, indeed, a technology company with both
Japanese and American DNA, bringing the best of what the
technology sector offers to advance the agility, security, and
affordability of our wireless network and services. In fact,
Rakuten Mobile is its own first customer. Running on our open
cloud-based Rakuten Communications Platform, or RCP, our mobile
network in Japan proves that open and cloud-based wireless
networks are no longer a proof of concept. Today they are,
indeed, a reality.
We are driving a more diverse supply chain with continuing
innovation across multiple technologies, and providing
significant consumer benefits. The majority of our network
components today comes from U.S. suppliers. We have
collaborated with companies like Intel, Qualcomm, and Cisco to
create this open network ecosystem.
When I joined Rakuten, I was optimistic that they would
give me the opportunity to do something for the wireless
industry that is well overdue: To reimagine the network end to
end, from radio to transport to the core and support systems,
leveraging the internet and cloud principles.
When we started this journey, Rakuten, indeed, had a
choice: to select a traditional vendor or to bring the ethos of
the technology sector to telecom. In fact, the behind-the-
scenes story at Rakuten is that we did consider going with a
Chinese equipment supplier.
One of my first jobs at Rakuten was to cancel the ongoing
RFP process and reimagine how future networks should be built
and the possibility that networks could become more secure. And
we knew that for this network concept to become credible, an
ecosystem needed to be created.
Historically, wireless networks relied on a small number of
vendors to provide complete vertical solutions from radio to
the core and other parts of the network. It has always been
about replacing proprietary hardware with new proprietary
hardware, and it was never about software.
While the model has evolved somewhat, but the reality from
its early days is that now only a handful of mobile network
vendors still exist. In order for our model to come to light,
we had to find the right partners.
For example, in 2018 we reached out to Nokia and asked them
to sell us the radio hardware parts of their complete solution
so that we could use them with our software-based Open RAN
platform. It took significant courage for Nokia to agree to
unbundle the radio, but, to their credit, they did. And from
there we invested very heavily in a U.S.-based startup called
Altiostar to work with Nokia and enable a deployment of a true
cloud-based network concept in Japan.
I personally wanted everything to be open so that we could
dictate how we monitor this network, how we apply security,
whether to components, software, or even hardware itself. That
is something in which we made a cognizant choice.
That choice enabled Rakuten to have more visibility and
control points in our network, because we are not beholden to
one vendor. The various parts of this network provide a needed
check to each other to help keep the overall system more
secure. The system has also the benefits of allowing us to
better isolate problem areas and prevent them from
contaminating other parts of the network.
This last point is what brings us here today, because
Rakuten chose to move to a more open, software-centric, cloud-
native architecture. And to this extent, we are able to
innovate at a more granular level. We are relentlessly
automating our network, and we are driving a more diverse
supply chain. We believe we are better equipped to secure our
network, and we are driving costs down. We are proud to be an
inaugural board member of Open RAN Policy Coalition and a
member of Competitive Carriers Association.
Rakuten is committed to work with the U.S. Government and
industry stakeholders to serve the American market. However,
U.S. leadership will be critical if we are to succeed on a
larger scale. To this end, I offer three suggestions for how
U.S. Congress can continue to drive innovation and security in
wireless networks.
First, the U.S. Government should actively promote open and
cloud-based technology for telecom networks through its
policies and international engagement. The Japanese Government
have been incredibly supportive of our approach. And the open
and cloud-based communication ecosystem is the wave of the
future, but it is young and needs to be cultivated and
nourished if it is to grow. American leadership is imperative
to advance this important evolution.
Second, Rakuten urges Congress to provide positive
incentive for American companies to embrace an open and cloud-
based future.
And finally, Rakuten urges Congress to fund the USA
Telecommunications Act, and I would like to thank this
committee for your leadership on that bill. Chairman Pallone, I
support your efforts to fund this program at a significant
level in order to drive innovation and deployment in open and
cloud-based systems. And I urge your colleagues to join you.
Nothing less than American competitiveness is at stake.
Thank you very much, and I look forward for your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Amin follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Amin.
And I want to thank all of our witnesses today for their
excellent opening statements. We have concluded the openings.
We are now going to move to Member questions.
Each Member will have 5 minutes to ask questions of our
witnesses. I would ask all of my colleagues to stick to that 5-
minute rule, and don't be asking a question with 2 seconds
left. We are going to try to keep Members to that.
And I will start by recognizing myself for 5 minutes and
hopefully setting an example for how the rest will ask their
questions.
Let me start with Mr. Donovan. While Open RAN technology
holds a lot of promise, many of your members have relied on
larger equipment vendors to help with systems integration,
maintenance, and troubleshooting.
What additional steps can Congress take to ease and
accelerate the adoption of Open RAN amongst your members?
Mr. Donovan. Thank you for the question. So when we
recently surveyed our members, we found that 37 percent of our
carriers are already working with a systems integrator, but 100
percent of those responded that they are utilizing network
optimization and analytics tools.
So it goes to show that, if this technology can live up to
the promise, there is a huge market potential for it. Some
things that Congress can do to help with that is working with
regional hubs and setting up additional technical assistance so
that carriers that may not have some of this in-house are able
to get additional education and the efforts that they need to
be able to take part in this.
Mr. Doyle. Thanks. Mr. Baker, your company has worked with
wireless telecommunication companies across the globe to bring
a lot of benefits of cloud and virtualization to bear on their
networks. How would additional Federal resources help speed the
deployment and adoption of Open RAN here in the United States?
Mr. Baker. Thank you, Chairman Doyle. The additional
funding will help get the Telecommunications Act funded so that
we can actually scale the companies to actually support these
networks, both from system integration, also refunding the
growth of mobile equipment companies, bringing technologies
back from China.
One example of that is the radio technology. There is not a
U.S. radio company where you can go buy frequency balance with
the U.S. market that is open to Open RAN type solutions. So it
will support U.S. manufacturing jobs and critical components
and ensure that U.S. companies are involved in servicing the
next-generation networks.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
Mr. Amin, what has Rakuten's experience been with
developing and deploying its Open RAN network? What kind of
advantages have you seen versus using a traditional vendor?
Mr. Amin. Thank you, Congressman. Well, firstly, I must say
that, for us, when we looked at how we need to construct and
build this network, it was very clear for us that the United
States had one of the most advanced technology building blocks
that we require to build an open network, open platform
architecture.
In the early days, of course, this journey was not simple
and easy for us to accomplish. However, the advancements that
we have seen when it comes to scaleable automation, cost
reduction, agility, and speed have been significant. And we
went from the early days where this technology was being
debated. Today, I think the merits and the capability and the
technical merits of it is being celebrated.
And thanks to the partners and the ecosystem that we
created, I always say that we are scratching the surface of
what is possible to enable autonomy in mobile networks.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
Ms. Rinaldo, are your members concerned about supply chain
issues related to chip shortages, and how could it impact their
ability to get wireless products and services to markets?
Ms. Rinaldo. Thank you, sir. Yes, the Open RAN Policy
Coalition, just like so many other manufacturing industries
around the world, are concerned about the shortage of chips. We
are supportive of funding to bring back manufacturing and to
boost that in the United States, in order to help not only our
own supply chain but that of our partners. It is something that
we are following, and we stand ready to help however we can.
Mr. Doyle. Thanks. How about you, Mr. Donovan. How is that
affecting your members?
Mr. Donovan. Anything that increases the costs or delays
the access to that equipment is going to have an impact on
several of the programs that we have talked about today, from
removing covered equipment from carriers that do have it in
their network to upgrading to 5G. So anything we can do to make
sure we have a steady supply chain and availability is
something that we would support.
Mr. Doyle. Well, thank you very much to all the witnesses.
The Chair is going to yield back 45 seconds and recognize the
ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Latta, for his 5
minutes. Mr. Latta, you are recognized.
Bob, I think you need to unmute.
Bob, we still can't hear you.
Bob, are you able to unmute? Can you hear me?
I think maybe we will go to Mrs. McMorris Rodgers and come
back to you, Bob, once we figure out how to get your system
unmuted. Is that OK?
Mrs. Rodgers. Then I need to unmute.
Mr. Doyle. OK.
Mrs. Rodgers. Are you unmuted now, Bob?
Mr. Doyle. Cathy, why don't you go ahead for your 5
minutes, and we will come back to Bob once he gets that taken
care of.
Mrs. Rodgers. OK. Sounds good.
Again, thank you, everyone, for joining us today. Despite
all the great bipartisan work that this committee has done to
help secure our communication supply chains and safeguard our
technology leadership, China remains a constant threat when it
comes to our privacy, intellectual property, and national
security. One crucial part of securing our competitive edge
involves U.S. and trusted companies participating in 5G
standard-setting bodies like 3GPP.
Three years ago, under Republican leadership, this
committee held a bipartisan hearing that examined our supply
chain security. And we heard from experts on the need to
bolster private-sector leadership and close collaborative
engagement with government partners through clear and effective
processes.
Ms. Rinaldo, I wanted to ask you, what actions do you
believe the United States should be taking to improve its
public and private sector representation at these bodies, and
what other actions can we take to bolster the trusted vendor
marketplace and prevent China from seizing control of global 5G
supply chains?
Ms. Rinaldo. Thank you, Ranking Member.
Yes, I agree with you. We need more participation not only
on the U.S. Government end, but also in the private sector. I
think one important step to take is to formalize more
processes. We need to permanently designate a U.S. Government
lead at 3GPP.
I understand that Congressman Johnson has introduced a bill
in the past, but let me--I have--designated NTIA as the lead,
actually. Let me tell you why that is important.
During my time at NTIA, we had an interagency process which
eventually tapped an individual at NTIA as the government lead.
We need to formalize these processes.
While you often hear that foreign adversaries are in--at
standards bodies with thousands of people, that is not making
the difference. What is making the difference is that they are
more coordinated. We need to formalize these processes. We need
to nurture this expertise at a certain agency. I would say that
NTIA, with their expertise on telecom, is the agency to select.
And then we need to examine the rules how the United States
Government and private sector can come together to better
coordinate on these issues. There are rules in the way, whether
it be antitrust--the United States Government has to form a
FACA, a Federal advisory committee, in order to have
conversations. There are hurdles and barriers in the way to
having these talks.
The more that we discuss it and are forced to deal with
these barriers, the less we are talking about the issue at
hand. I think it would be smart for Congress to look at the
barriers in place, figure out what is needed, what is not, and
how to best move forward.
Again, participation is of the utmost importance in going
to the future. And, again, just learning from lessons learned
in the past.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you for those insights.
It seems like everyone on this committee is really excited
about the development of Open RAN-compatible technology, and it
is showing great promise. Rakuten Mobile has already deployed
commercial networks using Open RAN architecture.
Mr. Amin, what are the biggest challenges that you faced,
and what are some of the lessons that you have learned so far?
And then I would also like to ask if you would just speak to
the role that government played in helping complete the
project.
Mr. Amin. Thank you very much, Congresswoman.
I think, when we started early on, a lot of people thought
that our biggest challenge is about the technology. Actually,
it was quite the opposite of this.
Our biggest challenge was about mind set, mentality, and
determination to hire the right organization, to build the
right people that are willing to do the impossible. And to pull
these pieces together, initially we had to take a much larger
role on what the industry now is calling a system integration.
We learned quickly the importance of pulling these pieces
of the puzzle together, but it was, from our point of view,
very doable, and something that we needed to do in order to
push the advancements in this technology in Japan, to enable
cloud-native architecture to come to reality. So I would say
the first biggest lesson is to put the integration processes in
places, and then, furthermore, as time advances, to minimize
the level of complexity in system integration, if not eliminate
it.
The second thing is about understanding the criticality of
cloud-native architecture, the beauty of cloud, and the
constant economics that you can bring in.
And the third, which cannot be also underestimated, the
importance of having the right ecosystem and the right willing
partners. And we were so pleasantly surprised to see the
embracement from all the executives of the various entities in
the U.S. that we worked with. That was extremely welcomed, to
all our benefit and the benefit to the consumers of course in
Japan.
So I would say we are extremely optimistic and think really
the future of such technology is imminent if we continue to
work and collaborate to embed this in our DNA from a technology
organization.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you very much.
Mr. Doyle. Gentlelady's time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Pallone, the full committee
chair, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Doyle.
I was going to start with Mr. Donovan.
In your written testimony, you argue that we should take a
broader look at the equipment market to help ensure sustainable
alternatives to equipment and services that deem--that could
pose a national security threat. And we have some of the
companies that will help us do that on the panel today, and
there are others like Airspan and our longtime partners in
producing secure networks, including Ericsson, Nokia, and
Samsung.
So my question is: What have your members told you about
how they handle technical problems in their networks when they
arise, and do you have any thoughts on how we might make that
troubleshooting easier for them?
Mr. Donovan. Well, thank you for that question.
You put your finger on one of the top issues that our
members have been talking about as they are discussing some of
these evolutions. And, to my colleague's point in answering the
last question, that this is why the systems integration piece
is so important. And, when you are with one vendor end to end
and something goes wrong with the network, that is who you
call.
As conversations continue with a range of different
equipment providers, there needs to be confidence on the side
of the carrier that, if something goes wrong, there is one
person that they can call, and they can help them identify
where the problem is, especially if there are different--
different equipment from different companies involved
throughout the stack.
So that is something that we are continuing to evaluate. It
is a hot topic for discussion amongst my members, and ensuring
trust in that process is going to be important for adoption of
some of these technologies.
