[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF FIRST RESPONDER NETWORK
AUTHORITY (FIRSTNET) AND EMERGENCY
COMMUNICATIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 14, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-16
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
80-378 WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRED UPTON, Michigan
Chairman
RALPH M. HALL, Texas HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
JOE BARTON, Texas Ranking Member
Chairman Emeritus JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky Chairman Emeritus
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
GREG WALDEN, Oregon BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
LEE TERRY, Nebraska ANNA G. ESHOO, California
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania GENE GREEN, Texas
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee LOIS CAPPS, California
Vice Chairman MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana JIM MATHESON, Utah
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington JOHN BARROW, Georgia
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi DORIS O. MATSUI, California
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana Islands
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky KATHY CASTOR, Florida
PETE OLSON, Texas JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia JERRY McNERNEY, California
CORY GARDNER, Colorado BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas PETER WELCH, Vermont
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia PAUL TONKO, New York
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
BILL JOHNSON, Missouri
BILLY LONG, Missouri
RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
Chairman
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio ANNA G. ESHOO, California
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
LEE TERRY, Nebraska MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan DORIS O. MATSUI, California
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana PETER WELCH, Vermont
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
CORY GARDNER, Colorado FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
BILLY LONG, Missouri JIM MATHESON, Utah
RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
JOE BARTON, Texas HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, ex
FRED UPTON, Michigan, ex officio officio
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the state of
Oregon, opening statement...................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the state
of California, opening statement............................... 4
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the state of
Michigan, opening statement.................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the state
of California, opening statement............................... 7
Witnesses
Samuel Ginn, Chairman, First Responder Network Authority......... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Answers to submitted questions............................... 215
Christopher McIntosh, statewide Interoperability Coordinator,
Virginia....................................................... 38
Prepared statement........................................... 40
Answers to submitted questions............................... 228
Ray Lehr, Director, statewide Communications Interoperability
Coordinator, Maryland.......................................... 48
Prepared statement........................................... 50
Answers to submitted questions............................... 231
James A. Barnett, Jr., Rear Admiral U.S. Navy (Ret.), Former
Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Federal
Communications Commission, Partner and Co-Chair,
Telecommunications Group, Venable LLP.......................... 55
Prepared statement........................................... 57
Answers to submitted questions............................... 232
Declan Ganley, Chairman and CEO, Rivada Networks................. 118
Prepared statement........................................... 120
David Turetsky, Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission...................... 152
Prepared statement........................................... 155
Answers to submitted questions............................... 240
Diane Kniowski, President and General Manager, WOOD/WOTV/WXSP,
Lin Media...................................................... 166
Prepared statement........................................... 168
Christopher Guttman-McCabe, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs,
CTIA--The Wireless Association................................. 183
Prepared statement........................................... 185
Trey Forgety, Director, Government Affairs, National Emergency
Number Association............................................. 189
Prepared statement........................................... 191
Submitted Material
Letter of March 13, 2013, from the state of Ohio's Chief
Information Officer to Mr. Latta............................... 207
Letter of March 13. 2013, from the National Governors Association
to the Subcommittee, submitted by Ms. Eshoo.................... 208
Letter of March 13. 2013, from Testron Systems to the
Subcommittee, submitted by Mr. Walden.......................... 210
OVERSIGHT OF FIRST RESPONDER NETWORK AUTHORITY (FIRSTNET) AND EMERGENCY
COMMUNICATIONS
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 14, 2013
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:32 a.m., in
room 2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Greg
Walden (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Walden, Latta, Terry, Blackburn,
Scalise, Lance, Guthrie, Kinzinger, Long, Ellmers, Barton,
Upton (ex officio), Eshoo, Matsui, Braley, Welch, Dingell,
Pallone and Waxman (ex officio).
Staff present: Ray Baum, Senior Policy Advisor/Director of
Coalitions; Sean Bonyun, Communications Director; Matt Bravo,
Professional Staff Member; Andy Duberstein, Deputy Press
Secretary; Neil Fried, Chief Counsel, Communications and
Technology; Debbee Hancock, Press Secretary; Nick Magallanes,
Policy Coordinator, Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade; David
Redl, Counsel, Telecom; Charlotte Savercool, Executive
Assistant, Legislative Clerk; Lyn Walker, Coordinator, Admin/
Human Services; Tom Wilbur, Digital Media Advisor; Roger
Sherman, Democratic Chief Counsel; Shawn Chang, Democratic
Senior Counsel; Patrick Donovan, FCC Detailee; and Kara van
Stralen, Democratic Special Assistant.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. I would like to call to order the Subcommittee
on Communications and Technology for our hearing on oversight
of FirstNet and emergency communications.
Good morning, everyone, and welcome, especially to our
witnesses on both of our panels, as well as our colleagues and
guests.
In last year's Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation
Act, Congress created the First Responder Network Authority.
FirstNet is an independent entity within the NTIA tasked with
implementing a nationwide interoperable public safety broadband
network. That is no small task. On the first of today's two
panels, we will hear from FirstNet, states, a former chief of
the FCC Public Safety Bureau, and private sector
representatives on what progress is being made and where we
should go from here.
The legislation as adopted was not my preferred approach
for many of the reasons expressed in today's prepared
testimony. I favored construction from the bottom up, not the
top down, with certain minimum interoperability requirements
and commercial providers running the network in partnership
with the states. That approach is by no means guaranteed by the
legislation as finally passed. But we must do our best to
implement that model within the confines of the law if this
endeavor is going to succeed. We owe it to the state and local
first responders that risk their lives for ours, the men and
women who are the literal boots on the ground. And we owe it to
the taxpayers, who funded it up front with up to $7 billion in
federal revenue, and who will fund it over the long haul
through their state and local taxes.
I am a firm believer that the work of Congress begins, not
ends, when a bill is enacted into law. Even at this early
stage, a recent forum of prospective participants highlighted
concerns about how FirstNet is being administered and how the
public safety broadband network will be realized. I look
forward to exploring some of those concerns today. For example,
will FirstNet meet the needs of both rural and urban parts of
the country? Will it bring the needed innovation and efficiency
of the commercial sector to public safety communications? Will
FirstNet conduct open and transparent proceedings to ensure all
potential stakeholders are heard?
As today's witnesses can attest, funding FirstNet will also
be an essential element of making the network a reality. I was
encouraged to hear Senator Rockefeller say at this week's FCC
oversight hearing that the agency should conduct the incentive
auctions in a way that maximizes participation and revenue. I
agree that this will best ensure our public safety objectives
are met.
We have learned time and again that in times of natural and
national disaster, communication among our first responders is
key. Ensuring communication lines are open to the public is
equally important. With our second panel, we will examine the
Emergency Alert System, Wireless Emergency Alerts, and 911
service.
As former broadcasters, my wife and I fondly recall running
our required weekly tests of the broadcast emergency alert
system. However, despite its more than 60 years of existence in
one form or another, the EAS was only recently tested on a
national level. While more than 90 percent of the stations
properly ran the test message, technical challenges prevented
stations in my home state of Oregon and elsewhere from
receiving the message. This could have been catastrophic in a
real emergency and it must be resolved in short order.
Broadcast alerts are a critical part of our emergency
infrastructure, but emergency systems, like all communications
media, have changed significantly over the last 20 years. In
1993 there were only 13 million cell phone subscribers in
America. That was less than 5 percent of the U.S. population.
Today, the broadcast emergency alert system is part of the
Integrated Public Alert and Warning System, IPAWS, that
incorporates broadcast, cable and satellite video programming
distributors as well as more granularly targeted alerts to
wireless devices. So I look forward to our witnesses giving us
a better picture of the successes and challenges with the
alerting systems.
Finally, while getting timely emergency information to the
public is critical to emergency response, getting information
from the public is just as crucial. Sadly, emergencies occur
every day in our homes, in our offices, in our cars and on the
streets. This is the world of our 911 call centers. While no
less devastating to those involved, these emergencies are often
of a small scale, affecting just a few people. Every now and
then, however, they occur on a large scale, taxing the
resources of both the call centers and commercial providers. We
cannot design the 911 system to cover every contingency but we
should learn from our experiences to improve it whenever and
however we can. We also need to discuss how we might
incorporate more advanced technologies, which is why this
committee incorporated Mr. Shimkus's and Ranking Member Eshoo's
NextGen 911 Advancement Act in the Middle Class Tax Relief and
Job Creation Act. I look forward to hearing how this national
asset is adapting to serve our needs in a broadband world.
I would yield the last bit of my time to the vice chair of
the committee, Mr. Latta.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Greg Walden
In last year's Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation
Act, Congress created the First Responder Network Authority.
FirstNet is an independent entity within the NTIA tasked with
implementing a nationwide interoperable public safety broadband
network. That's no small task. On the first of today's two
panels, we will hear from FirstNet, states, a former chief of
the FCC Public Safety Bureau, and private sector
representatives on what progress is being made and where we
should go from here.
The legislation as adopted was not my preferred approach
for many of the reasons expressed in today's prepared
testimony. I favored construction from the bottom up, not the
top down, with certain minimum interoperability requirements
and commercial providers running the network in partnership
with the states. That approach is by no means guaranteed by the
legislation as finally passed. But we must do our best to
implement that model within the confines of the law if this
endeavor is going to succeed. We owe it to the state and local
first responders that risk their lives for ours, the men and
women who are the literal boots on the ground. And we owe it to
the taxpayers, who funded it up front with up to $7 billion in
federal revenue, and who will fund it over the long-haul
through their state and local taxes.
I am a firm believer that the work of Congress begins, not
ends, when a bill is enacted into law. Even at this early
stage, a recent forum of prospective participants highlighted
concerns about how FirstNet is being administered and how the
public safety broadband network will be realized. I look
forward to exploring some of those concerns today. For example,
will FirstNet meet the needs of both rural and urban parts of
the country? Will it bring the needed innovation and efficiency
of the commercial sector to public safety communications? Will
FirstNet conduct open and transparent proceedings to ensure all
potential stakeholders are heard?
As today's witnesses can attest, funding FirstNet will also
be an essential element of making the network a reality. I was
encouraged to hear Senator Rockefeller say at this week's FCC
oversight hearing that the agency should conduct the incentive
auctions in a way that maximizes participation and revenue. I
agree that this will best ensure our public safety objectives
are met.
We have learned time and again that in times of natural and
national disaster communication among our first responders is
key. Ensuring communication lines are open to the public is
equally important. With our second panel, we will examine the
Emergency Alert System, Wireless Emergency Alerts, and 9-1-1
service.
As former broadcasters, my wife Mylene and I fondly recall
running our required weekly tests of the broadcast emergency
alert system. However, despite its more than 60 years of
existence in one form or another, the EAS was only recently
tested on a national level. While more than 90 percent of the
stations properly ran the test message, technical challenges
prevented stations in my home state of Oregon and elsewhere
from receiving the message. This could have been catastrophic
in a real emergency and must be resolved in short order.
Broadcast alerts are a critical part of our emergency
infrastructure, but emergency systems--like all communications
media--have changed significantly over the last 20 years. In
1993 there were only 13 million cell phone subscribers in
America. That was less than 5 percent of the population. Today,
the broadcast emergency alert system is part of the Integrated
Public Alert and Warning System-IPAWS- that incorporates
broadcast, cable and satellite video programming distributors
as well as more granularly targeted alerts to wireless devices.
I look forward to our witnesses giving us a better picture of
the successes and challenges with the alerting systems.
Finally, while getting timely emergency information to the
public is critical to emergency response, getting information
from the public is just as crucial. Sadly, emergencies occur
every day in our homes, in our offices, in our cars, and on the
streets. This is the world of our 9-1-1 call centers. While no
less devastating to those involved, these emergencies are often
of a small scale, affecting just a few people. Every now and
then, however, they occur on a large scale, taxing the
resources of both the call centers and commercial providers. We
cannot design the 9-1-1 system to cover every contingency but
we should learn from our experiences to improve it where we
can. We also need to discuss how we might incorporate more
advanced technologies, which is why this committee incorporated
Mr. Shimkus' and Ranking Member Eshoo's Next Generation 9-1-1
Advancement Act in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation
Act. I look forward to hearing how this national asset is
adapting to serve our needs in a broadband world.
# # #
Mr. Latta. I appreciate the chairman for yielding and thank
him very much and I also appreciate you holding the hearing
today, and I thank our distinguished panel of witnesses for
testifying today.
Public safety and emergency communications are an extremely
important topic, one that affects every single American. That
is why it is imperative that FirstNet is successful. A
nationwide interoperable public safety network is a massive
undertaking and it is critically important that the
communication system is done right by FirstNet for the sake of
our economy and the safety of all Americans.
I am concerned that the role of the states is being
overlooked. I would like to submit for the record, Mr.
Chairman, a letter from the state of Ohio's Chief Information
Officer on concerns regarding FirstNet's funding, communication
planning and representation.
Mr. Walden. Without objection.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Latta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I look forward to the hearing and the testimony from our
witnesses and I look forward to a thoughtful and constructive
discussion.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Walden. The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes
the ranking member from California, Ms. Eshoo.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANNA G. ESHOO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to
you, and thank you for holding this very important hearing
today.
Mr. Chairman, through our bipartisan work in the 112th
Congress, we laid the groundwork for the first-ever
interoperable nationwide public safety broadband network. Now,
more than 11 years after our Nation was attacked, it is the
First Responder Network Authority, or FirstNet, who has been
tasked with the build-out and maintenance of a network that
will transform the way our first responders communicate.
To ensure that FirstNet remains on track, leverages the
expertise of the communications sector, and does not repeat the
mistakes that have plagued public safety communications for
decades, I expect this will be the first of many oversight
hearings because I think that is going to be important for us
to do so, to keep everything on track, and as we do, all of the
stakeholders will know how serious we are about.
For today's hearing, I would like to offer several
observations that I believe will guide the success of FirstNet
and the transition to Next Generation 9-1-1. First, consistent
with statute, FirstNet must ensure equipment used on the
network is built to open, non-proprietary, commercially
available standards. A $5,000 radio is simply unacceptable,
particularly when far superior, off-the-shelf technology can be
purchased for a fraction of the price.
Second, FirstNet should leverage the expertise and
innovative thinking found across Silicon Valley, my
distinguished Congressional district. A modern, IP-based
network in which first responders rely on Internet-enabled
devices creates new opportunities for both device and
application makers. Covia Labs, a Mountain View-based startup,
is one example of the innovative thinking already underway.
Third, the transition to Next Generation 9-1-1 will require
the continued support of Congress, the FCC, NHTSA and NTIA.
Last month, the FCC issued a detailed roadmap to Congress on
how best to advance and deploy NG9-1-1 across our country. I am
encouraged by the progress made to date and I believe our
success will ensure that local 9-1-1 call centers can quickly
and accurately deliver emergency information to our first
responders.
So I want to thank all of our witnesses today for being
here and for your commitment to advancing our Nation's public
safety communications.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous
consent that a letter from the National Governors Association
relative to our hearing today be placed in the record.
