[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
INTEROPERABLE EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS: DOES THE NATIONAL BROADBAND
PLAN MEET THE NEEDS OF FIRST RESPONDERS?
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS,
PREPAREDNESS, AND RESPONSE
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 27, 2010
__________
Serial No. 111-77
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
66-027 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi, Chairman
Loretta Sanchez, California Peter T. King, New York
Jane Harman, California Lamar Smith, Texas
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Daniel E. Lungren, California
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Mike Rogers, Alabama
Columbia Michael T. McCaul, Texas
Zoe Lofgren, California Charles W. Dent, Pennsylvania
Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas Gus M. Bilirakis, Florida
Henry Cuellar, Texas Paul C. Broun, Georgia
Christopher P. Carney, Pennsylvania Candice S. Miller, Michigan
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Pete Olson, Texas
Laura Richardson, California Anh ``Joseph'' Cao, Louisiana
Ann Kirkpatrick, Arizona Steve Austria, Ohio
Bill Pascrell, Jr., New Jersey Tom Graves, Georgia
Emanuel Cleaver, Missouri
Al Green, Texas
James A. Himes, Connecticut
Mary Jo Kilroy, Ohio
Dina Titus, Nevada
William L. Owens, New York
Vacancy
Vacancy
I. Lanier Avant, Staff Director
Rosaline Cohen, Chief Counsel
Michael Twinchek, Chief Clerk
Robert O'Connor, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS, PREPAREDNESS, AND RESPONSE
Laura Richardson, California, Chairwoman
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Mike Rogers, Alabama
Columbia Pete Olson, Texas
Henry Cuellar, Texas Anh ``Joseph'' Cao, Louisiana
Bill Pascrell, Jr., New Jersey Michael T. McCaul, Texas
Emmanuel Cleaver, Missouri Peter T. King, New York (ex
Dina Titus, Nevada officio)
William L. Owens, New York
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi (ex
officio)
Stephen Vina, Staff Director
Ryan Caldwell, Clerk
Amanda Halpern, Minority Subcommittee Lead
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS
The Honorable Laura Richardson, a Representative in Congress From
the State of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response........... 1
The Honorable Mike Rogers, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Alabama, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Emergency
Communications, Preparedness, and Response..................... 3
PANEL I
Witnesses
Rear Admiral James Arden Barnett, Jr. (Ret.), Chief, Public
Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission:
Oral Statement................................................. 4
Prepared Statement............................................. 6
Mr. Gregory Schaffer, Assistant Secretary, Office of Cyber
Security and Communications, Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 11
Prepared Statement............................................. 13
PANEL II
Witnesses
Chief Jeffrey D. Johnson, President and Chairman of the Board,
International Association of Fire Chiefs:
Oral Statement................................................. 30
Prepared Statement............................................. 32
Deputy Chief Charles F. Dowd, Communications Division, New York
City Police Department:
Oral Statement................................................. 33
Prepared Statement............................................. 36
Mr. Robert A. Legrande, II, Founder, The Digital Decision, LLC:
Oral Statement................................................. 37
Prepared Statement............................................. 40
Mr. Eric Graham, Rural Cellular Association, Vice President for
Strategic and Government Relations, Cellular South, Inc.:
Oral Statement................................................. 43
Prepared Statement............................................. 44
FOR THE RECORD
The Honorable Laura Richardson, a Representative in Congress From
the State of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response:
Statement Submitted by the Fraternal Order of Police........... 20
Response Submitted by Chief Jeff Johnson and Deputy Chief Charles
F. Dowd........................................................ 59
APPENDIX I
Response Submitted by Rear Admiral James Arden Barnett, Jr....... 63
APPENDIX II
Questions From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson of Mississippi for
James Arden Barnett, Jr........................................ 79
Question From Honorable Dina Titus of Nevada for James Arden
Barnett, Jr.................................................... 80
Questions From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson of Mississippi for
Gregory Schaffer............................................... 81
Question From Honorable Dina Titus of Nevada for for Gregory
Schaffer....................................................... 83
Questions From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson of Mississippi for
Robert A. LeGrande, II......................................... 84
Questions From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson of Mississippi for
Eric Graham.................................................... 91
INTEROPERABLE EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS: DOES THE NATIONAL BROADBAND
PLAN MEET THE NEEDS OF FIRST RESPONDERS?
----------
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness,
and Response,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in
Room 311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Laura Richardson
[Chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Richardson, Cleaver, and Rogers.
Ms. Richardson [presiding]. Well, good morning to everyone.
Thank you for being here. The Subcommittee on the Emergency
Communications Preparedness and Response will come to order.
The subcommittee meeting today is to receive testimony on the
``Interoperable and Emergency Communications: Does the National
Broadband Plan Meet the Needs of First Responders?''
I will now recognize myself for an opening statement. Good
morning to all of you. I would like to welcome our witnesses
here today, and for those of you who serve this country we are
very grateful for the service that you provide.
Today we will be discussing the broadband's plan and
recommendation for building a Nation-wide, interoperable,
public safety communications network.
Now, for the record I will disclose, as I said to the
gentlemen who serve this Nation, I served as a police cadet
while I was going through school, and I have family, ex-family
who is very involved from a public safety perspective. So this
issue is very important.
It is important to ensure when we talk about safety we are
actually talking about their lives, not only for the public but
actually for the men and women who serve us. So in that sense
to me this is a very strong priority.
This broadband network would be able to one, support and
exchange large amounts of data, including photos and video. It
would allow first responders to easily communicate across
agencies and jurisdictions. Ultimately, it would usher in a new
generation of emergency response.
The need for a Nation-wide broadband network was first
really brought to, I think, an alarming point when we had the
experience after 9/11 and also with our now soon-to-be 5-year
anniversary of Hurricane Katrina.
In both disasters, response operations were severely
hampered because public safety was unable to communicate
effectively with one other. But today, nearly 10 years later,
after the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil, we are still
waiting. I must say as Chairwoman of this committee it is very
disappointing.
The FCC's National Broadband Plan provides for a strategy
for reaching this goal by auctioning the 10 megahertz of
spectrum known as D Block to commercial interests as
establishing a public-private partnership for its use.
The administration has also weighed in by their memorandum
dated on June 28, establishing a 10-year process to add 500
megahertz to the commercial sector, and thereby hopefully
providing enough funding to establish an interoperable wireless
broadband network for public safety.
While we know much time and effort has gone into this plan,
we still have questions about whether it is the best solution
for homeland security. The plan contends that the public safety
would be able to leverage commercial innovation, economies of
scale, and additional spectrum via priority access and roaming
agreements on commercial networks.
These are promising attributes, but the subcommittee needs
more assurances, and I would say that the public safety
community does as well, needs more assurances that these
features will provide adequate resources and capacity for
public safety to meet its mission critical needs.
The reality on the ground for first responders requires
that they have a dependable communications system that will
work under the worst circumstances every single time.
We look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses
whether you believe the National Broadband Plan would provide
that dependable communications network.
Additionally, there are several involvements that
absolutely must occur. No. 1, fully engage the Department of
Homeland Security and No. 2, full involvement by our public
safety community.
Further, we want to know how the FCC analyzed public
safety's spectrum use and they overall needs, because they have
certainly made it known that they require more spectrum.
With the large number of public safety organizations
opposed to the D Block auction, we are also interested in the
efforts taken by the FCC to work with the public safety during
the development of the proposed auction plan.
Clearly, there has been a disconnect, and public safety in
some respects seems to be out on the outside where normally we
need them with us on the inside. This is not a role that should
be ignored or avoided in any circumstance.
I believe DHS with its close interactions with the public
safety community could definitely help to bridge the gap. I
look forward to hearing how the Assistant Secretary Schaffer's
office will take steps to engage first responders and to make
sure that the emergency communications is a larger priority at
the department.
We expect that the Office of Emergency Communications at
DHS and its Emergency Communications Preparedness Center to
play a more prominent role in developing interoperable
communications.
In addition to the administration, we also wanted to make
sure that we heard directly from the public safety community
itself. We are grateful to have several representatives with us
on the second panel and we appreciate your on-going service.
We want to gain a better understanding of your proposal to
reallocate the D Block to public safety and how you intend to
fund the build-out and the sustainment of this needed network.
Whether the D Block is auctioned or directly allocated to
public safety, there must be a plan in place to pay for the
system, as well as the new hardware that must be purchased by
cash-strapped localities.
Oftentimes, rural communities have the most trouble finding
resources to roll out these initiatives, so we appreciate Mr.
Graham from the Rural Cellular Association being here to
provide his perspective.
Ultimately, when we talk about pursuing a Nation-wide
interoperable public safety network, no side can do it alone.
There must be a collaborative approach that leverages the
expertise and the resources of all involved, public safety,
commercial providers, and the government.
I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses on how
we can finally achieve this requirement that was required of us
10 years ago.
The Chairwoman now recognizes the Ranking Member from the
subcommittee, the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Rogers, for an
opening statement.
Mr. Rogers. I would like to thank the Chairwoman, and I
want to thank the witnesses, both on our first panel and the
second panel for being here and for the time it took to prepare
for this hearing. It is a great help to us, and I really
appreciate your efforts and with that I will get started.
Let me first start by applauding the efforts of the FCC in
crafting a very detailed and comprehensive National Broadband
Plan. This plan is the blueprint for the future development of
our Nation's high-speed internet, improved communications tools
for first responders, upgraded E911 public safety answering
points and a next generation alert and warning systems.
With that being said, I believe that more can be done in
the plan to support our Nation's first responders. For example,
in Chapter 16 of the plan, the FCC is called upon to ``quickly
license the D Block for commercial use.'' I believe that this
is the wrong decision and instead the D Block spectrum should
be reallocated to public safety.
I am an original co-sponsor of the bipartisan bill H.R.
5081, the Broadband First Responders Act of 2010, which was
introduced by the Ranking Member of the full committee, Mr.
King. This legislation would reallocate the D Block currently
set aside for auction to public safety. This bill has over 60
co-sponsors here in the House and that number continues to
grow.
Last week Senators Lieberman and McCain introduced a Senate
companion bill. Their efforts should be applauded and supported
so that we might enact this vital legislation and in turn
continue to provide public safety with the resources they
require.
Finally, I would like to hear from today's witnesses about
any updates to the National Emergency Communications Plan. The
NECP provides recommendations and milestones for emergency
responders, relevant Government officials and Congress to
approve emergency communication capabilities. The first NECP
was released in July 2008, and I understand that the Department
is now working on a 2.0 version.
I would like to hear from our witnesses on where we stand
on this updated version of the NECP and whether the FCC and DHS
cooperated with one another so that the objectives of the
National Broadband Plan match the goals of DHS NECP which is
required to set National goals and priorities for addressing
deficiencies in the National emergency communications posture.
With that, I would once again want to thank the witnesses
for being here, and I yield the balance of my time.
Ms. Richardson. Other Members of the subcommittee are
reminded that under the committee rules opening statements may
be submitted for the record. Thank you, Mr. Cleaver, for
joining us this morning.
I welcome our first panel of witnesses. Our first witness,
Rear Admiral, Retired James Arden Barnett, Jr., is the chief of
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau at the Federal
Communications Commission.
He is responsible for overseeing the FCC's activities
pertaining to public safety, homeland security, emergency
management and disaster preparedness, and represents the
commission on these issues before the Federal, State, and
industry organizations. Admiral Barnett served 32 years in the
United States Navy and the Navy Reserve, retiring in 2008.
Our second witness, Mr. Greg Schaffer, was appointed
assistant secretary for Cyber Security and Communications on
June 1, 2009 by Secretary Napolitano. In this position, Mr.
Schaffer is responsible for enhancing the security, the
resiliency, and the reliability of the Nation's fiber and
communications infrastructure.
Prior to joining the Department of Homeland Security, Mr.
Schaffer served as senior vice president and chief risk officer
for Alltel Communications. We are pleased to have you both
present and greatly appreciate your testimony today.
Without objection, the witnesses' full statements will be
inserted into the record, and I now ask each witness to
summarize his statement for 5 minutes, beginning with Admiral
Barnett.
STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL JAMES ARDEN BARNETT, JR. (RET.),
CHIEF, PUBLIC SAFETY AND HOMELAND SECURITY BUREAU, FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Admiral Barnett. Good morning, Chairwoman Richardson,
Ranking Member Rogers and Members of the subcommittee. Thank
you for the opportunity to speak to you today about the
implementation of the National Broadband Plans' recommendations
can provide a state-of-the-art, affordable, interoperable,
wireless broadband network for our Nation's first responders.
Such an interoperable network is not inevitable. To achieve
interoperability we must have a comprehensive, well-researched,
and affordable plan. Though there has been progress, every
disaster since 9/11 reminds us of the interoperability problems
with the current public safety voice networks, which are
hamstrung by outdated, by proprietary technologies.
However, today we have a technological clean slate for a
very brief period of time to ensure public safety has the
Nation-wide interoperable broadband network it requires. That
technological clean slate is the impending construction of the
commercial 4G broadband networks. We can afford it if we act
now.
We can reach 99 percent of the population from densely
populated cities to the most rural counties. After months of
expert analysis, research, and public safety input, the
National Broadband Plan recommends an innovative approach to
solve the 9/11 interoperability problem, an approach applauded
by the former chair and vice chair of the 9/11 Commission.
The core of the network is the 10 megahertz that Congress
has already dedicated to public safety, and it is the one that
is located immediately adjacent to the D Block. As a result of
incredible advances in cellular architecture and LTE
technology, 10 megahertz can perform like 160 megahertz would
on the current public safety voice networks.
We have outlined these developments in a recently released
white paper which demonstrates that this will provide enough
capacity for day-to-day public safety operations in most
emergencies. But we must plan for the worst emergencies, the
next 9/11. In that situation, even an additional 10 megahertz,
like the D Block, will likely not be enough.
The FCC plan calls for public safety to have the ability to
have priority access and roaming to commercial networks, so
first-in-line privileges on up to 60 or 70 additional
megahertz.
This feature has an additional advantage that reallocating
the D Block alone does not. It can provide immediate resiliency
and redundancy if the public safety network goes down, such as
happened in the District of Columbia in March of this year.
We created an in-depth cost model which shows the way to
afford 99 percent coverage, population coverage to the network,
and to ensure technical interoperability we have already
established the Emergency Response Interoperability Center, or
ERIC, with public safety, the Department of Homeland Security,
Department of Justice and other Federal partners to ensure that
interoperability is truly effective.
The FCC plan draws greatly on the input that we received
from public safety and on much of the plan we agree with public
safety. We agree on LTE technology, on the priority access and
roaming, on the interoperability center, on the need for public
funding, on parting the network, on coverage in rural areas and
the need for consumer priced ruggedized devices.