Mr. Pallone. Well, let me also ask you--I mean, as you
know, for some time on the committee, we have raised concerns
about the security of our network-connected consumer equipment.
Are there ways that we can use some process at the FCC and
elsewhere to help address the potential risks of that?
Mr. Donovan. So yes. So the FCC already has a role in
approving equipment to be used on the networks in terms of the
RF side. We continue having conversations about if there is a
role for the FCC or other Federal agencies in, you know,
providing approval and certification on the security side,
especially with the massive amount of growing numbers of
devices that are more than just the smartphones that we carry
around, to make sure that all devices that are connecting to
the networks are secure.
Mr. Pallone. Well, thank you, Mr. Donovan.
Let me go to Mr. Baker.
I have heard some controversy regarding whether Open RAN is
really ready for prime time. I think it is, but I am interested
in your views. So let me just ask: Is Open RAN technology ready
for prime time and network deployments, and what will that mean
for jobs here in the U.S.?
Mr. Baker. Absolutely, Open RAN is ready. It is being
deployed. We have got members on the panel here today that are
deploying it. And, you know, as a result, you know, jobs will--
you know, will increase, and, you know, the business, through
innovation and technology, will grow the ecosystem.
I think one comment I would like to make is that the whole
issue that we are really trying to address is one about open
interfaces and ensuring, through the standardization process
and, you know, putting enough people into the standardization
process--and, again, that is sort of job creation, but they are
really focusing down on the root cause of the problem, which is
open interfaces with interoperable products.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you.
Well, Mr. Baker, let me ask you another question.
Last Congress, we passed the USA Telecommunications Act,
you know, which supports security and competition in wireless
network marketplace through the deployment of Open RAN
technology. But, as I think has been mentioned, that act still
needs to be funded.
So do you believe that funding the USA Telecommunications
Act will promote alternatives to Huawei and ZTE equipment, as
well as competition? And, of course, what level of funding do
you think we need?
Mr. Baker. Yes. Thank you, Congressman Pallone.
Yes, absolutely. You know, funding that will--is the first
step. The second step is actually to put policy and process in
place that actually directs the money to their correct places
to grow the ecosystem. You know, we see on the Rip and Replace
Act, for instance, that money is diverted, because of
timelines, back to existing, you know, proprietary suppliers.
So, you know, policies should direct the money to the
companies that need to scale and grow this Open RAN ecosystem.
Mr. Pallone. Do you want to give us--give it a shot at the
level of funding that----
Mr. Baker. Yes. I certainly think, you know, that----
Mr. Pallone. It can be an estimate. It can be an estimate.
Mr. Baker. Yes. I think the $3 billion funding number is a
good number, and, you know, that will allow companies like
Mavenir or Altiostar to scale and greater support the markets.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Thanks so much.
And I am giving back 22 seconds, Chairman Doyle.
Mr. Doyle. I want to thank the full committee chair for his
good example.
I understand Mr. Latta is en route to his office to get on
a different computer. So, with that, I am going to recognize
Mr. Guthrie for 5 minutes.
Mr. Guthrie. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks so
much for having this hearing.
As you know, I was one of the sponsors of the Open RAN
moving forward, but I just want to make sure we look at
everything as we move forward.
But, first, Mr. Donovan, one of our priorities last
Christmas was the rip and replace so we could secure our
networks from companies like Huawei and ZTE. And you talked a
little bit about barriers. Would you talk a little more about
potential barriers that remain, particularly in permitting,
barriers to move forward with the new equipment?
Mr. Donovan. Sure. Thank you, sir, and thank you for the
leadership in both getting the program passed and funded.
Some of the barriers that do remain for those carriers is,
one, knowing kind of what exactly the application process is
going to look like, knowing when and how they will be
reimbursed and so they can, in turn, pay the vendors that they
are working with on the process. Some of those things are
additional clarity from the FCC would be really helpful so
that, while carriers are having these conversations, they can
lock in some of these agreements and get moving on the work.
On the permitting side, this comes back to the idea that,
for all the talk of calling it rip and replace, it is really
replace and then rip. We can't afford to take away connectivity
in the rural areas where these carriers are often the only
provider. And so, to stand up to that second network alongside,
oftentimes there will be additional permitting work for
colocation, review of tower integrity to make sure you can put
up that additional equipment.
And, even in some places, if you have microwave backhaul
today, you know, if it doesn't make sense to continue with
microwave backhaul, setting up a separate link, either because
of spectrum or technology, then clearing the permitting to
provide fiber to that site, which is going to enhance services
for everybody that uses that site long-term. So getting
through----
Mr. Guthrie. Yes. I just want to get to some more
questions.
So, Mr. Donovan--so you kind of struck my thoughts as you
were talking earlier. Background's in manufacturing, putting in
complex manufacturing systems. And the best scenarios that we
always tried to look for was turnkey, where a vendor came in
and all the subsuppliers were part of that vendor, and they
hand you the key, and it worked, because, if it didn't work,
you knew who to talk to.
And so you were talking about, you know, trying to come up
with arrangements. I know that is difficult to do sometimes.
But--so I just want to kind of get your thoughts on what--how
do you make sure, if you have different vendors, the components
are going to work together, or the components and the system
work together?
And then I know you talked about who is responsible if it
doesn't, and so kind of further elaborate on that as well.
Mr. Donovan. Certainly. So that is why some of the
different testing is important, you know, before you put the
technology out in the field, especially for carriers that have
existing network footprint. And that is why some of the
educational initiatives that go alongside it play a long role
in building that trust--you know, things like today's hearing
so everyone can learn more about the technology; the FCC has a
proceeding to learn more about it--that can increase trust in
this so that, as we move forward, that carriers feel confident
to deploy it.
There has also been some, you know, exciting discussions in
the industry between the different providers of this
technology, and architects are working in unique partnerships
so that they can provide that turnkey solution to carriers.
Mr. Guthrie. OK. Thank you so much.
And then, Mr. Amin, your company, Rakuten, has used this
process. And so your concerns about who is responsible if you
have multiple vendors?
And the other thing would be just security. If you are
buying from one vendor, you have one security concern about
that one vendor that you are working with. But, if you have
multiple vendors or multiple components, that adds to that
equation. Could you just kind of talk about how you address the
comment--the issue that Mr. Donovan brought up, and then the
security issue?
Mr. Amin. Absolutely.
I think, when we looked at the security architecture for
Rakuten Mobile, it was really built under the premise of zero
trust. And, when we looked at the--today's network, we still
have many proprietary interfaces, and I call these are the
black boxes that exist into our architecture.
We needed to evolve from a company that just always looks
and trusts everything that any OEM brings to a company that is
able to validate not only the software component, but also the
hardware and the silicone, and not only the hardware and the
silicone, but it is also its origin, where it is manufactured,
where it is built.
So now our case. It was by design and by choice that I
personally have looked at the components that are involved, and
the most complex things in mobile network today, which is the
remote radio heads and the radio units. I honestly will tell
you I did not find it complex. I did not find it complex to
really get to this level of detail.
I find technology is hardware for us. It is OK for us as an
operator to serve the duties that we have for our Government as
well as our consumers to protect the apparatus of our security
architecture, that we needed to really understand the entire
supply chain management.
And I would tell this committee it is critical to do so. It
is really, really critical to understand that we need to evolve
from the past into a new business model that an operator and
even to a certain extent the new vendors must learn and
understand how to build and secure modern platform, especially
in Open RAN.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Guthrie. My time is expired. I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
California, Mr. McNerney, for 5 minutes.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the chairman for having this
hearing. I want to thank the witnesses for informative
testimony and answers to the questions.
My first question--and also want to say it is interesting
having a hearing where the witnesses are, by and large,
reinforcing each other's positions.
Mr. Baker, my congressional district includes both rural
and urban areas, and a large portion of the households are low
income. Would you discuss the likely impact of Open RAN for
consumers in rural areas and for low-income consumers in both
rural and urban areas?
Mr. Baker. Yes. Thank you, Congressman McNerney. And,
personally, I would like to say I had the pleasure of building
the technical wireless network in California and Nevada, so I
really understand the area well.
To the extent that--you know, it all comes down to
operating a budget. With Open RAN, the promise of lower costs--
in fact, it has been proven lower costs will allow operators to
spend more and build more regions out in the network. It all
comes down to the budget they have available and then the cost
of the equipment. And, you know, with lower-margin equipment,
essentially the operators can do far more.
Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you.
Mr. Baker, I am also worried about the growing number of
cyber threats. I have heard that Open RAN offers security
benefits but that has potential to increase the threat surface
from potential attacks.
How can Open RAN help improve the security of our networks
and also be a greater--have a greater threat surface that we
can--should we be concerned about that with Open RAN?
Mr. Baker. Sure. Good question.
The Open RAN is tested, and it is secure, and it allows--
through interoperable interfaces allows people to be constantly
monitoring, checking, and testing those elements. And so, if
there is a question about a certain element in the network of
the security value, then, you know, it could be either
replaced, it could be monitored, it could be fixed. But, you
know, it adds another level of security.
And I think, you know, I referenced Stephen Bye from DISH.
He says, you know, when you turn the lights on with open
interfaces, you can see the cockroaches that are in the
network.
Mr. McNerney. Thanks for that visual there.
Mr. Mezzalingua, I serve as the cochair of the Artificial
Intelligence Caucus, and I understand that parts of Open RAN
utilize the AI and machine learning.
What are the opportunities that AI offers for Open RAN, and
what are the challenges?
Mr. Mezzalingua. Well, I think that AI--thank you,
Congressman, for the question.
I think that there are so many applications that were
mentioned earlier--AI is one of them, IoT, where there is a lot
of discussion and talk around this. There is the use cases at
the moment are not crystal clear. I think a lot of them are
coming into view.
What I do know is that, for us to take full advantage of
what 5G brings in the broader ecosystem, we are going to need
to have capability in this country to be able to address it.
You referenced cybersecurity previously. You referenced the
need for innovation, manufacturing. All of this is ultimately
incumbent upon having a U.S. industry so that we cannot be
dependent on any foreign actors to come up with whatever
applications--AI, security--that are called upon in this new
era of communications.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Ms. Rinaldo, another area I am interested in is the
intersection of AI and spectrum management. Looking more
broadly beyond Open RAN, what are some of the benefits that AI
could offer for spectrum management, and should we be taking a
closer look at that?
Ms. Rinaldo. Thank you, Congressman.
Yes, absolutely. I would say one of the most fascinating
parts of Open RAN, it allows for a more layered approach going
forward. So long gone are the days where we are stuck to a 10-
year life cycle where, as advancements come online, we can
inject them into the network.
We have one member company of our coalition, DeepSig. They
are probably the smallest. They are 25 people in a reworks
building in north Arlington, but they are doing fascinating
work around AI, machine learning, and how do we become more
efficient with what we have in the spectrum space?
So, again, that layered-on approach is really going to
benefit not only updates to the network, but, as your committee
well knows, how can we be more efficient with the spectrum that
we have?
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. I am going to try and sneak in
another question, Mr. Chairman.
I want to make sure that the U.S. remains competitive in
wireless technology, including 5G and the generations that
follow. Mr. Donovan, as you point out in your testimony, in
recent years, we have seen a lack of Federal agency
coordination on spectrum policy.
How does the lack of Federal agency coordination on
spectrum policy impact U.S. competitiveness in wireless
technology and the deployment of wireless technology?
Mr. Doyle. And I would ask that the----
Mr. McNerney. If you can help me out.
Mr. Doyle. And please try to answer that quickly.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Mr. Donovan. Certainly. You know, spectrum is the lifeblood
of wireless. And, if you don't have certainty that the spectrum
that you are designed with is going to be able to be used to
the maximum extent that it was brought to market, then that is
going to undercut wireless of every generation.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you.
Mr. Doyle. OK. Gentleman's time is expired.
I understand our ranking member is back with us. Bob, you
are recognized for 5 minutes. Hopefully----
Mr. Latta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate your
forbearance. It appears my microphone on my computer has
crashed, so sorry about that.
Mr. Donovan, I can start my first questions with you. And,
if I ask a question that might have already been asked while I
was trying to get to another computer, just tell me that, and
we will move on to another question.
But, as we know that, under the Secure and Trusted
Communications Act, which helps our small and rural
telecommunication providers replace potentially compromised
equipment from bad actors like Chinese companies Huawei and
ZTE, now that we have secured the 1.9 billion in funding to
implement this law, we need to make sure that companies can
remove or replace covered equipment without delay.
Under the act, those reimbursed by the program are required
to complete the replacement of covered equipment within a year
of receiving that funding. However, as of today, the FCC is
still in the process setting up the reimbursement program.
What are the barriers, Mr. Donovan, that you see that might
delay the removal of this equipment from our companies out
there?
Mr. Donovan. Well, thank you for the question.
Quickly rehash some previous discussion that there are some
permitting issues as you really need to replace the existing
network before you can remove the previous one.
Some of the other barriers, you know, where we see it now
is lack of confidence in the final application process of
knowing exactly what a carrier will have to do to qualify. You
know, these are carriers that are not in a position to get it
wrong. They have to get it right. The networks are in areas
that are often uneconomical to serve without support already.
So they do need to make sure that they are taking the steps to
follow the rules directly.
And other issues out there, we--we also need a workforce
that can complete this at the same time as there's other
commands in the workforce, including nationwide upgrades to 5G,
expanded network deployments. And even factors like weather are
becoming an issue where you need to plan your build season out
months in advance, especially in some areas with more harsh
terrain, where you don't have a build season that goes around
to the year.