Mr. Walden. Without objection.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you. I yield back. Does anyone want to
use--Congresswoman Matsui, I would be happy to yield time to
you.
Ms. Matsui. I thank the ranking member for yielding me
time.
Let me start by saying that FirstNet is here to stay and it
is part of our responsibility to ensure it is efficient and
well implemented. If not, we jeopardize the entire network and
it is as simple as that.
I believe transparent governance is paramount and critical
to ensure America's first responders have an efficient and
effective interoperable network. I also believe states should
and will play a critical role during this process. While not
perfect, I believe the law put in place a strong governance
framework with a focus on public-private partnerships to ensure
we achieve our primary goal of providing a nationwide
interoperable broadband network for our Nation's first
responders.
Throughout my career, I have sat on a number of governance
boards, and I truly understand the importance of their roles in
providing clear leadership. Simply put, good governance is a
linchpin of the public safety network that would determine
success or failure. It must be done right from the outset.
Thank you, and I want to thank the witnesses for being
here, and I yield back my time to the ranking member to do with
as she pleases.
Would anyone like to use 35 seconds? I would be happy to
yield.
I yield back.
Mr. Walden. I now recognize the chairman of the full
committee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Upton. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today's hearing is going to examine how we communicate in
times of emergency. The first panel is going to focus on
implementing provisions in our spectrum legislation to create a
nationwide interoperable public safety network. That law could
raise as much as $7 billion for first responders, help build
out the communications system, and still clear as much as 120
megahertz of spectrum to meet growing demand for wireless
broadband. But to do so, the FCC must refrain from excluding
potential bidders and maximize the amount of spectrum that it
auctions and the revenue it raises. We also have to ensure that
state and local governments play an integral role in designing
that network.
The second panel is going to focus on how we communicate
with our citizens and they with us when danger strikes. The
emergency alert and 9-1-1 systems are pivotal links when the
unfortunate happens, and I want to particularly welcome today
my friend, Diane Kniowski, President and General Manager of
WOOD TV, WOTV, and WXSP. These stations do an excellent job of
keeping our communities in southwest Michigan informed both in
times of emergency and during our day-to-day lives.
I would yield to other members wishing time. Seeing none, I
yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton
Today's hearing will examine how we communicate in times of
emergency. The first panel will focus on implementing
provisions in our spectrum legislation to create a nationwide,
interoperable public safety network. The law could raise as
much as $7 billion for first responders, help build out the
communications system, and still clear as much as 120 megahertz
of spectrum to meet growing demand for wireless broadband. To
do so, however, the FCC must refrain from excluding potential
bidders and maximize the amount of spectrum it auctions and the
revenue it raises. We must also ensure that state and local
governments play an integral role in designing this network.
The second panel will focus on how we communicate with our
citizens and they with us when danger strikes. The emergency
alert and 9-1-1 systems are pivotal links when the unfortunate
happens. I want to welcome today my friend Diane Kniowski,
President and General Manager of WOOD TV, WOTV, and WXSP. These
stations do a tremendous job of keeping our communities in
southwest Michigan informed both in times of emergency and
during our day-to-day lives.
# # #
Mr. Walden. The gentleman yields back the balance of his
time. We now recognize the former chairman of the full
committee, the gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding
this hearing, and welcome to all of our witnesses and
especially Sam Ginn, Chairman of the FirstNet Board. Mr. Ginn
has offered to spearhead a historic undertaking that is vital
to our Nation. We appreciate his service and the service of all
the FirstNet board members.
Last year, Congress enacted the Public Safety and Spectrum
Act, delivering on one of the last remaining recommendations
from the 9/11 Commission to create a nationwide interoperable
public safety broadband network for first responders. The Act
was the result of bicameral, bipartisan negotiations that
produced a strong and innovative law. Our job now is to work
together to make the legislation a success.
To deliver on the promise of the law, we will need the
cooperation of partners in industry and public safety. The Act
was designed to take advantage of existing commercial networks
and economies of scale. Given the magnitude of this project, it
is critical that FirstNet and its partners operate efficiently
and innovate aggressively.
There will be a substantial taxpayer investment in
FirstNet. The law provides FirstNet with valuable spectrum and
$7 billion to build the new public safety network. We need to
ensure that these public funds go as far as possible, and I am
pleased that most stakeholders seem to recognize this and are
committed to this shared goal.
We have profound respect and appreciation for our first
responders, and it is their dedication and the searing
experience of 9/11 that led to the creation of FirstNet. Now it
is time for public safety to step up again and help make this
promise a reality. This will require all parties to put aside
old turf battles and collaborate in a way that puts the success
of the national network first.
On the second panel, we will learn more about the FCC's
recent activities to investigate the reliability and resiliency
of our Nation's communications networks. This is a critical
issue. Climate change is supercharging storms. In the aftermath
of Superstorm Sandy, power outages and floods disrupted many
types of communications services, including wireless,
television, telephone and Internet services. It is absolutely
critical that we explore the impact of weather emergencies on
communications reliability.
It is fitting that we are discussing communications
reliability at the same hearing during which we consider the
construction of a public-safety-grade broadband network for
first responders. One question I hope we can answer is whether
``public safety grade'' will become the new normal in a world
in which natural disasters are more frequent.
Again, I want to thank all of our witnesses for appearing
today and for your commitment to advancing our Nation's public
safety communications. I thank the chairman for scheduling this
important hearing. I look forward to the testimony. There is
another hearing going on at the same time, so I will be back
and forth. It in no way indicates a lack of interest on my
part. If I don't get to hear your testimony, I will certainly
get a chance to review it, and I appreciate everybody's
participation in this hearing. Yield back my time.
Mr. Walden. The gentleman yields back the balance of his
time.
And now we are ready to hear from our witnesses. We welcome
you all today. On panel one, to discuss the FirstNet issues and
the interoperable public safety broadband network build-out, we
have the Hon. Sam Ginn, who is Chairman of the First Responder
Network Authority; Chris McIntosh, statewide Interoperability
Coordinator for Virginia; Ray Lehr, Director of statewide
Communications Interoperability Coordinator from Maryland;
Admiral James A. Barnett, Jr., Rear Admiral, United states
Navy, retired, former Chief, Public Safety and Homeland
Security Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, Partner and
Co-Chair, Telecommunications Group, Venable LLP--that takes 20
seconds of your time; Declan Ganley, Chairman and CEO, Rivada
Networks. We thank all of you for being here and giving us the
great value of your testimony and counsel.
Mr. Ginn, we are going to open with you. It is good to see
you again, and I look forward to your testimony, and thank you.
Go ahead.
STATEMENTS OF SAMUEL GINN, CHAIRMAN, FIRST RESPONDER NETWORK
AUTHORITY; CHRISTOPHER MCINTOSH, STATEWIDE INTEROPERABILITY
COORDINATOR, VIRGINIA; RAY LEHR, DIRECTOR, STATEWIDE
COMMUNICATIONS INTEROPERABILITY COORDINATOR, MARYLAND; ADM.
JAMES A. BARNETT, JR., REAR ADMIRAL U.S. NAVY (RET.), FORMER
CHIEF, PUBLIC SAFETY AND HOMELAND SECURITY BUREAU, FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, PARTNER AND CO-CHAIR,
TELECOMMUNICATIONS GROUP, VENABLE LLP; AND DECLAN GANLEY,
CHAIRMAN AND CEO, RIVADA NETWORKS
STATEMENT OF SAMUEL GINN
Mr. Ginn. Thank you, Chairman Walden and Ranking Member
Eshoo. Thank you for the invitation, and I would like to thank
the committee for the opportunity to give you a status of where
we are at FirstNet. But first I think we have all watched 9/11,
Katrina, and more recently Sandy, and even if you have sat in a
local operation dispatch center for the police department, you
understand how important this legislation has been, and just as
a citizen of this country, I want to thank you, and I want to
thank Congress for this law because it was an incredible piece
of legislation and I think if we can execute on our end, we
will reduce cost, we will improve operations and we will save
lives. So as Chairman of FirstNet, I thank you.
Now, these are the early days of FirstNet, and I think the
question I would ask myself is, how are you doing, and I will
try to answer that question in just a few minutes. I think the
first thing you have to understand is, this is probably the
largest telecom project in our history. We will be building the
equivalent of a commercial network over the next few years with
very interesting requirements. We expect to cover every square
meter of land. We expect to penetrate Manhattan skyscrapers. We
expect to implement a new technology, LTE. We expect to
engineer a network that is multi-carrier based, and we expect
to put in this network public sector features that help them do
their job better. So I think the point of saying this is, this
is going to be a massive, complex and challenging mission, and
I just think we have to understand that as we move into
implementation.
The second thing that I think is important is what kind of
leadership is gathering around this mission, and I would like
to talk a bit about the board of directors, and first of all,
technical competence is so important. I mean, when you get
right down to it, this is a massive technical effort, and we
have recruited board members with technical wireless
backgrounds. They have engineered wireless systems all across
the United states. They have engineered systems in Germany,
Italy, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Japan, India and South Korea.
So I think you could be assured that what we have recruited on
the board is a group of people who know how to engineer
wireless networks, and I am confident myself that we have that
technical competence.
The other thing I think is important about the board is the
public safety representation. We have members on our board from
police, fire, sheriff and EMS, and not only from those
institutions but these people happen to be leaders in their
disciplines. They are quite active and they make wonderful
contributions. Also on the board, we have members with
backgrounds in state government and cities, many years of
experience. They know the issues that those entities face on a
day-to-day basis. And I think the most important thing that I
can report to you today is this board is coming together. It is
beginning to operate as a team, and I think that is a first,
wonderful implication of getting this project off on the right
foot.
The second thing that I think needs to be said is, this is
a startup. We are starting from a blank sheet of paper. We have
no milestones to measure our performance. We have no employees
to start with. We have no budget. We have no financial
controls. We have no audit function. We have no history and no
culture. And so institutions need to put all of these things in
place, and we have been busy for the last few months putting
these requirements in place. And I would say that things are
coming together. Next week we will announce the appointment of
a general manager, and I would guess that the senior manager of
the team will be in place very quickly, so the report is, we
are progressing to a more normal operation, which is, we can
manage and measure.
Now, the other thing is that the world doesn't stop even
though you have only a board and no employees, and so we have
had to deal with a number of emerging issues. We have obviously
had to deal with the conceptualization of the network itself,
and let me just be a little more specific here. We are going to
implement an LTE system. The LTE system is a commercial system,
and it has to be modified for public safety requirements. We
are in the process of doing that. If you don't do that, if you
don't embed public safety needs into the standards, the
standards get published and manufacturers don't deliver the
kind of capabilities that public safety needs. So we have been
heavily involved in the standards process making sure that
public safety issues are addressed. We have been
conceptualizing multi-carrier networks, and there are not many
of these world, and there is a lot of work that needs to be
done in terms of proof of concept and do multiple-carrier
networks really work and how do they work best. So we have
taken directors who have taken full-time jobs, one on
technology, to work on these issues. We have a full-time
director of outreach because you discover very quickly that the
public safety community and other communities, for that matter,
have points of view and they demand to be understood, and we
understand that because customer expectations are clearly the
way to solve these issues.
Mr. Chairman, I will stop there and be willing to take your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ginn follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.109
Mr. Walden. Thank you, sir.
We will now turn to Mr. McIntosh. We are pleased that you
are here to give us from an on-ground perspective as the
statewide Interoperability Coordinator for Virginia, and please
pull that mike up close and you have got your 5 minutes. Thank
you.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER MCINTOSH
Mr. McIntosh. Thank you, Chairman Walden, Ranking Member
Eshoo, distinguished members of the committee.
Communications is the one constant that forms the
foundation for all other public safety disciplines. It is the
bedrock of every response plan, the core of every procedure. In
the past 11 years, billions of dollars have been spent across
the Nation on communications programs. New radio systems have
been fielded, interoperability has been greatly improved, and
the ability of our first responders to communicate is better
than ever.
Unfortunately, funding levels have fallen precipitously.
Virginia has seen consecutive 50 percent cuts in federally
funded state homeland security grant programs, and
historically, almost 30 percent of that funding has gone to
support and maintain communications. In 2011 alone, the
Commonwealth received $43 million in requests from localities
for communications grant funding and was only able to award $2
million. Virginia has also recently seen the loss of funding of
two Urban Area Security Initiatives resulting in the reduction
of tens of millions of dollars in annual funding. Much of that
went to communications program as well.
We stand on the verge of a revolution in emergency
communications capabilities. However, traditional land mobile
radio systems are beginning to become integrated with Voice
over Internet Protocol technologies. By fusing voice
communications with Internet technologies, new possibilities
are becoming a reality. Virginia operates one of the largest
public safety Voice over IP networks in the Nation. Soon any
laptop, tablet or smartphone in the hands of a Virginia public
safety professional will become a radio capable of
communicating with any PSAP in the state or any responder on a
radio connected to it and fusing that with crisis management
video and geospatial and system-based information to allow
previously unheard-of levels of situational awareness.
All of these capabilities rely on reliable connectivity,
and public safety broadband offers a solution that addresses
many of the connectivity issues faced by public safety. Now
public safety professionals will have the opportunity to have
unfettered access to wireless communications in order to
improve their ability to respond to incidents safely and
effectively. The challenge lies in making all this a reality in
the current fiscal environment.
Public safety communications budgets, like other budgets,
are heavily encumbered with existing core funding needs and
have little flexibility to fund new programs or new
capabilities. Public safety broadband will not replace existing
or planned land mobile radio systems in the near future. LMR
has proven its reliability, survivability and usability many
times over. Cellular technologies, on the other hand, have
proven to be susceptible to widespread failure during natural
disasters. Cellular infrastructure density results in a
dependence on reliable power supplies and redundant backhaul
connectivity that is a major vulnerability. Even after
mitigations to these issues are designed into the network, it
will be some time before we can adequately evaluate their
effectiveness. The cost of public safety broadband will be in
addition to current land mobile radio costs currently paid by
state and local governments. The time horizon for replacing LMR
cost with public safety broadband cannot be determined.
The FirstNet Board has been on the record to state that the
network will cover every square meter of the United states.
They must do this with a network that greatly exceeds the
design specifications and redundancies of commercial networks
but with a fraction of the resources the private sector has
currently expended in a network that only covers two-thirds of
the country. The states are understandably nervous that the
combination of increased costs and insufficient funding will
result in the uncovered costs being passed on to state and
local governments, further diminishing funding for other core
first responder necessities. In light of this, states need the
ability to define the level of partnership that they will
engage in with FirstNet. states should be allowed to negotiate
partnerships on their own with the private sector that are
designed to generate revenue that can be applied to the
network. Many of these potential partners are local or
intrastate in nature, making the state-local team the
appropriate governing structure for this arrangement as opposed
to FirstNet. FirstNet cannot be expected to understand each
state's unique circumstances and needs. It is through a
partnership between states and localities and the FirstNet
Board that this program will be successful.