The one major area of disagreement is whether the D Block
should be reallocated. Reallocation is an option that the FCC
examined thoroughly. Our research, however, raised several
concerns if the D Block is simply reallocated D Block. Our data
suggests that reallocation of the D Block could greatly
increase the cost of construction of the network, perhaps by as
much as $9 billion over a 10-year period.
Postponing a decision on D Block is not a good option
either, since missing the deployment of the commercial 4G
network will greatly increase the construction cost also.
Simply reallocation of the D Block is likely to increase the
cost of operating, maintaining, and upgrading the network.
Reallocation would prohibit economies of scale, making the
devices and equipment more expensive for public safety, just as
it is now with its voice networks. Without sufficient funding,
reallocation could impact the ability of rural areas and
underfunded cities and counties to afford to build and operate
the network. If the network is not Nation-wide it is not
interoperable.
Clearly, the ultimate decision of how we proceed is in your
hands. The commission remains committed to working closely with
all stakeholders, with public safety, industry, and Members of
Congress to achieve our shared goal of a Nation-wide
interoperable network.
Our aim is to provide you with the FCC's insight and
expertise and to present what we view as the greatest
challenges to realizing this essential network. We must not
miss this crucial moment to solve the 9/11 interoperability
problem and provide public safety broadband coverage to the
entire Nation. Thank you.
[The statement of Admiral Barnett follows:]
Prepared Statement of James Arden Barnett, Jr.
July 27, 2010
Good morning Chairwoman Richardson, Ranking Member Rogers, and
Members of the subcommittee. I appreciate this opportunity to appear
before you today on this issue of National importance.
Over the past decade, this Nation has endured man-made and natural
disasters that have tested our mettle, our resiliency, and our resolve.
The attacks of September 11, 2001, were some of the most horrific
events in our Nation's history. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the
Midwest floods, the Kentucky ice storms, the California wildfires and
countless other natural disasters have taxed our resources, our
disaster planning and response, and our public safety personnel. The
communications failures that occurred during and after these events
cost the lives and livelihoods of our citizens, and of many brave men
and women in uniform.
In the wake of these events, we became smarter about why these
communications failures occurred, and what can be done to better
prepare our physical communications networks and governance protocols
to work more effectively during a crisis. The Department of Homeland
Security, the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration, the Department of Justice, the FCC and others have
worked hand-in-hand with the public safety community to examine our
legacy public safety networks, and to put in place the legal,
regulatory, governance, and technical rules that will facilitate
interoperability and survivability.
The fact that we can look back on these events and show some
progress speaks to the dedication of our Nation's emergency personnel,
and of the agencies that work to solve these problems. But make no
mistake; this progress has been very slow, and those on the front lines
of America's emergency response continue to lack access to basic
communications tools that many commercial consumers take for granted.
Our Nation's legacy narrowband voice public safety communications
networks remain hamstrung by outdated, proprietary technologies that
were not designed to work together, as well as a public safety network
construction mindset that values control over coordination, and relies
on local projects and local funding, which are often inconsistent or
nonexistent.
But the communications landscape is undergoing a sea change--a
shift to advanced 4G wireless broadband technologies like Long Term
Evolution (LTE) that have the potential to revolutionize the way public
safety communicates and executes its critical mission, from the big
city cop on the beat to the small-town volunteer fire fighter to the
suburban emergency medical technician. If, however, public safety is
going to ride the wave of this technological roll out, we have a
limited opportunity to act.
If we act at the very inception of 4G technology, and employ an
inclusive, well-reasoned, and achievable plan for deploying--and
funding--a 4G public safety wireless broadband network, we can reach at
least 99 percent of the population and catch the technological wave as
commercial 4G networks are built. Otherwise, America runs the risk of
not being able to afford a Nation-wide, interoperable public safety
network and it will never be deployed.
As the images of 9/11 fade from our everyday consciousness, I am
concerned that we may have lost the urgency to act. But as we approach
the ninth anniversary of those events, I am here today to explain why
we must regain that urgency, that drive to act, and why the FCC's
National Broadband Plan recommendations are a comprehensive solution to
the communications problems highlighted by all of this and other recent
National tragedies.
the national broadband plan's comprehensive approach
The approach that the FCC recommended in the National Broadband
Plan, which was developed with significant public input from all
quarters, provides a realistic, achievable roadmap to successful
deployment and operation of this system. Indeed, the vast majority of
the plan enjoys broad support from across the public safety community,
industry, and others. For example, there is broad general agreement on
the need for:
The adoption of new, common open-standard LTE technology;
Priority access for public safety on commercial networks;
The ability to roam onto commercial networks and other
public safety networks;
An emergency response interoperability center, to ensure
interoperability across the network; and
Consumer-priced device components that ``see'' the relevant
bands, are ``ruggedized'' for public safety, and
correspondingly priced network equipment.
We also all agree that the public safety network should not be an
isolated technological island, so that it can continue to evolve, on a
cost-effective basis, as commercial technology improvements are made.
Members of the public safety community agree that there needs to be
sufficient public funding for the network to ensure that it is built,
that it is hardened, and that it extends to rural areas.
The one area where we have witnessed disagreement is the amount of
spectrum that should be allocated to public safety to make the network
fully functional. There are many in the public safety community that
would like the 10 MHz of the D Block added to the 24 MHz of spectrum
already dedicated to public safety in the beachfront 700 MHz band.
Others believe that auctioning the spectrum to commercial licensees is
the better approach. During the preparation of the Plan, we examined
both sides, and sought the best advice from engineers, economists,
policymakers, and a wide array of wireless providers and manufacturers
seeking to partner with public safety to bring 4G technologies to all
parts of the country.
From this input, we were able to develop a list of attributes that
the public safety broadband network must include:
(1) Nation-wide.--The network must provide coverage for public
safety to everywhere, with the eventual goal of 99% coverage of
the population.
(2) Interoperable.--The network must interoperate across all
geographies and public safety agencies.
(3) Capacity and Performance.--The network must have the capacity
and performance to reliably support public safety day-to-day
and on an emergency basis, as well as provide contingencies for
operations during the worst disasters, through hardening and
opportunities for access to redundant networks.
(4) Cost-effective.--The network and its devices must be affordable
to deploy, operate, utilize, and upgrade.
(5) Technologically advanced.--The network must utilize the latest
technology and with cost-effective technological evolution
built in. Public safety cannot be trapped in expensive, out-
dated old technologies that cannot be upgraded without
considerable expense and that threaten interoperability.
In the past, we have raised concerns about plans to simply
reallocate the D Block for public safety use. Taken by itself, such
reallocation will likely fail to:
(1) Fund network build out and operations;
(2) Make it affordable for public safety to use, maintain, and
upgrade, allowing public safety to benefit from continued
innovation;
(3) Provide operability and coverage in all parts of the country;
(4) Promote interoperability;
(5) Provide sufficient capacity for the worst emergencies; and
(6) Provide for build out in the near term.
Therefore, regardless of how much spectrum the public safety
network employs, there are vital issues that need to be considered
apart from the basic question of reallocation. I will address each of
these considerations in turn.
funding network build out throughout the country
The National Broadband Plan recognizes that without a comprehensive
public funding mechanism for both capital and operating expenses, an
interoperable broadband network will be unaffordable for significant
portions of the country, and particularly for rural America. Our cost
model demonstrates under an incentive-based partnership approach, which
fully leverages commercial technologies and infrastructure and covers
99 percent of the U.S. population, capital expenses for a fully
hardened network will cost approximately $6.5 billion over 10 years.
Operating expenses for this network will cost for the same 10-year
period between $6 and $10 billion. With this funding in place and based
on the FCC's roadmap, nearly all Americans, regardless of where they
live, will be covered by a Nation-wide, interoperable public safety
broadband network when an emergency strikes.
Conversely, simply reallocating the D Block to public safety will
not provide funding for network deployment or operations. It has been
suggested that public safety could ``self fund'' network build out,
either through traditional local funding methods or by leasing excess
spectrum capacity to others. With respect to the former, as we have
seen, traditional local funding methods are unreliable, inconsistent,
and subject to tremendous variation depending on the relative resources
of the local community. This approach threatens to create a patchwork
of ``haves'' and ``have nots,'' with many small and rural communities
left out. And when times get tough, as we have seen from the diversion
of funds in the E-9-1-1 context, local monies slated for public safety
can be diverted or eliminated in order to meet budgeting constraints.
In an environment where local communities must lay off or furlough
public safety personnel, the prospect of identifying local funding for
broadband network construction is grim.
With respect to the prospect of public safety becoming a spectrum
broker for secondary access, nothing in our record demonstrates that
enough revenue could be generated to meet capital and operating
expenses of the network. The likely result is that public safety would
have no choice but to build fewer towers in rural areas to save money,
or simply would not build at all. Moreover, when the FCC attempted to
broker a mandatory partnership with significant public safety
obligations on the designated commercial provider, there were no
buyers. Thus, if the D Block were to be reallocated to public safety,
we have no assurance that any potential buyers would be willing to pay
sufficient leasing fees to fund a viable Nation-wide network.
Sufficient public funding, with appropriate spending safeguards, is
therefore imperative regardless of how much spectrum is involved.
the need for network affordability and keeping pace with innovation
The National Broadband Plan and supporting FCC White Papers
demonstrate that capitalizing on the 4G deployment schedules of
commercial carriers will be significantly less expensive than building
a stand-alone public safety system. Under the FCC's plan public safety
will have its own spectrum, its own network, and control over key
operational components, but in most areas public safety can share
infrastructure that already exists or is being supplemented by
commercial service providers now. In this way, public safety will save
approximately $9 billion for network construction and save potentially
tens of billions in operating costs.
Reallocating D Block will make it more difficult for public safety
to enter into commercial partnerships that capture the economies of
scale that commercial carriers enjoy by virtue of their larger customer
bases. If public safety is unable to leverage the commercial
marketplace, the cost of the public safety network could easily rise
from approximately $6.5 billion for construction costs and
approximately $8-10 billion in operating costs to an estimated combined
total of $35-$48 billion over 10 years, a three to four times
increase.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Federal Communications Commission, A Broadband Network Cost
Model: A Basis for Public Funding Essential to Bringing Nationwide
Interoperable Communications to America's First Responders, OBI
Technical Paper No. 2, at 4-6 (May 2010), available at http://
www.fcc.gov/pshs/docs/ps-bb-cost-model.pdf (Cost Model).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reallocating the D Block therefore threatens to come at a price
that may put the network out of reach for many communities. Moreover,
if the D Block is reallocated, instead of taking 10 years it is more
likely that Nation-wide network deployment will take 20 to 25 years, if
it happens at all. Delaying deployment may also damage any ability to
leverage commercial deployments now or in the future, and it will be
more likely that Nation-wide interoperability will not be achieved in
any reasonable amount of time. Further, the D Block and the public
safety broadband spectrum make up what is called ``Band 14'' in the 700
MHz band. Without a commercial carrier in Band 14, the pool of
potential users in Band 14 is reduced dramatically, providing less
incentive for equipment manufacturers to develop or upgrade products.
Without the ability to capitalize on commercial research and
development, and choose from a broad array of commercial equipment
manufacturers, public safety users will be saddled with
disproportionately high costs for communications equipment and handsets
that are rapidly outdated and not readily replaceable. Once again,
public safety will be left behind and simply providing more spectrum
alone does not solve this concern.
guaranteeing coverage in urban, suburban, and rural areas
Under the National Broadband Plan, the FCC proposes a comprehensive
cost and leveraged deployment strategy that will economically and
expeditiously reach 99 percent of the population.
If the D Block is reallocated, the increased expense of the network
and user devices will make it more difficult to achieve Nation-wide
coverage, and could leave portions of the country without access to
these critical public safety communications services. In essence, these
areas will be left behind with the vestiges of legacy, narrowband
fragmented networks which encumber our Nation today. And it is most
likely the rural and economically challenged areas of the country that
will be stuck on the sidelines.
guaranteeing interoperability
Another critical requirement for this network is to ensure that it
is interoperable. This means that no matter the jurisdiction or the
uniform, when a first responder picks up a radio he should be able to
communicate with the right people and have the right information
instantaneously.
In April of this year the FCC took a dramatic step forward to
ensure interoperability when we established the Emergency Response
Interoperability Center or ERIC. ERIC's mission, with the help of
experts from the Department of Homeland Security and our other Federal
partners, is to develop technical requirements to ensure that the 700
MHz public safety broadband wireless network will be fully operable and
interoperable on a Nation-wide basis, both day-to-day and during times
of emergency. The impact of ERIC is already being seen. This May, the
FCC conditionally granted 21 waiver petitions for early deployment of
regional, State, and local public safety broadband networks.\2\ In
these initial grants, the FCC adopted baseline requirements as a first
step towards to ensure Day 1 interoperability for the network. In June,
we appointed twenty experienced, public safety practitioners to be
members of ERIC's Technical Advisory Committee, and we are in the
process of developing an additional advisory body with broader
participation. Together with input from the public safety community and
our Federal partners, the experience we gain with these initial
deployments will be instrumental as the FCC adopts its final technical
rules. As our recent actions demonstrate, the FCC is committed to
ensuring that as deployment begins on this network, interoperability is
fully achieved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ These include the City of Boston; the City and County of San
Francisco, City of Oakland, City of San Jose, CA; State of New Jersey;
City of New York; City of San Antonio, TX on behalf of the San Antonio
Urban Area Security Initiative Region; City of Chesapeake, VA; State of
New Mexico; City of Charlotte, NC; State of New York; District of
Colombia; County of Maui, County of Hawaii, County of Kauai, City and
County of Honolulu, and the State of Hawaii; City of Seattle, WA; Adams
County, CO Communications Center; City of Pembroke Pines, FL; Los
Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System; Iowa Statewide
Interop. Comms. System Bd.; Calumet, Outagamie and Winnebago Counties,
WI; Mississippi Wireless Communications Commission; City of Mesa, AZ
and the TOPAZ Regional Wireless Cooperative; State of Oregon; and State
of Alabama.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And this work must continue, regardless of the amount of spectrum
the public safety network uses. However, reallocating the D Block to
public safety may make this work even more complex for several reasons.