You have tower techs that aren't really thrilled about
climbing up a tower at minus 40 degrees, especially if there is
enough workforce demand that they can go elsewhere. So you are
competing for that workforce as well as--internationally,
across the country--as well as trying to get your work done.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you. And let me ask a followup on
this. As your companies continue to deploy the wireless
infrastructure, how can we encourage them to invest in the
innovative solutions like Open RAN-compatible technologies,
because I know you said there is--all the issues that you are
dealing with, but how do we get them out there to do that?
Mr. Donovan. You know, additional information, test beds,
access to the knowledge base that you need to move this
forward. CCA members, you know, especially those that are
subject to the rip and replace proceeding, have been evaluating
Open RAN network. A recent survey showed that, of all our
members, showed that 89 percent are evaluating it right now. To
the extent that some of the outstanding questions that we are
discussing at the hearing today and that are taking place in
the record at the FCC can be resolved, that is going to
increase confidence in carriers of all sizes and lead to
greater adoption to the technology.
Mr. Baker. Congressman----
Mr. Latta. Let me ask you a better question here that--are
there any deregulatory measures, such as streamlining upgrades
to existing infrastructures, that can help speed rollout of
Open RAN-compatible technologies?
Mr. Donovan. Yes. I think, with--especially with Open RAN,
as we are looking at different types of network architecture,
we want to make sure that the permitting processes apply for
what is actually being put up. And, in some cases, this may not
be on the huge macro towers. It could be we want to just right
size the permitting process so that there is confidence both
from the permitting agencies that are going through the review
process as well as carriers, that they will have certainty in
terms of cost and time to get approved to go to construction.
Mr. Latta. Let me ask one final question.
You know, as we look across everything that is going across
the world, especially where the Chinese technology is today,
are we on par right now? Are we leading? Are we falling behind?
Are we--where are we at, would you say, right now, out there
with the other technologies?
Mr. Donovan. So we are competing in the international
marketplace, and there is potential both of the--you know,
several of the companies that are--my colleagues on the panel
today, as well as the existing trusted providers that, you
know, even if headquartered in other places, do have United
States manufacturing and jobs.
So there is--it is--the competition is hot to--an important
topic that you touch on, and it is going to be really important
for the United States to continue to push forward.
Mr. Latta. Well, I hear--the word I heard from everybody
today was the word ``competition'' and moving forward, and that
is what we want to make sure we are doing.
So, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Thank you.
Mr. Doyle. I thank my friend.
Let's see. Mr. O'Halleran, I believe you are next. You have
5 minutes.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.
I want to thank the panel for being here today on these
important issues. I appreciate your coming and continuing
efforts on securing America's network technology. This remains
an important national security priority.
Last Congress, I was proud to support Chairman Pallone's
USA Telecommunications Act, which was a good first step in
securing our network equipment. While our networks must be
protected against hackers and state actors, we also need to
finish the job on closing the digital divide.
In rural Arizona, only 66 percent of the population has
access to broadband at the FCC's minimum speed standard.
Consistently, constituents across Arizona note that access to
reliable high-speed broadband is a top priority for them.
Inequities in broadband access results in poorer health and
educational outcomes for those of us who live in rural and
Tribal communities. This extends beyond using the internet at
home. Like many rural areas, my district has miles and miles of
dead zones where our cell phones read ``No service.'' It is the
size of a little bit larger than Illinois.
This is a problem when my constituents need to contact
medical help or emergency services in remote area. The COVID-19
pandemic has only highlighted, as many of us know, the need to
expand access to rural communities so that students, doctors,
and rural economies can compete in the urban areas of our great
country.
Mr. Donovan, I appreciate the focus in your testimony on
the need to advance mobile connections. Do the things we are
talking about today--network security and open standards--
impact the speed wireless carriers can build service in rural
areas?
Mr. Donovan. Thank you, sir, for the question and for the
focus on rural. And I want to underscore your point of the
importance of the need for mobile connectivity not only at the
home but while you are moving about in ways that can only be
met by mobile technology.
In terms of the speed to deployment, the potential for
additional vendors and lower costs can certainly help, as you
know well that, in some places, the cost factor makes it very
challenging to deploy services in rural and Tribal areas. So
that could certainly help in terms of expediting deployment.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mezzalingua, I know that JMA is doing good work in
Tucson, bringing internet access to thousands of residents
through the city's community wireless program.
How is that going, and how can this public-private
partnership succeed and be replicated in other communities?
Mr. Mezzalingua. Thank you, Congressman.
First, I would say that the Government has a very
significant role to play. You mentioned the public-private
partnership, but the Government has a major role in the sense
that, almost 2 years ago now, when the CBRS spectrum was
released, which was licensed spectrum, that meant that the
power and sophistication that was normally reserved for the
wireless carriers is now in the hands of enterprises or
municipalities and consumers, and then, of course, the DoD and
Pentagon.
So that was a major move to begin with. And then, of
course, the CARES Act funding enabled them the rollout in
Tucson in particular.
Our view is that the example of Tucson, which is a highly
sophisticated network deployed at, you know, rapid time, very
quickly, is something that is meaningful to everybody right now
that has a need for the urgency of having broadband. But the--
also, a critical issue is these refresh cycles--these hardware
refresh cycles that just are a constant drain on IT budgets
everywhere--public, private.
This is something that, with software, you begin to
transcend that because, instead of this rip and replace--or
replace and rip, whatever you call it--you install it once and
then you software upgrade like we are used to every day with
our phones. So this is where the technology is today. This is
how you stretch taxpayer dollars so that you actually ensure
this--you build it once, and then you build upon it.
This is all the benefit of what we are looking at right now
with the Telecom Act, with O-RAN. It is all overlapping and
consistent.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
Let's see. I don't see Mr. Kinzinger, so I think I am going
to recognize my fellow Pittsburgh Pirate fan, Mr. Bilirakis,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have two games
today.
Mr. Doyle. I know.
Mr. Bilirakis. Two games.
Mr. Doyle. We are on a streak, Gus. We are on a streak.
Mr. Bilirakis. Doubleheader. That is right.
So, Mr. Donovan--I thank everyone for their testimony. In
the written testimony, you discussed the significant loopholes
and failures in the spectrum management process. I am glad to
see your support for my bill, the Spectrum Coordination Act, as
part of the solution.
As you know, this bill would require the FCC and NTIA to
update their 18-year-old memorandum of understanding on
spectrum coordination. I think it is about time.
Can you specifically discuss the problems that are
occurring because of outdated interagency agreements, like the
existing MOU, which leads to the need for a reboot, please?
Thank you.
Mr. Donovan. Sure. Thank you for your question, sir.
And so the MOU between the NTIA and the FCC is informed, as
you mentioned, by the IRAC, the Interdepartment Radio Advisory
Committee, process. That is the place that is designed to
assist the Assistant Secretary at NTIA and assigning U.S.
frequencies for Government use and reviewing how they are used.
As that process informs spectrum, that gets reallocated and
then eventually brought to the market by the FCC. That process
is the appropriate way to raise concerns. What is troubling
right now is, when the process is complete, they have gone
through sufficient time, NTIA and FCC reach agreements based on
the science and the engineering behind these spectrum policies,
and then separate departments raise concerns after the fact.
We have seen it in too many bands so far, and especially
when recently some concerns have been raised after auctions
have been completed that risks undermining faith in spectrum
auctions and in business plans to know that, once you get the
approval from regulators, you will be able to use spectrum
along the rules that it was brought to the market under.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
Next question is for Ms. Rinaldo.
In your experience as Administrator of NTIA, are there
specific things you would want to see addressed if and when
these agencies formalize a new agreement? How can we encourage
agencies to follow the statutory process and work through NTIA
when they have a spectrum issue with the FCC, please?
Ms. Rinaldo. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
Ms. Rinaldo. Yes, I do agree, and I concur with Tim's
comments. I think that NTIA and FCC must formalize a process,
memorialize it in writing that, when an agency does go outside
the normal process, how the FCC will respond. However they
choose to be the right process, it needs to be in writing and
it needs to be consistent. And I think consistency will go a
long way in ensuring that agencies follow the proper due
course.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good.
Mr. Chairman, after the introduction of the Spectrum
Coordination Act last year, I was pleased to see that FCC and
NTIA take interest in revisiting the agreement. However, we
should not assume they will finish this process. We should move
forward with ensuring this process comes to the completion with
the Spectrum Coordination Act.
There has been strong bipartisan interest for this idea
since 2000--since 2020--the 2020 letter by Chairman Pallone and
then Ranking Member Walden. So this legislation will also help
reinstate NTIA as the authority on spectrum matters as it
incorporates lessons learned over the last 18 years, which
committee leaders recently addressed in a letter earlier this
week.
So I ask the committee--the committee leaders on both sides
of the aisle to give strong consideration, if you will, to
moving the Spectrum Coordination Act forward as a sign of
unified committee commitment to this cause. I think it will go
a long way.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Doyle. OK, Gus. Thank you for your comments.
Let's see. Miss Rice, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Miss Rice. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Baker, in your written testimony you talk about how,
around the world, allied nations are advancing aggressive
policies to build their next-generation mobile networks with
Open RAN, and you mention that--you talk about the MOU that the
five major European operators signed, totally committing to
deploying Open RAN across the European Continent, but you say
that, quote, ``this full embrace of Open RAN has not yet
happened here in the U.S.''
Can you just expound on that? And what is holding us back
from just that full embrace?
Mr. Baker. Yes. Thank you, Congresswoman. This is a great
question.
I think the ability to get open standards that are
interoperable is the clear message that needs to be taken that
operators then can bring other vendors into their networks. At
the moment, the current vendors which supply the United States
networks have got them locked down to the extent that it is
difficult for operators to bring new vendors into those
networks.
And in Europe, you know, even as of yesterday, you know, 25
percent of the market was being set aside for--or being
discussed to be set aside for new, small operators.
And I think that is the challenge that the U.S. has, is how
to encourage the operators to actually embrace Open RAN and
follow, you know, follow open standards in the future so that
we don't end up with a situation that, you know, if I am going
to change a light bulb, I am going to have to change the wiring
as well before I can put a new light bulb in.
Miss Rice. Uh-huh. Well, you also talk about the--you know,
the need to provide financial incentives as well. And, Mr.
Baker, I heard you were asked about the amount of Federal
investment that has to be done, and I think you were the one
that said it should be around $3 billion.
Are there any witnesses who have any--who take issue with
that investment amount so we can know as appropriators exactly
what needs to be invested?
So I assume that everyone is--embraces that--the amount
that Mr. Baker talked about?
Ms. Rinaldo. Congresswoman?
Miss Rice. Yes.
Ms. Rinaldo. On behalf of the Open RAN Policy Coalition, I
would say that we support the full funding of $3 billion.
Miss Rice. Great. Thank you.
Ms. Rinaldo. Thank you.
Mr. Mezzalingua. Congresswoman?
Miss Rice. Yes.
Mr. Mezzalingua. What we can say is that we have one
company--that is Huawei--that, over the years, has been--
according to reports, spent tens of billions of dollars on
their R&D. So we certainly think--and we think that, with our
approach and the things that we have all discussed today, we
are--that is not something that we are--we think is necessary
to compete.
However, the number of 3 billion certainly is an important
start, as somebody had said previously, for U.S. competition
and restoring leadership just so that the playing fields become
leveled.
Miss Rice. Yes, for sure.
Mr. Mezzalingua, if I can stay with you. You know, I am
very happy to hear about your company continuing their
investment, certainly in New York State, my home State. Can you
just talk about the--can you just talk a little bit more--I
have got about a minute and a half. I would just like to hear
more about the campus--the 5G campus that you are building in
Syracuse.
I think it is so important for you to be successful in that
and, you know, for all of the reasons, it keeps us, you know,
competitive. It is a job creator. But we need more of this. If
we are going to keep manufacturing here and dealing with supply
chain issues, we need to support companies like you and what
you are doing.
If you could just talk a little bit more about how you got
that off the ground and what you see as its potential
successes.
Mr. Mezzalingua. Sure. Sure.
We made this decision long ago really to enter into the
space and then of course build the facility, long before this
discussion was elevated to this public level. And, when we
think about where the industry is going, we arrived
independently at what the operators arrived on their own about
O-RAN, which is competition makes sense, it makes sense to
specialize, it makes sense to virtualize and use software. And
that is where the investment came from.
But, as far as what can be done going forward and how to
encourage more of this kind of work, we are building this
factory. We are excited about it. It is spanning a city block.
We are going to have a network operations center. We are going
to have manufacturing.
But what is needed is that we don't want to become hostage
to various supply chain issues in other countries, so we need
more investment. And we have outlined this in our support in--
of all the subcomponents that are needed to then put in those
products to the extent they are not software. Where you can
make it software, we do, but ultimately software must run on
hardware.
So I see where my time is up, but there is a lot to be done
that is within some of the proposals in the funding act that
can start to bolster a U.S. industry.
Mr. Doyle. Gentlelady's time is expired.
Let's see now. Mr. Johnson. Bill, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Well, thank you much, Chairman Doyle and
Ranking Member Latta, for holding this important bipartisan
hearing.
I really appreciate today's discussion, particularly on how
concepts such as Open RAN can help make our networks more
secure and interoperable. You know, as cochair of the
Congressional 5G Caucus, I completely agree that the U.S. must
remain a leader in wireless technologies, and that is for
expanding and upgrading connectivity, furthering American
ingenuity and economic competitiveness, and of course for
strengthening our own national security.
