Tim Walberg: “I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the fact here of striking the last word. I rise in…”

“I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the fact here of striking the last word. I rise in opposition to amendment 36, which was en bloc. Despite the description of this amendment, it would actually reduce broadband competition, if adopted, with tremendous negatives for my district and many others. It also frustrates broadband deployment, an important thing right now. By requiring network sharing in multi-tenant buildings, there is less of an incentive for network operators to build out or make upgrades to their networks. More importantly, nothing in the FCC's order that is the subject of this amendment would prevent State and local efforts from increasing access to multi-tenant environments. Rather, the Commission would clarify that those efforts should be consistent with Federal policy. This amendment also raises safety concerns. Technicians from varying broadband providers would be required to service the same facilities in a shared setting, and this could lead to unknown or unsafe environments for these workers. This amendment could also disincentivize build-out. This amendment would prevent the preemption of an outlier San Francisco ordinance which requires the sharing of in-use wiring in apartment complexes, office buildings, and other similar buildings between providers. {time} 1315 For years, the FCC has been promoting facility-based competition to bring broadband to unserved Americans.…”