First, if the network is not Nation-wide, significant portions of the
country would not be able to interoperate with each other. Second,
without the ability to capitalize on a robust commercial equipment
market using open standards, the potential for proprietary solutions
and applications may also endanger interoperability. The use of
proprietary equipment and standard are part of the reason
interoperability has been elusive with our current narrowband public
safety systems. So, regardless of how much spectrum is allocated to
public safety, it is imperative that the FCC, with its Federal
partners, continue our work through ERIC to ensure the public safety
network does not begin on a flawed foundation.
ensuring sufficient capacity on the worst days
FCC engineers, experts, and technical staff have spent hundreds of
hours performing engineering analysis to determine whether the 10 MHz
of dedicated spectrum allocated to public safety will provide more than
adequate capacity and performance for day-to-day and emergency
communications. We have shown that a public safety network built on the
10 MHz of dedicated spectrum supports these critical communications
requirements.
Network capacity and performance are affected by spectrum, but
other important factors include the type of architecture employed, the
number of cell sites in operation, the number of sectors per cell,
sound network and spectrum management, and the specific technology that
the network utilizes.\3\ By deploying advanced, 4G wireless
technologies and cellular network architectures, public safety can
achieve much greater capacity than they have achieved in the past.
Indeed, moving from today's Land Mobile Radio (LMR) technology to LTE
or even pre-LTE technologies could increase capacity per megahertz by a
factor of 16.\4\ In fact, 10 megahertz of capacity on a cellular
network would be the equivalent of 160 megahertz on an LMR-type
network.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Public Safety Nationwide Interoperable Broadband Network: A
New Model for Capacity, Performance and Cost, at 5 (June 15, 2010),
available at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-
298799A1.pdf (Capacity White Paper).
\4\ Id. at 8.
\5\ J.M. Peha, ``How America's Fragmented Approach to Public Safety
Wastes Money and Spectrum,'' Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 31, No.
10-11, 2007, p. 605-618.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But we must also plan for the major disasters and emergencies that
may challenge the public safety spectrum. To that end, the Plan
recommended considering requiring commercial operators across the 700
MHz band, and possibly other bands, to provide public safety with
roaming and priority access on their networks at reasonable rates in
times of critical need. In this respect, advanced 4G technologies like
LTE employ more than a dozen levels of priority, which will allow
public safety ``packets'' to bypass other packets of information. Like
an ambulance with its sirens on, priority access will allow public
safety to speed ahead of everyone else, who must slow down and pull to
the side to provide public safety with the right of way. And under the
FCC's proposal public safety would have access to nearly 70 MHz of
additional spectrum in the 700 MHz band--far more than 10 MHz or 20
MHz, either of which would be inadequate in the worst emergencies.
Moreover, as technology evolves to allow priority roaming in other
commercial bands, public safety could potentially have access to
hundreds of megahertz--orders of magnitude greater than the alternative
that has been proposed.
Further, roaming and priority access will provide public safety
with access to redundant networks in case their network is unavailable.
If the FCC concept is employed, if necessary police, fire, and
emergency medical communications could simply roam over onto public
safety's choice of one or more commercial networks, with priority, and
still continue their public safety work. This level of resiliency and
redundancy has important benefits for public safety and for homeland
security. Simply reallocating spectrum does not provide this level of
redundancy; roaming and priority access are vital no matter what.
There are additional pieces to ensure adequate capacity and
performance recommended by the Plan. Our cost model recognizes and
captures the need for deployable caches of communications equipments,
such as cell towers on wheels, to supplement the network during the
worst emergencies. We have also recommended that States and localities
should include in their building codes requirements for the
installation of in-building transmitters. This will ensure that
communications is extended to deep within buildings.
In our expert opinion, many these elements could be at risk if the
D Block is simply reallocated to public safety. Ten megahertz of
additional spectrum cannot provide public safety with the capacity it
may require in the worst emergencies, or the redundancy and
dependability of roaming and priority access on multiple commercial
networks. Accordingly, pursuing roaming and priority access remain
vital considerations for disaster planning irrespective of whether the
core public safety network employs 10 or 20 megahertz.
providing opportunities for immediate deployment
Finally, let me end where I began--urgency. Regardless of whether
or not the D Block is reallocated, if we delay too long in taking
action, we lose the chance to capitalize on commercial 4G deployments;
we lose the chance to save the country tens of billions of dollars; we
lose the chance to bring this network to rural parts of the country;
and we lose the chance to make this network a reality in the near term.
These opportunities are available to us now, if we can muster the
courage and the urgency to act.
conclusion
Our mission is to ensure that public safety agencies in all areas
of the country have the can successfully access an advanced, wireless
broadband network. We have a singular opportunity to ensure that public
safety has a Nation-wide interoperable broadband network. Our Plan
carefully balances the input of all stakeholders, and takes advantage
of this opportunity by offering a sustainable, long-term, cost-
efficient model that provides first responders with the state-of-the-
art, affordable, and interoperable broadband communications networks
they deserve. We have one chance to solve the 9/11 interoperability
problem and we must seize the opportunity while we can.
Thank you for your time and attention. I am very happy to take any
questions you may have.
Ms. Richardson. Mr. Greg? I am sorry, Schaffer.
STATEMENT OF GREGORY SCHAFFER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE OF
CYBER SECURITY AND COMMUNICATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Mr. Schaffer. That is all right. Chairwoman Richardson,
Ranking Member Rogers and distinguished Members of the
subcommittee, it is a pleasure to appear before you. As the
assistant secretary for Cyber Security and Communications at
DHS, I would like to lay out how my office supports the
interoperable emergency communications needs of the Nation,
including our role to date in moving forward regarding the
FCC's National Broadband Plan.
CS&C plays a central role in continuing the process of
advancing emergency communications, including by actively
participating and engaging with the FCC on issues surrounding
the National public safety broadband network, and working with
the Department of Justice as administration representatives to
the Emergency Response Interoperability Center.
DHS' goal is to make certain that all emergency responders
have the capabilities needed to perform their essential
missions, whether using today's communications infrastructures
or emerging broadband technologies.
Let me expand on that. Much of the debate that is going on
right now revolves around the allocation of 10 megahertz of
spectrum known as the D Block. However, the merits of building
a National public safety broadband network are more complex
than simply whether the D Block spectrum is allocated to public
safety or auctioned to the private sector.
In fact, the vast majority of what needs to be done in
order to ensure that public safety has what it needs moving
forward must be done regardless of the outcome of the D Block
debate.
We must begin to work on public safety standards for
broadband networks, including known and anticipated data
requirements. We must determine the technical and legal
capabilities for priority access and roaming across the full
range of the 700 megahertz spectrum. These efforts must be
undertaken now, regardless of how the D Block issue is
resolved. They are fundamental elements to successfully
building the network.
The Nation is at a critical juncture regarding the future
of emergency communications. Broadband technologies have
greatly expanded our expectations of what communications can
deliver, with millions of Americans now routinely using text
messaging, e-mail, location-based services and mobile video via
smart phones and other devices, a trend that will only continue
with the emerging technologies such as the 4G networks.
These new technologies can be used to augment the existing
land mobile radio solutions that public safety currently relies
on to perform its vital mission, supporting rural jurisdictions
and urban areas alike. The administration strongly supports the
building of a National public safety broadband network, capable
of meeting the mission requirements of public safety.
Moreover, the administration is committed to helping fund
this network through a dedicated funding stream. Of course, the
FCC has been working on its plan for such a network for some
time, and the administration is carefully evaluating their
proposals. We are focused on a number of guiding principles as
we go through that process.
First, interoperability must be built into any network
architecture proposal from the outset. We must avoid developing
systems that are unable to interoperate without substantial
investment in expensive add-on components as has often been
necessary with land mobile radios.
Second, coverage in both urban and rural areas and across
the full range of the public safety mission space is essential.
Firefighters, law enforcement officials, and EMTs must all
benefit from broadband.
Third, the solution must leverage commercial technologies.
If public safety and commercial providers can leverage common
infrastructure, chipsets, and base station technologies which
also meet public safety requirements, all will benefit.
Let me emphasize this point. The best solutions will
leverage commercial technologies today and allow continued
evolution of capabilities over time, ensuring access to
cutting-edge solutions for the long term.
The arguments for and against reallocation of the D Block
are extremely complex, and any proposal must meet the needs of
public safety and these three guiding principles.
Before any decision on the FCC's proposal to auction the D
Block and allow public safety priority access to roam on
commercial networks in cases of emergency, several aspects need
additional clarity.
First, both the technical and legal aspects of the
framework for priority access and roaming must be evaluated to
ensure that priority can actually be given to public safety
communications in a time of emergency at a price tag that they
can afford.
Second, the FCC's plan will necessitate sufficient funding
to build out the infrastructure required for the network, and
these costs must also be well-understood.
Third, while any use of wireless broadband technology as a
replacement for existing public safety mission critical voice
traffic systems is years away, it is essential that significant
efforts be taken now to solve critical technical challenges
associated with public safety use of commercial networks.
We need to gain clarity quickly on these important matters.
One step toward doing so is the establishment of a public
safety interoperability task force, including representatives
from DHS, DOJ, and other Federal agencies, set up to better
understand and identify public safety requirements and test
assumptions.
This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to enhance
public safety capabilities and save lives. We must get it
right. I thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I would
be happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The statement of Mr. Schaffer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gregory Schaffer
July 27, 2010
introduction
Chairwoman Richardson, Ranking Member Rogers, and distinguished
Members of the subcommittee, it is a pleasure to appear before you
today to discuss the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) emergency
communications mission. Today I will outline DHS's responsibilities in
emergency communications. I will also discuss our position on the
development and deployment of a Nation-wide public safety broadband
network including the allocation of the Upper 700 MHz Band D Block
radio spectrum. Finally, I will outline the steps that DHS, in
coordination with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and other
Federal departments and agencies, has taken and plans to take to ensure
that our Nation's emergency responders have the ability to communicate
as needed, on demand, and as authorized at all levels of Government and
across all disciplines.
The Nation is at a critical juncture regarding the future of
emergency communications. We have an opportunity to change the
trajectory of how the United States responds to emergency events.
Today, the needs of public safety users are being met by Land Mobile
Radio (LMR) technologies, which are used across the Nation by Federal,
State, local, and Tribal governments to provide the mission-critical
voice capabilities used every day by firefighters, law enforcement
officers, emergency medical technicians, and other first responders to
protect and save lives. In a broadband world in which voice, video, and
data are available to every smartphone user, voice communications--
while essential--are no longer sufficient to meet the needs of
emergency responders. Public Safety also needs the data capabilities
and efficiencies that newer technologies can provide.
The planned deployment of new fourth generation, or 4G, mobile
technologies by many commercial carriers over the next several years
presents a historic window of opportunity to secure a range of high-
speed, cutting-edge, inherently interoperable capabilities for our
Nation's public safety and emergency response community. These new
technologies can be leveraged to augment the existing LMR solutions
that the public safety community currently uses to perform its vital
mission: Delivering a robust, operable, and interoperable Nation-wide
public safety network. This improved network would support rural
jurisdictions and urban areas alike, ensuring that all emergency
responders have access to the new capabilities. If employed
effectively, it will facilitate the development of new technologies
tailored to public safety which could mean faster response times for
ambulances and fire engines, as traffic-aware mapping systems guide
responders around obstructions and along obscure roads and side
streets, avoiding congested areas. Real-time video analysis could
improve situational awareness and reduce risks to civilians. High-speed
imaging transmissions could enhance the effectiveness of emergency
medical treatment in remote locations, saving more lives. The
possibilities, not unlike the demand for and use of applications on
smartphones, for new life-saving solutions and inventions are
unlimited.
We support the vision of a National public safety broadband
network, which leverages commercial technologies and applications, to
meet public safety and emergency response requirements. Among the
capabilities public safety needs are:
(1) An infrastructure built to handle natural hazards;
(2) Nation-wide interoperable coverage for all public safety
agencies;
(3) Public safety-grade voice capability;
(4) Robust data services;
(5) Public Switched Telephone Network access;
(6) Satellite services.
These services raise complex issues, but we are committed to
ensuring strong capabilities for vital public safety communications.
overview of dhs emergency communications responsibilities
Within the Office of Cybersecurity and Communications, I manage two
organizations that focus on different but converging areas of
telecommunications: The Office of Emergency Communications (OEC) and
the National Communications System (NCS). OEC was established as part
of the Congressional response to the communications challenges faced
during the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and Hurricane Katrina
in 2005. Created by Congress in 2006, OEC coordinates policy and
assists in the development and implementation of interoperable and
operable emergency communications capabilities for emergency responders
at all levels of government--Federal, State, local, Tribal, and
territorial. OEC provides more than 100 technical assistance visits to
State and local partners each year and coordinates Federal interagency
emergency communications activities across 14 partner agencies through
the Emergency Communications Preparedness Center, and across all levels
of government through the SAFECOM Executive Committee and Emergency
Response Council. OEC also led the development of the National
Emergency Communications Plan (NECP).
The NCS, transferred from the Department of Defense to DHS in 2003,
was created by Executive Order to support the telecommunications
functions of the Executive Office of the President and all Federal
departments and agencies for Continuity of Government, Enduring
Constitutional Government, and Continuity of Operations. The NCS is an
interagency system comprised of the telecommunications assets of 24
Federal departments and agencies, each with significant operational,
policy, regulatory, and enforcement responsibilities. The NCS
coordinates telecommunications preparedness, response, and restoration
activities across its 24 member agencies through the NCS Committee of
Principals, which consists of senior Government officials from each of
the 24 member agencies, ensuring a diverse representation across the
NCS that includes the full range of Federal telecommunications assets.
The NCS developed, manages, and administers priority communications
services that take advantage of existing capabilities provided by the
privately owned public switched network (PSN), yielding a cost-
effective emergency communications solution for Government and critical
infrastructure emergency responders.
If the PSN is damaged, degraded, or congested during times of
emergency, crisis, or war, the NCS priority services allow senior
Federal officials and first responders to complete their calls. These
priority services are maintained in a constant state of readiness
through the NCS's unique public/private partnership with the PSN
providers. The NCS also administers an FCC mandate that prioritizes
restoration of critical National security and emergency preparedness
circuits if they are damaged or destroyed during disasters or
emergencies. Under the National Response Framework, the NCS is the lead
agency responsible for executing Emergency Support Function No. 2
Communications. To ensure that effective and reliable communications
exist to provide Continuity of Government, Enduring Constitutional
Government, and Continuity of Operations, the NCS identified the
minimum continuity communications requirements for all Federal
departments and agencies, and tests the operational readiness of those
capabilities every month.
Both the OEC and the NCS are critical to shaping National policy,
improving technological capabilities, and securing Federal Government
support for a Nation-wide public safety broadband network. They work
across DHS, Federal departments and agencies, multiple levels of
government, and private industry to improve communications capabilities
and achieve their mission requirements.