So, Ms. Rinaldo, we all agree that the deployment of Open
RAN technology is promising in terms of 5G innovation and
security, but the public policy implications aren't always
clear. In your view, should the Federal Government issue
mandates to deploy Open RAN or condition subsidies on deploying
Open RAN in a provider's network?
Ms. Rinaldo. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
As a coalition, we decided from day one that we were not
going to support mandates, that we were going to be technology
agnostic, and we were going to advocate policies that help
advance Open RAN, and that is what we will continue to do.
We believe that Open RAN is the future, and we believe that
working with the U.S. Government as well as our partners around
the world could help bring it to scale.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Mr. Donovan, would you like to add
anything to that question?
Mr. Donovan. I would agree with Ms. Rinaldo that we do not
support mandates. You know, if the technology lives up to its
promise, then it will win in the market, and it will be
deployed based on industry demand and tameframes. I mean, and
look, at every G, there have been choices that operators have
to make in terms of technology architecture and other things,
and we have not mandated those technologies, and that has led
to American leadership.
At the beginning of 4G, for one example, there was some
competition between technology for WiMAX and LTE, and some
operators chose one, and others chose LTE. And that freedom of
choice in the marketplace led to the United States leading the
way in wireless in fourth generation with 4G LTE.
If the Government had stepped in and mandated another
choice, that could have ceded that ground to someone else
internationally. So that lack of a mandate really advanced the
United States to the front of the line.
Mr. Johnson. OK. You know, I have been doing information
technology professionally since 1978, before it was even called
information technology, and I can remember the positive impacts
that open systems architecture had on an explosive innovation
in information technology.
But, Mr. Donovan, continuing with you, how can we
incentivize carriers to invest in upgraded technologies with
open interfaces?
Mr. Donovan. So it is education. It is moving forward. You
know, there is interest across the board. There is no one in
the industry that is opposed to advancing O-RAN. You know, all
of the carriers, all of the major providers are taking part in
this process, you know, to some degree. And so those
collaborate efforts will continue to move things forward.
In terms of upgrades, it is continuing to push for the
latest technologies. You know, completing the IP transition for
some carriers that haven't been able to do so yet will give
opportunities to continue to upgrade technologies, including
using open interfaces.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Mr. Amin, we have heard a lot about how
Open RAN-compatible networks could bring more secure options to
the marketplace, but what benefits does virtualizing a network
for--have when it comes to security?
Mr. Amin. Thank you very much, Congressman.
I think today we spent a lot of the time obviously talking
about Open RAN, but there is somewhat I believe a very good
underlying story to what is happening in the U.S. and its
leadership in key technology areas.
In 2018, when we looked at building Rakuten Mobile, our
aspiration was to look and understand what happened in the
public cloud companies in the U.S. with significant advancement
on virtualization, and from virtualization to consumerization,
and new technologies such as serverless architecture.
This showed clearly that U.S. has the foundation to build
and advance future technologies such as Open RAN, Open Core
Network platforms, Transport, and other support systems. This
holistic approach allows you as an operator to have complete
visibility; complete control points, and most importantly,
complete isolation in network components so, if one network
component is contaminated, they don't impact other network
aspects of your deployment.
Mr. Johnson. Very quickly--and I have almost run out of
time--what impact will virtualized networks have on the ability
to add capacity quickly?
Mr. Amin. It is--I mean, the word that I would tell you
that nobody in my view in telecom talk about is elasticity.
Nobody discusses this. But luckily, today, with our platform
and Rakuten Mobile and the platforms that we have created and
RCP, we have enabled autoelasticity, which doesn't exist in the
industry today. So capacity management for us is a thing of the
past.
Mr. Doyle. OK. Gentleman's time has expired.
Chair now recognizes my good friend from California, Anna
Eshoo, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this very important
hearing and to all of the witnesses. You have all given
terrific testimony.
I want to go to Mr. Mezzalingua first.
As you may know, I have been focused on the national
security implications of telecommunications for years. I first
wrote to the FCC about the threat of Huawei and ZTE back in
2010, and our committee has done important work in the last
Congress to protect national security, including the creation
of a program to rip and replace equipment manufactured by
suspicious vendors.
Let me just put this succinctly. I don't want to have
anything to do with Huawei or ZTE. We have the capacity in our
country with American companies to do what needs to be done and
deliver it to the American people safely.
Can you tell us why hardware replacement isn't sufficient
and why we need an open software-based solution to the national
security threat and our wireless infrastructure? And
succinctly, because I have----
Mr. Mezzalingua. Yes.
Ms. Eshoo [continuing]. Only 5 minutes.
Mr. Mezzalingua. Yes. Thank you, Congresswoman Eshoo.
I mean, fundamentally and succinctly, it all comes down to,
if you have software and if you have control of the software
and it is U.S. based, you now have more control over this
because it is boundariless. With hardware and with, in
particular, existing entities that--here, you have legacy
supply chains that are open to compromise or disruption.
Ms. Eshoo. Right. Thank you very much. I think that every
Member has digested that really well.
To Mr. Donovan, we have obviously heard a lot about 5G. It
is constantly being advertised, but most people don't know that
most of our calls, our texts, and data flow through 4G, 3G, and
2G. And this worries me, because older protocols are inherently
less secure, and we don't have a clear, comprehensive
understanding of all the vulnerabilities.
This is why Congressman Kinzinger and myself introduced the
Understanding Cybersecurity of Mobile Networks Act, which
requires the NTIA to study vulnerabilities in legacy networks.
How reliant are your member companies on legacy networks,
and how long do you think we will continue to rely on these
older networks?
Mr. Donovan. Thank you.
And, first off, this bill is a great idea. You know, this
is a way to get at some of the security threats before they
become front-page news that they have been exploited by a bad
actor, so that is critically important.
Small carriers do--are going to continue to rely on 2G, 3G,
and 4G networks for the foreseeable future. In some recent
surveying of our members of that--you know, 65 percent of
members are looking at a 3- to 5-year window for continuing to
rely before phasing out their 2G and 3G networks with, you
know, over 85 percent of our members surveyed that they don't
plan on fully phasing out their 2G, 3G in the next 3 years or
longer. So identifying those bugs now is really important.
Ms. Eshoo. OK. And another question to you, Mr. Donovan. I
think that there is bipartisan agreement that the Federal
agencies that use spectrum have been uncoordinated, and that is
putting it charitably. But I think the discussion gets caught
up in too many agency acronyms, spectrum bands, auction
designs, and other important but really wonky topics.
Can you distill for--distill this down for us? How does the
lack of coordination in the Federal Government impact
underserved communities?
Mr. Donovan. Well, most simply way I can put it, it means
that spectrum is not available to build out services to bring
connectivity to those underserved communities. A lack of
coordination means that we aren't going to uncover where
different Federal agencies could collaborate on spectrum, could
share spectrum, and free up additional spectrum to be used by
the industry.
Ms. Eshoo. Are you referring to the public side of this and
the responsibilities that we need to carry out? I mean, there
are plenty of companies, but they don't go into these areas. So
can you clarify that?
Mr. Donovan. Sure. So, you know, having access to spectrum
is an important part of it, and----
Ms. Eshoo. We know that. We all know that, but companies
have brought spectrum, and they use it where they are going to
use it. But we are still faced with underserved and no service
in some places in our country.
Mr. Donovan. Yes, that is--that is the problem. We need to
make sure that investment in infrastructure includes getting
those people connected and--but, very briefly, on the
coordination piece, where that affects is that, if carriers
don't know where they can and can't use spectrum when they are
working on a business plan and making long-term investments,
you can undercut the ability to bring service everywhere----
Ms. Eshoo. Does that go to the maps? Does that go to maps?
Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Eshoo. Can he say yes or no? Does that go to the maps?
Mr. Doyle. Sure.
Mr. Donovan. Yes.
Ms. Eshoo. OK. Thank you very much. Yield back.
Mr. Doyle. OK. Let's see. Next, we have Billy Long. You are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Donovan, what can Congress do to help smaller,
rural carriers deploy more secure networks, whether it is Open
RAN architecture or something else?
Mr. Donovan. Yes, making sure that carriers have that
information is critical to it. You know, carriers that deploy
now-covered equipment did so because they were forced to choose
lowest-cost options, and there was not that information shared
by the Government that they should not do so.
They don't--often don't have the same, you know, teams of
security experts that some of the largest nationwide providers
do. So making sure there is that flow of information is
essential as these carriers make their choices.
And something that we found that was really successful in
that, in 2019 we partnered with the Chamber of Commerce on
several rural education initiatives that brought together
actors from across the Federal Government, from the whole
alphabet soup of different agencies for in-person, you know,
off-the-record discussions that really facilitated a flow of
information both ways, from the carriers to the Government and
vice versa, that has led to making some better security
decisions.
Mr. Long. OK. Thank you.
And, Mr. Amin, for you, can you explain the difference
between a virtualized brand and an Open RAN, and how do these
type of architectures interact?
Mr. Amin. So, in the platform choices that we started with,
we wanted the software to completely be desegregated from
hardware. In the industry of Open RAN, this disaggregation
comes into the form of taking a separation of what is
controlled--a product or a virtual machine's both CEU and DU,
and those components are completely software based riding on
commodity of hardware.
And, in cloud RAN and what existed, by the way, for decades
as traditional vendors promoted cloud RAN, you still have quite
a bit of dependencies on proprietary hardware to run the
software. And, in the virtualized architecture and the Open RAN
platform architecture, the industry as a whole is moving into a
software architecture for our really complex and important
function in the radio.
And, as you know, this is critical, because this is what we
spend, as operators, 70 percent of our packets is spent into
the radio domain.
Mr. Long. OK. Thank you. And I will stick with you for a
minute, Mr. Amin.
How does Open RAN architecture promote a more competitive
marketplace, and can you please describe how this type of
architecture leads to more secure communications?
Mr. Amin. So, in the definition of the security
architecture and the apparatus, I think we discussed a bit
earlier today that I think it is really, really important to
apply a zero-trust policy on every network component you bring
to your operation.
I mentioned earlier that I believe that we need to take a
far more advanced look at not only modern architecture as well
as legacy architecture. That involves looking at open
interfaces. We need to eliminate the proprietary interfaces
that exist today that would allow the operator to insert
additional control points, bring better visibility.
And, most importantly, we talk a lot, of course, about
software, but I don't think yet we have discussed enough about
securing the supply chain and understanding where this hardware
gets made, where does the supply chain of the silicone and the
components come from?
And that is what I think about the open network advantages
to security. I really think it is critical--critical to look at
this as a totality, including the supply chain of components,
hardware, as well as software.
Mr. Long. OK, thank you.
And, Ms. Rinaldo, same question for you: How does Open RAN
architecture promote a more competitive marketplace, and can
you please explain how this type of architecture leads to a
more secure communications network?
Ms. Rinaldo. Thank you, sir. Yes. From what I hear from my
members, the prices can be as much as 30 percent lower. Now, if
you go by a cell tower and look up, there is the radio access
network. Multiply that by all the cell towers, and we are
discussing the most expensive part of a telecommunications
network. If you can get prices at 30 percent lower, you are now
building a case to build out in more rural areas.
And as far as the security, Open RAN is building on the
secure networks of 5G. Additional competition is going to drive
security enhancements. In 2021, consumers are demanding
security and operators are requiring it. And the additional
competition is going to allow for increased security benefits
in this space.
Mr. Long. OK, thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms.
Matsui, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And this has
truly been a very interesting and productive hearing.
We have all talked about spectrum coordination, which I
really believe is very, very important. In fact, I wrote to
President-elect Biden 4 months ago, urging him to adopt a
unified approach to spectrum policy and a clear process for
resolving interagency disputes, because the uncertainty is just
untenable.
It is critical, obviously, NTIA resumes its role as manager
of the Federal Government's use of spectrum. That will allow
NTIA to effectively represent Federal interests before the FCC
and assure that FCC is not forced to interpret divergent
messages from individual Federal agencies.
Let me give you an example here. In October, the FCC is
planning to conduct an auction of the 3.45 gigahertz band.
While there is significant interest in the spectrum, ongoing
uncertainty about the DoD's plans for this spectrum could
affect the auction's success.
While I do know firsthand that the Department's use of
spectrum can be complex, which I did see working with DoD on
the AWS3 auction, it is still imperative for all involved to
have accurate and timely information.
Mr. Donovan, can you tell me how increased information
sharing from DoD will create a more stable and successful U.S.
session regime, and what are the implications of the 3.45
auction?
Mr. Donovan. So this is a really important time for that
spectrum band, in terms of bringing it to auction. It has been
a little bit of a moving goalpost, where initial reports from
NTIA looked like 93 percent of the population would be
unencumbered with that spectrum. That has been updated that now
the DoD may remain on up to 20 percent, including some really
key markets in much of the East Coast from New York City to
South Carolina, markets on the West Coast.
And we have a high relocation cost for this band. It has
been pegged around $13 billion. So it has implications on what
happens to the success of an auction if you take some of those
major markets out of play entirely or you don't provide
carriers with the information about what that coordination
process is going to look like. So----
Ms. Matsui. Well, thank you. And I think what you are doing
is saying exactly what I am saying, that we do need more
coordination amongst the agencies in order to quickly make a
decision on some of these aspects of it.
Let me go on to Open RAN and consumer prices. With open and
interoperable technology, network operators can use software to
take the place of physical technology like switches or routers.
This increased flexibility of virtualized cloud-native
platforms can drastically reduce the cost of building and
maintaining networks.
Mr. Amin, how has this new technology helped reduce costs
for Rakuten, and are those savings being passed along to the
consumer?