In addition, adding a current state official to the
FirstNet Board would be very helpful to this endeavor. The Act
requires that each state or territory certify that they have
designated a single officer or governmental body to coordinate,
serving as a portal through which FirstNet will conduct its
consultation with the state. Many states, including Virginia,
have established this communications channel and are waiting
for FirstNet to reciprocate. In the inaugural FirstNet Board
meeting, a notional architecture for the network was presented,
and we are told that a more refined version will be presented
in April. This network is being designed before the
consultation mentioned before has been done.
Public safety broadband is a far-reaching and mission-
critical program. To succeed, it requires direct communication
and coordination between FirstNet and the states. This will
ensure that requirements are captured and adequate mechanisms
are developed that permit the network as operations and
maintenance and the planning, training and exercising and
support are adequately and reliably funded. Establishing a
vehicle for the designee of each state or territory to work
directly with FirstNet within the FirstNet governing structure
would vastly improve the collaboration between FirstNet and the
states and territories. The partnership between the states and
FirstNet must be direct, open, transparent and ongoing.
With that, I stand by for your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McIntosh follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.021
Mr. Walden. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
testimony.
Now we will hear from Ray Lehr, who is the Director of
statewide Communications Interoperability Coordinator for the
state of Maryland. We welcome you today and look forward to
your comments, sir.
STATEMENT OF RAY LEHR
Mr. Lehr. Thank you, Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Eshoo.
Members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be
here today. I have provided written remarks, which I believe
you have available to you. Having previewed the testimony of
the other panelists, and just heard my good friend Chris give
his testimony, I am delighted to see we are mostly in agreement
on the key elements. In an effort to save time, I am going to
summarize my comments.
Let me start by formally thanking this committee, the
entire Congress and the President for the passage of the
legislation. This is a historic opportunity for public safety.
A robust, reliable and secure broadband network will not only
save citizens' lives, it will save first responders' lives on a
daily basis.
Now that FirstNet has begun, it is in the best interest of
every state to work with FirstNet to ensure that all of the
requirements are met. How can we make that happen? I can tell
you from personal experience in Maryland building a statewide
radio system, you have to go to the source, the actual users of
the system. We were designing coverage for our system and we
found a half-mile by half-mile area that didn't have radio
coverage. Looking at it on the map, it was heavily wooded, only
had a single road so it looked like it would be minimal impact.
But when we spoke to the local emergency managers, we found out
this area sees a high level of public safety activity. Because
of its isolation, criminals have used it as a dumping ground
for stolen vehicles, and even a body. There have been field
fires in the summer and traffic accidents on the windy single-
lane road. This area needs coverage for police, fire and EMS.
Even some federal task forces are now operating in the area. We
never would have known this without the local input that we got
during the design. This is why FirstNet needs to be involved
with end users in the design and development of the broadband
network.
I can assure you, we want to help. I urge FirstNet to build
on the foundations that already exist in states, not only the
network infrastructure but also the working groups that have
been solving communication problems for first responders over
the last decade. I believe the nationwide public safety
broadband network has a much greater chance of success if all
states opt in. That would make interoperability much easier and
also take advantage of the seamless design. Also, the upgrades
would occur in unison, ensuring continuity of operation.
To enable governors to make an informed opt-in decision,
the states will need information on five key components. Number
one is the network design security redundancy and reliability.
Public safety needs a robust network and broadband devices that
can operate during the worst conditions imaginable, because
that is when our public safety folks are in the field. Number
two: state assets that can be leveraged, towers, fiber optics,
microwave, network operation centers. By using state assets
which are built to higher standards than commercial networks,
we increase reliability, and states should realize some cost
offsets by virtue of their infrastructure investments in the
nationwide network. Number three is coverage, both in building
and rural. As stated earlier, only the state and local public
safety leaders can speak to their needs. The early input will
ensure the network meets the expectations of each community.
Number four, network priorities. Long-term evolution, or LTE,
as it is known, is a standard that allows for a wide range of
priorities for network access under different types of
emergencies. Often these priorities will be dynamic as the
event evolves so local control is absolutely essential. And
number five is the cost to operate and maintain. This is of
great concern to states because they will be asked to pay an
unknown amount to use and maintain the network. The costs need
to be no greater than what they are paying for cellular service
today.
While it is possible that FirstNet could negotiate a better
deal with national carriers, there are other potential partners
in the region and at the local level. states need the ability
to work with local business partnerships in order to help raise
revenue where possible.
In closing, I would like to express our excitement about
this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. It is going to ultimately
save lives, protect people and property, and enhance our
performance during times of national crisis as well as every
day.
With that, I thank you again and I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lehr follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.026
Mr. Walden. Mr. Lehr, thank you for your testimony. It is
most insightful.
We will now go to James A. Barnett, Rear Admiral, U.S.
Navy, retired, former Chief of Public Safety and Homeland
Security Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, and now a
Partner and Co-Chair at Telecommunications Group, Venable LLP.
So we welcome you with the broad range of background you bring
and the experience, and we appreciate the report you have
provided for each of us, and its at times colorful analogies.
Admiral Barnett, thank you for being here. We look forward to
your testimony.
STATEMENT OF JAMES A. BARNETT, JR.
Admiral Barnett. Thank you, Chairman Walden, Ranking Member
Eshoo and distinguished members of the subcommittee and for the
opportunity to talk about FirstNet's challenges and road to
success.
As you mentioned, I used to be the Senior Vice President of
the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, which is an
independent, nonpartisan science and technology policy think
tank in the area, and as such, I was pleased to serve as the
Principal Investigator for a study titled ``What Should
FirstNet Do First'', which as the chairman mentioned is there
and offered for the record.
FirstNet has many advantages and opportunities: a highly
experienced governing board, 24 megahertz of great spectrum,
and initial funding of $2 billion. But the challenges that
FirstNet faces are daunting, as Chairman Ginn mentioned. The
full funding of $7 billion is not enough for a nationwide
network, and no model or precedent exists for establishing this
network. Just like the failed D block auction, there are
existential risks, and success is not assured. But everybody
involved wants FirstNet to succeed, and in that spirit I would
offer four recommendations. The first is to embrace the states,
the second is, one size does not fit all, the third is to
develop a cost model, and the fourth is to contract for
expertise now.
First, FirstNet must embrace the states in a way that it
has not previously. Before the FirstNet board members were
seated, there was a confusion that developed that public safety
is both the user and the customer, as it has been in the past.
The states, which may be huge stakeholders and customers for
FirstNet, perceive that they have been ignored and excluded
from the table. So for a chronically underfunded and
undercapitalized network, alienating your customers at the
outset is a huge problem. FirstNet can forestall the active
consideration by some states to opt out statutorily if it opens
its process. As I suggested in the FirstNet report, Chairman
Ginn and the FirstNet board have reached out to the National
Governors Association, to the governors, the state CIOs, the
states' BTOP recipients, and this effort should be continued
and expanded to fully incorporate governors and state CIOs into
the process with direct input to the board and ultimately
representation on the board. FirstNet must be open to early
deployers, public-private partnerships, innovative arrangements
from the state to attract private capital, public
infrastructure and more users into the network. The talk about
signing over state assets to FirstNet must give way to
discussions about how FirstNet will serve the states' needs and
how FirstNet can contractually use state infrastructure.
Increased information sharing and transparency with the states
will help also.
To achieve Congress's central goal, FirstNet should adopt a
principle of national interoperability with local control, and
one size will not fit all. Some states and localities may wish
to combine into regions for the network. Some states may wish
to form public-private partnerships with carriers or public
utilities. Some may be able to obtain essential network funding
if they are allowed to proceed now with their deployment plans.
FirstNet must retain the technical capability to administer
the national network and ensure that it will be interoperable,
but if it has that capability by contracting with experts, then
the network can go faster and can achieve early wins.
To attract funding into the network, FirstNet should
consider what might be called a franchise operation under its
control. The decision to reopen the question of whether BTOP
recipients may proceed is a very encouraging development and is
consistent with the concept that one size does not fit all and
that a network of networks may be the key to success.
FirstNet should develop a cost model and a financial
analysis that will explain to state customers, public safety
users and other stakeholders such as carriers and equipment
providers what this network will cost to build and use. This is
critically important. To move quickly and expertly, FirstNet
should be allowed to contract with its cost model and financial
analysis, and until this is developed, anyone making plans for
use of the network would be speculating on what the services
would cost and be. A cost model and plan would be a very high
priority and must precede decisions that would limit where the
model and plan might lead.
FirstNet needs more expertise and human resources right
away. The FirstNet board members are an extraordinarily
qualified and a very talented and experienced group but they
are a board and they are not a full-time staff. They need a
full-time staff. Some employees are being obtained but FirstNet
needs access to their expertise now quickly, and to help them
analyze and plan and coordinate and manage, and the fastest and
best way is to contract for that expertise and to use
government employees to oversee those contracts.
So thank you for this opportunity to talk to you about how
FirstNet can be successful.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Barnett follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.163
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Admiral. We appreciate your
testimony and the report.
We will go now to our final witness on this panel, the
Chairman and CEO of Rivada Networks, Declan Ganley. Mr. Ganley,
we are delighted you are here this morning and we look forward
to your testimony, sir.
STATEMENT OF DECLAN GANLEY
Mr. Ganley. Good morning, Chairman Walden and Ranking
Member Eshoo. Thank you for your invitation this morning.
My wife's family business was headquartered in World Trade
Center Two, and 9/11 was a very impactful event for my family,
and I had rolled out a broadband across several countries in
Europe. I do not envy Chairman Ginn the task that he faces in
getting this thing rolled out here, but 9/11 brought home to us
in a very personal way the issues that the 9/11 Commission
report covered so well highlighted, of course, the
establishment, the passing of this legislation and the
establishment of FirstNet goes a long way to achieving the
objectives of the 9/11 Commission report.
I want to say right at the outset, I see no other way to
get it done other than this in terms of what FirstNet has been
tasked with doing, getting the job done and getting it done as
expeditiously as possible, and the board that has been put
together certainly contains the competence, the ability, the
public safety expertise to accomplish many of those goals.
During Hurricane Katrina, Rivada Networks, my company,
deployed emergency cellular base stations in Louisiana with
satellite backup, and while able to provide emergency
communications to first responders, we found that when usage
capacity was at a maximum, we were unable to provide
prioritized access to those who needed it. So there were times
when the system would be at maximum capacity, a Coast Guard
admiral would key up, try to get on and would have to wait to
be able to get on.
And as a result of that experience, Rivada spent a number
of years developing tiered priority access--we call it TPA--
allowing us to allocate access to bandwidth based on
prioritization of the end user, and having developed tiered
priority access, we realized that if we could tier priority
access at a local level, we could do it on any scale, allowing
bandwidth to be commoditized and allocated to users based on
real-time valuation, dynamic allocation of that bandwidth and
of access to that bandwidth. TPA allows public safety control
over its own permanent, dedicated network--it is their
network--granting full and absolute priority when needed
through a throttling mechanism while making the surface
bandwidth dynamically available to the wholesale commercial
users during the significant periods of fallow time when the
bandwidth is not being used by emergency responders. This
dynamic-spectrum arbitrage revenue-generating capability can
allow private capital sufficient security to construct these
networks for cities and states and in a great many of these
cities and states will provide surplus funding, which could be
used to help FirstNet and fund the FirstNet mission.
In our view, FirstNet has the best opportunity to achieve a
nationwide public safety network that is fully interoperable,
and while states opting out of the FirstNet model is permitted
by the legislation, it is, in our opinion, neither optimal nor
necessary. The best path to success for states and cities is
under the FirstNet umbrella. The ability to provide a dedicated
network that guarantees absolute prioritization for public
safety while eliminating the burden to the taxpayer and
generating surplus revenue to fund the maintenance, expansion
and improvement of the network is obviously compelling.
Partnering with private capital, public safety gains a state-
of-the-art network built to public safety standards and a new
stream of revenue that eases and in cases may even eliminate
this burden on the America taxpayer.
And so these core goals, the highest quality of public
safety network built to public safety standards, flexibility to
allow these networks to start getting built out in as
expeditious a manner as possible, and a positive revenue
outcome are unlikely to be achieved in a more efficient way
than that type of approach.
So in essence, the good news is, because this spectrum that
this legislation allocated is prime real estate, it is very
valuable, public safety can own and control it themselves, but
by allowing cities, states, FirstNet to be able to allow
dynamic access to that spectrum, you have a source here to
generate revenue that under the legislation can offset and
maybe even eliminate the burden to the U.S. taxpayer of
building these networks. That has got to be good news for the
American taxpayer, and for public safety.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ganley follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.047
Mr. Walden. Mr. Ganley, thank you very much for your
testimony. Thanks to all of you on the panel. We will now go
into the next phase of our hearing, which is the question-and-
answer part.
I want to ask Mr. McIntosh and Mr. Lehr representing the
two states, well, the Commonwealth of Virginia and the state of
Maryland--I will try to get that right--in the governors'
letter to us, they point out that they remain disappointed
states were not better represented on the FirstNet board. So
what is really going on there?
Mr. McIntosh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As was alluded to by
all the members up here, the partnership--one thing we have
learned through interoperable communications is partnership
begins with participation.
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. McIntosh. And the fact that there is not a current
state official on the FirstNet board----
Mr. Walden. But there is supposed to be somebody by statute
on the board representing the state interest, right?
Mr. McIntosh. The one member that I am aware of that is
there to fulfill that requirement is not a current state
official.
Mr. Walden. How does that happen?
Mr. McIntosh. I don't know.
Mr. Walden. Mr. Lehr, do you care to comment on that point?
Who made the appointments?
Mr. Lehr. Chris is absolutely correct. The current member
is a former CIO Of two states, I think California and Michigan,
but not currently representing or doesn't hold an active role
in the state. Also, Mr. Chairman, I will point out that when
the National Governors Association met two weekends ago in
Washington, the Wyoming Governor, Governor Mead, also made a
pitch that not only should the NGA be represented but perhaps a
governor himself or herself should be the representative on the
FirstNet board.
Mr. Walden. Because I assume--I won't put words in Admiral
Barnett's mouth but he was an admiral and he was at the FCC and
then he was off at a think tank and now doing whatever it is
you do, you don't get to speak for the Navy now, right?
Admiral Barnett. No, sir, I do not.
Mr. Walden. And so why would we have a federal employee
speaking for the states? Mr. Ginn, how did that happen?
Mr. Ginn. Mr. Chairman, I was not privy to the appointment
of the board.
Mr. Walden. Who makes the appointments to the board?
Mr. Ginn. The Secretary of Commerce.
Mr. Walden. All right. So we will take up that matter with
the Secretary of Commerce then.
Mr. Ginn. But just a comment----
Mr. Walden. Are you comfortable with that situation?
Mr. Ginn. Well, I would say this. Diversity is really
important, but you reach a point where knowledge and competence
is just as important.