In July 2008, OEC--working closely with our partners from all
levels of government and the private sector--published the first
National Emergency Communications Plan (NECP). The NECP established a
clear operational vision for our Nation's emergency communications
efforts--that emergency responders can communicate as needed, on
demand, and as authorized, at all levels of government and across all
disciplines. This vision is not technology-specific but encompasses all
the wide range of different means and methods that emergency responders
use to communicate. The NECP established three measurable goals, the
first of which we are currently in the process of evaluating:
Goal 1.--By 2010, 90 percent of all high-risk urban areas
designated within the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI)
are able to demonstrate response-level emergency communications
within 1 hour for routine events involving multiple
jurisdictions and agencies.
Goal 2.--By 2011, 75 percent of non-UASI jurisdictions are
able to demonstrate response-level emergency communications
within 1 hour for routine events involving multiple
jurisdictions and agencies.
Goal 3.--By 2013, 75 percent of all jurisdictions are able
to demonstrate response-level emergency communications within 3
hours, in the event of a significant incident as outlined in
National planning scenarios.
This month we held 10 evaluations of Goal 1 progress. By the end of
October of this year, we will have evaluated the communications
capabilities of the Nation's largest urban areas. Next year, we will
expand upon this effort and evaluate Goal 2, coordinating with States
to collect information at the county level and providing DHS with
detailed performance and capability data from more than 3,000 local
jurisdictions.
Through OEC, DHS has placed heavy emphasis on communications
capacity building at the State and local level. At the center of this
effort has been support for the development of extensive governance
structures--including strategic plans, governance bodies, and the
identification of State-wide leadership--in order to strategically
guide emergency communications investments in States and localities.
Interoperability is not just about enabling technologies--it is as much
about the people and processes necessary to use technology in an
interoperable way.
The investments we have made over the past several years in
governance can be fully leveraged as new broadband technologies are
integrated into the suite of solutions that will be used by the public
safety community in the future. Today each of the Nation's 56 States
and territories has Statewide Communications Interoperability Plans and
Statewide Interoperability Governing Bodies to guide their efforts to
improve emergency communications capabilities across their States. In
addition, 44 States have hired full-time Statewide Interoperability
Coordinators to lead the effort to build interoperable emergency
communications networks. These planning structures, people, and
processes, are the crucial building blocks necessary to successfully
integrate broadband communications networks into the overarching
emergency communications enterprise. In many ways, the emergency
response community is poised to take this next step.
These organizational efforts are complemented by the priority
services programs managed by the NCS. The Nation's telecommunications
providers are transitioning from the current circuit switched
technology to next generation network (NGN) Internet protocol (IP)
packet-switched technology. The NCS is working closely with private
industry, National, and international standards bodies to ensure that
current priority service capabilities continue. The NCS' NGN program is
intended to ensure that all National security and emergency
preparedness users continue to have priority service capabilities in
the next-generation network environment. These capabilities, and NCS's
expertise, provide vital support to public safety communications as the
Nation migrates towards an IP-based communications environment.
dual path model
As broadband communications capabilities are layered into the
emergency communications enterprise, it is essential that we leverage
the strategies, policy, governance structures, and coordination groups
that support current emergency communications capabilities to address
the challenges and opportunities of the broadband world. We are not
starting from scratch, and we cannot forget the importance of
continuing to support and improve current day-to-day mission critical
communications capabilities. Based on everything we know today about
both the state of the technology and the resources of the community, we
believe that it is unlikely that public safety would transition away
from LMR in fewer than 10 years. As the first broadband systems are
built, they will primarily come in the form of broadband wireless cards
for laptops, not ruggedized public safety handsets that handle both
data and voice transmissions. While a single unified broadband solution
for both data transmission and mission critical voice should ultimately
be possible, only with future refinement of standards, significant
research and development, and rigorous testing and evaluation will we
be able to begin moving forward with the transition from mission-
critical voice communications to broadband networks.
As we concentrate and unify our efforts on building broadband
communications capabilities, we will continue to partner with public
safety to ensure continued, robust interoperability alongside full
broadband implementation. Our goal is to make certain that all
emergency responders have the capabilities needed to perform their
essential missions, with respect to both today's communications
infrastructure and emerging broadband technologies.
broadband network policy requirements
As DHS evaluates any potential plan to develop and deploy a Nation-
wide public safety broadband network, we are focused on a number of
guiding principles. First and foremost, interoperability must be built
into any network architecture proposal from the outset. We must use
lessons learned from the creation of the LMR environment and avoid
developing systems that are unable to interoperate with each other
without substantial investment in expensive add-on components.
Second, coverage in both urban and rural areas is mission-
essential. Emergency responders across the entire range of response
official--from metropolitan police departments to rural county
volunteer fire departments--must benefit from broadband communications
capabilities to meet their mission requirements. This network must be
able to address earthquakes in San Francisco as well as wild fires in
Montana. It needs to provide coverage for potential terrorist events in
New York City and hurricanes in rural Louisiana. This effort is about
connecting everyone, no matter where in the United States they live.
Third, the solution must allow public safety devices to heavily
leverage commercial technology. Within the current LMR environment,
public safety handset costs can range from hundreds to several
thousands of dollars per unit, largely because they are not able to
leverage the economies of scale from which commercial customers
benefit. The same generally holds true for infrastructure components--
towers, base stations, switching equipment, antennae, and backhaul
facilities. If public safety and commercial providers can leverage
common infrastructure, chipsets, and base station technologies which
also meet public safety requirements, both sides will benefit.
Finally, any solution must provide a path for the network to evolve
and grow, progressively adding greater capability and providing better
mission support.
The release of the FCC's National Broadband Plan (NBP) has focused
much-needed attention on developing a Nation-wide public safety
broadband network. While reactions have been strong both for and
against elements of the plan, DHS believes that the increased attention
to this challenge, and ensuring transparency in meeting it, will result
in stronger solutions. The NBP's key public safety recommendations are
far-reaching and the administration is currently examining the NBP as
part of the National Science and Technology Council's subcommittee on
broadband. DHS is working closely with the administration on the Public
Safety portions of the plan.
The administration strongly supports building a National public
safety broadband network capable of meeting the mission requirements of
public safety. Moreover, the administration is committed to a dedicated
funding stream to help fund the network using revenues derived from
spectrum initiatives.
The administration recently provided the opportunity for funding a
portion of the Nation-wide public safety broadband network when the
Department of Commerce reopened the second round of the Broadband
Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) to allow 21 jurisdictions to
compete with other applications for Federal grant funding. If a public
safety applicant is successful, they may use those funds to begin
building out systems that make use of public safety broadband spectrum.
We support the FCC's decision to grant waivers to these 21
jurisdictions for conditional use of currently allocated spectrum to
promote the development of technological solutions, processes, and
procedures that can inform the deployment of other jurisdictions
throughout the United States. We are hopeful that these applicants will
submit competitive, well-thought-out applications. Successful public
safety applicants could help lead the way and accelerate the
development and deployment of broadband communications capabilities
across the United States. At the same time, we note that it is
critically important that these jurisdictions build to a single
consistent standard so that the resulting system of systems is both
operable and interoperable.
The Department of Commerce is also sponsoring a significant
initiative--the Public Safety Broadband Demonstration Network--at its
Boulder, Colorado labs, where Federal agencies, public safety, and
industry will come together to promote public safety broadband
technologies and evaluate equipment. This initiative will help ensure
that objective data can be provided to public safety on the
capabilities and limitations of broadband devices as they become
available. Earlier this month I visited the Boulder labs as part of
DHS's on-going efforts to ensure that public safety's technical
questions and needs are being addressed. Among other efforts, DHS is
facilitating direct public safety community participation in the
evaluation process and looks forward to continuing to partner with the
Department of Commerce to ensure that emergency responders can
participate in these efforts.
the d block
At the Department, our efforts are focused on ensuring that public
safety has the capabilities to communicate as needed, on demand, and as
authorized at all levels of government and across all disciplines. The
arguments for and against reallocation of the D Block are extremely
complex, and we believe that any proposal must meet the needs of public
safety and adhere to the guiding principles I laid out earlier. Under
the FCC's proposal, public safety communications would transition into
a commercial environment characterized by increased infrastructure to
maximize spectrum reuse and the utilization of commercial chipsets and
base station technology to achieve significant cost and capability
advantages for public safety users and the Nation. We believe that the
FCC's proposal has merit, with a number of significant caveats.
First, the FCC's proposal relies on development of a new generation
of technical capabilities and additional legal authorities, which are
intended to allow public safety to roam onto commercial spectrum with
priority access in emergency events. Both the technical and legal
frameworks for this type of plan must be evaluated, and capacity and
capability outcomes understood, before any decision can be made
regarding the spectrum requirements for public safety.
Second, the FCC's plan will necessitate sufficient funding to build
out the infrastructure required for the network. Effective network
operations require that sufficient cell sites and base stations be
built out and that the network be hardened as appropriate. One
significant advantage of the FCC's plan is that network costs are
expected to be significantly less than other alternatives, and costs
are of course an important factor for public safety.
Third, the FCC expects that commercial networks can ultimately be
enabled to handle not only mission-enhancing public safety data
communications traffic but eventually, mission-critical public safety
voice traffic as well. While the use of Long Term Evolution wireless
broadband technology as a replacement for existing public safety voice-
traffic systems is years away, it is essential that significant efforts
be undertaken now to solve the following critical technical challenges
associated with public safety use of commercial networks:
(1) The networks and associated equipment must be able to operate
in a one-to-many mode, as LMR systems do today, in addition to
the one-to-one mode of typical commercial cellular phone
systems.
(2) The networks and associated equipment must be able to operate
peer-to-peer (or handset-to-handset) in the event of network
outages;
(3) The networks must be able to provide clear understandable voice
communications in high-noise environments like burning
buildings, and with minimal voice delay; and
(4) The networks must be able to penetrate to and from the interior
of large buildings without significant degradation of
capability.
the path forward
To move forward, working in close partnership with the public
safety and emergency response community, and with support from the FCC,
the administration, through the Department of Homeland Security and the
Department of Justice is establishing a joint task force on public
safety interoperability to better understand and identify public safety
requirements, test assumptions and approaches associated with meeting
those requirements, recommend technical, policy, process, and
governance solutions, and coordinate with the FCC. This task force will
allow personnel from several of the departments and agencies with major
interoperability competencies to work in partnership with the public
safety community.
The administration also plans to convene a forum this fall to
discuss funding, spectrum requirements, technology issues, and
governance models necessary to support the development of a next
generation network for public safety communications.
dhs support
DHS is committed to supporting public safety and pursuing a dual
path strategy that steadily improves mission-critical voice
communications capabilities while investing in the deployment of a
Nation-wide public safety broadband network. We will continue to
provide technical assistance and governance support, share best
practices and lessons learned, and provide venues for coordination for
our Nation's emergency responders as they maintain and improve their
day-to-day mission-critical communications networks, procedures, and
protocols.
We will support the 21 waiver jurisdictions as they begin their
efforts to deploy the Nation's first public safety broadband systems in
700 MHz public safety spectrum. We will work with these jurisdictions
to ensure that their efforts create an interoperable system of systems
that allows users from all jurisdictions to converge and operate
seamlessly in the event of an incident of National significance. We
will leverage the best practices and lessons learned from these efforts
to encourage their integration into broadband communications
capabilities.
Within the next year, we will release a revised version of the
NECP, which will lay out the policy and strategic direction for
integration of public safety communications across all technology
platforms and more explicitly integrate the dual path model. We will
also apply our IP packet prioritization and standards expertise to the
challenges facing the public safety community.
We look forward to working with other Federal departments and
agencies and Congress to explore additional opportunities for Federal
partnerships with a new Nation-wide public safety broadband network.
conclusion
We must seize the opportunity to build a Nation-wide public safety
broadband network that will provide cutting-edge capabilities to our
first responders. We will aggressively work to support public safety
agencies as they integrate broadband data capabilities into their
emergency communications systems, protocols, and governance structures.
This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity, and we must get it right.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify, and I would be happy to
answer your questions.
Ms. Richardson. I thank all the witnesses for your
testimony. I will remind each Member that he or she will have 5
minutes to question the panel, and I will recognize myself
first for questions.
You know, I am going to do something that staff will always
tremor when a Member does, and I am going to divert a little
bit from my questions and ask you one that I have for myself.
In many industries, whether it is alcohol and tobacco,
whether it is oil companies or even networks, in those
industries there is a small fee that oftentimes the various
providers will pay that will contribute to an overall good that
an agency would provide.
Has there been any discussions about why the networks
themselves, the companies that benefit from the megahertz, why
we wouldn't just have a small fee based upon X amount to be
able to pay for a public safety network that benefits them as
well as the entire public?
Admiral Barnett. Congresswoman, we looked at some 27
different permutations of ways to be able to make the network
work. If what you are talking about is the actual public safety
spectrum that is public safety's.
They can only exist in that and so actually they would be
contracting, they can even build it themselves under our plan
or they can contract with a carrier or somebody else. But it is
their spectrum so----
Ms. Richardson. No, sir, what I am asking is, and let me
give you an example. When I worked in the State legislature I
was on government operations, which included alcohol, tobacco,
and gaming.
The alcohol and tobacco companies paid a certain amount of
fees, some might call it a tax, whatever you might call it,
they paid a general fee for per bottle or per whatever it was,
and that went into, for example, the education of, you know,
Alcoholics Anonymous and so on.
My question is, why wouldn't we be talking to AT&T,
Qualcomm, Verizon, and many of these other providers and say,
okay, by having them participating in the 700 megahertz band,
that you would pay X amount of fee and that those funds would
be utilized to build our public safety network?
Admiral Barnett. Now I understand what you are asking,
Chairwoman.
Ms. Richardson. Yes.
Admiral Barnett. Actually, so one of the things we looked
at, and while we leave to Congress the general concepts of
funding the network, one of the things we wanted to put forward
is operation of the network.
That we looked at, in essence, the FCC being able to, as
one suggestion, to levy some type of, you know, fee I guess you
could say against the various carriers that would go into a
fund that would help the various public safety agencies operate
their network, maintain their network, and this is very
important, upgrade their network.
Because we want, as Assistant Secretary Schaffer said, we
want to make sure that public safety keeps up with its
commercial technologies it develops rather than locked in to 20
years as we had in the past.
Ms. Richardson. Admiral, with all due respect, I am sorry.
I have only got 2 minutes left. So my question is, I heard
everything that the Secretary said and, in fact, I read all of
your testimony last night at about midnight. So I get that. My
question is has there been a discussion about assessing a fee,
and if there was what were the thoughts of that discussion?
Admiral Barnett. Yes, ma'am. There have been thoughts about
that, and one of the recommendations in the plan is to assess a
fee that would go into funding public safety's operation and
maintenance of the network.