Mr. Amin. Thank you very much, Congresswoman. Indeed, this
is a very important point. First of all, our technology choices
were deliberative with one idea in mind, that we needed to
disrupt the current marketplace in Japan, allow consumers to
access our services at a much more affordable price.
And for us to enable that, we knew that cloud and the
economics that it brings will be substantial. And we realized
more than 30 percent total cost of ownership reduction in
running, maintaining, and deploying this network.
And, indeed, today, if you see what has happened in Japan,
where it was a country in which data consumption was one of the
most expensive in the world to today being one of the lowest in
the world, thanks to such advancements in technology such as
Open RAN, open network, and cloud-native architecture to run
and manage today and tomorrow's network. So, indeed, the
consumers have benefited tremendously from Open RAN platforms
in Japan.
Ms. Matsui. OK, thank you. You know, I joined with
Congressman Michael McCaul, who introduced the CHIPS Act, which
would help address the semiconductor shortage by addressing
American manufacturing capacity. I included the CHIPS Act as an
amendment to last year's NDAA and recently met with President
Biden about the urgent need to fund the programs authorized by
this bill. I was pleased to see the President's American Jobs
Plan includes $50 billion to implement the CHIPS Act.
Mr. Donovan, can you describe the threat posed by a
prolonged semiconductor shortage for America's wireless
innovation future?
Mr. Donovan. We have a huge demand for wireless equipment
right now. We have talked about the rip and replace program. We
have talked about the global competition to get to fifth-
generation services. And anything that delays access to
equipment or increases costs puts us at a disadvantage in all
of those pursuits.
Ms. Matsui. Right, absolutely. And this is part of the
supply chain that is really critical, and this could be also
American manufacturing.
So I can't yield back 8 seconds here, so I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentlelady.
Let's see. Ah, I see my friend Mr. Kinzinger is back. Adam,
you have got 5 minutes.
Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate all
the witnesses for being here.
Let me start with Federal coordination on spectrum. So, Mr.
Donovan, when the FCC evaluates spectrum for commercial use and
conducts an auction, don't potential bidders rely with
investment-backed expectations on the regulatory structure that
the FCC adopts when deciding whether and how much to bid on
spectrum? Is that a yes or no?
Mr. Donovan. Absolutely, yes.
Mr. Kinzinger. So I raised concerns that there have been
efforts by Federal agencies to upend FCC decisions either on
the brink of or even after FCC auctions. For example, that
effort occurred in regard to the 24 gigahertz with NOAA.
Mr. Donovan, shouldn't all of this be worked out as part of
the FCC-NTIA coordination process, and doesn't it undermine
confidence in FCC decision-making to have these 11th-hour
changes?
Mr. Donovan. Yes, absolutely. You know, it is fair for
different agencies to express concerns, to raise real issues
that need to get worked out. But once that is worked out and
the spectrum is brought to market and purchased by commercial
carriers, you should be able to use it the way that you bought
it. You wouldn't buy a house and then afterwards be told, well,
you don't get access to two of the rooms in it. You wouldn't
have paid for that house that way.
It all goes into the evaluation. And we really risk lacking
confidence in the very successful auctions program if we
continue to raise concerns after the fact.
Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you.
So I want to shift to Open RAN. Today, the U.S. and its
allies have significant economic and national security risks
associated with one company, Huawei, providing a closed end-to-
end RAN solution.
I will soon reintroduce the bipartisan Transatlantic
Telecommunications Security Act, which authorizes the U.S.
Development Finance Corporation to provide financing for secure
5G telecom infrastructure for our European allies and partners.
China is not to be trusted and, moreover, if anything
happens to Huawei, they represent a single point of failure for
our smaller rural carriers.
As I understand it, an Open RAN approach could provide the
U.S. and its allies an opportunity to develop a long-term
alternative to Huawei. As a member of the House China Task
Force, I know how Beijing competes in business. Either they
steal technological developments or they heavily subsidize and
capture market share.
In the wireless industry, they have done both. So it is
vital that we have a strong bipartisan response and not cede
U.S. leadership in wireless. I believe Open RAN could be a
critical part of that response.
So, Ms. Rinaldo, could you briefly discuss why diversifying
the supply chain is so critical to our national security, and
do you believe companies in the U.S. and allied countries may
be poised to lead in this effort?
Ms. Rinaldo. Thank you, Congressman, for the question and
for your leadership on this issue. Yes, when I was former head
of NTIA and would talk with my counterparts around the world, I
would ask why they would choose one vendor and not another, and
they all gave the same exact answer: cost.
If we are able to drive competition, create innovation, and
lower cost, that is a game changer not only for the United
States and our manufacturers here but for the allies around the
world.
Nobody wants to choose an untrusted vendor, but if you are
looking at the difference between being in the black and being
in the red, there are serious decisions that need to be made.
If we are able to change the tables and not make cost a factor,
countries are going to make the right decision.
Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you.
Mr. Amin, we hear a lot about the benefits of Open RAN, but
everyone seems to talk about it like it is just an idea, and
you are actually running a network based on these technologies.
While we think we are getting ahead, after hearing what you
have deployed in Japan, I feel as though we may actually be
falling behind.
Can you speak to where the U.S. market is relative to Japan
and, more importantly, where do you see American wireless
innovation relative to China?
Mr. Amin. So thank you very much, Congressman. I think I
just want to highlight that what we have done in Japan now is
deploy at scale with over today 18,000 Macro Base Station 4G
running on a completely Open RAN platform architecture.
We have taken the fear and uncertainty and doubt and the
merit about such an advancement in telecom architecture from
concepts to reality in about a year and a half. And I think we
see that the potential for such a technology is just absolutely
enormous.
We have met with many CFOs in the last 18 months to explain
to them across the world the advantages of such technologies
and why they need to embrace this journey that we have
undertaken.
And one of those key things and tenets for us is to even
maybe shed light to U.S. companies about the available pieces
of this puzzle, from component vendors that are I think one of
the most creative in the world that exists in the U.S., and
what is required is really now tying the pieces together and
deploying this.
You have asked a very good question: How does the U.S.
compete against China? I have no doubt that the software
capability that exists in the United States is just remarkable.
I think the focus and the effort around creation of a credible
supply chain for chips, including manufacturing in the U.S., I
do believe this is really vital and especially for countries
like Japan. We rely very heavily on supply chain that exists
from many of our partners in the U.S. And I think that the work
that is being done on the supply chain for silicone is going to
have a lot of value to the future potential of this technology.
Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman has yielded, expired.
Let's see. The Chair recognizes Ms. Clarke for 5 minutes.
You need to unmute.
Ms. Clarke. Yes, I am here. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman and Ranking Member Latta. I appreciate today's
hearing. It has been extraordinary. And I want to thank you for
convening today's--I am sorry, I am having a little bit of
technical difficulty here.
I want to thank you for convening today's hearing. The
topic is critical to the work the Energy and Commerce Committee
has been doing to advance our national priorities and
technological advancement, economic competitiveness, and
national security. I would like to also thank our witnesses for
virtually joining the committee and sharing your testimony
addressing both the challenges and areas of opportunity
concerning the supply chain of our wireless infrastructure.
As chair of the Homeland Cybersecurity, Infrastructure
Protection, and Innovation Subcommittee under the jurisdiction
of the House Committee on Homeland Security, creating a secure
21st century digital infrastructure remains a critical
priority.
As we continue to chart the path toward recovery from the
COVID-19 pandemic and seek to modernize our Nation's
infrastructure, we must not forget the vital role that wireless
infrastructure plays, ensuring connectivity for all Americans,
equitable access, and essential resources in today's digital
reality.
My first question is for Ms. Rinaldo.
Ms. Rinaldo, COVID-19, the COVID-19 pandemic has proven
that underresourced and marginalized communities depend heavily
on wireless connectivity to remain connected and integrated in
society. For many, wireless is the primary form of access to
critical resources, such as telehealth services and virtual
learning.
How might implementing Open RAN impact both access and
affordability of wireless services in urban and rural areas?
Ms. Rinaldo. Thank you, Congresswoman, for this important
question. I would say that as Open RAN technologies are rolled
out as well as 5G converge that both of these things are
impacting underserved communities in an incredibly positive
way. If we are able to lower prices by 30 percent using Open
RAN technologies, you all of a sudden have a business case of
why carriers can build out in these more underserved areas.
As well as with bringing 5G online, there is a case study
with smart ag--agriculture, excuse me--as well as a whole host
of other activities that are going to bring 5G out to the more
rural areas. Now, what do we do with that extra capacity? Able
to provide in-home broadband, which will impact these
underserved areas. I have great faith that as we move forward
with Open RAN technologies as well as 5G that it is going to
raise all boats.
Ms. Clarke. Wonderful. Mr. Donovan, how does the current
dependence on foreign suppliers for the network supply chain
impact security of the broader U.S. telecommunications network
infrastructure?
Mr. Donovan. Thank you. So any time that you are relying on
foreign providers, you don't control the whole process end to
end, from the network equipment on down to user devices to even
the components of that, to the screens, the circuits, the
antennas. And all of those create potential for concern in the
supply chain. So the more the supply chain that you can control
from end to end in a trusted manner allows you to have
confidence in the product.
And to your previous point, I couldn't agree more the
importance of focusing on mobile and wireless services as we
talk about infrastructure. There are so many applications that
can only be met by mobile, while also having the side benefit
of being able to provide fixed wireless access connectivity
while waiting on building out fiber to other markets.
Ms. Clarke. So just to follow up, Mr. Donovan, why is Open
RAN a good path for addressing these security concerns?
Mr. Donovan. If Open RAN can prove that it has security
advantages as well as domestic providers, then you can control
more of the supply chain here. I think that is why there is so
much interest in this technology.
Ms. Clarke. Mr. Baker, in your testimony you explained that
Open Radio Access Networks would allow the use of some
components from a variety of suppliers, thus opening the door
for innovation through competition. As cochair of the Smart
City Caucus, I am an advocate for expanding smart
infrastructure.
How might a cloud-native 5G Open RAN network in the United
States advance the goal of making our communities more
resilient and efficient?
Mr. Baker. Thank you, Congresswoman Clark. The great thing
about Open RAN and the virtualized network is I can make
elements or make networks that are very small or very large.
And one big application that is coming out of Open RAN
virtualized networks is the enterprise space. And to that
extent, that shows that I can build a complete wireless network
on a single server, using U.S. technology and radios that have
been placed around the building like WiFi access points.
So the technology scales, multiple sources, and I can build
innovation parks, factories, offices, smart hospitals, et
cetera, et cetera, from the use of open and interoperable
technologies.
Ms. Clarke. We are running out of time. I yield back. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma,
Markwayne. You have 5 minutes.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Amin, you spoke in your testimony that when you first
joined Rakuten that you withdrew your company from a deal with
a Chinese equipment vendor. Can you expand a little bit on that
for me?
Mr. Amin. So the business model for Rakuten prior to me
coming in was really looking at an opportunity to lower the
cost burden, as I think others spoke in this forum. And one of
the suppliers was, of course, a Chinese equipment supplier.
And when we looked at the cost and economics of the network
platform that we had built in Japan with new Open RAN
architecture, completely embracing cloud-native platforms not
only for radio, for core, we really proved that we could get
our costs and economics to be even lower than what is being
offered by Chinese equipment suppliers. And to that extent, we
have taken decisions decisively that we wanted to secure this
network as number-one particularity.
Mr. Mullin. So you are saying you didn't feel secure with
using their equipment?
Mr. Amin. No. I mean, we felt that we did not have complete
access to all the interfaces in any of the network components,
and we needed to secure this for us to protect our consumers in
Japan and make sure that there is no security vulnerability in
the platform architecture.
Mr. Mullin. So we know companies understand this. So why
are they continually being attracted to Huawei or ZTE? Is it
just price?
Mr. Amin. It is not just price. I mean, let me give you my
view. Look, I think in the last decade I have no doubt that
also Huawei and ZTE have really evolved and advanced their
technology. So I think, if you looked at them in the past,
maybe the story would be different. Cost has become the entry
point. Low cost was an entry point.
But most global operators today cannot have a clear
visibility to what is really the alternative. And this is,
frankly speaking, what we have been trying to champion now is
an option, an alternative to what exists as traditional vendors
in the marketplace.
So I think, you know, the simple answer is, they now need
to learn and understand that the world has alternatives. And I
think discussions such as today is really critical not just
also for the U.S. but also global marketplace.
Mr. Mullin. So you don't think it solely has to do with
price?
Mr. Amin. I mean, I think price, of course, comes in, but
there is no credible alternative that they could go to today
that they could say, ``I could meet the same price factor as
Huawei and ZTE would give me.''
Mr. Mullin. Right.
Mr. Baker, how can we ensure that trusted vendors can
become competitive with Huawei and ZTE overseas?
Mr. Baker. Good question, Congressman. I think, you know,
simply funding the Telecommunications Act and getting funding
out there but doing research and bringing radio technology back
to the U.S. is strategically important.
When you compare Huawei technology with Nokia and Ericsson,
for instance, you know, Huawei's radio technology is actually
better performing in terms of power efficiency. When you look
at all of the issues that we have with, you know, the size of
the power grid for the United States, you know, if we just
addressed the efficiency of power amplifiers that are used on
towers today, then we would see significant savings in energy
on the power grid. So research in radio, fundamental radio
technology will help us along.
Mr. Mullin. John, excuse me for using your first name, but
I am not going to try to pronounce your last name here. Do you
want to elaborate any more on that?