Mr. Walden. So are you saying that the states don't have
anybody that would be knowledgeable or competent enough to
represent----
Mr. Ginn. No, I am just saying that the current appointee
is an outstanding member of the board.
Mr. Walden. Well, I don't dispute that. It is just that we
wanted somebody that actually was from a state. I guess we
should have been more clear in the statute, but somebody
representing the states' interests we thought would mean
somebody from a state, not from the federal bureaucracy.
Mr. Ginn. I guess that got interpreted as since she had
been a CIO for both California and Michigan, that she met the
requirement.
Mr. Walden. Well, it feels like an insider deal to me in
terms of federal government pretending to represent somebody it
is not, and that is not any aspersion on the individual. I am
just saying that it seems to me it would be better if actually
the governors had that say in making a recommendation. I
realize you don't make that appointment but, hey, you're the
only one we have before us today.
And you and I have talked on a number of occasions, Mr.
Ginn, starting at the end of last year about some of the
urgent, specific problems you felt needed to be rectified
through legislation, and I know in your testimony you said you
wanted to work with Congress to explore obvious and reasonable
measures. This is your opportunity to make those obvious
measures known to us and to the public. Can you be real
specific about the issues you are encountering and what it is
you think needs to be changed statutorily?
Mr. Ginn. Well, I think the way to start this is to say
that someone coming from a commercial enterprise and faced with
the acquisition and procurement rules and government, you see
that potentially they can increase the costs or extend the time
that we can build this network, and what I would suggest is
that we work together looking at those procedures and give us
the freedom to really execute this network more efficiently
than we otherwise could. So that is the point I made in my
testimony.
Mr. Walden. Do you have specific recommendations for us?
Because when we talked at the end of the year, I was under the
impression that you had some or were at least developing some,
because there was----
Mr. Ginn. Well, we have developed some. We have actually
submitted some recommendations to your staff and the staff at
the Senate, and what we would like to do is take the time to
sit down with you and discuss those. We are not trying to move
away from what is competitive and open, and all the
requirements that I know that you would insist on and I would
insist on, but all I am saying is, government rules in a
complex project like this are not necessarily geared to----
Mr. Walden. Well, that is why I was hoping in the context
of this hearing, we would get more of that out on the table.
My time is now expired so I will recognize the gentlelady
from California, Ms. Eshoo.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to each
of the witnesses. You have been absolutely terrific, and I
thank you for what you are doing. What I really have drawn out
of this and I appreciate is the wonderful spirit that is at the
table, and there are obviously some sticky wickets that we have
to work out. This is the first time in the history of our
Nation that we are taking this on, and each one of you
mentioned that in some way, shape or form, but the spirit in
which you have approached this, I really appreciate and I think
that that remains with us as we work our way through all of
this.
Let me start with Mr. Ginn. Thank you for being the first
heading up FirstNet. Congratulations to you. The chairman just
mentioned your meeting with him. We met in my Palo Alto office,
my district office, on the 21st of February, and you also met
with Mr. Waxman to go through the concerns that you have. I
think the sooner you get these issues to us, the specifics of
them, that we can start to work on them because the
subcommittee wants all of this to work just the way you do, and
you know that I was concerned that what you were sharing with
me would ensnare the work and really throw sand in the gears
relative to ensuring that we have a nationwide interoperable
public safety network. So the sooner you get this to us, I
think the better off we are going to be.
What I would like to ask is, what steps is FirstNet taking
to achieve economies of scale in device costs? I have been
concerned about that all along, and if you could just answer
that as quickly as possible because I have three other
questions I would like to ask.
Mr. Ginn. OK. Well, good. Well, one of the advantages of a
national architecture is, you take advantage of scale, and with
scale, you get reduced cost, and specifically with terminals, I
think what is going to come out of this program is a completely
engineered terminal for first responders, and it is going to be
multichannel, it is going to have special features built into
it. It will be positioned to service police and fire and
emergency medical. And when you order in volumes, you can drive
down the costs.
Ms. Eshoo. Now, have you considered integrating adjacent
spectrum bands used by commercial wireless providers into 4G
LTE-based public safety devices as a way to drive down cost?
Mr. Ginn. Absolutely.
Ms. Eshoo. Good, good. And given the sensitive nature of
data that will travel across the nationwide networks, what
steps is FirstNet considering to ensure that security is built
into the network from day one?
Mr. Ginn. It is a really important issue. Cybersecurity has
got to be a part of the system.
Ms. Eshoo. Good.
Mr. Ginn. We are going to rely on DHS and Department of
Defense, who have some real experts in this arena, to help us
put that plan in place.
Ms. Eshoo. Is it too early, or has the FirstNet board
received threat and vulnerability briefings from agencies such
as DHS or NSA?
Mr. Ginn. Well, what we----
Ms. Eshoo. It might be too early for that. I don't know.
Mr. Ginn. Let me tell you where we are.
Ms. Eshoo. Quickly, because I have 59 seconds left.
Mr. Ginn. From a nationwide point of view, from our point
of view, a number of things have to be in place:
interoperability, which means that these systems not only have
to communicate between local police and fire but they have to
be able to communicate across states, number one. You have to
have a nationwide security system. You have to have reliability
standards that are nationwide, and because we anticipate an
application engine for the entire network. That needs to be
engineered on a national basis. So we are in the process of
establishing these. When we establish them, we are open to
states to do whatever they want, and just let me say here----
Ms. Eshoo. Well, we are just about out of time. Maybe you
can respond in writing.
If I might, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate what was given
to us and the work that was done by the Potomac Institute for
Policy Studies, but as I opened it this morning, I looked at
page 8. I am struck by something, and again, I appreciate all
the work that has gone into this, and I will read the entirety
of the report. There were women involved in this, women Members
of Congress, to produce this legislation, namely Kay Bailey
Hutchinson in the Senate. She contributed mightily from the
very beginning on this issue. You are looking at someone that
worked very hard to keep this bipartisan and to produce a great
product. So, looking at this, it seems as if it is a very old
Congress that doesn't have any women and women involved in it,
and I don't think that is the message that you intended to send
out, but I was struck by it and I wanted to raise it, and it is
National Women's History Month too. So thank you for our
service to our country. We are in service to our country as
well.
Mr. Walden. May I take a point of personal privilege?
Ms. Eshoo. Certainly, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walden. You just referred to a very old Congress, and I
see my picture is one of those.
Ms. Eshoo. No, you deserve to be there. You are the
chairman of the committee.
Mr. Walden. But it is the old part I was----
Ms. Eshoo. No, no, no, no.
Mr. Walden. This is now an age discrimination issue I am
going to take up with you at a later date.
Ms. Eshoo. No, no, no. You know what I am referring to,
Congresses of yesteryear.
Mr. Walden. And you were terrifically involved in this
whole process, and you and I and our staffs spent many, many
hours involved, and we couldn't have done it without your
leadership and help.
We will now turn to the vice chairman of the subcommittee,
Mr. Latta.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for yielding,
and if I may say, sometimes it is not the age, it is sometimes
the mileage.
Mr. Walden. I take a personal----
Mr. Latta. I appreciate you for yielding.
Back when I was in the Ohio General Assembly in the 1990s,
Ohio was in the development of the state's land mobile radio
system, what we call the Multi-Agency Radio Communications
System, or MARCS for short. And you fast forward to today and
MARCS is currently providing a critical mission voice and data
for Ohio's public safety and first responders. The system is
currently going through a $90 million upgrade and is actively
pursuing local government and the adoption is steadily
increasingly. Now with the establishment of FirstNet last year,
the folks back in Ohio were concerned that the FirstNet board
has already designed a system without that state input, and if
I could, and following on with Chairman Walden talked about a
little bit earlier, Mr. Ginn, if I could ask this first
question to you. In your testimony, you are very encouraging to
the committee in that you appear to recognize the need for
state and local input into FirstNet's decisions. You have also
indicated your intention to maintain local control and
management of the network. And again, as stated by the
chairman, Ohio and other states have raised concerns about
their inclusion in the network design and the build process and
about the need for local control and about the financial
impact, and on page 4 of your testimony, you do state that it
must be affordable to the user and states' participation in
FirstNet.
I also hear you say that it is your intent to reach out to
the states, but given that this has not happened to a
significant degree some 6 months into the process, can you
assure us and the states when this is going to start happening,
that the states are going to be involved in these decisions
that are happening, and especially the governors because I know
in Ohio, they are very, very concerned about what is happening,
and so if I could just pose that first question to you as to
some kind of a timetable.
Mr. Ginn. Well, yes. I think first of all, there is a lot
of outreach already taking place. Many of us have attended many
forums, communicated about FirstNet and its goals and
objectives, and there is an enormous outreach effort in place
today. Now, I think you need to understand that what we
anticipate is a national architecture with local control and
operations, OK? And that is the way I think this network has to
operate, and if you take a look at Adams County, Colorado, I am
fascinated by what happened there in the BTOP arena. Here you
had local public safety, you had local political structure.
They got together. They dedicated buildings and dark fiber and
all kinds of capabilities to that system and built it at a
very, very inexpensive cost. So once we get the national
architecture in place, we are quite open to states and cities
constructing their own system so long as they follow the
national standards around interoperability, cybersecurity and
reliability.
Mr. Latta. And again, it is getting that information to the
states, because again, there is very much of a concern that
they are not involved in the process.
And if I can shift real quick to Mr. McIntosh, if I can ask
you this. On page 4 of your testimony, you cite concerns
regarding the costs associated with public safety broadband
network and that resonates with me because I have heard those
same concerns again from your counterpart in the state of Ohio,
and I can tell you, and I am not sure how it is in Virginia,
but I have a lot of volunteer departments out there, and I try
to hit as many of them and support the pancake breakfasts and
the fish fries and the chicken barbecues that they have just to
raise funds for those departments. And have you seen any
evidence of a business or cost recovery model evident yet in
FirstNet planning?
Mr. McIntosh. Not from FirstNet, no, sir. The only--we have
been approached by the private sector on some business and cost
recovery models, some of which are intriguing, but as far as
direct communications from FirstNet, no, we have not gotten
anything.
Mr. Latta. Mr. Lehr, may I ask you that same question?
Mr. Lehr. Congressman Latta, let me first of all let you
know in front of me I have an email from Darryl Anderson from
the state of Ohio. As soon as he heard that I was going to be
testifying today, boom, the email lit up and, make sure you
tell them that Ohio is in the same boat, we need to get some
more information. He was very complimentary of your support for
them with their Ohio MARCS system.
I can tell you that the public safety community, we are the
ultimate, I hate to use the term ``old boy network,'' after
especially the admiral got nailed for that, but when we are
building new 700 voice systems in the state of Maryland, so the
first thing I did was call up Ohio, and your CIO and Darryl got
on the phone with our CIO and myself and gave us the benefit of
lessons learned, what they did, so the public safety community
is used to having those kind of forums and exchanging
information. I don't think Verizon calls up AT&T when they are
going to deploy their 4G network and says, tell us how you did
it. So that is the kind of information we are hoping FirstNet
is going to tap into.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired and
I yield back.
Mr. Walden. The chairman recognizes the former chairman of
the committee, Mr. Dingell, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Dingell. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your courtesy.
I first want to welcome Ms. Diane Kniowski, who is General
Manager of several broadcast stations in western Michigan. I
want to thank her for the work she and her stations do to
provide viewers with excellent service and emergency
information.
Now, I want to also welcome Mr. Ginn and the rest of our
panel members. The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act
requires FirstNet to take all actions necessary to consult
with, amongst others, federal, state, tribal, local public
safety entities in building and operating FirstNet. Now, Mr.
Ginn, these questions will be yes or no. Now, will FirstNet
establish long-term relationships with state, regional, tribal
and local public safety entities to ensure their input receives
full consideration in FirstNet's proposed architecture as well
as in its ongoing operations? Yes or no.
Mr. Ginn. Yes.
Mr. Dingell. Mr. Ginn, again, is the preliminary technical
and engineering work initiated by FirstNet based on known
public safety requirements? Yes or no.
Mr. Ginn. Yes.
Mr. Dingell. Now, Mr. Ginn, does such work represent a
foundation upon which outcomes of your consultations with
regional, state, local, tribal and public safety entities will
be based? Yes or no.
Mr. Ginn. Yes.
Mr. Dingell. Now, Mr. Ginn, in other words, this
preliminary design work is just that and not final? Yes or no.
Mr. Ginn. It is not final.
Mr. Dingell. Thank you. Mr. Ginn, further, will the network
allow for local customization to meet unique local operational
requirements? Yes or no.
Mr. Ginn. Yes.
Mr. Dingell. And I want to apologize to you. I hate to do
this to witnesses but it helps us get a lot on the record.
Mr. Ginn, will FirstNet consult with a variety of equipment
manufacturers and vendors as it considers operations for
network architectures, technologies and deployment options? Yes
or no.
Mr. Ginn. Yes.
Mr. Dingell. Mr. Ginn, many states like my state of
Michigan find themselves presently in serious financial
straits. I think it is extremely important that FirstNet work
with the states to make the operation and the maintenance of
the public safety network affordable for all. Do you commit to
doing so in a meaningful fashion? Yes or no.
Mr. Ginn. Yes.
Mr. Dingell. Now, I would like to return to the issue of
FirstNet's architecture. I think it is very important that
FirstNet serve the reliability, security and functional needs
of public safety around the country. Recognizing there are no
absolute guarantees when it comes to network resiliency, I
would like to ask you the following questions. Again, Mr. Ginn,
in regions of this country that experience severe weather such
as hurricanes, will FirstNet be designed to ensure that towers
can withstand these forces? Yes or no.
Mr. Ginn. Yes.
Mr. Dingell. I assume you will also be doing that with
regard to backup power facilities. Is that correct?
Mr. Ginn. Yes.
Mr. Dingell. And also with regard to things like
earthquakes and other disasters. Am I correct?
Mr. Ginn. Would you repeat that, sir?
Mr. Dingell. And so you are going to see to it that it is
hardened against other natural disasters and also perhaps the
activities of terrorists and others. Is that right?
Mr. Ginn. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dingell. Now, Mr. Ginn, will it also be designed with
sufficient power-surge protection?
Mr. Ginn. Yes.
Mr. Dingell. Mr. Ginn, will the network be designed for
peak usage capacity?
Mr. Ginn. Yes.
Mr. Dingell. Now, Mr. Ginn, will the network be designed to
ensure that public safety has network priority at all times?
Yes or no.
Mr. Ginn. Yes.
Mr. Dingell. Mr. Ginn, will the network be designed to
ensure that critical mission services have enhanced security?
Yes or no.
Mr. Ginn. Yes.
Mr. Dingell. I want to thank you, Mr. Ginn. You have been
most gracious, and I want to encourage you to keep these
matters in mind as you implement the public safety portions of
the Act. Thank you for your courtesy.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your kindness to me. Have a
good day.
Mr. Walden. The gentleman yields back the balance of his
time. The Chair now recognizes the former chairman of the
Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton.