Ms. Richardson. Okay. Could you supply that information to
this committee?
Admiral Barnett. Yes, ma'am. I will be glad to.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you very much. Okay, also Admiral, as
you know, a majority of the public safety organizations oppose
the NBP's auction recommendation while a few groups support
this auction. I would like to submit for the record a statement
from the Fraternal Order of Police supporting the National
Broadband Plan. Seeing no objection it is submitted into the
record.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Richardson. In general, most of the public safety
community has said that the FCC has not been willing to work in
a collaborative way with them in the development of the rollout
of the NBP's planned D Block recommendation.
Please describe in detail what efforts have been taken to
work with public safety to discuss their concerns prior to the
D Block recommendation being made. Specifically, how many
stakeholder meetings have occurred to hear their concerns?
Admiral Barnett. Chairwoman, I actually went back and
looked at this. We have had literally hundreds of meetings,
telephone calls, conference calls, workshops, forums, technical
forums where we bring people in. I think the witnesses that you
will have on your second panel will be able to tell you I have
never refused a meeting with anyone who requests it. Often I
will call to request it.
So we took a great deal of input and the National Broadband
Plan benefitted greatly by it. I would have loved to have been
able to agree with them on the D Block. It is just that the
data did not show that, and we feel like we had a
responsibility to Congress to tell you exactly what we found.
Ms. Richardson. Would you supply that list to this
committee?
Admiral Barnett. I would be glad to. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Richardson. Then my last question before I defer to the
Ranking Member, did public safety actually participate in
assisting with the drafting of the recommendation?
Admiral Barnett. No, ma'am. At that point the actual
recommendations after we took all the input we analyzed it and
put it into the broadband plan as the FCC does with its other
decisions and even in its rulemakings.
Ms. Richardson. Are you opposed to working with them to
discuss your current recommendations and to maybe consider a
compromise?
Admiral Barnett. I am always open to working with and
talking to public safety.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you.
With that I will defer to our Ranking Member from Alabama,
Mr. Rogers, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you. First let me say it is pleasant to
hear somebody with an accent like mine in this town.
[Laughter.]
Admiral Barnett. We don't have accents.
Mr. Rogers. We don't, but all these Yankees do.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Rogers. Admiral, in your opening statement you made the
point that we have an outdated equipment in our communications.
Why is it--and I have been on this committee 7 years--we have
spent a fortune trying to make sure that our public safety
folks can communicate with one another. But yet we still have
these interoperable problems?
I would like for you to tell me why you think that is and I
would like for Mr. Schaffer to tell me his thoughts on that.
Admiral Barnett. You know, in a very brief statement I
think the reason is because it is so expensive. The public
safety agencies have to invest in, in essence, amortize it over
20 and 30 years. So as technological advances occur for
interoperability it is very hard to get everybody on the same
page at the same time.
That is why this technological clean slate is so important.
It is not going to last long. We really have to act quickly on
it, but that is one of the reasons and one of the major
reasons, I think, that we cannot--we spent $8 billion of
Federal money alone in the last 5 years.
Mr. Rogers. I know.
Mr. Schaffer.
Mr. Schaffer. Congressman, I think one of the key issues
that we have discovered over the last couple of years in
particular, is that it is not just about the technology. It is
about the governance structures, the training, the
opportunities to have standard-based solutions.
What we have done in the last 2 years since the National
Emergency Communications Plan was first published, is put in
place a National structure that has cascaded into State
structures and local structures. We have State interoperability
plans at this point.
We have individuals at the State level who have
responsibility for managing interoperability for all of the
local and State resources. That was something that started 2
years ago when the National plan was published and, as
mentioned, the plan will be updated to focus on some of the
interoperability issues around the broadband solutions as well
as we go forward.
But having those structures in place is critically
important to make sure that the technology that we are using is
able to deliver the kind of interoperability that is needed.
So it is good that we have a clean slate with technology
and there is tremendous opportunity on broadband for the data
solutions there in the mission critical voice areas the use of
systems that are used today by public safety to do their day-
to-day job.
We need to continue doing what we have been doing as well.
So both are equally important I believe.
Mr. Rogers. Do you require in that plan that local
governments or State governments have to buy equipment or use
equipment that will network in exchange for the Federal funds
to pay for it?
Mr. Schaffer. There is grant guidance in a variety of
different ways. One of the things that is happening now is that
there is a move to make all of the various grants, whether it
is the Department of Justice grants, the Department of Homeland
Security grants and other places through the ECPC we are
working to have all the grant guidance aligned.
So the Emergency Communication Preparedness Center--that is
one of the work streams that they are engaged in to try to get
grant guidance all aligned in a way that will lead to greater
interoperability.
There have been a number of moves within the plan to drive
interoperability and to have all of those pieces line up in a
way that will now need to coordinate what the broadband pieces
as well.
Mr. Rogers. Great. Admiral--oh, wait, I am sorry, Mr.
Schaffer. In your testimony you discussed the creation of a
task force that includes FCC, NTIA, and the Department of
Justice on the issue of public safety broadband initiative.
However, Congress also established the Emergency
Communications Preparedness Center in 2006. Now, the ECPC was
specifically established to avoid duplication, hindrances, and
counteractive efforts among the participating Federal agencies.
Could you please explain the purpose of this task force and how
would you respond to the accusation that this is simply another
layer of bureaucracy?
Mr. Schaffer. Yes, Congressman. The ECPC has a very broad
mandate. It is focused across the Federal enterprise. Right now
membership with 14 departments and agencies that are most
heavily involved in emergency communications, to address
communications issues across that Federal enterprise to try to
coordinate, create better leverage, do things like focus on the
grant guidance, find ways to leverage across the Federal
departments and agencies.
They are focused on things well beyond the broadband plan
and the very specific issues around the deployment of a single
network within the 700 megahertz space and the issues that that
brings up.
The administration has created this task force to focus on
that very narrow issue with respect to the broadband plan and
its implementation and whether or not the current proposals are
the ones that are best suited to bring things forward.
So it is a task force designed to focus on what the FCC has
done and bring some additional analysis, ensure that public
safety's concerns, questions, and issues are being looked at by
the administration as well as the FCC.
The FCC has spent a year preparing their plan and focusing
on it. The administration is trying to put some focus on it as
well, and that is what the task force is really about.
Mr. Rogers. Good. Thank you, Mr. Schaffer. My time has
expired.
Ms. Richardson. You asked my third question.
Mr. Rogers. Okay. Glad to help.
Ms. Richardson. The National Broadband Plan will provide
safety with additional capacity by requiring commercial
carriers to support roaming and priority access on commercial
networks as you testified, Mr. Schaffer.
As I understand it, priority access merely means putting
public safety at the head of the line, but does not guarantee
that they can get on a system that is already clogged with
consumer traffic, a situation that routinely occurs at the
scene of an emergency.
What happens if commercial carriers are unable to provide
the priority access because their own systems are already
overloaded? Who is liable if the system is not available when
the public safety needs it most? Finally, how would commercial
providers prioritize spectrum use among fire and police in one
or multiple jurisdictions or among State and Federal officials?
Mr. Schaffer.
Mr. Schaffer. Chairwoman, there are key in our approach
from DHS perspective is making sure that our public safety
resources have what they need in order to execute in their
mission space. So we are very interested in how the priority
and roaming access will actually operate.
The good news is that the technology that has been selected
by the FCC has been endorsed by the public safety resources has
a lot of capability with respect to priority that did not exist
in prior iterations of the technology.
There are questions, however, in terms of both how that
technology will work in practice as opposed to in the standards
and what the legal regimes will need to be in order to ensure
that that roaming and priority access is instantiated and
capable to move forward in a way that actually works.
So until some of those questions are resolved, it is very
hard to know exactly how that will work and how you will
prioritize, for example, as you asked, between police and fire
and other resources.
But those are the kinds of questions that we are looking at
with respect to the task force and trying to work with the FCC
to understand what their plan is in terms of how to execute in
those spaces.
Ms. Richardson. Well, let me put it this way, Mr. Schaffer,
just like real Americans. Okay, if I am on a plane and I have
priority access, let us say, to upgrade. I have half a million
miles, and I have priority access to be able to upgrade to
first class.
But if there are no seats, I don't get upgraded. So in my
opinion, priority access means nothing in terms of emergencies
because if there is an emergency, we don't need priority. We
need to be in.
So, my question would be how is it that the FCC could
propose a plan that the administration and you would be
supporting when we don't even have the answer to that question?
Because priority access is not adequate, as you said, we don't
even have the answer to the question yet, if in the event an
emergency occurs.
Mr. Schaffer. Ma'am, I want to be very clear that we are
analyzing and raising questions with respect to exactly how
that roaming and priority access would work in just the way
that you are.
We don't have the details yet of exactly how that function
will work. There are various ratings and methodologies with
which one could implement priority access, preemptive access.
There are various ways that this could be done. Of course----
Ms. Richardson. How could you support an auction going on
if you don't have the answer to that question?
Mr. Schaffer. Again, we at this point are saying that we
believe that a decision on an auction needs to await some of
these technical answers being worked out.
Ms. Richardson. So is it your testimony that the
administration and your department is not supporting the
continuation of the auction until these questions are answered?
Mr. Schaffer. We are indeed at this point analyzing these
questions and looking to resolve some of the issues before an
auction final decision is made, yes.
Ms. Richardson. Okay. We already--Mr. Rogers brought up the
question about the duplication of effort and lack of
coordination. I guess I didn't clearly understand though in a
clear answer why is it that the current centers still can't do
it? Why is it the insistence on another commission? I mean, I
work 18 hours a day.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Schaffer. I believe we are all putting our time in. As
a practical matter, I think it is a question of focus. ECPC is
made up of resources that primarily handle emergency
communications for the Federal departments and agencies.
The questions at issue here are 700 megahertz spectrum
questions which is public safety, State, local, Tribal
government spectrum being used, and so it is a slight
disconnect there. There is a desire to have some aggressive
focus on the FCC's proposal and reaching some conclusions on
the kinds of questions that you have been asking this morning.
So, I think the goal here has just been to make sure that
we have got focused resources looking into those questions, and
the ECPC is moving forward with several issues at the Federal
level for Federal spectrum use, reuse, coordination, leverage,
et cetera, so just an effort to move as quickly as we can.
Ms. Richardson. Mr. Rogers, did you have any follow-up
questions?
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
Ms. Richardson. Okay.
Mr. Rogers. Chief Barnett, could you go into some detail
about ERIC which was established as a result of the National
Broadband Plan?
Admiral Barnett. Yes, sir. The Emergency Response and
Interoperability Center was conceived to make sure that we have
interoperability from the very beginning and on an on-going
basis. So this is a technological center.
Basically the engineers and technicians working closely
with public safety and we are moving forward on basically a--I
am sorry, a factor committee for public safety to advise us on
that.
It is basically to ensure that we are adopting the right
standards, that encryption, that authentication, that all the
technical aspects of interoperability are begun and continued
as we move forward.
Mr. Rogers. Great. Mr. Schaffer, the goals of the Office of
Emergency Communications and Emergency Response and
Interoperability Center at the FCC seem to be in conflict with
one another. Have OEC and FCC discussed potential conflict, and
is there a plan in place to ensure the role of ERIC does not
encroach on OEC?
Mr. Schaffer. Yes, sir. I believe that there is actually
complementary opportunity with respect to what OEC is trying to
do and what the ERIC is trying to do. As the Admiral notes,
ERIC is focused on some of the technology-specific issues
around the new network.
OEC has as its mission coordination of interoperability
goals across Federal, State, local, and Tribal governments.
Their responsibilities are mostly in the policy area,
governance spaces, promotion of appropriate solutions across
all of that space.
OEC has been and continues to work with the FCC, with ERIC,
in order to ensure that we are coordinating between the
National Emergency Communications Plan, the State-wide plans
and the other pieces, and what the FCC has in mind for ERIC and
the broadband capabilities.
Because as a practical matter, as we said in our testimony,
it will be important that those be coordinated over the long
term and that as we move from the narrow band solutions that we
have today, as we continue to use those systems for mission
critical voice and start to use the new systems for the data
solutions and maybe think about, as the FCC has proposed, using
some voice over those systems, that we are coordinated in the
way we are trying to do interoperability between the two
networks.
So there is a lot of opportunity to leverage what OEC has
done historically into some of the new spaces and make sure
that we have consistent interoperability over an extended
period of time in both the land mobile radio space, which will
be important for a long time, and the new broadband data
networks which are just coming on.
Mr. Rogers. Great. Thank you very much. That is all I have.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Rogers. Admiral Barnett, in
addition to concerns about the lack of involvement of public
safety in this whole entire process and continuing with the
recommendations, it is also our understanding that the
Department of Homeland Security, at least visibly of what we
know, has not been as largely visible or making a statement of
their stand in support of what the public safety organizations
are saying. To what degree has the Department of Homeland
Security been involved?
Admiral Barnett. Well, from our side, ma'am, we have
consulted with DHS and Secretary Schaffer, with OEC from the
very beginning. I came into the FCC in July. I think my first
meeting with DHS was in August. So we have tried to keep them
up as we developed.
Of course, that beginning part we developed were ideas, the
27 things we visited with them then. We visited with them on
how it would be funded. So I think there is a pretty good level
of interaction between DHS and FCC on this question.
Ms. Richardson. So would you also supply that to this
committee your involvement with DHS and----
Admiral Barnett. I would be glad to, ma'am.
Ms. Richardson [continuing]. How many and how often and
what was in fact communicated?
Admiral Barnett. I would be glad to.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The information is included in Appendix I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Richardson. Thank you. Then for you, Mr. Schaffer, you
know, you engage a very positive relationship with public
safety in nature due to the committee's role. What do you think
that you can do to assist in this impasse that currently does
in fact exist?
Mr. Schaffer. Well, I think it is incumbent upon DHS and
the administration to make sure that public safety's concerns
are being heard and that they are being examined and explored
in order to reach some ground truth about what can and can't be
accomplished with the various solutions that are coming
forward.
One of the challenges for everyone here is that the
technology that is being recommended by the FCC, it is a great
opportunity because it is brand new, but it is also a challenge
because it is brand new.
This technology has not been deployed anywhere in the
United States. Indeed, it has been deployed almost nowhere in
the world yet, and so the standards, the solutions, the
methodologies to bring that set of capabilities forward, it is
not absolutely clear what it is capable of.
So NIST, for example, is setting up a network out in
Colorado that will give an opportunity to test some of these
solutions and proposals. We have been very heavily engaged with
the Department of Commerce and that demonstration network for
the last 2 weeks.