Mr. Mezzalingua. Yes. I think that I support John's points.
And I think that when it comes down to it, a lot of
conversation has been centered around standards and how do we
compete and what is it going to take to influence standards.
And it is important to appreciate that standards are a
byproduct of research and development. Once you understand how
deeply technology works, then you can then of course influence
standards. It also is impacted by real-life application. You
learn things as you are involved in the field of play.
So I think that that all relates directly to this Telecom
Act that we have been talking about. It is going to take time,
so urgency is the name of the game.
Mr. Mullin. Right.
Mr. Mezzalingua. But that is my view.
It is Mezzalingua, by the way.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you. Well, you would tell me and I still
would have a hard time pronouncing it. It is not something we
get used to saying all the time in Oklahoma, but I appreciate
it.
Anyway, guys, hey, I appreciate everybody on the panel. I
definitely appreciate your expertise on this. And, you know, in
Congress we are trying to wrap our head around it, and taking
the time to educate us means the world.
And, Chairman, I appreciate you holding this. This is a
true bipartisan hearing that we don't always get to have in
Congress. So, with that, I yield back, right on time.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Markwayne.
Let's see. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
California, Mr. Cardenas, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank
you for having this important hearing.
I really appreciate all of the experts and people from
industry with your opinions and apprising us of what is really
going on out there today and, hopefully, what can improve when
it comes to the world of Open RAN and 5G and all the things
that Americans hear about but, unfortunately, most of us don't
understand the details. So here we go.
Thank you for all that you are doing to help remind us how
important this is, not only to American jobs but, more
importantly, in my opinion, security for American business, for
the American economy, for American individuals and families.
And I want to first ask the question, can one of you
explain to me why would the American Government be concerned
about Huawei being in any way portions of the elements of our
system here in America?
Mr. Donovan. Congressman, if I can start with that.
Mr. Cardenas. And then we will go to Diane. Go ahead.
Mr. Donovan. OK. In terms of competition internationally,
when we are talking about 5G we are looking at what some
studies show, that by 2035 a market as large as $13.2 trillion
in global economic output. That is huge. It is critically
important.
Mr. Cardenas. Is that a per annum or is that a set amount
over a decade?
Mr. Donovan. That is per annum of what they are expecting
by 2035----
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you.
Mr. Donovan [continuing]. With all the ways that 5G is
going to be involved in in our daily lives. So it is critically
important that the United States lead the way.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you. Diane. I am sorry, Ms. Rinaldo.
Ms. Rinaldo. No, you are fine. Diane is perfect.
I would say that Congress has been sounding the alarm for
10-plus years now that there are concerns with using untrusted
vendors in our telecommunications networks.
At the Open RAN Policy, we are discussing the other side of
that coin, the economic security side of that coin. If not
them, then who? How do we ensure a more robust and diverse
supply chain not only here in the United States but for our
partners around the world if we are to only go down to a
handful of suppliers.
Mr. Cardenas. Well, there was a famous line in a movie way
back when there was a phone call and then all of a sudden the
person says the phone call is coming from inside the house.
Is that what we are talking about with Huawei and our
security as a Nation and economically, that for Huawei to be in
elements of our system that will be part of our infrastructure
today and going forward that a country like China and a company
like Huawei could potentially cause issues for us, you know, on
an individual basis and also when it comes to our overall
economy?
Ms. Rinaldo. Yes. And that has been the longstanding
concern of U.S. politicians, is what do we do if they are in
our networks and if there is ever a problem? I think the United
States has done a phenomenal job of not only making this known
but working with industry to ensure that this is remedied.
I think now that we need to turn our eyes to our partners
around the world and how we can help them support their
decisions as they move forward. And I believe Open RAN is an
important part of this conversation.
Mr. Cardenas. And it goes without saying that there are
trusted partners and there are partners that we have good
reason not to trust.
Ms. Rinaldo. I would say that is correct.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you.
Mr. Donovan, we need to make sure that smaller cost-
sensitive carriers like your member companies can take
advantage of Open RAN networks. What can we do--the Federal
Government--what can we do to make sure that companies like
those are not left behind?
Mr. Donovan. Continued investment in mobile networks,
especially where the smaller operators provide service, is
going to continue to be important. And for all the talk that we
have had today of O-RAN, one of the real key pieces that we
haven't focused on as much is having a core that is open and
compatible with that.
And for smaller operators that don't have greenfield
operations that you have networks in the field today, getting a
core that is compatible with that that can continue to sustain
their existing network can open up additional options like
those provided by O-RAN providers to continue to evaluate all
technologies.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you. Go ahead, please.
Mr. Baker. Open cores are available today. Mavenir has been
a pioneer of virtualization and working through open
interfaces. So core networks are virtualized today and are
available. And the great thing about virtualization is that
they scale to give small virtualized elements that are cost
effective and support these rural markets.
So a lot of this is about education and training and giving
the rural carriers time to make the correct decisions.
Mr. Cardenas. Yes. Having to reinvest, reinvest, reinvest
from scratch is not a system that would work anywhere,
certainly not here or anywhere else, and it wouldn't have a
future.
So being that I am out of time, thank you, ladies and
gentlemen, for all of your information and wisdom.
I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Walberg for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for a really helpful
hearing. And to the panelists, thank you for sharing your
expertise.
In order to be secure, I think, as we have discussed today,
it becomes clearer all the time that we must protect our
networks against outside threats, both tangible and intangible.
One of these intangible threats and I believe a vital piece
of securing our network and ensuring U.S. wireless leadership
is the lesser known but critical global standard-setting
bodies.
These independent, business-led entities determine the
standards by which 5G operators, equipment manufacturers,
software providers, and others build to and specifications.
Participants in 5G international standard-setting bodies
have noted less and less participation from Western and U.S.
companies and increasing participation, as to be expected, from
Chinese companies. This raises security and competition
concerns as China seeks to assert its influence and skew
international standards for 5G toward Chinese-controlled
telecommunications companies and their technologies.
We wish and need, I believe, to push back to ensure U.S.
leadership in 5G, but also in 6G and successive standard
releases. That is why I am pleased to be reintroducing soon,
with my good friends Congresswoman Dingell and Congressman Bill
Johnson, the Promoting U.S. Wireless Leadership Act.
This bill encourages participation by trusted companies,
both large and small, and international standard-setting bodies
like 3GPP and also IEEE. Our bill reflects the need for a
unified approach to pushing back against international
competitors like Russia and China to protect U.S. national
security, global competitiveness, and cost-effectiveness in
wireless communications.
Along those lines, Ms. Rinaldo, as former NTIA Acting
Administrator, you are involved with the ITU and other global
technology standard-setting bodies. From your purview, how
important is it for the U.S. to participate in leading these
bodies, particularly when it comes to interoperability and
security?
Ms. Rinaldo. Yes, Congressman, you are absolutely right.
Not only do we need additional U.S. Government participation,
but private-sector participation as well. But I think you hit
on a very important point with your legislation.
During my time at NTIA, the White House ran an interagency
process to determine who was going to lead at 3GPP. After the
process it was determined that NTIA, the Telecom
Administration, was the right agency. We should not have to
relitigate this every time a new session comes about.
The NTIA should be permanently made the designation for the
United States Government. They have the expertise, and it is
important to nurture the expertise at one organization as well
as to create history for sessions to come.
I would also say that we need to reexamine how the United
States Government works with the private sector. It is so
important that we better coordinate and we break down hurdles
to having those types of conversations. I would gladly work
with you and your team on some of my ideas.
Mr. Walberg. I appreciate that, and I certainly agree.
Mr. Baker, does Mavenir participate in standard-setting
bodies and, if so, could you describe what it takes to
participate, time, money, resources, et cetera?
Mr. Baker. Congressman Walberg, thank you for the question.
Yes, you know, we believe global standards are critical to the
success of Open RAN and are going to greatly impact on whether
we have a diverse supply chain.
The bottom line is the U.S. needs to be involved in global
standards and so the rules of the game, we aren't written out
by not being there. To that extent, you know, we need to match
the levels of funding that the Chinese give with respect to
U.S. companies, both private and open, and be at the table for
the standard-setting processes.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you. On a separate but pivotal issue,
Mr. Donovan, what kinds of skills are needed for the next
generation of telecommunications operators and workers to
deploy new wireless network technology such as O-RAN or vRAN?
We have got a lot of good jobs in putting up towers and all
sorts of high-paying jobs there, but radio frequency and
[inaudible] for instance, are issues of concern. What could you
add on that?
Mr. Donovan. I agree. We need to increase the pipeline of
skilled telecommunications workers. There is huge demand today.
That is only going to grow. And I thank you for your work with
Congresswoman Clarke on the Telecommunications Skilled
Workforce Act. I think that is a really good idea.
Mr. Walberg. My time is expired. I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman.
Let's see. The Chair recognizes Mrs. Fletcher for 5
minutes.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you so much, Chairman Doyle. And thank
you to you and Ranking Member Latta for holding this important
hearing today and to all of the witnesses for taking the time
to testify. The hearing has touched on a lot of important
issues, issues that the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted over
the last year, as we have seen the need for high-speed
broadband to connect workers to jobs, students to online
resources in every single community across our country.
Congress has answered that call by providing significant
broadband funding in recent relief packages, and hopefully
there will be additional support in future infrastructure
legislation. I know that is important to so many of us. And
there are so many stakeholders in the mission for full
broadband development.
In my hometown of Houston, we are working to lead the way
in 5G broadband deployment, investing in needed infrastructure,
small cell, and, following up on something Ms. Rinaldo just
mentioned, working closely with the private sector to become a
leader in the State.
The city's technology investments will be a huge economic
driver for our region in the years to come. And our mayor,
Sylvester Turner, who testified before our committee on the
Texas power grid just a few weeks ago, has made deploying 5G
infrastructure to underserved communities a priority for his
administration.
5G broadband can help bridge the digital divide by allowing
low-cost, high-bandwidth services to stimulate the growth of
small businesses and education in the areas that need it the
most. I think we all understand the benefits of faster internet
speeds and what they allow people, adults and children alike,
to be able to accomplish and can be absolutely transformative.
I want to make sure that our local communities have the
resources they need, given their significant role in 5G
broadband development. Whether because of the economic impact
of the COVID crisis or the increasing pace of deployment, local
governments are facing new challenges in managing permitting
applications.
So, Mr. Donovan, can you discuss how this challenge and how
Congress might be able to help in addressing this challenge and
support local communities in broadband development?
Mr. Donovan. Absolutely. So thank you. And you have a great
example in your district. You know, as cities and
municipalities can take steps to be 5G ready, it can really be
a win-win. It makes it easier for the industry and operators to
invest and bring those services, and then the residents enjoy
the benefits of having expanded reliability and further
investment. It has downstream benefits of making sure that
excess resources aren't spent in certain markets and then there
is nothing left to build out to rural areas.
So I appreciate Congress' focus on keeping broadband as an
eligible service, as funds have been provided to States and
municipalities in recent legislation. Looking forward, if there
are ways to provide grant funding so that cities can become 5G
ready to make it so that it is, you know, an all-incentives
approach to work together, that can be a real win-win,
especially as municipalities are facing an increased workload
of permitting applications coming in with 5G at the same time
as existing resources and staff have been really pushed to the
max. So funding like that to reward cities for taking steps to
become 5G ready could be a real positive for everyone.
Mrs. Fletcher. Right. Thank you so much, Mr. Donovan, for
those insights.
Would anyone else on the panel like to speak to this and
what we can do to help support local communities in broadband
deployment?
Mr. Baker. Yes, certainly. I think one of the factors that
gets overlooked with Open RAN is that the new architecture
allows you to minimize the equipment that is actually at a cell
site. So it actually reduces the amount of zoning square
footprint that is needed by putting a lot of the technology
actually into the data centers and using, you know, fiber
connection straight to the radio on the tower.
So Open RAN offers the benefit to go back and look at how
these sites are engineered in the future.
Mrs. Fletcher. Terrific. Thank you, Mr. Baker.
Anyone else like to speak to this with the few seconds I
have left?
Mr. Mezzalingua. Yes. I would just say, Congresswoman--
thank you for your question--the Government has, through its
CARES Act, stimulated a lot of this. We have been dealing with
this digital divide issue for far too long in this country. It
has been decades. And we can actually solve it now, but in a
highly efficient way, the way that has been described here.
So I would echo the comments about software. I would just
encourage that it be part of a funding and viewed as
infrastructure, because it is a form of national security that
is let's say outside the classic definition when you think
about how critical it is in today's everyday use of all of our
lives.
Mrs. Fletcher. Perfect. Well, thank you so much, Mr.
Mezzalingua, for that insight, and I do appreciate. We are
thinking of new ways in this Congress, and that is an important
thing to remember.
So thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair--let's
see. Buddy, I see you there. Buddy Carter, you have 5 minutes.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank all of you for being here. This is an extremely
important subject, and we just can't tell you how much we
appreciate your help here and you being here.
Mr. Baker, I am going to start with you. Mavenir has taken
a leading role on developing and deploying O-RAN technology,
including in your work with Dish. What have you seen? What has
been your experiences as far as the largest hurdles to develop
a viable O-RAN network?
Mr. Baker. I think, having built many networks globally,
that we see the same sort of challenges. And it is all about
coopetition, if you like. And I term it that way because Open
RAN is about open interfaces, people working together to test
those interfaces, people working together to test software. And
the success of the future is about companies collaborating, but
also competing.
And I think as we level the playing field here, you know,
with open interfaces you are going to see a lot more of that.