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to say on
the record that I want to commend you and Ms. Eshoo for holding
this hearing. This is an example of the committee at its
finest. FirstNet is really not operational. I think your first
board meeting was last month, and we are conducting an
oversight hearing in a bipartisan fashion to try to make sure
that things go as they should go, so this shows the country
that we can do things that are positive, and I want to commend
both of you.
I want to tell Mr. Ginn that it is not all peace and love.
I am quite frankly skeptical of this whole concept. I would not
have designed the legislation the way it was designed. I would
not have passed the bill that became law exactly as is, but it
is what it is, and we want you to be successful. But there are
a few of us, at least me, that have some grave doubts about
this, and again, knowing that you are just getting started, you
are going to get the benefit of the doubt, but some of the
questions that former Chairman Dingell just asked you, the only
question he didn't ask was, when FirstNet is fully operational,
will it have a direct line to heaven without a long-distance
call. If you do everything you say you are going to do, this is
going to be a phenomenal network, and I hope it is successful.
But we are going to keep a watchful eye as FirstNet develops. I
just want that to be on the record.
Now, my specific questions are Texas specific, which
normally I don't ask regional questions, but because FirstNet
is in its infancy and Texas is something of an exception in
that it had a BTOP grant in the Harris County-Houston, Texas,
area, I am going to ask you some fairly specific questions, and
if you need to have staff take a look at them, I totally
understand.
The first question deals with the BTOP project that was
already underway in Texas. Texas has gotten an FCC waiver to
continue that, but in the site visit that your agency made to
Texas, they were told that if Texas wants to participate in
FirstNet, they have to give the current assets they have
already put in place to FirstNet. The question is, wouldn't the
effect of this transfer of assets eliminate the state's
statutory authority to opt out of the FirstNet deployment since
it would otherwise be left with no beneficial access to those
assets?
Mr. Ginn. Well, first of all, Texas was funded through a
different program than the BTOP program, and just let me say
that we have included it because we would like to implement a
showcase project. We would actually like to use these BTOP
locations including the Houston area as showcases. Let us build
them, let us take a look at them, let us let public safety take
a look at them, let us upgrade our designs as a result of them,
and then continue to implement across the country.
I don't know what happens with the investment. Let me just
say this. I am really--the issue of opt-out and opt-in, I
think, is not so important. What is important is getting a
national architecture in place so that you have
interoperability, that you have cybersecurity, that you have
network standards, and then who builds it and who owns is less
important to me so long as we have those principles in place.
So that is where I come out. I don't know who took that
position but I will try to understand it and----
Mr. Barton. I like your answer. I think that is a fair
answer.
In my last 14 seconds, I have one more Texas-specific
question. In the first FirstNet board meeting, which was
recently held, the board approved Resolution 18, which directs
the board to negotiate spectrum lease agreements with BTOP
public safety grant recipients within 90 days. Texas was not
included within that resolution, and there are concerns with
the special temporary authority process because it is
temporary, causing jurisdictions concern about investing money
into the network and planning in Texas. Is there planning
within NTIA and FirstNet to ensure that Texas is allowed to
negotiate a long-term spectrum lease agreement, and if so, when
might that be expected?
Mr. Ginn. Well, hopefully within the next 90 days.
Mr. Barton. Well, that is a good answer. But do you
understand the intent? Texas doesn't want to negotiate a short-
term deal and then not be able to do a long-term deal. What I
am hearing you say is that in your position, you are open to
that.
Mr. Ginn. Well, yes, I am open to who builds the network in
Texas so long as you meet the national standards that we put in
place.
Mr. Barton. It sounds good to me. I have several other
questions but I will submit them for the record. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Walden. Thank you. I will now turn to the gentlelady
from California, Ms. Matsui, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
being here.
Mr. Ginn, I have a few questions here, following along with
the question about states. There have been a lot of questions
regarding outreach and some aspects of this, and just generally
speaking, would you commit to getting these critical questions
that have been occurring answered to the states' satisfaction
before they have to make a decision about whether to opt out of
the FirstNet network?
Mr. Ginn. Well, I think one of the first principles, if you
don't satisfy your customers, you don't succeed. So the idea
that we are somehow not interested in custom requirements is
just not true. We are going to spend a lot of time trying to
understand them and incorporate them into our engineering.
Ms. Matsui. That is a good answer. So you are going to be
continuing to reach out to the states to ensure that their
concerns are addressed, because there are some states obviously
hesitant to sign on as a partner, which I believe will not
really benefit the goal here, but if it seems like--I don't
know what this is--if not enough states could ultimately opt
out, do you have a backup plan for this?
Mr. Ginn. Well, as I said before, to me, the opt-in, opt-
out issue is not so important as us putting in place national
standards that everybody agrees to so that we have
interoperability, so that we have cybersecurity, that we have
network standards. Who builds the network and operates the
network beyond that, I think, is open and negotiable.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Following along with that then, in his
testimony, Mr. Barnett outlines a network-of-networks approach
in which FirstNet's network will be based on a shared
architecture approach with each smaller network presumably
controlled at the state or local level, and Mr. Barnett argues
that such an approach would present many more options to get
private equity and public infrastructure involved. What do you
think about his recommendation?
Mr. Ginn. Well, the problem I have with it is I think you
take risks around the issue of interoperability. If you have 15
people engineering a network, how you come out of that with
national interoperability, I think, is a risk, the same with
cybersecurity and the same with the standards of maintenance
and reliability.
Ms. Matsui. OK. I just right now would just like to make a
statement for the record. I know it was brought up today about
an individual that is on the FirstNet board who apparently
there is some concern about whether this individual has
knowledge to fulfill that position. I must say that this
individual has been a CIO of two large states, Michigan and
California, and I would just like to state for the record that
she definitely understands the state focus, and, I just need to
say for the record. I think it is important because this board
is really just starting to form to a great degree and I think
it is really very important that you get the best people there
who understand what is going on at the state level. So I just
want to make that comment. I appreciate very much, and if you
want to make a comment, Mr. Ginn.
Mr. Ginn. I would just say that she is an outstanding
talent and I am so pleased with having her on board.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Walden. The gentlelady yields back the balance of her
time. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr.
Terry.
Mr. Terry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ginn, we will just stay with you. First of all, I am
going to associate myself slightly with Mr. Barton's remarks.
This seems to be such a monumental task, a huge beast that I am
just wondering what its ultimate costs and bureaucracy will end
up being. That is just a comment, not a question.
I am curious. This is a question. The way it has been
presented or I am envisioning what you are saying is, is it
accurate to say this is a public safety intranet system
nationwide?
Mr. Ginn. Yes. I have been trying to think of a way to
explain it simply, but let us just think of your electrical
grid. We are going to put a wireless grid in place, and
conceptually in any state or city, you can plug in the
applications that make sense for running your operations. So
with the app engine that we are going to put in, it is really
going to revolutionize public safety. Let me put it to you this
way. When you got your first cell phone, could you have
predicted the number of apps that are available to you today?
Mr. Terry. No, I couldn't, but I guess what I am saying is,
there are not going to be other users accessing these
transmission wires. I mean, there are not going to be other
state activities or university activities or medical hospital
to medical hospital activities? This is all going to be just
traffic from public safety?
Mr. Ginn. That is my understanding of the legislation,
although hospitals may be included. I am not sure.
Mr. Terry. All right. That is my understanding too. I just
wanted to make sure, so I would call that an intranet when it
is just, other users not allowed to be involved in that.
Now, in your testimony you said that FirstNet must be
larger, more resilient and more secure than commercial
networks. I assume that is why it is more of an intranet than
an internet, but you also stated it is going to be cheaper for
users than any alternatives but we don't know what the costs
there are, so I would want to know how it is going to be
cheaper, but can you explain how a better network is going to
be cheaper when by definition you have fewer users on that
network?
Mr. Ginn. Yes. I think the assumptions we are making here
with scalability, with terminals, for instance, instead of
ordering several thousand, we are ordering 4 to 5 million, we
drive down dramatically the cost of the terminal. The same with
radio access networks. If you order in volume, you get lower
pricing.
Mr. Terry. So you are going to be the central supplier of
the equipment to each one of the public safety entities, so
Omaha Fire Department comes to you for their handhelds?
Mr. Ginn. Well, if they do, they will be able to get it, in
my opinion, a lot cheaper.
Mr. Terry. What do they do with their old equipment?
Mr. Ginn. With their older?
Mr. Terry. Their current handheld devices, radio services
that they already have, do they scrap what they have?
Mr. Ginn. Well, I think for mission-critical services, they
will be used for a number of years, but for basic cellular
traffic, that will be converted to the network almost
immediately.
Mr. Terry. OK. That is a question that several of our
public safety and our state OI has asked me, are they going to
be able to use the same equipment, are they going to have to
swap it out or buy from you. There is a lot of unanswered
questions here, and I understand it is very embryonic stage.
Mr. Ginn. Yes. All of the above, by the way.
Mr. Terry. All of the above?
Mr. Ginn. And I think each state is going to have to make
its own decisions about the rate of adoption and just what they
implement in their state.
Mr. Terry. All right. Last question. Does the FirstNet plan
on charging municipality users to use the network?
Mr. Ginn. The rate structures really haven't been
developed, and I just would prefer not to comment until we have
a sense of what our total costs are going to be and how we
recover them.
Mr. Terry. All right. Perfect. Yield my second.
Mr. Walden. The gentleman yields back the balance of his
time. The Chair now recognizes the new ranking member for the
hour, Mr. Welch.
Mr. Welch. Thank you very much.
How does FirstNet plan to ensure that rural areas get
access to the public safety broadband network? I know you
probably have been talking a little bit about that but, we have
got problems with the build-out in rural areas that are
different, as you know, than urban areas.
Mr. Ginn. I think the answer is that in some cases----
Mr. Welch. Can I interrupt? I think I jumped ahead of the
line. All right. We are on the verge of doing something that
Congress doesn't like to do, jump over seniority. Very
dangerous when you are the jumper, so thank you, Mr. Pallone.
Go ahead.
Mr. Ginn. I think in some cases, we might negotiate with
one of the existing carriers who now serves the rural areas to
cover it.
Mr. Welch. So you would partner with local carriers in
rural areas?
Mr. Ginn. Absolutely, and we would partner with rural local
telephone companies or we might even cover those rural areas
with satellite.
Mr. Welch. So is the partnering going to save you some
money and also----
Mr. Ginn. You would hope so. I mean, we have talked about,
it has been mentioned in this forum about the value of the
spectrum, and so we would use that to the maximum advantage to
get perhaps a carrier to serve a rural area in exchange for
some other use of the spectrum in another city.
Mr. Welch. All right. Let me just ask you one other thing.
It is terrific of the Chair to have this hearing because it is
tough to get a hearing before this committee and subcommittee,
so all of us are eager to get the 1-2-3 problems that you see
as the biggest impediments to being successful in the effort,
so what would you describe those to be?
Mr. Ginn. What would----
Mr. Welch. You have got challenges. You have got
impediments. You have got regulations.
Mr. Ginn. Yes, we do.
Mr. Welch. You have got hassles, and you are being polite
here, OK? So just tell us what is going on, the biggest
problems and impediments this committee needs to be aware of.
Mr. Ginn. As I tried to say in my opening remarks, this is
an enormous technical challenge.
Mr. Welch. Well, we know that.
Mr. Ginn. And basically trying to pull all the technical
issues together along with a new----
Mr. Welch. I am not asking you that. That is the challenge.
I am asking you what are the things that we are doing or
policy-wise that are getting in the way of you being able to
succeed in taking on that challenge?
Mr. Ginn. Well, the chairman and I have had these
discussions.
Mr. Welch. Yes, but we haven't.
Mr. Ginn. And if you look at government acquisition rules
and procurement rules, in my opinion, they were designed for a
specific purpose.
Mr. Welch. So if you would change them, you would do what?
Mr. Ginn. Well, I would greatly simplify them.
Mr. Welch. Give me an example.
Mr. Ginn. Well----
Mr. Welch. Look. Let me----
Mr. Ginn [continuing]. Right now----
Mr. Welch. We have to get real here. I mean, this is a big
problem for the country. You are the guy who knows what the
problems are. I am asking you what they are. Tell me what they
are.
Mr. Ginn. Well, I am told by government attorneys that if
you want to negotiate a contract, you have to assume it is 18
months. Now, that is going to--in the commercial world, that is
way beyond what it would ever take.
Mr. Welch. So in order to----
Mr. Ginn. Number one.
Mr. Welch. Go ahead.
Mr. Ginn. And number two, in an iterative process, if you
are looking-if you are negotiating with one carrier and you get
an offer from a second carrier, you can't go back and change
the document that allows you to negotiate with carrier A, so
you----
Mr. Welch. So that is a practical challenge.
Mr. Ginn. It is a practical challenge.
Mr. Welch. Right.
Mr. Ginn. And so it is going to add months and perhaps
years to the implementation process.
Mr. Welch. That is helpful to know. That is very helpful to
know.
Mr. Ginn. But I am very sensitive because I understand the
need to be open and transparent and competitive, and I want to
do that.
Mr. Welch. So essentially, the big problem you have
identified so far is the contracting process that takes too
long and prohibits easy counteroffers.
Mr. Ginn. Yes. It reduces our flexibility.
Mr. Welch. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Walden. The gentleman yields back the balance of his
time. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana,
Mr. Scalise, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Scalise. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for having the
hearing and again for your leadership in getting this done in
the first place, something that hadn't been done for years and
years in Congress finally actually getting written into law.
The tough part of getting the program put in place, getting the
spectrum, getting the funding has been done but now your task
is to do the tough part of actually building out the network,
and so when you look at just how big of an undertaking this is
going to be, I want to ask you, Mr. Ginn, how do you all go
forward to make sure that you are able to ensure the solvency
of this, to oversee that you don't have cost overruns that
drive it up to a point where it ultimately is not able to be
built out the way that Congress intended, since you are still
in some of those early stages? We have seen, unfortunately, bad
track records of big government projects yet there is the
ability to get things like this done if it is laid out right in
the front end. So how are you all approaching that to make sure
those kind of problems don't happen?
Mr. Ginn. I think in a very traditional way. You start out
with a set of milestones, benchmarks, and then you measure
yourself in performance and cost-wise in achieving those
benchmarks, and if you get off scale, you deal with it, and so
that is the way we are going to run FirstNet. We are going to
run it like a business enterprise, and if people don't perform
or people miss their budgets, we will deal with it. So I have
done this before. It is not my first rodeo. So I think we are
capable of managing the budgets that we put forward to the
organization.
Mr. Scalise. It is good to hear, and obviously we are going
to be watching and working with you along the way to make sure
that it happens that way because it is important to all of us
like it is to you that it gets done correctly but it also gets
done in a fiscally responsible way, the way it was intended.