I have been out to Colorado to work with NIST and to make
sure that we understand what is coming forward through that
process and how we can help to examine what the real
capabilities will be when the technology is available to be
tested and deployed, so----
Ms. Richardson. So are you committed to working with the
public safety community and with the FCC to find a solution to
this impasse?
Mr. Schaffer. We absolutely are, yes.
Ms. Richardson. Okay. I had a follow-up question. You know,
it seems to me, and unfortunately sometimes the way hearings
are, it is like we hear from you and then you leave, and then
our next panel will come up and say some things we would love
to ask you. So that is why for the record, the committee will
be able to ask subsequent questions to you and ask you to
provide them in writing.
But my question is, you know, I heard both of you in your
initial testimony and you talked about, you know, one of the
concerns of just allocating the D Block to public safety would
be a concern of, you know, archaic system and it not working
together and all of that.
You know, it does not behoove the public safety community
to have a system that would not connect and wouldn't be able to
be interchangeable. So in what I have read of their testimony,
I don't understand or I don't get that the objection is that
they want to create some separate, completely different system.
It is that they want to be involved in the design of it.
They want to make sure that the system, in fact, meets the
demands of what public safety has, which is very different from
a commercial system. What is the big objection to figuring that
out?
Admiral Barnett. We would agree that this should be a
public safety system, that they should design it. They should
say what operates on it. That is why, in examining all the
various options, we rejected a purely commercial system.
We said that 10 megahertz should be public safety's and
they should decide how they are going to deploy it. It is only
when it roams that we suggested that it is able to roam over to
the commercial networks. So we really do believe that it should
be a dedicated public safety system.
Ms. Richardson. So what is the roaming issue?
Admiral Barnett. The roaming issue is simply--and I don't
think that they disagree that they want to have it. It is a
question of whether it roams over on from 10 or 20 megahertz.
But the roaming issue--and if I could mention also the priority
access that goes right with it, you mentioned an airplane with
first class and the economy class.
Actually with the new technologies, if you are first in
line, you actually get to go to first class and somebody else
moves back to economy class. So as soon as your--that are
playing video games, all of a sudden their performance shuts
down or at least slows down a good bit.
But the public safety, the police officer or the
firefighter, they go to the first of the line, and that is the
new technology. That is why we can't rely on thinking about the
old wireless priority system or old way.
As soon as they punch the button, packets start flowing
because an internet protocol system and LTE. It is a vastly
different system. We need to design it with that in mind.
Ms. Richardson. Well, with all due respect, sir, I have
been in Congress now, it will be just under 3 years, and
unfortunately what I have experienced in some of the disasters
and emergencies that have occurred is sometimes what we think
will work in a system doesn't always work, especially in an
emergency.
So, I would be of the mind, and I look forward as this
discussion continues, but I don't think we need public safety
to push a button and then they get in line. If we have an
emergency, we may not have time for them to push the button.
They have already got to be first in line. So we have got to
figure out how to get a solution to get us there.
Mr. Rogers, did you have any further questions? Okay, so to
wrap up the things that you are going to provide to this
committee, No. 1 is a list of the meetings and the attendees
for both the meetings that included public safety as well as
the Department of Homeland Security.
No. 2, the FCC you are going to provide us information on
the discussions that took place about levying a fee within the
industry to be able to assist in the payment of a public safety
system.
No. 4, Mr. Schaffer, you are going to give us more of a
further understanding prior to an auction going forward of how
we are going to ensure that priority access does in fact
include not priority access but immediate access to public
safety.
Okay, any further things, Mr. Rogers? All right. So I thank
the witnesses for being here for your valuable testimony and at
this time we ask the clerk to prepare the room for the next
panel.
Thank you very much.
Our first witness that we have is Chief Jeff Johnson. He is
the president and chairman of the Board for the International
Association of Fire Chiefs.
That organization represents the leadership of over 1.2
million firefighters and emergency responders. Chief Johnson
also serves as fire chief and administrator of the Tualatin
Valley Fire and Rescue in Oregon, which is a beautiful area.
Our second witness, Deputy Chief Charles Dowd, is the
commanding officer for the Communications Division of the New
York City Police Department. In this capacity, Chief Dowd is
responsible for the world's busiest 911 system, receiving over
11 million calls per year.
The New York Police Department's radio operations,
dispatching 4.9 million radio runs annually. Chief Dowd is a
30-year veteran of the New York Police Department and is a much
respected guest of our Ranking Member, Mr. King.
Our third witness, Mr. Robert A. LeGrande, II, is the
founder of the Digital Decision, formerly known as LeGrande
Technical and Social Services.
Previously, Mr. LeGrande was the chief technology officer
for the District of Columbia, where he provided leadership for
the city's wireless network operations, human services
modernization program and the National Capitals Region
Interoperable Communications program.
Our fourth witness, Mr. Eric Graham, serves as the vice
president for the Strategic and Government Relations for
Cellular South, which provides wireless services in all of
Mississippi as well as portions of Tennessee. Here we have
another accent of Alabama and Florida.
Mr. Graham directs the Cellular South policy agenda and is
responsible for the company's overall advocacy and efforts with
specific focus on Federal issues. Mr. Graham is testifying on
behalf of the Rural Cellular Association today.
Without objection, the witnesses' full statements will be
inserted into the record, and I now ask that Chief Johnson
summarize his statement for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CHIEF JEFFREY D. JOHNSON, PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN
OF THE BOARD, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE CHIEFS
Chief Johnson. Thank you, Chairwoman Richardson and Ranking
Member Rogers. I am Jeff Johnson, president of the
International Association of Fire Chiefs and fire chief in
Tualatin Valley, Oregon. I thank you for the opportunity to
discuss H.R. 5081, which allocates the D Block of spectrum
directly to public safety. This is a top priority for America's
fire service leadership.
On behalf of the IFC and the partners of the Public Safety
Alliance, I thank Representatives Peter King and Yvette Clarke
as well as over 50 co-sponsors, who clearly understand public
safety's need for this unique slice of spectrum.
As you are aware, the U.S. Senate has also introduced
legislation which will accomplish this goal. We are grateful
for this response from Congress for what is public safety's
most important issue.
Over the past 50 years, the Federal Communications
Commission has allocated thin slices of spectrum to public
safety as the need for more communications capability arose.
Currently 55,000 public safety agencies operate mission
critical radio systems, each with their own FCC license, over
six or more different bands.
Our goal of interoperability is difficult and it is
expensive. This is no criticism of the FCC. This is just the
way it has always been done. After the events of 9/11, Katrina,
and other major disasters, it is clear that a new model is
necessary, a National architecture for public safety wireless
communications.
To achieve a Nation-wide public safety wireless,
interoperable broadband network, a single licensee and a single
technology is required, operating on a network with sufficient
capacity to handle to day-to-day operations, as well as the
capability to manage major incidents. This network needs to be
mission-critical from the outset.
In the beginning, this system will handle only data and
video and at some future time, years away, we envision a
possible transition to mission-critical voice, namely radio
over internet protocol.
We all need to take a long-term view to start out with
sufficient spectrum so that we have the ability to migrate to
mission-critical voice if the technology is developed and
public safety gains confidence in it.
The following elements of mission-critical are key to a
successful public safety network. The network must be hardened
to public safety standards, which means that the towers must
withstand elements that might otherwise disable a lesser
system.
Two, public safety must have control over it. We cannot
have commercial providers deciding what is or is not an
emergency, at the end of the day, public safety must have their
hand on the joystick.
Third, the public safety mission-critical voice network
must have the ability to broadcast and receive one-to-one and
one-to-many without changes to the network. This so-called
talkaround capability is also known as simplex and from a
commander's perspective, this is an imperative in a system
design.
Fourth, the network must have backup capabilities in the
event of network loss. There are many critical needs that can
be met with broadband data and video in the fire service,
building diagrams available to commanders, hazmat inventories,
wild land fire situation awareness, video feeds from trauma
patients directly into the emergency room, and the list is
endless. Law enforcement also has a list of needs.
The point is in order to achieve a Nation-wide public
safety broadband network we need the 10 megahertz of the D
Block spectrum. Currently it is slated for FCC auction to be
added to our current 10 megahertz of spectrum known as the
public safety broadband, which is currently allocated to public
safety.
As you can see from the spectrum chart, this spectrum, the
D Block, is perfect for public safety. This is yours and our
one-time opportunity to get this right. The public safety
community urges a prompt and timely passage of H.R. 5081.
Madam Chairwoman and Ranking Member Rogers, we want to
assure you and your colleague that we are working tirelessly
with Members of Congress, the FCC, and the Department of
Homeland Security and anyone else in the administration that
will hear our issue to achieve this important public safety
goal.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here, and I look
forward to answering your questions.
[The statement of Chief Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jeffrey D. Johnson
May 27, 2010
Mr. Chairman: I am Jeffrey Johnson, president of the International
Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) and chief of the Tualatin Valley Fire
Department in Beaverton, Oregon. I thank you for the opportunity to
discuss H.R. 5081 which allocates the D Block of spectrum directly to
public safety. This is a top priority for America's fire service
leadership and the only one for the Public Safety Alliance. (PSA
membership list attached)
On behalf of the IAFC and the partners of the Public Safety
Alliance, I thank Representatives Peter King and Yvette Clark as well
as over 50 cosponsors--and the number is growing--who clearly
understand public safety's need for this unique slice of spectrum. As
you are aware, the U.S. Senate has also introduced legislation which
will accomplish this goal. We are grateful for this response from
Congress for what is public safety's most important issue.
Over the past 50 years, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
has allocated thin slices of spectrum to public safety as the need for
more communications capability arose. Currently, 55,000 public safety
agencies operate mission-critical radio systems--each with their own
FCC license--over 6 or more different bands. Our goal of
interoperability is difficult; it is expensive. This is no criticism of
the FCC; this is just the way it has always been done. After the events
of 9/11, Katrina and other major disasters, it is clear that a new
model is necessary: That is a National architecture for public safety
wireless communications.
To achieve a Nation-wide, public safety, wireless, interoperable,
broadband network, a single licensee and a single technology is
required operating on a network with sufficient capacity to handle day-
to-day operations as well as the capability to manage major incidents.
This network needs to be mission-critical at the outset. In the
beginning, this system will handle only data and video. At some future
time--years away--we envision a possible transition to mission-critical
voice, namely Radio over IP. We all need to take a long-term view--to
start out with sufficient spectrum so that we will have the ability to
migrate to mission-critical voice if technology eventually supports it.
This will happen when the technology is developed and public safety has
confidence in it.
The following elements of mission-critical are key to a successful
public safety network:
The network must be hardened to public safety standards.--
This means towers must be able to withstand the elements that
might disable them. Towers in hurricane-prone areas and tornado
alleys must be designed accordingly. Back up electrical power
must be available 24/7.
Public safety must have control over it.--We cannot have
commercial providers deciding what is or is not an emergency
and what is the priority. Public safety transmissions have to
go through at the moment--without delay. The lives of fire
fighters, the lives of medics, the lives of law enforcement
officers depend on this. This is our responsibility.
The public safety mission critical voice network must have
the ability to broadcast and receive one-to-one and one-to-many
and the ability to broadcast and receive without the network
infrastructure being operative.--This is called ``talk around''
capability--also known as simplex. This is a command-and-
control imperative. You know that we operate under extremely
hazardous conditions. If the network, for any reason, cannot
provide connectivity, then we need the capability to
communicate without the network. This means communicating in
the simplex mode. And, that is the heart of public safety
communications.
The network must have back-up capabilities in the event of
network loss.--We envision satellite capability for the network
to be available when a tower is disabled. Satellite can also
cover remote areas that don't have towers. Our mission is
geography-oriented whereas commercial carriers are concerned
with population.
Here are some of the critical needs that can be met with broadband
data and video in the fire service: Building diagrams, hydrant
locations, haz-mat inventories, traffic controls that clear the
response routes, real-time video to improve situational awareness,
wildland fire thermal and weather imaging, video feed of trauma
patients directly to the ER, freeway traffic cameras streamed to
responders so that the precise location and severity of an incident can
be accurately determined. The list is endless. And I can tell you that
law enforcement has its own long list.
The point is, in order to achieve a Nation-wide public safety
broadband network to provide connectivity coast to coast, border to
border, we need the 10 MHz of D Block of spectrum, currently slated for
FCC auction, to be added to the current 10 MHz of spectrum licensed to
the Public Safety Broadband Licensee to build out a 20 MHz network. You
can see on the spectrum chart, below, that this is the ideal spectrum.
The public safety block abuts the D Block. This is perfect for public
safety.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Only with this particular spectrum configuration, and none other,
can public safety be assured that it will have the ability to build the
network it needs now and into the future. This is yours and our one-
time opportunity to get this right.
We urge prompt and timely passage of HR 5081.
Mr. Chairman, we want to assure you and your colleagues that we are
working tirelessly with Members of Congress, the FCC, Department of
Homeland Security and others in the administration to achieve this
public safety communications landmark.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here this morning. Now I am
available to respond to any questions you may have.
Attachment.--The Public Safety Alliance
The Public Safety Alliance is a partnership with the Nation's
leading public safety associations, which includes International
Association of Chiefs of Police, International Association of Fire
Chiefs, National Sheriffs Association, Major Cities Chiefs Association,
Major County Sheriffs Association, Metropolitan Fire Chiefs
Association, International, National Emergency Management Association,
and APCO. The partnership is operated as a program of the Association
of Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO) International.
The purpose of the Public Safety Alliance's is to ensure law
enforcement, fire, and EMS agencies are able to use the most
technologically advanced communications capability that meets the
difficult, life-threatening challenges they face every day as they
protect America.
The goal of the Public Safety Alliance is to raise awareness in
Congress and the White House about what our Nation's law enforcement,
fire, and emergency medical services need to build out a Nation-wide,
interoperable, 4G, wireless communications network to protect America.
International Association of Chiefs of Police; International
Association of Fire Chiefs; National Sheriffs Association; Major Cities
Chiefs Association; Major County Sheriffs Association; Metropolitan
Fire Chiefs Association; Association of Public-Safety Communications
Officials International; National Emergency Management Association.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you for your testimony.
I now recognize Chief Dowd to summarize to his statement
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DEPUTY CHIEF CHARLES F. DOWD, COMMUNICATIONS
DIVISION, NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
Chief Dowd. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman Richardson,
Ranking Member Rogers. I am Deputy Chief Charles Dowd,
commanding officer of the New York City Police Department's
Communication Division.
On behalf of Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, I want to thank
you for the opportunity to discuss with you today the critical
need for Congress to act to ensure that public safety agencies
will be able to communicate effectively now and in the future.