And, you know, Mavenir has taken a very solid stance about
helping the ecosystem, working with competitors, testing their
products, ensuring they are ready for market, but with no
restrictions on where they sell. So, you know, they take the
experience and they pass it on to the next vendor. And so,
hopefully, this will grow across the world in terms of how
networks are going to be built in the future.
Mr. Carter. You talk about future-proof, I believe is the
word you used, future-proof networks against foreign
interference, especially with rural carriers. As they work to
update their equipment with trusted equipment, how can we, as
legislators, how can the U.S. Government work with smaller
companies to participate in standards, in the standard-setting
process?
Mr. Baker. Yes. So, you know, obviously, as I said earlier,
standards are fundamental to the process and being at the table
and actually being part of that decision making, so you know
what is in the standards and you are not being written out.
Underneath it, you know, once the standards are produced
and shown to be interoperable--and that is the key message,
that they must be open specifications and they must be
interoperable.
And then once you have got to that point, then smaller
companies can participate, you know, with a smaller level of
investment to develop those products that the rural carriers
or, you know, some niche segment of the marketplace can use.
You know, the great thing about Open RAN is you don't need
to be a complete end-to-end supplier to actually participate.
Mr. Carter. That is great. Thank you, Mr. Baker.
Ms. Rinaldo, I want to ask you: The shift to O-RAN, what
does that mean for barriers to entry into the wireless
industry?
Ms. Rinaldo. Well, I think what we have seen over the past
20 years in the vendor community, there has been so little
venture capital money, because the barriers for entry has been
so high. By standardizing the interfaces, we have already seen
so many new startups have come into the marketplace.
If you were an engineer and had the best, greatest idea for
a radio and you could only sell your product to a handful of
companies and you have a 10-year life cycle, are you going to
put all your energy into that radio, or might you look
somewhere else? But now all of a sudden, you can sell to
carriers, private networks. Your pool of customers has grown
exponentially.
And, again, what we have seen is the additional competition
in this space is spurring innovation as well. So competition
equals innovation, and it is going to bring cost down at the
end of the day.
Mr. Carter. Well said. Thank you. Hooray. That is great.
Let me ask you: You also mention in your testimony how
development of O-RAN can help spur on bilateral cooperation
with our international partners. Other than Japan, where do you
see the biggest room for growth?
Ms. Rinaldo. Absolutely. I would say that this is one of
the most important points that we focus on at the coalition. It
is not enough just to bring Open RAN to the United States. We
need global markets. We need our partners.
I think the most focus right now for the coalition, of
course, has been Asia but as well as the European Union and
Africa. We want to ensure that the developing nations around
the world who are struggling with 3G are able to make decisions
based on quality and not on cost.
So working and partnering with our partners who are in a
place similar to us where they are deploying 5G, we can
possibly put together our not only collective mind power, but
most developed nations have funding to help assistance in
developing nations by pooling that funding with the----
Mr. Carter. Right. And finally----
Ms. Rinaldo. Sorry. Go ahead.
Mr. Carter. I am sorry. Finally, I have one last question
if I can squeeze it in: Why is it so important that NTIA remain
the leader in spectrum policy?
Ms. Rinaldo. Absolutely. NTIA is absolutely the right
agency. They have the expertise. They have been doing this for
80-plus years. It is important to have a tight process where
everyone has a voice at the table. Decisions are made based on
fact and science, and we need to be decisive. And when a
decision is made, we need to come together as a country and
speak with one voice. This is the only way to make progress.
Mr. Carter. Sounds wonderful. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Carter.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Welch for 5 minutes.
Mr. Welch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, the adoption
of O-RAN can present challenges to smaller providers. I am
really concerned about rural America. And a lot of the funding
that is out there doesn't necessarily help them, those small
ones, switch their own network equipment to ensure that
components are compatible.
And, Mr. Baker, I want to ask you: What do you see as the
practical challenges that this, what we are talking about,
would impose on rural carriers and their ability to continue to
improve service for rural Vermonters?
Mr. Baker. Thanks, Congressman Welch. Good question. A lot
of the challenges, if you like, around rural carrier adoption
is actually the learning process and getting their confidence
up, in terms of the new pieces of the technology.
And, to that extent, it is worth pointing out that,
actually, the only piece that is new in all of this is the open
interfaces and the compute hardware that is used for processing
the radio signals. The radios are identical. The RF planning is
identical. But, again, it is just getting that confidence level
that they get the quality of service.
And companies like Mavenir, you know, we are standing up.
But being that one [inaudible] and doing, you know, putting the
integration services there as this market evolves. So there
should be no lack of trust, if you like. You know, we can't do
that job. You know, we have built some of the largest core
networks in the world.
Mr. Welch. What about on the expense side? You know, in all
of these situations where you have to upgrade for whatever
reason, the bigger companies that have more market share and
more market power always have an advantage, because they can
absorb and spread the cost, but our smaller providers which are
dedicated to the local consumer can't.
So can you address that concern I have? Because it is
something that has repeated itself.
Mr. Baker. Absolutely. And we have demonstrated this in the
core networks today. And, you know, Mavenir is supplying small
cores and large cores. The great thing about virtualized
technology is you can build a complete network on one server
and for a few thousand dollars end up with a complete network
and a radio.
You know, that is taking it to the extreme, but in the
sense that they are getting the benefits of very high volumes
of computer platforms. They are getting the benefits of the
virtualized experience, if you like, that is gained already
from the cores of mobile networks. And then their ability to
have lower operating costs in terms of site visits. Everything
is downloadable. And, as Tareq said earlier, it is all about
automation, how you bring automation to bear.
Mr. Welch. If very small rural carriers ask me, ``Peter,''
you know, ``how is this going to affect our bottom line?,'' you
are telling me I can say that you will be OK?
Mr. Baker. Absolutely. And, you know, as Tareq said from
Rakuten, they have seen the experience of our product costs. We
know, you know, we physically see it every day in the products
we deal with that the products are cheaper and more cost
efficient.
Mr. Welch. All right. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doyle. OK. The gentleman yields back.
Let's see. I think Mr. Duncan is next. Jeff, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
this, your leadership and the ranking member's leadership on
this important issue. We are right here near the end, guys. So
I know a lot of questions have been asked already, but I just
want to point out as an example of bipartisanship where we can
work together on an important national and economic security
issue, and I look forward to working on this further.
The pandemic has exposed the need for us to expand domestic
manufacturing capabilities across all industries so we are not
reliant on foreign suppliers, especially when that foreign
supplier is from Communist China.
So I want to ask our panelists here--really, I will start
with Mr. Baker, I guess--how do you view the threat of Chinese
parts on our telecommunications system, especially as it
relates to the potential for American businesses and citizens
to have their data stolen and rerouted to China? Is this an
opportunity for Chinese espionage?
Mr. Baker. Clearly, there is always an opportunity. But
then the other side of it is, you know, it comes back to the
point about zero trust in any of the components and elements
that we use within our products.
To the extent that they, you know, could be fully security
tested, continually monitored, you manage the supply chain and
then you, you know, just take a zero trust philosophy across
all of the products, software development, et cetera, et
cetera, to ensure that the example as you gave doesn't happen.
Mr. Duncan. I will ask Ms. Rinaldo the same question.
Ms. Rinaldo. Sorry, Congressman. It is the tech people that
always struggle with the mute button.
Yes, we want to ensure that we have trusted supply chains
going forward. And a big part of that is ensuring that there is
additional competition so consumers, operators have choice. And
that is what we are discussing today, how to bring additional
competition to bear.
The coalition doesn't--we are not here supporting any one
company or any one technology. Our message is simple: If you
break down the barriers for entry, you are going to drive more
competition.
Mr. Duncan. Is this an opportunity for Chinese espionage
against national security-sensitive systems or our military?
Ms. Rinaldo. So there has been a long concern within the
U.S. Government as well as Congress about Huawei and other
companies in our telecommunications networks. There have been
multiple instances where intelligence officers have made public
statements as such. At the coalition, we focus on the other
side of the coin, the economic security side of the coin. If
not them, then who?
Mr. Duncan. Yes. Mr. Baker, do you think that is an
appropriate statement?
Mr. Baker. Yes, I do. And, again, you know, it comes back
to processes and the interfaces. And then there are the
security test houses that will grow out of those open
interfaces as well to keep a watch on the products.
Mr. Duncan. There are two things I want to know, and you
have answered most of these today, but how can Congress assist
and help the industry move forward or in the direction of
greater domestic production?
The second thing is, should that also include mining,
production, finishing of critical minerals that go into these
products?
Mr. Baker?
Mr. Baker. Yes. I think the challenge that, you know, we
all rely on silicon and obviously the CHIPS program, bringing
chip manufacturing and that back to the U.S. But, you know, at
the end of the day, it is where the fundamental resources are
coming from in terms of, you know, actually getting into the
silicon chip.
So, you know, at the end of the day we need the supply
chain back in the U.S. and controlled in the right way.
Mr. Duncan. Ms. Rinaldo, the part about what can Congress
do to move us in the right direction for domestic production,
what can we do more of?
Ms. Rinaldo. Yes. At the coalition, we support fully
funding the USA Telecommunications Act, which you passed last
year. The $3 billion will go a long way to ensuring not only
domestic manufacturing, job creation, and research and
development in the United States, but as well provide the
Secretary of State assistance to help developing nations around
the world.
We also focus on public-private partnerships, how the U.S.
Government and the private sector can work together, and
international cooperation.
Mr. Duncan. That is great.
Mr. Chairman, the only thing I will say last before I yield
back the balance of my time is that we need to think about the
critical minerals, those elements that we have available here
in this country but we have off limits for mining. And we are
reliant on China for so many of those rare earths, and this
committee ought to think about that, maybe in conjunction with
the Natural Resources Committee.
With that, I yield back 18 seconds.
Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Kelly for 5 minutes.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing today. We are at a critical juncture where we will
decide America's leadership on 5G infrastructure.
Mr. Baker, in your testimony, you mentioned the window of
opportunity is closing. In your mind, when do you think it will
close, and is the U.S. supply and demand robust enough to be
successful at its current pace?
You also proposed financial investments generally. Would
pulling certain levers be more useful, given the closing
window?
Mr. Baker. A good question, Congresswoman Kelly. You know,
we are not--you know, we don't want to pick winners and losers
in all of this. That is the most important point of this. But
certainly, you know, by the legislation that is in place around
the rip and replace, where it is diverting decisions to foreign
suppliers, essentially is going to exclude any U.S. supplier
out of the rip and replace market, for instance.
And then, you know, adoption by U.S. carriers--again, you
know, the rest of the world watches what the U.S. carriers do.
And they are sitting there saying, ``Well, if the U.S. carriers
don't want to use it, why should we?''
So, you know, to that extent, there are certain decision
points that are going to get to the point of saying, ``Look,
OK, you know, U.S. suppliers, you had your chance, but nobody
is adopting what you are doing.''
And I think this is coming down to how the closed
interfaces, the proprietary interfaces are excluding U.S.
suppliers from the market. And I think we are at a point, you
know, in the next year or so where, if we haven't broken the
back of this, then, you know, we are really then looking at 6G,
which is probably, you know, 5, 10 years down the road before
there is another opportunity.
Ms. Kelly. Mr. Mezzalingua or Amin, do you have anything to
add that you would like to say about this?
Mr. Amin. I mean, just to reiterate a couple of very
important things, I think my own view, going through this now
for 3 years, I find that the U.S. has all the necessary
building blocks to really build a compelling, credible
alternative.
I think it is really critical to look at the world in the
lenses of why people select alternative vendors such as Huawei
and ZTE to manage their deployment of today and tomorrow's
technology. We have a great window of opportunity.
By the way, I want to mention that please keep your eye
very close on what might happen in Europe in the next 1 month
to select this technology of Open RAN platform. This could be
the next large breakthrough that I think we all need to bring
an alternative, credible platform with a large ecosupply chain
that is also coming from the U.S. and its trusted allies.
So I do agree that we have a good window of opportunity. It
is closing. But the good news is I think now the attention on
this technology and merit of this technology is definitely at
the right stage that big, large companies are finally starting
to grasp on and jump on on the adoption of such an
architecture.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you.
Mr. Mezzalingua. I would simply add that I don't know that
anybody knows when, but it is closing and we need to start
urgently, because it is going to take time to build these
various capabilities that we are speaking of.
And I think at stake is not just our potential U.S. telecom
leadership, which is within grasp--we can return this industry
leadership back to the U.S.--but the ability to control our own
destiny, the matters of national security, this outweighs all
other elements, in my view. So just reiterating the funding of
the act, the Telecom Act, so that we can get going on this and
begin this work.
We have shown we can do it. So that is something that is
comforting. It is not a dice roll at this point. We have shown
we can do it, so now it is time to help accelerate this.
Ms. Kelly. And, Mr. Mezzalingua, while you are speaking,
can you go into a little bit more detail on your U.S. Center of
Excellence for security standards proposal?
Mr. Mezzalingua. Sure. Our entity that is in Syracuse, New
York, is--well, it was long before there was any discussion of
any government support to accelerate this industry. We believe
in this, and we are putting our money where our mouth is at a
private level. So we believe in the future of this business. We
believe in our ability to compete. And so that is why we
undertook this a long while ago.
It is going to be a smart factory. So the very same things
that we are going to be offering to the DoD and the Marine
Corps base in Albany, Georgia, we are going to be doing in our
own facility. So this is possible. I see where the time is up,
but this is possible and we are demonstrating it with our own
skin in the game. Thank you.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you so much. Thank you to the witnesses,
and I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Curtis for 5 minutes.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I enjoyed the comments
of Ms. Kelly and particularly how she pointed out that we don't
want to pick winners and losers, and also Representative Welch,
who talked about rural broadband providers.