I want to talk to you about the timetables for moving
forward with deployment. I know we have heard a lot about those
BTOP grants that some states got through stimulus states like
mine, Louisiana, that didn't get it yet have been moving
forward on their own with building out an interoperable network
because we can't wait. Unfortunately, we get a lot more than
our fair share of hurricanes and other natural disasters and so
our state has been moving forward building out its
interoperable network. What would be a timetable that we could
expect so that we are not hindered? We can't afford to wait
maybe 5, 6 years from now and in the meantime there are going
to be other things that we may have to deal with.
Mr. Ginn. I wish I could be more specific, but I think our
focus now is BTOP, get these agreed to and constructed and run
the assessments on their performance and basically after that
see where we are, and I am sorry I can't at this point go any
further than that.
Mr. Scalise. Because I know FCC granted something like 21
waivers to different states to at least have some waiver
ability. Our state and others put in waiver requests that were
rejected, and again, we still have the same needs with our
first responders and we have been putting up our own money.
Mr. Ginn. Our objective is to get this done as quickly as
we possibly can, and so that is the only promise I can make to
you is we want to get this system implemented as soon as we
can.
Mr. Scalise. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Barnett, if I can ask you, in your Potomac Institute
paper you talked about the opt-out process, and you said, I
think your quote was, the opt-out process for states is akin to
asking someone ``to obtain the broom from the Wicked Witch of
the West, nearly impossible and fraught with risk.'' Can you
explain that, kind of expand on what you mean by that?
Admiral Barnett. Yes, sir. The statute does in fact provide
an opt-out process for states but the time frames that are
allowed the governor, after FirstNet determines that the cost
and what would be done for the state, it is presented to the
governor. The governor has 90 days to inform them whether they
are going to opt out or not. They have 180 days to not only
start but complete an RFP. So at the most, the amount of time
would be 270 days, which is very difficult for a state to do,
particularly for those states that may be on a biannual
legislation process. There would have to be a whole lot of
planning to happen before that, if they even have a chance, and
even then, they have to get, in essence, approval from the FCC
and from the NTIA, so it is a two-step process. So it is a
pretty difficult process. All that can be obviated by bringing
the states inside the tent rather than kind of outside and
making sure that they understand what the needs are so that the
states don't even to consider opting out.
Mr. Scalise. All right. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. Walden. The gentleman yields back the balance of his
time. The Chair now recognizes, as he should have earlier, the
gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to ask Mr. Ginn a question in regard to Hurricane
Sandy and the lessons from that. My district and many other
areas of my state were devastated by Superstorm Sandy last
fall, and given the coastal location of our state and the
associated emergency weather events, I was just going to ask
what particular lessons do you think FirstNet could learn from
New Jersey's BTOP grant, assuming it is allowed to proceed in
the near future? In other words, what could be done better for
the public to disseminate information or for first responders
to communicate with each other, whatever, if you would try to
respond to that.
Mr. Ginn. Well, in engineering circles, it is not a secret.
Typically what happens is, you lose power or towers become
disabled, and so clearly in those prone areas of hurricanes,
natural disasters, we are going to have to step up and
strengthen the standards in those locations particularly, and
we will do that. There is some--it is being debated at the
moment but basically putting 150-mile-an-hour standard on new
towers, and that would get the vast majority of hurricanes that
are likely to hit New Jersey.
Mr. Pallone. Well, I have to say just for my own experience
as I was going around in the aftermath, in the immediate
aftermath, that many times it was the same locations. In other
words, we have had--I mean, this was certainly the worst I have
ever seen but you had Irene, you had nor-easters, and many
times it was the same location. Go ahead. I am sorry.
Mr. Ginn. The other thing that happens, you lose backhaul,
particularly if it is aerial, and so, we are going to look at
all those standards in those critical locations.
Mr. Pallone. I appreciate that because it gets frustrating
after a time whether it is communications or it is power or
whatever, you have so many people, and of course, now many of
them are interested in buyouts have just had the same
experience over and over again, and of course they come back to
us and say well, you already knew that this was the problem
area where we were going to have this problem, what are you
doing about it. So I just want to stress that what you are
doing is really important in terms of communications. That is
really the key when these disasters strike and people expect us
to do something about it and particularly now since they have
had the experience a few times.
Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Walden. The gentleman yields back the balance of his
time. The Chair would ask unanimous consent to insert in the
record a letter from Textron Systems Corporation detailing
issues including their information that is available at
www.connectingfirstresponders.com. Without objection, so
ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Walden. And now the Chair will recognize the gentleman
from Missouri, Mr. Long.
Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am glad that it is
Ginn because if the guy across from me hollers ``gin'' that is
usually not a good thing.
Have you taken into consideration EMPs, electromagnetic
pulse attacks on this new system that according to Congressman
Dingell is going to be a vanguard against everything but I
think that there is a very real possibility in the world we
work in today that if a terrorist launched a missile off of the
U.S. coast from a freighter that could release an EMP, that the
damage would be immense. Are there any safeguards being built
into the system?
Mr. Ginn. Well, the technical group has taken a look at
these issues, and I don't know. I am totally unfamiliar with
how it might impact our system, but it is theoretically
possible, but I don't at this point understand how we would
deal with it, to be honest with you.
Mr. Long. OK. Well, I would definitely recommend it because
that is not only theoretically possible, I think that it is
probable and one of the easier attacks for people to carry out
against our country, so I would definitely think that the board
members would definitely want to take that under advisement,
and taking into consideration all of Congressman Dingell's
questions, as Mr. Barton said was going to be built for
everything, do you think that $7 billion is going to get this
job done?
Mr. Ginn. I don't know. I will have a conversation with
that when we get more equipment pricing, we know what these
systems are going to cost, the radio access is going to cost,
what the terminals are going to cost, and the benefits of
arbitrage deals that we may make with carriers. When I can pull
all that information together, I think I can give you a
reasonable estimate.
Mr. Long. With taking into consideration the EF-5 tornado
that we had in my district that was half-mile, three-quarter-
mile wide, 6 miles on the ground that went through a town of
50,000 people, Joplin, Missouri, and the devastation,
Congressman Dingell was asking you about generators and
protecting them against natural disasters, and when a seven-
story hospital is completely destroyed to the point that it was
moved and had to be torn down, their backup generators, they
were in the back of the building, ended up in the front parking
lot of the building. So I don't know, but normally when the
government thinks something will cost $7 billion, it usually
costs about three times and takes about three times as long to
do as what they think, but in rural areas with buildings,
maintaining telecommunications networks is quite extensive.
Does FirstNet plan to partner with existing rural
telecommunication providers to build out and maintain the
public safety broadband network?
Mr. Ginn. Say that again. I am sorry.
Mr. Long. Do you plan to partner with existing rural
telecommunications providers to build out the system?
Mr. Ginn. Absolutely.
Mr. Long. You do?
Mr. Ginn. Where it makes sense, we will.
Mr. Long. Good.
Mr. Ginn. We view it as a really good option if we can do
that.
Mr. Long. One of the most common criticisms of the
broadband stimulus is that grants were awarded before work was
completed to determine the investment was needed and now we
hear testimony that FirstNet will produce its network build
plan before it has finished asking states where they need
additional assets. Shouldn't FirstNet conduct its consultation
with the state before it decides where and how to build?
Mr. Ginn. Well, see, I don't quite understand that. We have
been directed to build an LTE network. We know what we are
going to build, so the question is, how do we go about doing
that and what kind of features and functions do we put in
place.
Mr. Long. But you can't do that before you talk to the
states, can you, and find out what their needs are?
Mr. Ginn. Well, the other assumption that you make is not
true from my point of view is, we develop concepts, network
concepts. We have not completed a final design, and we are not
likely to ever complete a final design because as you learn,
you update your architecture, and that will happen over time.
Mr. Long. Let me move on real quick in my last few seconds
here. What interaction has the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration, NTIA, or the FCC had with other
agencies that are not on the FirstNet board but have valuable
expertise and critical infrastructure and telecommunications,
and is everyone talking together? So again, what interaction
have they had with other agencies that are not on the board?
Mr. Ginn. I met with the chairman of the FCC yesterday, and
NTIA has been wonderfully supportive of our efforts, given the
fact that we were just getting started, no employees, no space,
no anything, and they have been very helpful.
Mr. Long. OK. Thank you, and I thank all our panelists for
being here today, and I yield back.
Mr. Walden. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
North Carolina, Mrs. Ellmers, for 5 minutes for questions.
Mrs. Ellmers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ginn, I do want to kind of follow up on my colleague
from Missouri on the question of partnering with other
networks. Is this network going to be exclusively used by
emergency personnel for emergency purposes or will you be
allowing non-emergency uses currently offered by commercial
providers to emergency and non-emergency personnel?
Mr. Ginn. We will be providing, and I think the legislation
supports communications for first responders for public safety,
both mission critical and non-mission critical.
Mrs. Ellmers. So it will be exclusively emergency usage?
Mr. Ginn. Public safety.
Mrs. Ellmers. Public safety emergency. OK. Great. Thank
you. And again, thank you to all the panelists that are here.
Mr. Ganley, your business model seems to be predicated on
finding sufficient private equity interest to build out a
network based on your technology. Have you secured this
financial backing for such a project, and if not, why do you
think that is?
Mr. Ganley. First of all, actually the bulk, in many cases
all of the funding would be debt, not equity. The reason that
it can be structured as debt rather than equity is cheaper
money because of the value of the spectrum. Now, sort of coming
back to one of the questions you asked earlier, the legislation
as created does allow for partnering, commercial partnering and
for commercial use of the spectrum when public safety isn't
using it, and as it happens, when you build these networks and
they are large networks, public safety will not use or need all
of the capacity on all of the cell towers all of the time. In
fact, that will rarely, if ever, happen where they will need
all of the capacity on all of the cell towers for a big period
of time. So dynamically, you can create an arbitrage process
where carriers and utilities and perhaps new businesses that we
can't even think of right now but new entrants will come in and
say we will pay, we will bid dynamically in real time for
access to that bandwidth and we will do it on a free-market,
competitive basis and compete with each other and we will name
the prices that we will pay at any given moment to dynamically
access that bandwidth. That creates a revenue flow, so they
could be carriers, they could be, as I say, new entrants. That
creates a source of revenue from this very valuable spectrum
that can be used to pay for the accomplishment of the mission
at the local, state and nationwide basis.
So I expect that with this model, debt financed in most
cases for rollouts in different parts of the country that it
will provide not just the ability to pay for the build-out of
the network in full and to pay for operations and maintenance
and refreshing of handsets and equipment but in addition it
will provide a surplus from several of the parts of the country
that can go into a FirstNet pool. This is not my place to
determine but I am just speculating here but it could go into a
FirstNet pool that can pay for all of the additional
applications, services and many of the demands that public
safety are going to look to FirstNet to be able to achieve.
So the short answer to your question is debt can pay for
these networks because this spectrum is prime real estate. In
the context of New York City, it is like a block of land on
55th and 5th. So let us say public safety needs four stories of
the building every day. So we are saying build an 80-story
building, public safety can have their first four stories, and
if they need 80 stories on any given moment, they can have all
of them immediately. When they are not using it, they can use
all of that space to sublet to whoever wants to pay the most
for it, kind of like those offices where you can rent an office
for a day or a few hours, people can come in, whoever wants to
bid the most gets the space. That income then is used to offset
and pay down the debt so you service your debt first, you pay
your fees, etc., your refreshing fees for the equipment and
then you can then fund your nationwide mission also from that
pool of capital. And the answer to your question, are the
markets prepared to fund that model? The answer to that is, we
believe so. We have been working with Wall Street, one of the
top three banks on Wall Street has partnered with us on this,
and they believe that the demand is likely to be there to
ensure that the debt markets will very competitively fund the
rollout of these types of networks, these LTE networks.
Mrs. Ellmers. Thank you.
And Mr. Chairman, if you could indulge me for just a
moment, I was just going to see if Mr. Ginn had maybe a follow-
up to the answer that Mr. Ganley gave.
Mr. Walden. I think we can do that. Without objection.
Mr. Ginn. Yes. What I would say is, this is one method but
this spectrum is going to be arbitraged one way or the other,
and the question is, do you follow that process or do you
follow another process that we negotiate with the carriers for
the arbitrage or the use of the secondary spectrum.
Mrs. Ellmers. Great. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. So
this is one method, not necessarily the one that will be----
Mr. Ginn. Well, there are a number of ways to do this. That
is one way.
Mrs. Ellmers. OK. Thank you so much, and thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for allowing me to ask that follow-up.
Mr. Walden. Absolutely. We are here to get answers. We now
recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Lance, for 5
minutes, and if you don't have any questions on this panel, I
believe we have exhausted our members and probably the panel,
so we appreciate your participation. We look forward to
continuing this dialog. As you know, I believe in doing the
oversight, and just because we pass a law doesn't mean we are
done with that law, and your counsel has given us more issues
to deal with. So thank you very much for your good work for the
country, and we will work together to build out this
interoperable public safety broadband network for our first
responders and for the safety of our citizens. Thank you, you
are dismissed.
We will welcome our second panel of witnesses. As our
panelists make their way to the witness table, I am going to
turn over the chairmanship to the gentleman from New Jersey,
Mr. Lance, who obviously represents a state that was very
adversely affected by Hurricane Sandy, and I thought it
appropriate for him to chair this segment of our hearing so we
can all learn more about emergency response.
Mr. Lance. [Presiding] Good afternoon, and we certainly
welcome the panel. We have four witnesses, and we will ask our
first witness, Mr. Turetsky, the Chief of the Public Safety and
Homeland Security Bureau of the Federal Communications
Commission for an opening statement, and we welcome you, Mr.
Turetsky, and you have 5 minutes for an opening statement.
Thank you.
STATEMENTS OF DAVID TURETSKY, CHIEF, PUBLIC SAFETY AND HOMELAND
SECURITY BUREAU, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; DIANE
KNIOWSKI, PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, WOOD/WOTV/WXSP, LIN
MEDIA; CHRISTOPHER GUTTMAN-MCCABE, VICE PRESIDENT, REGULATORY
AFFAIRS, CTIA-THE WIRELESS ASSOCIATION; AND TREY FORGETY,
DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, NATIONAL EMERGENCY NUMBER
ASSOCIATION
STATEMENT OF DAVID TURETSKY
Mr. Turetsky. Thank you, Congressman, and I should say from
the outset that I grew up in New Jersey and went to high school
there, so----
Mr. Lance. Where did you grow up in New Jersey?
Mr. Turetsky. I grew up in Paramus, New Jersey.
Mr. Lance. Bergen County. Lots of good shopping in Paramus.
Mr. Turetsky. There is.
Mr. Lance. Thank you very much.
Mr. Turetsky. Except on Sundays.
Mr. Lance. Blue laws still exist in Bergen County, yes.
Mr. Turetsky. Thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you. Today I will address first the FCC's efforts to
strengthen the resiliency of our Nation's critical
communications including emergency 9-1-1; second, modernizing
our 9-1-1 system through next-generation technology; third,
enhancing our emergency alert and warning systems; and fourth,
securing our cyber environment.