I speak today not only for the NYPD and the City of New
York but also on behalf of my colleagues in law enforcement who
are part of the Public Safety Alliance, whose member
organizations include the International Association of Chiefs
of Police, the National Sheriffs Association, the Major Cities
Police Chiefs, The Major County Sheriffs' Association, the
Association of Public Safety Communications Officials, and the
National Emergency Management Association.
We are also gratified by the continued support of the Big
Seven and a host of organizations too numerous to mention.
We are greatly encouraged by the widening support in the
House for the bipartisan bill introduced in April by
Representatives Peter King and Yvette Clarke.
This legislation, H.R. 5081, Broadband for First Responders
Act of 2010 currently co-sponsored by--I had 55, I think we are
up to 57 now, Members of the House--calls for the reallocation
of the D Block directly to public safety.
We would like to take this opportunity to applaud Senator
Joseph Lieberman, Senator John McCain, and Senator John D.
Rockefeller for their recent commitment to support allocation
of the 10 megahertz of spectrum known as the D Block to public
safety for the creation of a Nation-wide public safety
interoperable broadband mobile network which will assist public
safety to continue to protect the communities Nation-wide.
Senator Lieberman and Senator McCain announced last week
the introduction of the First Responders Protection Act of 2010
in the U.S. Senate. This bill would not only allocate the D
Block to the public safety community, but would ensure that
funding is available for a Nation-wide public safety
interoperable mobile broadband network.
We are also pleased by the recent announcement by Senator
Rockefeller that he intends to introduce the Public Safety
Spectrum and Wireless Innovation Act. This legislation would
allocate the D Block to public safety and provide the funding
to create and implement a public safety interoperable broadband
network.
The President's recently-issued executive memorandum
directing a study to identify 500 megahertz of additional
spectrum for commercial broadband services over the next 10
years is very encouraging.
The plan calls for the initial proceeds from the sale of
this spectrum to be allocated to the build-out of the Nation-
wide public safety broadband network. Since the D Block
accounts for less than 2 percent of the total spectrum to be
identified, we see this action as an action that could
potentially solve both problems of funding and spectrum.
Sales of some of the other 500 megahertz of spectrum would
support public safety build out while still allowing for the
reallocation of the D Block. Many of us in public safety have
previously stated that broadband technology would create a
paradigm shift in public safety communications.
The recent event in Times Square confirms the need for
information sharing capabilities that will allow first
responders to be effective in preventing such an attack. The
ability to share information in real time on a local, State,
and Federal level is critical to that goal.
We have heard recently that allocation of the D Block to
public safety has been referred to as a gift. This is an
inaccurate characterization. It is an investment in our
National security that is desperately needed.
In 1932, the NYPD took an historic step that changed
forever how the department responded to emergencies. It
invested in its first radio communications network. This
created a paradigm shift in policing.
Its importance was such that the NYPD changed the name
patrol car to RMP or radio motor patrol car, a term still used
some 78 years later. That technology has remained virtually
unchanged for 80 years.
Broadband is the technology that will create the next
paradigm shift for public safety communications and ultimately
solve the problem of interruptibility that was so tragically
apparent on 9/11.
Allocating the D Block to public safety will provide first
responders with the bandwidth required for the eventual
migration of mission-critical voice to 700 LTE as envisioned in
the National Broadband Plan.
The Public Safety Alliance shares this vision and looks
forward to a day in the not-too-distant future when public
safety users can share a Nation-wide network that supports
voice, video, data on an integrated wireless network and
abandon the web of disparate legacy networks that impede
interoperability today.
The recent FCC white paper on broadband spectrum
requirements for the public safety is unfortunately not based
in fact. The main source cited in that paper, NPSTC, has
already filed notice with the FCC indicating that its data was
not properly applied and has urged the FCC to use the actual
data supplied from the only existing public safety broadband
system, New York City's NYCWIN, which we contend proves the
need for more spectrum.
Some have suggested that public safety's objectives are to
exclusively hold the D Block for our own use. This is simply
not the case. We have always supported the idea of a public-
private partnership for the use of the D Block.
Our position is that the best way to accomplish this is
through competitive, negotiated contracts or more commonly
referred to as RFPs. This process of using RFPs has been
endorsed in many of the wireless carriers.
We feel that such an approach is completely consistent with
the FCC's broadband plan. We believe that the RFPs should be
developed in concert with the FCC to ensure consistency and
competitiveness.
Like Congress and the FCC, public safety wants to maximize
and efficiently use its spectrum, but we must be able to manage
and control the networks so our data traffic has absolute
priority.
Our experience with commercial network failures tells us we
need network control to ensure guaranteed access and security.
The RFP process will allow carriers, private wireless, data
providers, new businesses to access this spectrum for common
good.
The benefits of this process is that it doesn't exclude
anyone, allows for competition, provides access for new
companies seeking to provide wireless commercial broadband data
service. It also allows for mechanisms not only to share
development and deployment costs, but it can also provide an
on-going funding stream to local government for the use of the
shared spectrum.
Most importantly, it would provide public safety a highly
efficient LTE network that public safety controls would control
and manage, ensuring access for our first responders.
In closing, the organizations that comprise the Public
Safety Alliance are unified in the goal of establishing for the
first time a Nation-wide interoperable mission critical voice
and data public safety broadband network.
They are not motivated by profit or politics. Our sole
motivation is the desire to serve the public we are sworn to
protect. I thank you for your attention to this important issue
and I will be happy to answer any questions from the
subcommittee.
[The statement of Chief Dowd follows:]
Prepared Statement of Deputy Chief Charles F. Dowd
July 27, 2010
Good morning Chairwoman Richardson, Ranking Member Rogers, and
Members of the subcommittee. I am Deputy Chief Charles Dowd, Commanding
Officer of the New York City Police Department's Communications
Division. On behalf of Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, I want to
thank you for the opportunity to discuss with you today the critical
need for Congress to act to ensure that public safety agencies will be
able to communicate effectively, now and in the future.
I speak today not only for the NYPD and the city of New York, but
also on behalf of my colleagues in law enforcement who are part of the
Public Safety Alliance, whose member organizations include the
International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Sheriffs'
Association, the Major Cities Police Chiefs, the Major County Sheriffs'
Association, the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials,
and the National Emergency Management Association. We are also
gratified by the continued support of the Big Seven, and a host of
other organizations too numerous to mention.
We are greatly encouraged by the widening support in the House for
the bi-partisan bill introduced in April by Representatives Peter King
and Yvette Clarke. This legislation, H.R. 5081, Broadband for First
Responders Act of 2010, currently co-sponsored by fifty-five Members of
the House, calls for the re-allocation of the D Block directly to
public safety.
We would like to take this opportunity to applaud Senator Joseph
Lieberman, Senator John McCain, and Senator John D. Rockefeller for
their recent commitment to support allocation of the 10MHz of spectrum,
known as the D Block, to public safety for the creation of a Nation-
wide public safety interoperable mobile broadband network, which will
assist public safety to continue to protect their communities Nation-
wide.
Senator Lieberman and Senator McCain announced last week the
introduction of the First Responders Protection Act of 2010 in the U.S.
Senate. This bill, would not only allocate the D Block to the public
safety community, but would ensure that funding is available for a
Nation-wide public safety interoperable mobile broadband network.
We are also pleased by the recent announcement by Senator
Rockefeller that he intends to introduce the Public Safety Spectrum and
Wireless Innovation Act. This legislation would allocate the D Block to
public safety and provide the funding to create and implement a public
safety interoperable broadband network.
The President's recently-issued Executive Memorandum directing a
study to identify 500 MHz of additional spectrum for broadband services
over the next 10 years is very encouraging. The plan calls for the
initial proceeds from the sale of this spectrum to be allocated to the
build-out of the Nation-wide public safety broadband network. Since the
D Block accounts for less than 2 percent of the total spectrum to be
identified we see this as an action that could potentially solve the
problems of funding and spectrum. Sale of some of the other 500 MHz of
spectrum would support a public safety build while re-allocating the D
Block.
Many of us in public safety have previously stated that broadband
technology will create a paradigm shift in public safety
communications. The recent event in Times Square confirms the need for
information-sharing capabilities that will allow first responders to be
effective in preventing such an attack. The ability to share
information in real time on a local, State, and Federal level is
critical to that goal.
We have heard recently the allocation of the D Block to public
safety referred to as a ``gift''. This is an inaccurate
characterization. It is an investment in our National security that is
desperately needed. In 1932 the NYPD took an historic step that changed
forever how the Department responded to emergencies. It invested in its
first radio communications network. This created a paradigm shift in
policing. Its importance was such that the NYPD changed the name Patrol
Car to RMP, or Radio Motor Patrol car, a term still in use some 78
years later. That technology has remained virtually unchanged for 80
years. Broadband is the technology that will create the next paradigm
shift for public safety communications, and ultimately solve the
problem of interoperability that was so tragically apparent on
September 11, 2001.
Allocating the D Block to public safety will provide first
responders with the bandwidth required for the eventual migration of
mission-critical voice to 700 LTE as envisioned in the National
Broadband Plan. The Public Safety Alliance shares this vision and looks
forward to a day in the not-too-distant future when public safety users
can share a Nation-wide network that supports voice, video, and data on
an integrated wireless network, and abandon the web of disparate legacy
networks that impedes interoperability today. The recent FCC white
paper on broadband spectrum requirements for public safety is
unfortunately not based on fact. The main source cited in that paper,
NPSTC, has already filed with the FCC indicating that its data was not
properly applied, and has urged the FCC to use the actual data supplied
to it from the only existing public safety broadband system, New York
City's NYCWIN, which we contend proves the need for more spectrum.
Some have suggested that Public Safety's objectives are to
exclusively hold the D Block for our own use. This is simply not the
case. We have always supported the idea of a public-private partnership
for the use of the D Block. Our position is that the best way to
accomplish this is through competitive negotiated contracts or what is
more commonly referred to as a Request For Proposal or RFP. This
process of using RFP's has been endorsed by many of the wireless
carriers. We feel that such an approach is completely consistent with
the FCC's broadband plan.
We believe that these RFP's should be developed in concert with the
FCC to ensure consistency and competitiveness. Like Congress and the
FCC, public safety wants to maximize the efficient use of spectrum but
we must be able to manage and control the network so that our data
traffic has absolute priority. Our experience with commercial network
failures tells us we need network control to ensure guaranteed access
and security. The RFP process will allow all carriers, private wireless
data providers, and new businesses to access this spectrum for the
common good. The benefit to this process is that it doesn't exclude
anyone, allows for competition, and provides access for new companies
seeking to provide wireless commercial broadband data service. It also
allows for a mechanism to not only share development and deployment
cost, but it also can provide an on-going funding stream to local
government for the use of the shared spectrum. Most importantly, it
would provide public safety a highly efficient LTE network that public
safety controls and manages, ensuring access for our first responders.
The organizations that comprise the Public Safety Alliance are
unified in the goal of establishing for the first time a Nation-wide
interoperable mission critical voice and data public safety broadband
network. They are not motivated by profit or politics. Our sole
motivation is a desire to serve the public we are sworn to protect. I
thank you for your attention to this important issue, and I will be
happy to answer any questions from the subcommittee.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you for your testimony.
I now recognize Mr. LeGrande for his statement for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. LEGRANDE, II, FOUNDER, THE DIGITAL
DECISION, LLC
Mr. LeGrande. Well, good morning, Ms. Chairwoman, and the
Members of the subcommittee. My name is Robert LeGrande, and I
am a former chief technology officer with the District of
Columbia government and former program executive for the
National Capital Region's Interoperability Program.
I led the district's land mobile radio network upgrade, and
I also led the development of the Nation's first 700 megahertz
wireless broadband network for first responders. This pilot
network is considered as a model for the Nation and in recent
years has served as a test bed on how broadband applications
can be shared securely among public safety agencies.
First, please allow me to acknowledge the outstanding
efforts of this committee, APCO, the Public Safety Alliance and
all its member organizations, as well as the FCC. In short, we
are closer to providing next generation communications to our
first responders than we have ever been.
I appreciate the committee's on-going efforts to address
this critical issue and thank you for the opportunity to
present my views on the ``Interoperable Emergency
Communications, Does the National Broadband Plan Meet the Needs
of the First Responders?''
Now, given the complexity issue, I will keep my comments
brief and focused on three key areas. Where the National
Broadband Plan meets first responders' needs, where the
National Broadband Plan does not meet the first responders'
needs and why, and what I recommend we do about it.
Please reference Figure 1. As the slide indicates, the
FCC's National Broadband Plan meets the public safety needs in
far more areas than it does not.
The FCC has made substantial progress in moving this from a
fractured and disjointed approach to a National interoperable
wireless broadband network design that is flexible,
interoperable, and with some changes referenced later in my
testimony, it is capable of meeting all of first responders'
needs today, tomorrow, and into the future.
The plan successfully addresses the need for technical and
operational standards, National interoperability, funding,
public safety devices and most importantly, it gives the day-
to-day control of the network to the people who need it most--
our first responders.
The plan has successfully influenced commercial carrier's
National broadband strategies resulting in both AT&T and
Verizon committing to share network infrastructure with public
safety.
This portion of the plan combined with public safety and
the FCC's committed to long-term evolution technology, sets the
stage for a highly competitive, low-cost, efficient network
deployment, while achieving private and commercial network
redundancies, which is essential to ensuring Nation-wide
coverage.
Now, while a National Broadband Plan makes great strides
towards public safety National interoperable broadband
communication, it has one key deficiency--sufficient spectrum
to get the job done. Now, historically, public safety has been
allocated spectrum in non-contiguous chunks, which has
contributed to the land mobile radio interoperability problems
we have today.
The FCC has repeatedly stated that public safety has 20 to
25 times more spectrum per user than commercial providers.
However, 50 megahertz of this calculation is from the 4.9
gigahertz spectrum which is unusable for wide area broadband
network use. All but the current 10 megahertz of broadband
spectrum can be used for broadband network deployment.
The FCC has itself acknowledged that public safety will
need additional spectrum in the future and suggested the best
approach would be to begin with the 10 megahertz of spectrum
already allocated to public safety use then allocate additional
spectrum later.
Now, this sounds familiar and based on past results, that
is not a good thing. Further, when will we allocate the
spectrum and how will it be allocated? Will this new spectrum
cause technical problems and force the commercial industry to
establish a special separate standard for public safety?
This is a worst-case scenario in the making as we will be
repeating the past LMR approach and this will result in
monopolistic innovation and pricing.
Public safety needs the D Block spectrum as it will
stabilize public safety's technological path and will result in
efficient spectrum uses. We would be able to plan a smooth
transition from comprehensive voice to comprehensive voice,
video, and data communication.