And I would kind of like to combine those two topics to
bring up another rural issue, and that is, if not careful, we
pick large companies over small companies to be successful. And
I have got a great example in rural Utah. Intermountain
Electronics is a small business. It is in Price, Utah. It is a
town and a county that is struggling economically. We have got
this very successful provider of 5G equipment that has a large
footprint and, perhaps more importantly, it employs hundreds of
employees in the region.
And I have got a question to Ms. Rinaldo and Mr. Amin: How
do we as we move forward make sure that we are successful with
Open RAN and also not hurt our small businesses and make sure
they have an opportunity to compete in this? Ms. Rinaldo, yes,
if you will go first.
Ms. Rinaldo. Thank you, Congressman.
And I know that you are the former mayor of Provo, so these
issues are near and dear to your heart.
Mr. Curtis. Yes.
Ms. Rinaldo. I would say that what we are talking about is
going to be incredibly beneficial and impactful to your
constituent companies. What we are discussing is how do we
bring more competition to bear. For so long, there have only
been a handful of companies in this space, so if we are able to
standardize the interfaces, we are going to be able to drive
additional competition.
If you were to look at our website and go through our
member list, you will certainly see some names that you know,
but you will see a lot of names that you have never heard of
before. And what we have seen is that there has been very
little venture capital money in this space because the barrier
has been so high. But now we are lowering that barrier and new
companies are coming to bear, so it is going to be certainly a
fascinating industry to watch over the next several years.
Mr. Curtis. I am glad you brought up Provo, Utah, because
my colleagues probably get tired of me bragging about it, but
it is a great case study, I think, in a lot of these issues.
And I will just point out that, in Provo, Utah, all residents
have access to free internet in the city. It is a pretty
amazing situation we have got there. Thank you.
Mr. Amin, will you comment with the same question?
Mr. Amin. Yes. I think this is a really, really good
question for multiple reasons. I think, if you looked at our
action--and it was very deliberative--that we picked a lot of
smaller suppliers. I personally feel the smaller suppliers are
hungry. They want to prove a point. They could bring a lot of
innovations, a lot of disruption.
So the private level, without necessarily a government
involvement, we absolutely were very decisive of how we select
and pick the suppliers. I think it is extremely critical--
extremely critical that we focus also in the startups, we bring
VC money back into telecom.
Unfortunately, venture capitalists don't like telecom
because the barrier to entry is too high, and we are starting
now to unravel this mystery for how we bring new money into
this industry.
And we are really optimistic, but could not agree with you
more that it is just absolutely critical to ensure that we
diversify to spend not only on larger suppliers but go to the
smaller companies and reward them for great work and effort to
support this endeavor.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you. Let me sort of switch back to Ms.
Rinaldo.
Last year, I had the opportunity to serve on our China task
force, and we released a report that included recommendations
to increase domestic supply chain security, and one of those
recommendations was passing and funding the USA
Telecommunications Act. I think I have heard you comment on
that in this hearing.
But would you just comment on how that funding--the grant
funding--will help accelerate 5G development and, perhaps,
maybe even more specifically, how it might help our smaller
companies?
Ms. Rinaldo. Absolutely.
I would say that this funding is twofold. In the immediate
term, we are going to see additional manufacturing jobs,
research and development. In the long term, we are going to
benefit from a sustainable supply chain. We are going to be
able to future-proof our supply chain in our telecommunications
networks, which is going to be so incredible beneficial. It is
going to change the way we look at the Gs.
Long gone are the 10-year life cycles where, if there is an
issue, something can be immediately updated. So not only in the
near term will it help produce jobs and spur manufacturing in
the United States. In the long term, it is really going to lead
to incredibly amazing and innovative things for the entire
telecommunications industry.
And, as I mentioned in my opening comments, it is no longer
about telecom policy. It is about economic policy.
Mr. Curtis. Excellent. I am out of time. But, as I sign
off, just a big shout-out to our small businesses who sometimes
hoe a more difficult row, and I appreciate all they do to make
our economy go. Thank you to our panel and to everybody who has
had this hearing.
Mr. Chairman, I yield my time.
Mr. Doyle. Gentleman yields back.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Soto,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Chairman.
Cell phones, computers, and the internet are fundamental to
our way of life as Americans. It is also fundamental to our
businesses and national security. Yet, American communications
are under attack. Chinese are spying on the telecommunications
through Huawei. Russians have unleashed an onslaught of cyber
attacks, including the SolarWinds breach. These economic rivals
constantly threaten us each day in this rivalry on the digital
front line, in the battle for liberty and democracy across the
Nation.
At the same time, President Biden just recently unveiled
the American Jobs Plan, and it includes research and
development for future technologies, $180 billion to upgrade
critical technologies and U.S. research infrastructure with a
particular focus on research related to semiconductors,
advanced communications, and energy technologies.
It also includes a manufacturing piece, 300 billion to
strengthen domestic manufacturing in small businesses, with a
focus on supply chain resiliency for critical goods and
preventing job losses.
In central Florida, we have NeoCity, which develops
semiconductors and nanotechnology along with our partner,
SkyWater, one of the largest semiconductor manufacturers in the
Nation. Their CEO was recently invited to the White House by
President Biden. These trusted foundries across the Nation will
play a key role in both communications, business, and our
national defense.
And, in fact, President Biden held up a SkyWater wafer, a
slice of semiconductor used for the fabrication of integrated
circuits manufacturing solar cells and substrates for
electronic devices, in the White House for that visit.
Mr. Mezzalingua, how important will the American JOBS Act's
investment in high-tech domestic manufacturing capacity be to
boosting both private investment, national security, and our
economy?
Mr. Mezzalingua. Well, I think that--thank you,
Congressman, for the question.
Right now, I think the examples that have been discussed
previously have shown where we have all made progress. But, in
order to accelerate this and make sure that we get out in front
of this industry very quickly, it is essential. There is a
long--there is a significant amount of work that has to be
done, everything from--just within the R&D sphere alone, there
is a ton of work.
Then there is the supply chain element to make sure that we
are not vulnerable or dependent on anybody else. There are the
skills that are relating to bringing it all together. And part
of that is training. Part of it is experience. So what this act
does is--there is another--a number of elements that have to be
attacked, and they all take time.
So it is enormously important to allowing us to catch up.
But I will say that, in the manner that we are doing it, we can
compete, because the nature of the technology is such that
smaller companies have an advantage in the sense that software
base of all of this--the software basis has a very
democratizing effect, so it can catch up rather quickly. It is
not just about large big boxes of factories. Of course, you
need factories, but at its core it is going to be software
based.
So I think we have a very--it is a very--it is essential to
everything that we are doing for the broader mission that we
are here for--here to discuss here today.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Mezzalingua.
Ms. Rinaldo, one of your members is in my home State of
Florida. Airspan Networks is leading the way in providing open
RAN and virtual technology. Can you elaborate how USA
Telecommunications Act will benefit domestic companies like
Airspan Networks?
Ms. Rinaldo. Absolutely. The money provided by USA Telecom
Act will help spur investment in not only Airspan, but other
companies across the United States. It is going to help with
manufacturing, research and development, for hiring software
engineers, as well as provide funding for companies to send
their people to standards bodies around the world. I think it
is incredibly important not only to be able to participate in
these standards bodies, but also to ensure that the United
States Government and the private sector can come together to
further support the common good of the industry.
Mr. Soto. Thank you so much. This is about protecting our
American way of life. It is about jobs, and it is about our
national security, and I hope everyone on this committee can
come together for these important efforts, and I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. Gentleman yields back.
And, now, let's see. Last, but certainly not least, my
fellow Pennsylvanian, Mr. Joyce. You are recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you for yielding, Mr. Chair. And I would
like to thank you as a fellow Pennsylvanian, Mr. Doyle, and
Ranking Member Mr. Latta for allowing me to join on this very
important meeting today.
U.S. leadership in the development and deployment of 5G and
beyond is crucial. We all recognize this in this hearing. As we
continue to battle the Chinese Communist Party for their
influence and superiority in this space, we know that we can
triumph.
In order to achieve this, we need to put forward policy
solutions that foster cutting-edge innovation and foster
competition in this space, but we also must be mindful of the
supply chain challenges that we face with respect to China. I
look forward to engaging with this committee as they look to
bring critical production and capacity home or into the hands
of friendly allies.
Mr. Amin and Mr. Baker, I have some questions for you. Some
of the issues frequently that have been mentioned throughout
today's hearing need to be addressed around Open RAN regarding
scale, maturity, and integration with existing equipment.
Can you please comment on these issues? Have there been
challenges in this regard in your deployments?
Mr. Amin, if you would kindly go first.
Mr. Amin. Thank you very much, Congressman.
Maybe I want to tell you about an interesting story. I
haven't had the chance to paint this picture, and I think John
talked about it.
In Japan, the moment--the moment that we have created was
to bring vendors that you would consider that they are a
competitor against each other, but somehow they both find a way
to work and coexist. For example, we have taken Airspan that
makes Open RAN platform, and collaborating with them on
building the hardware that is needed for our architecture. We
have taken Altiostar that provides a software vendor and worked
on system integration and interoperability testing between
these two companies.
This model proves that cooperation is very possible, even
if the partners and suppliers compete in other geographies and
markets.
For Open RAN to flourish, I think the critical thing that
we have focused on is to address the complexity of system
integration. In our creation of what we call RCP, the Rakuten
Communication Platform, we have taken 3 years of our journey to
make sure that we remove the complexities for our future
partners and customers to address minimization of the system
integration.
And I think it is possible to change the perception about
the complexities of deploying Open RAN platforms around system
integration. It is an issue that we have to address, and I am
very confident, through education and collaboration, this is
going to be addressed.
Mr. Joyce. Mr. Baker, would you address this as well,
specifically regarding integration with existing equipment?
Mr. Baker. Yes, sure.
I think we can start off by saying there is a lot of fear,
uncertainty, and doubt being spread around in the marketplace
around integration of equipment, around interfaces being
available, around scaleability, and Mavenir has demonstrated
through its life that, you know, you can replace hardware in
the core of the network and you can build these very large
virtual platforms.
And, as an example, you know, we carry 110 million
subscribers in T Mobile's network on virtualized platforms, two
open interfaces. And the open interfaces on the core have been
there from--and they still continue coming out of the--you
know, the 3GPP process, and so Mavenir has been able to develop
products, two open interfaces, and compete on a world market,
gaining 39 percent share of the core market.
And, now, you know, this is where we come back to the fact
that, if we just get these open interfaces into the RAN market,
then it gives everybody the ability to compete.
And then this interoperability testing around interfaces
will ensure that interfaces follow standards such that, you
know, this whole fear about mix and matching products--and a
lot of this has come about because the proprietary interfaces
means that, you know, one vendor's equipment today doesn't work
with the other vendor.
So, you know, that is an immediate red flag, and that is
because the open interfaces are not being followed. Proprietary
interfaces are there. And so, you know, the operators avoid
this piece of trouble and say, ``Well, I will just buy it all
from one vendor.'' They throw their hands up in the air and
say, ``I will buy all from one vendor because I know that these
interfaces won't work together.''
But, as far as the Open RAN, virtualized platforms are
concerned, those interfaces are there and fully open to allow
these products to interoperate.
Mr. Joyce. I really appreciate the points that you made
regarding the interfaces, that they are available, and the
collaborative efforts need to occur.
I thank you both for your answers. And, again, I thank you,
Mr. Doyle and Mr. Latta, for allowing me to join in to this
important meeting today. And I yield my remaining time. Thank
you.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Joyce. It was a pleasure having
you here with the committee.
So I want to thank the witnesses for their participation
today. Not only your opening statements, but the back and forth
that we have been allowed to have with you. And the many
questions that got answered, I think, gave us a lot of insight
into what we need to be doing.
I want to thank my Ranking Member Latta also. I think this
was a great hearing. I think everybody should take notice that
there is bipartisan agreement, I believe, on moving forward. We
know this is important to the future, and I look forward to
working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to move
legislation and to make sure that the proper amount of funding
gets put into the bills that we need to do to make sure that we
move this technology forward.
Now I need to ask unanimous consent to have the following
documents put into the record: a letter from AttoBahn,
Incorporated; a letter from Representative Matsui to President-
elect Biden; a letter from Ligado to the Energy and Commerce
Committee; letter from Airspan Networks to Chairman Doyle,
Ranking Member Latta, Chairman Pallone, and Ranking Member
Rodgers; brief from JMA; examples from American Open RAN
innovators Airspan, Altiostar, DeepSig, JMA, Mavenir, New Edge,
Parallel Wireless, Pivotal Commware, Worldwide Technology;
document titled ``Inseego: 5G Born in the USA''--this print is
very small--a white paper from Inseego; research from Inseego.
So, without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Doyle. I want to remind Members that, pursuant to
committee rules, they have 10 business days to submit
additional questions for the record to be answered by the
witnesses who have appeared. And I would ask each of the
witnesses to respond promptly to any such questions that you
may receive.
And, with that, the committee is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:39 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
File and source
- File
- CHRG_chrg-117hhrg47148_chrg-117hhrg47148.htm
- Size
- 214,999 bytes
- SHA-256
- d52df1d7a295aa603238056524f12c68f4544f6c6541f78267264d306747d760
- Original
- No public link identified.