First, a critical test of the reliability of our
communications networks was the fast-moving and unexpected
derecho storm in June that severely disrupted service provider
networks that serve 9-1-1 facilities. Seventeen 9-1-1 call
centers, also called PSAPs, lost service completely, affecting
the ability of over 2 million people to reach 9-1-1. Seventy-
seven PSAPs serving more than 3.6 million people lost some
degree of connectivity including vital 9-1-1 location
information. The FCC's Public Safety and Homeland Security
Bureau conducted an extensive inquiry into the causes and
released a report finding that 9-1-1 communications were
disrupted largely due to planning and system failures that
could have been avoided if providers had followed industry best
practices and guidance. Next week, the Commission will consider
launching a proceeding seeking public input on recommendations
from the report including ensuring that service providers
conduct periodic audits of 9-1-1 circuits and maintain adequate
backup power at central offices.
Yet another challenge to our communications networks came
in October, of course, with Superstorm Sandy. For example,
about 25 percent of mobile antenna sites in the affected region
went out of service with higher service losses in New Jersey
and parts of New York. The 9-1-1 networks, however, fared much
better than in the derecho. In Sandy's wake, the Commission
began field hearings exploring communications resiliency and
related topics. The first was held in early February in New
York City and in Hoboken, New Jersey, and the second was held 2
weeks ago in California. The FCC will use the information
gathered to consider options to ensure greater network
robustness.
Second, we are moving forward with Next Generation, or NG,
9-1-1 technology, as it is called, which will improve the
reliability and performance of 9-1-1 in future disasters.
Specifically, NG 9-1-1 will facilitate interoperability and
improve connections and information for and between 9-1-1 call
centers. It will not only support traditional 9-1-1 calls but
also the transmission of text, photos, videos and data so that
emergency responders can respond more effectively.
As we consider the path to NG 9-1-1, the Commission has
been working with stakeholders to achieve the near-term step of
enabling text messaging to 9-1-1, which might sometimes be the
only way for a person to get help. The Commission initiated a
rulemaking in December that builds on a voluntary agreement by
AT&T, Verizon, Sprint Nextel and T-Mobile along with APCO and
NENA under which each carrier would provide text to 9-1-1
service by May of next year to requesting PSAPs.
Also last month, pursuant to the NG 9-1-1 Advancement Act,
the Commission submitted to Congress a report with
recommendations on how to address legal and regulatory barriers
to the transition. The lead recommendation is for Congress to
create incentives for states to become early adopters of NG 9-
1-1.
Third, we are working with FEMA and others to make people
safer by ensuring that the public can receive emergency alerts
and warnings over multiple communications technologies.
Wireless emergency alerts, or WEA, addressed by the WARN Act is
an example. The public receives geographically targeted alerts
over mobile devices about imminent threats to life and
property. We are working with stakeholders on a voluntary basis
to continue to improve the program. The Emergency Alert System,
or EAS, also continues to be a critical part of our Nation's
primary alerting system, and along with our federal partners,
we are working to modernize and diversify it.
Finally, we are committed to promoting the cybersecurity of
our critical communications infrastructure. We work with
stakeholders in a public-private partnership to develop
voluntary measures and best practices. We have also developed
tools to promote mobile cybersecurity like our smartphone
security checker, which helps consumers protect their mobile
devices, and our Small Biz Cyber Planning for small businesses.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I am
pleased to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Turetsky follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.058
Mr. Lance. Thank you very much, and I am very impressed you
came within 2 seconds of your time. You had 2 seconds to go, so
that is a very good job and I am very impressed.
Our next witness is Diane Kniowski, President and General
Manager of WOOD, WOTV, WXSP, Lin Media, and we welcome you to
Washington.
STATEMENT OF DIANE KNIOWSKI
Ms. Kniowski. Good morning, Congressman Lance and
Congressman Welch. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with
you today about the valuable, often lifesaving services that
local radio and television broadcasters provide during
disasters and other weather emergencies.
At our core, broadcasters are first and foremost and for
decades have been the most important source of vital emergency
information for all Americans. When a tornado rips through
Missouri or an earthquake shakes California, listeners and
viewers turn to their local broadcasters for news and
information. When the power goes out, when phone service and
the Internet may go down, broadcasters are there and on the
air.
I have seen it personally in Michigan. In February 2011, a
major blizzard dropped 25 inches of snow in a 24-hour period.
We knew it was coming, so we went into action. Three days prior
to the storm, we began alerting the public on what areas would
be hit and what essentials would be needed in the home. We sent
teams into the field keeping abreast of what was happening. We
stayed on the air for 3 to 4 days until the roads were cleared
and we knew there was no loss of life. I still remember the
many letters we received from viewers thanking us. And stations
around the country do the same thing.
For example, during Hurricane Sandy, WABC-TV in New York
prepared in advance for the storm. They shored up their
infrastructure, inspecting and securing rooftop and tower
antennas and testing backup transmission paths. On the radio
side, the engineering team at Clear Channel's radio stations
moved backup generators and reserve transmitters into the area.
They implemented longstanding fuel contracts and gathered
satellite phones and mobile housing for staff. As the storm
knocked out other means of communications in many parts of the
tri-state area for nearly a week, broadcasters were ready for
the storm's fallout.
For decades, radio and television broadcasters have been
the backbone of the Nation's Emergency Alert System, known as
EAS. EAS is a national public warning network that connects
public safety authorities to the public through over-the-air
radio and television stations and cable systems with a simple
push of a button. In addition to alerting the public of local
weather emergencies such as tornadoes and flash foods, EAS is
designed to allow the President to speak to the United states
within 10 minutes. The EAS system works through a chain
reaction of alerting that begins at the broadcast radio level.
For example, WTOP here in D.C. is a primary station that other
broadcast stations and cable systems monitor for local alerts.
All EAS participants are required to maintain FCC-certified EAS
equipment that continuously monitors the signals of at least
nearby sources for EAS messages. Broadcasters work in
partnership with state, county, and local emergency managers
and public safety officials on how best to deploy EAS in each
state. Although EAS can be triggered by the President and state
or local authorities under certain conditions, the majority of
the alerts are originated by local emergency managers and the
National Weather Service. The EAS is also used for Amber
Alerts. This was created by broadcasters and local law
enforcement in Texas in 1996. To date, over 600 abducted
children have been successfully recovered, and at my station,
we routinely put these alerts out with much success, and it is
one of the most gratifying parts of my job as a broadcaster.
Clearly, EAS participation is an important component of our
public service, and broadcasters are proud of our pivotal role.
Although participation in EAS on the local level is technically
voluntary, virtually every radio and television station in the
country participates, and we do so enthusiastically. All EAS
equipment is purchased by broadcasters at their own expense and
all stations must test their EAS systems on a weekly and
monthly basis. At my station, we also conduct surprise
emergency rehearsals four times a year because rehearsals help
identify problems and issues.
In November 2011, FEMA and the FCC conducted the first-ever
nationwide test. The purpose of the test was diagnostic and
included participation from every radio and television station
in the United states. The test was successful and served its
purpose of finding where any technical problems may exist. The
issues that were discovered are being addressed, which is
precisely why we fully support testing the EAS on a regular
basis.
I am grateful for this opportunity to share my views on
broadcast emergency communication. I look forward to working
with you toward our shared goal of keeping the American people
safe through timely alerts and warnings. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kniowski follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.073
Mr. Lance. Thank you very much, and thank you for our
public service regarding emergencies that occur across the
country.
Ms. Kniowski. My pleasure.
Mr. Lance. Our next witness is Christopher Guttman-McCabe,
who is the Vice President for Regulatory Affairs at CTIA-The
Wireless Association. Good afternoon.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER GUTTMAN-MCCABE
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Good afternoon, and thank you,
Congressman and members of the subcommittee.
On behalf of CTIA--The Wireless Association, thank you for
the opportunity to speak with you today on the subject of
emergency communications. The wireless industry recognizes its
role as a link between citizens and public safety officials and
works hard to ensure that this link is as vibrant and reliable
as possible.
Today, my testimony will focus on two areas. First, I want
to provide the subcommittee with an update on the Wireless
Emergency Alert Program. This program is a true public-private
success story. Second, I want to urge you to work with the
wireless industry and other interested parties to create a
uniform national baseline for liability protection for text to
9-1-1 and NG 9-1-1 services.
The Wireless Emergency Alert Program is an outgrowth of
this committee's efforts to enact the WARN Act. CTIA supported
this legislation, which we believe struck a balance by
augmenting the existing emergency alerting system without
imposing new prescriptive mandates on the wireless industry.
This approach was consistent with and built up previous public-
private partnerships that led to the successful creation of
Wireless Priority Service and the Wireless Amber Alert Program.
In the period since enactment of the WARN Act, we have moved
from an advisory committee to an FCC rulemaking, standards
development, coordination with FEMA and now deployment.
I am pleased to say that the results of the Wireless
Emergency Alert Program justify the effort. Just last month,
the National Weather Service alone sent 100 tornado alerts, 80
blizzard alerts, 40 flash food warnings and five ice storm
alerts, and as a father, in a story that warms my own heart,
last month also saw the first successful recovery of an
abducted child as a result of a wireless Amber Alert. As
Minnesota's Public Safety Commissioner observed, wireless
emergency alerts are another important way to ensure that the
public receives vital information right away wherever they are.
The wireless alert program is working as this committee
envisioned it would. Its utility will only grow as additional
alert-capable handsets are deployed and the carriers and FEMA
work towards a more granular alerting capability. With this in
mind, CTIA urges Congress to resist calls to impose new
technology or participation mandates that could threaten the
public-private collaboration that has produced a 21st-century
complement to the television and radio alerts that we all grew
up with. Those broadcast and radio alerts remain valuable but
are inadequate by themselves for today's highly mobile
citizenry. Wireless alerts fill the gaps by notifying those not
within the reach of radio or television.
The second issue we commend to the attention of the
committee is the need for clear, comprehensive, standardized,
nationwide limitation of liability protection for all entities
participating in any aspect of emergency communications
including text to 9-1-1 and NG 9-1-1 services. The existing
protections flow from the state-based laws that were originally
adopted for wireline providers in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s.
Those protections were extended to wireless and VoIP providers
under federal law but they vary by state. Merely extending the
patchwork of state legislation to 9-1-1 service providers is
insufficient because states vary significantly in terms of the
duties of care and the potential liabilities imposed on 9-1-1
activities. CTIA and others believe it is time for a
comprehensive effort to establish a nationwide, overarching,
platform-agnostic federal liability standard for Next
Generation 9-1-1. A failure to do so could hamper the
transition to these services.
There is a general expectation that robust, reliable 9-1-1
and ultimately NG 9-1-1 services should be available to every
consumer irrespective of what jurisdiction he or she may be in
at their time of need. Providers should be covered by a similar
ubiquitous, reliable, consistent standard for liability
protection.
The recent commitment by the four national carriers along
with APCO and NENA to develop and deploy text to 9-1-1
capabilities highlights the need for federal engagement. This
voluntary framework will provide near-term emergency
communications options for wireless subscribers who rely on SMS
for everyday communications including individuals who are deaf,
hard of hearing or speech-impaired.
In its recent report to Congress, the FCC specifically
called for extending liability protection to any entity that is
providing NG 9-1-1 services on a voluntary basis. The industry
is working hard to bring this capability to consumers. Congress
can support this effort by ensuring that carriers and others
involved in the provision of these services are covered by
appropriate liability protections.
CTIA and its members look forward to working with the
committee on these issues and other matters intended to promote
secure, reliable, emergency communication services.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Guttman-McCabe follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.077
Mr. Lance. Thank you very much for your testimony, very
timely testimony.
Our next witness is Trey Forgety, the Director of
Government Affairs, the National Emergency Number Association.
Good afternoon.
STATEMENT OF TREY FORGETY
Mr. Forgety. Good afternoon, Representative Lance and also
Representative Welch and Mr. Vice Chairman Latta.
I will submit my written testimony for the record, but I
would like to summarize just a little bit and provide a few
comments on some of the items brought up by the other
witnesses.
NENA is the only professional organization devoted
exclusively to 9-1-1. It is our wheelhouse. It is our
everything. And about 10 years ago, we recognized the acute
need to start planning for a future that wasn't based on
technologies that were reaching 100 years of age. The telephone
has been with us for a very long time now, and for the past 45
years it has been the basis of our public communications system
for reporting emergencies, 9-1-1.
But the way the public communicates is changing very
rapidly. Already, we have seen consumers shed their wirelines
in droves. Businesses are now following suit. Voice over IP
adoption rates are off the charts. Consumers are using mobile
technologies in ways never before thought possible. Voice,
text, mobile, voice over IP, all of these technologies are
coming onto the market and they are being adopted quickly by
consumers.
Now, the first panel this morning talked quite a bit about
FirstNet, and FirstNet, I think, is a very important technology
but neither FirstNet nor 9-1-1 can be looked at by themselves.
Ultimately, what citizens need is an end-to-end system that
allows them to report their emergencies to public safety
officials and receive a response that works, and that can
happen in our interconnected world only if citizens have the
ability to push the data that they have--images, videos,
medical data, location information--only if they can push that
data directly to the public safety answering points and the
public safety answering points can push it directly to the
responders. That is going to take a great deal of coordination
and it is going to take a great deal of detailed work to make
sure that we have standards that work across platforms, across
technologies and so forth.
I think we have laid a very firm foundation for that. We
have seen just recently the FCC's CSRIC, Communications,
Security, Reliability and Interoperability Council, is working
on and will soon finalize a report on new location technologies
that will make it easier than ever to locate people who call 9-
1-1, to locate responders who use FirstNet to communicate. We
have got to remember, in a mobile and interconnected world,
those are one and the same technologies and both the public and
first responders should have access to advanced location
technologies. But getting there is not going to be easy
ultimately. 9-1-1 has been a success in part because it has
been so reliable. It has been a great experiment of states and
localities basically working from the ground up.
Now, there are things that Congress can do, and I think
Representative Eshoo put it well earlier as did Chairman
Walden. There are policy changes that can be made that will
help to move the ball forward, and I think the important thing
to remember about that is, there are easy policy changes that
require little or no new money to get good outcomes at the
state and local level. One simple thing that Congress can do is
to level the playing field. Right now, we have about half a
dozen different federal agencies that supply grant funding for
public safety, everything from police, fire, EMS and so forth,
but in nearly all of those instances, 9-1-1 is not included in
the definition of public safety. Now, it is true, of course,
that 9-1-1 in many places is part of one of these other
services but typically those other services want to focus on
their core issues. If it law enforcement, it is guns and badges
on the street. If it is fire, it is engines and firefighters.
We need to level that playing field so that 9-1-1 is mentioned
specifically in public safety grant programs so that they can
compete for those federal funds on an equal basis with the
other public safety professionals.
And I will close with this. The last piece is cybersecurity
and network resilience, and those are two fundamentally
important issues for 9-1-1, and Next Generation 9-1-1 will have
tremendous benefits in this regard in terms of improving
reliability, resiliency, redundancy, path diversity. Already we
have standards work done in the areas of encryption and
authentication, role-based access models, all of which can be
leveraged by FirstNet to drive down the cost of implementation
for both systems, and I think that is a key important point is,
this ecosystem, if it works right, if it works together, it can
save the public a lot of money, a lot of lives and a lot of
property.
And I thank you for your time, and I welcome your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Forgety follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.087
Mr. Lance. Thank you very much for your testimony.
I have several questions, and I appreciate all of your
being here to be with us today.
Mr. Turetsky, I have a question related to the district I
serve. One of the counties in the district I serve, Somerset
County, New Jersey, spent a considerable sum of money in
attempting to comply with the FCC's narrow banding order, and
the county successfully moved about half of its communication
equipment into the T band spectrum before the January 1st
deadline. Now, due to legislation that Congress passed last
year that created FirstNet, it is going to have to vacate that
spectrum in order for the T band to be auctioned and to upgrade
its equipment yet again. I have recently written the FCC on the
matter, and I am hoping that you might be able to provide some
insight into what assistance might be available to Somerset
County to help it comply with the directives. We have
significant concerns with how to pay for the necessary
upgrades, given the fact that the county in good faith tried to
do what was appropriate at the time, and I would appreciate any
comments you might have regarding that and I hope to work with
the FCC on this issue.
Mr. Turetsky. We look forward to working with you on this,
Congressman. To my understanding, Somerset County responded to
the narrow banding requirements just as it should. After it
began to respond, Congress passed a law, as you mentioned,
which changed the treatment of spectrum in that band and
required that it be given up. The FCC promptly issued a blanket
waiver so that jurisdictions like Somerset County would not
need to continue to spend money on narrow banding anymore,
given that they had to give that up.
We have a notice outstanding where we are seeking comment
on what the costs are going to be on moving from the T band to
other bands and all related questions about what band may be a
suitable place to move. As that comes in, we will continue to
work with all of the stakeholders including Somerset County on
these issues. The FCC, of course, doesn't have a budget to pay
for this. That is not one of the things that Congress has given
us.
Mr. Lance. Are there a lot of counties in that situation?
Mr. Turetsky. There were a number who were midstream, which
is why we issued a blanket waiver.
Mr. Lance. Thank you. What impresses me is, no good deed
goes unpunished, and we want to move forward in an appropriate
way and we hope that the county can recoup some of its
financial losses in that regard.
On a previous panel, to you as well, Mr. Turetsky, we heard
from interested stakeholders with respect to FirstNet. Your
bureau is charged with public safety issues, the Commission. We
have heard that the FCC has informally halted all equipment
authorizations related to band 14 devices while FirstNet
determines what its network architecture will look like. Given
that FirstNet has no authority to determine the emissions
criteria for FCC equipment authorization, when in your judgment
will authorizations resume?
Mr. Turetsky. We issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in
the last few days that asks questions about those very
subjects. When the record is complete, we will move
expeditiously to authorize equipment for that band.
Mr. Lance. Thank you. Is it possible for you to give us a
time frame as to when that might be?
Mr. Turetsky. It just went out for public comment. I don't
know if it has actually been published in the Federal Register
but it is public now. It was issued by the FCC. So when the
comment period closes, we will move as expeditiously as we can.
Mr. Lance. Is the comment period, is that 45 days or 90
days?
Mr. Turetsky. I have to check. It is somewhere in the 45-
day range. I will get back to you on exactly what it is.
Mr. Lance. Thank you for answering the question.
Mr. Guttman-McCabe, your industry has agreed to implement a
text to 9-1-1 capability despite the short messaging service's
perhaps inadequacy to do the task. What real-world limitations
will those seeking emergency service face when using SMS to 9-
1-1?
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. I think
first of all out of the gate, whether it is NENA or the FCC, I
think the message that would come from the industry or public
safety officials is at every opportunity if you can dial 9-1-1,
it is sort of a last resort. The networks weren't designed--the
SMS networks, the testing networks were not designed to really
be real time, and for those who have sent a text and it has not
been delivered in a timely manner, you understand what we are
talking about. What we are trying to do is put a band-aid here
until we get to Next Generation 9-1-1, and our four largest
carriers realized working with NENA and APCO and Mr. Turetsky
and the Commission that we could do something that could be
beneficial in the short term.
But there are a number of hiccups. It involves the delay.
It is a store-and-forward technology. It is designed in essence
to move into the network and then get delivered. It doesn't
have the same location-based service capabilities that a call,
the wireless 9-1-1 calls were engineered for. So it really is a
stopgap. It is designed to help some of the communities that
rely on SMS, the hard of hearing or those with difficulties,
and it s something we committed to. As I said, we hope that
Congress will help us and step up with some form of liability
protection because this is a service that we have committed to
voluntarily but this is not perfect, and we obviously didn't
want to let the perfect be the enemy of the good but as we move
to Next Generation 9-1-1, it would be helpful to have Congress
help implement some form of liability protection.
Mr. Lance. Thank you very much for your answer.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Welch for 5 minutes.
Mr. Welch. Thank you very much.
Vermont has been a leader on the enhanced 9-1-1 and it has
been helpful. Just a couple of stories. One person sent in a
one-word text ``suicide'' and they were able to figure out what
the address was, and this person was actually in the process of
following through, and we are all glad to say was saved. But
then another one, and this would be a lot more common, I think.
A women was getting beaten up by a drunk husband, and getting
on the phone is not an option at that point, but she was able
to text, and the police responded and took care of the
situation. So I really applaud you all for that effort.
Mr. Turetsky, do you want to add anything that you weren't
able to say in response to questions from Mr. Lance?
Mr. Turetsky. No, Congressman, I think you have highlighted
the importance of text to 9-1-1. There are at least three
circumstances where it is vital, and I agree with Mr. McCabe
that in general, the right course would be to make a voice
call. The three circumstances where text to 9-1-1 is essential
are, one, for the hearing impaired and the speech impaired, and
number two, where as a matter of safety making a call is
impossible, and you have given an illustration of that, and
number three, sometimes in situations of network congestion, a
text is more likely to go through and actually more reliable
than a phone call would be.
The other aspect of this is, it also provides an
opportunity for the call takers or text takers, as it is, to
open up multiple texts at one time and prioritize so that they
can go to the fourth one in the queue and they see that is the
lifesaving emergency. So we think it is very, very important,
and Vermont has been a real leader in testing this.
Mr. Welch. Well, good. Thank you all for your work on this,
and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lance. Thank you very much. We now recognize the vice
chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Latta from Ohio.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much, and thank you very much to
our panel for being here.
Mr. Guttman-McCabe, if I could ask, we are talking about
the fees associated with e-911, and I am particularly
interested, what is happening with these fees and are they
going to where they are supposed to be going at all times?
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Thank you, Congressman. I guess the
short answer, and then I will continue after that is,
unfortunately, no. They are not always going where we hope they
would. Congress stepped up several years and tasked the FCC
with putting together a report back to Congress on the status
of their rating of e-911 funds, and we have worked with NENA
and APCO in the past and for years to try to really shine a
light on this, and in the most recent report that came right
around the end of the year to Congress, seven states had raided
the funds, and we continue to see that, and we think in an
environment where there is such reliability on being able to
connect with public safety through your wireless devices, it
really does trouble us that there are states that continue to
raid the funds. I am sure there are legitimate reasons. Some of
them are as simple as budget shortfalls. But I don't think any
of them rise to the level of being acceptable when you balance
it versus the needs of the public safety, the PSAP community.
Mr. Welch. Let me just follow up. Is there any idea how
much that is in those states that has been diverted?
Mr. Forgety. If I could answer, Congressman, I can give you
one example in particular to just give you an idea of the scope
and scale of the problem. A few years ago, the state of Arizona
actually diverted over $50 million from their state 9-1-1 fund
alone. We saw, I believe in the state of New York, I recently
saw reports that over $150 million had been diverted over the
course of some period of time. In some states, 9-1-1 fees are
statutorily protected. They are not subject to appropriations
for other purposes. In other states, they aren't protected, and
in some cases, what may be called a 9-1-1 fee may actually go
directly to the state's general fund and then be subject to
primary appropriation from the get-go, so it may never get to
9-1-1 in the first place.
Mr. Latta. Well, Mr. Forgety, since you got the mike right
now, let me ask you a follow-up and another question to you
then. As your testimony indicates, our Nation's 9-1-1 call
centers are not considered public safety under the definition
in federal law. How will that impact your ability to
participate in FirstNet?
Mr. Forgety. Congressman, I think that is a key issue for
9-1-1. As the FirstNet board was initially formulated, there is
not a distinct 9-1-1 community representative on that board,
and I think adding a 9-1-1 representative would be an excellent
move for FirstNet. We have been invited to participate in the
Public Safety Advisory Committee, although, again, I would
point out that while there are representatives, I believe it is
police, fire, sheriff and EMS, to the executive committee,
there is not a 9-1-1 representative. So I think just making
certain that 9-1-1 has a seat at the table from the very
beginning would be very beneficial to make sure that the two
systems work together the way they should.
Mr. Latta. OK. Let me follow up with one last question to
you, if I may. Given the financial situation around the
country, what is a realistic timeline for the text to 9-1-1
capabilities to be deployed in the PSAPs?
Mr. Forgety. That is a very complicated question because
every state is in a different posture. For example, Mr. Welch's
state is already way ahead. They have a near-Next Generation 9-
1-1 system already deployed. My home state of Tennessee is
deploying some baseline capabilities. They will be ready to
take text probably within a year or so of the carrier
deployment deadline. Other states are hanging back and probably
won't be prepared for 2 to 3 years at the very earliest.
Now, the text proposal that we entered into with Mr.
Guttman-McCabe's members leaves open an option which is a TTY
conversion option. That is an old technology primarily used now
to support the deaf and hard-of-hearing communities' access to
9-1-1. That technology will make it possible for every PSAP
today to take text if they are ready, willing and able. Under
Justice Department regulations promulgated pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act, every PSAP must have TTY
capability at every position. So they can do it today if they
have the training, if they have the experience, circuit
capacity and so forth. There are all those sorts of issues but
it is going to be a few years before we have it nationwide.
Mr. Latta. Thank you.
And just briefly, Ms. Kniowski, if I may, you mentioned in
your testimony about a need out there for credentialing for
folks who are out there in the field. Do any states issue
credentials right now to reporters or linemen or anything like
that?
Ms. Kniowski. Not that I am aware of, but we do request it,
and one of the reasons is, we have to get to our transmitters,
we have to get to our towers, we have to have gasoline trucks
come in and fill our tanks so we can stay on the air and get
the information to the community in need.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I yield
back.
Mr. Lance. Thank you, Mr. Latta. The Chair recognizes the
ranking member, Congresswoman Eshoo of California.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is nice to see you
in the chair.
Mr. Lance. Thank you.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you to the witnesses, and it really is a
huge thanks because we have been working on the whole issue of
e-911 for a long, long time now. I was a young woman when I
started out on this venture, and I just thought that the entire
Congress would come along because I made the most plausible
case about what we needed to do, and most frankly, it took some
time for the issue to mature, and I said many times, it matured
during one of the great crises in our country when we were
attacked, and that is when minds started opening up about what
we could do, what we should do, and how to structure it, so I
want to thank all of you for the roles that you have played in
it. They have been significant and they are very important.
First I think to each one of you. As you know, last year's
derecho storms severely disrupted 9-1-1-related communications,
particularly in parts of northern Virginia. Would a NextGen 9-
1-1 environment provide call centers with greater reliability
and resiliency during a natural disaster? Just very quickly.
Mr. Turetsky. Yes, it would, Congresswoman. It provides
many more routes to get calls to a 9-1-1 call center, and it
reduces the points of failure that would obstruct that.
Ms. Eshoo. Great. Ms. Kniowski?
Ms. Kniowski. I am sorry. Could you repeat the question?
Ms. Eshoo. Sure. I was asking if NextGen 9-1-1 environment
would provide call centers with greater reliability and
resiliency during a natural disaster, and I used northern
Virginia as an example of what happened.
Ms. Kniowski. Yes, and we are in support of that and
anything that can help the community and communicate with the
community and the community communicate back we are in support
of.
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Yes, Congresswoman. That is certainly
an expectation.
Ms. Eshoo. Great. Mr. Forgety?
Mr. Forgety. The answer to your question is yes, it can,
and at a much lower cost than can be done today.
Ms. Eshoo. I like that. That sounds very good.
It is my understanding while I have you, Mr. Forgety, that
NENA has worked closely with the four largest wireless carriers
to reach a voluntary agreement to make text to 9-1-1 service
available. I really applaud this. It is very exciting. It is
important, very important effort. Do you intend to pursue a
similar process or an agreement with rural and regional and
smaller carriers so that these services can be made available
to all consumers?
Mr. Forgety. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman, and
thank you for your leadership as the Chair of the NextGen 9-1-1
Caucus. It has been very effective and helpful. The answer to
your question is emphatically yes. NENA has already engaged
with representatives from small and rural carriers and we will
be continuing to do that with an eye toward crafting some form
of agreement that aligns well with the FCC's Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking but also with the unique needs of that carrier
community.
Ms. Eshoo. That is terrific. Thank you very, very much for
your leadership and what you are doing across the board but
also on this last issue.
Now, last month the FCC issued a detailed roadmap to
Congress on how best to advance and deploy Next Generation 9-1-
1 across our country. One recommendation is to ensure
appropriate liability protection for entities supporting or
providing these services. From any one of you, maybe Mr.
Guttman-McCabe, because you discussed this idea extensively in
your testimony, do you agree that Congressional action is
necessary?
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. We do, Congresswoman.
Ms. Eshoo. I don't know if this was touched on while I was
out.
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. I managed to take an opportunity to
slide it in there in an earlier answer, but I won't miss an
opportunity to bring it up again. The original protections came
about literally in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, and they were
based obviously at that time on the telephone system, and so
when you look at the state statutes and the Net 9-1-1 Act
extended at the federal level those protections that existed in
the states to wireless and VoIP. The problem is, a significant
number of states either don't have protection or have
protection that specifically is identified for telephone or
voice-provided services. I mean, there are a lot of qualifiers,
a lot of adjectives or descriptive adjectives in the existing
state-based legislation that causes concern and so whether it
is the current voluntary text to 9-1-1 effort or the future
Next Generation 9-1-1, there really is significant desire for
Congress to step up here and provide the same type of liability
protection that they have done in the past.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you to each one of you for what you are
doing and for being instructive to us today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yield back.
Mr. Lance. Thank you very much, Congresswoman, and our
thanks to the entire panel for your expertise, very cogent
answers and the hearing now stands adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 1:09 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.174
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.175
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.176
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.177
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.178
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.179
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.180
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.181
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.182
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.183
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.184
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.185
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.186
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.187
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.188
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.189
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.190
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.191
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.192
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0378.193