Now, the good news is, is once public safety has
transitioned all communications to the new network, public
safety's holdings can be evaluated and determined if unused
spectrum can be returned for commercial use.
In the FCC's recently released white paper, ``The Public
Safety Nationwide Interoperable Broadband Network, A New Model
for Capacity and Performance and Cost''--I didn't come up with
the title--the commission concludes that public safety has
sufficient spectrum based on three emergency incidents.
Now, given the number of users and uses identified in the
document, the author is correct. However, based on my
experience deploying the Nation's first and only public safety
700 megahertz wireless broadband network here in Washington,
DC, the scenarios referenced in the document don't accurately
represent the anticipated number of users or uses.
Government users will be super-users because they will need
to consistently optimize government operations to lower costs
while being driven to improve service delivery to citizens.
Private wireless broadband networks provide a low-cost
alternative for this.
Our next generation networks must have sufficient spectrum
and be designed to support comprehensive government
communications for the entire State and local government
enterprise as well as Federal public safety users.
The National Broadband Plan seeks to offset the spectrum
needs by leveraging commercial roaming. Now everyone, everyone,
supports public safety have interoperability with the
commercial carriers.
However, we should never rely on commercial carriers but
for a last resort. We should not depend on commercial carriers.
An example with the difficulty we will face can be seen today
with the recent release of the iPhone 4, network outages due to
capacity shortages and some technical glitches that caused
lapses in communications.
If public safety communications fail people could die. More
recently, the FCC has been suggesting that auctioning the D
Block in 2011 with an anticipated deployment date starting in
2012, will speed network deployments and lower costs.
This means that public safety should wait for an eventual D
Block winner to start network deployments in 2 years from now.
Now, this actually delays the opportunities of network
deployment starting today and creates a worst case dependency
on a single D Block commercial carrier. Commercial carriers are
deploying LTE networks today.
So this highly competitive network window of opportunity
will close before the D Block winner can be leveraged. Now,
this portion in the National Broadband Plan will be great for a
D Block winner but very bad for public safety.
So in summary, the FCC has done an outstanding job with the
public safety portion of the National Broadband Plan.
Additionally, the commission's recent waiver approvals and
coordination with NTIA to help fund network deployment starting
today are great first steps towards getting the ball rolling.
However, in order to fully meet first responders'
communications needs the National Broadband Plan needs to do
these four things. It needs to reallocate the D Block spectrum
to public safety. It needs a comprehensive long-term spectrum
plan for public safety.
It needs a National broadband network deployment plan and
schedule. Probably as important as the D Block, it needs a
public safety land mobile radio to broadband migration plan. So
our first responders they are certainly our last line of
defense and they deserve the best available tools and resources
to protect us all.
Ms. Richardson. Please summarize.
Mr. LeGrande. Yes, ma'am. I sincerely appreciate the
opportunity to share my recommendations and the committee's
continued work on addressing this issue. I am happy to answer
any of your questions.
[The statement of Mr. LeGrande follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert A. Legrande, II
July 27, 2010
Good afternoon Ms. Chairwoman and Members of the subcommittee. My
name is Robert LeGrande and I am the former Chief Technology Officer of
the District of Columbia Government and former Program Executive for
the National Capitol Region's Interoperability Program. In this role, I
led the District's Land Mobile Radio (LMR) network upgrade and I also
led the development of the Nation's first city-wide 700 MHz broadband
wireless network for First Responders. This pilot network is considered
a model for the Nation (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/2007/
WARN_060807.html) and in recent years served as a test bed for how
broadband applications can be shared securely among Public Safety
Agencies.
I resigned from the District of Columbia in 2007 and formed
LeGrande Technical and Social Services, LLC, which has been recently
renamed to ``The Digital Decision''. My firm leverages lessons learned
in the District's successful LMR and 700MHz wireless broadband network
deployments to help other State and local governments prepare for and
deploy Public Safety communications networks.
First, please allow me to acknowledge the outstanding efforts of
this committee, APCO, the Public Safety Alliance (PSA) and all member
organizations, as well as FCC. In short, we are closer to providing
next generation communications to our First Responders than we have
ever been.
I appreciate the committee's on-going efforts to address this
critical issue and thank you for the opportunity to present my views on
``Interoperable Emergency Communications: Does the National Broadband
Plan meet the needs of First Responders?'' Given the complexity of this
issue and time allotted, I will keep my comments brief and focused on
three key areas: Where the National Broadband Plan (NBP) meets First
Responder's needs; Where the NBP does not meet First Responder's needs
and why; and, What I recommend we do about it. Please reference Figure
I below:
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Where the National Broadband Plan (NBP) meets First Responder's Needs
As the slide indicates the FCC's National Broadband plan meets
Public Safety's needs in far more areas than it does not. The FCC has
made substantial progress in moving us from a fractured and disjointed
approach to a National interoperable wireless broadband network design
that is flexible, interoperable, and with some changes suggested later
in my testimony, is capable of meeting all First Responder needs today,
tomorrow, and well into the future.
The plan successfully addresses the need for technical and
operational standards, National interoperability, funding, Public
Safety broadband devices and most importantly, it gives day-to-day
control of the network to the people who need it most; our First
Responders. The plan has successfully influenced commercial carrier
National broadband strategies resulting in both AT&T and Verizon
wireless committing to share network infrastructure with Public Safety.
This portion of the plan combined with PS' and the FCC's commitment to
Long Term Evolution (LTE) 4G technology sets the stage for a highly
competitive, low cost, efficient network deployments; while achieving
private and commercial network redundancy which is essential to
ensuring Nation-wide coverage.
Where the NBP Does Not Meet First Responder's Needs and Why
While the NBP makes great strides towards PS Nation-wide
interoperable broadband communications, it has one key deficiency . . .
sufficient spectrum to get the job done. Historically PS has been
allocated spectrum in non-contiguous chunks which has contributed to
the Land Mobile Radio (LMR) interoperability problems we have today.
The FCC has repeatedly stated that PS has 20 to 25 times more spectrum
per user than commercial providers.
However, 50MHz of this calculation is from 4.9G spectrum which is
unusable for wide-area broadband network use and all but the current
10MHz of broadband spectrum can be used for broadband network
deployment.
The FCC has acknowledged that PS will need additional spectrum in
the future and suggests that the best approach would be to begin with
10MHz of spectrum already allocated for PS broadband use, then allocate
additional spectrum later. This sounds familiar and based on past
results would just exacerbate the interoperability problems we already
have . . . Further, what spectrum would we allocate and when? Will this
new spectrum cause technical problems and force the commercial industry
to establish a special separate standard for PS? This is a worst case
scenario in the making as we will be repeating our past LMR approach
and this will result in monopolistic innovation and pricing.
PS needs the 700MHz D Block spectrum as it will stabilize PS'
technological path and will result in efficient spectrum use as we will
be able to plan a smooth transition to comprehensive voice, video, and
data communications. The good news is that once PS has transitioned all
communications to our new network of networks, PS' spectrum holdings
can be evaluated to determine if un-used spectrum can be returned for
commercial use.
In the FCC's recently released white paper; ``The Public Safety
Nationwide Interoperable Broadband Network: A New Model for Capacity,
Performance, and Cost'' the Commission concludes that PS has sufficient
spectrum based on three emergency incidents. Given the number of users
and uses identified in the document, the author is correct. However,
based on my experience deploying the Nation's first and only PS 700MHz
wireless broadband network here in Washington, DC, the scenarios
referenced in the document do not accurately represent the anticipated
number of network users or uses. Government users will be ``super-
users'' because they need to consistently optimize Government
operations to lower costs while being driven to improve service
delivery to citizens. Private wireless broadband networks provide a
low-cost alternative to achieve this result. Our next generation
networks must have sufficient spectrum and be designed to support
comprehensive Government communications for the entire State and Local
Government Enterprise, as well as Federal PS users.
The NBP seeks to offset PS spectrum needs by leveraging commercial
roaming. Everyone supports PS having interoperability with commercial
carriers; however PS should rely on commercial carriers as a last
resort and not have to depend on them for everyday mission-critical
communications. An example of the difficulty we will face can be seen
today with the recent release of the IPHONE 4.
Network outages due to capacity shortages and some technical
glitches have been causing lapses in communications. If PS
communications fail, people could die. More recently the FCC has been
suggesting that auctioning the D Block in 2011 with an anticipated
deployment date starting in 2012 will speed network deployments and
lower costs. This means that PS should wait for an eventual D Block
winner to start network deployments 2 years from now. This actually
delays the opportunities to deploy networks starting today and creates
a ``worst case'' dependency on a single D Block commercial carrier.
Commercial carriers are deploying LTE networks now. This highly-
competitive network deployment window of opportunity will close before
a D Block winner can be fully leveraged. This portion of the NBP would
be great for the D Block winner but very bad for PS.
What I Recommend We Do About It
In summary, the FCC has done an outstanding job developing the PS
portion of the NBP. Additionally, the Commission's recent waiver
approvals and coordination with NTIA to help fund network deployments
starting today are great first steps that will get the ball rolling.
However, in order to fully meet First Responder's communications needs,
the NBP needs:
(1) To re-allocate the D Block to PS;
(2) A Comprehensive, long-term spectrum plan for PS;
(3) A National network deployment plan and schedule; and,
(4) A PS LMR to BB communications migration plan.
Our First Responders are also our last line of defense and they
deserve to have the best available tools and resources to protect us.
Please support Congressman King's, Congresswoman Clarke's and many
others efforts we get this done right once and for all.
I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to share my recommendations
and the committee's continued work on addressing this issue. I'm happy
to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you for your testimony.
I now recognize Mr. Graham to summarize his statement for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF ERIC GRAHAM, RURAL CELLULAR ASSOCIATION, VICE
PRESIDENT FOR STRATEGIC AND GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, CELLULAR
SOUTH, INC.
Mr. Graham. Chairwoman Richardson, Ranking Member Rogers,
thank you for the opportunity to be here today on behalf of
Cellular South, the Nation's largest privately held wireless
carrier and as a member of the Rural Cellular Association,
whose nearly 90 carrier members provide wireless service in
rural, remote, and hard-to-reach areas.
Cellular South and RCA believe the FCC's National Broadband
Plan accurately identified three critical elements to
successful deployment and operation of a wireless network,
spectrum, funding, and interoperable equipment.
First, a service provider needs appropriate spectrum. Seven
hundred megahertz is ideal for rural areas needing vast
geographic coverage with fewer cell sites and, therefore, a
lower cost of construction.
Next, a service provider must have sufficient funding for a
network with ample coverage and capacity. The clearest path to
funding a public safety network is by utilizing the proceeds
from the commercial auction of the 700 megahertz D Block.
The CBO estimates that a D Block auction would raise
between $2 billion and $3 billion but the actual proceeds could
be much higher. The last 700 megahertz auction nearly doubled
its Congressional estimate.
Given the scarcity of available low band spectrum for
commercial providers, it is entirely possible, if not likely,
that a D Block auction would exceed current Congressional
estimates. However, the most critical element for a successful
wireless network is interoperability.
This is absolutely necessary because a service provider
must have access to interoperable equipment and devices that
allow users to access other networks operating on the same
technology.
Devices for the cellular, AWS, and PCS spectrum bands were
built to be interoperable across all frequencies within those
bands. This allows seamless roaming on other networks that
utilize the same technology.
When the FCC awarded the first cellular licenses in the 850
megahertz band, the commission included a requirement that all
850 megahertz devices must work on all 850 megahertz networks.
The commission was concerned that incumbents would use
their market power to demand equipment that would work on their
spectrum but not the spectrum of their competitor.
Fast forward to 2010, and the harm that the FCC sought to
avoid almost 30 years ago is now becoming a reality. Today,
without a rule requiring interoperability, the largest two
carriers are using their market power to demand 700 megahertz
equipment that works only on their spectrum and not on the
spectrum of their competitors.
It is imperative that Congress or the FCC requires
interoperability before the end of this year to prevent non-
interoperable devices from getting into the hands of consumers
and therefore never being interoperable.
For commercial carriers, this means customers will not be
able to roam on what should be compatible networks. That is
wrong. But for public safety, the ramifications could be
catastrophic.
If a public safety 700 megahertz facility is knocked off
the air but a commercial 700 megahertz in the same area remains
operational, public safety devices will not work on the
commercial 700 megahertz network. Requiring interoperability is
the only way to ensure a redundant Nation-wide network for
public safety.
Furthermore, interoperability will drive down the cost of
devices for public safety. Volunteer fire fighters and
sheriffs' departments in rural areas have historically been at
an equipment disadvantage as compared to emergency responders
in metropolitan areas.
This does not have to be the case with next generation
public safety networks if Congress or the FCC requires
interoperability across the 700 megahertz spectrum.
Let me be clear. Cellular South is a strong supporter of
public safety and emergency responders, the most prominent
example being our efforts during and after Hurricane Katrina.
During Hurricane Katrina, our network along the Gulf Coast
continued to operate even at the height of the storm.
Though some portions of our network temporarily lost
service and a total of four towers were lost, it was 60 percent
restored the day after the hurricane.
FEMA noted 5 days after the storm that Cellular South was
the only operational cellular network on the Mississippi Gulf
Coast. Most importantly, the emergency communications director
for one of the coastal counties relied on his Cellular South
phone as the only means of communication to coordinate the
repair of his county's 800 megahertz wireless system used by
his county's first responders.
Our experience during Hurricane Katrina is a testament to
the role that rural and regional carriers can play in disaster
response and recovery.
In conclusion, Cellular South and RCA strongly support
Congressional and FCC action to ensure the deployment of an
interoperable, Nation-wide wireless broadband network for
public safety users.
Requiring interoperability across the 700 megahertz
networks is the only way to ensure network access and to
significantly decrease the cost of devices, both for public
safety as well as consumers.
Finally, RCA members continue to support an auction of the
D Block as the surest way to provide public safety users with
the lowest-cost, widest coverage, highest quality network
possible.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to participate in
today's hearing, and I look forward to answering your
questions.
[The statement of Mr. Graham follows:]
Prepared Statement of Eric Graham
July 27, 2010
Chairman Thompson, Chairwoman Richardson, Ranking Member King,
Ranking Member Rogers and Members of the subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to be here today. My name is Eric Graham, and I am Vice
President for Strategic and Government Relations for Cellular South,
Inc. Cellular South is the Nation's largest privately-held wireless
carrier by number of subscribers, providing service in all of
Mississippi as well as portions of Tennessee, Alabama, and Florida.
I testify today as a member of the Rural Cellular Association
(RCA). RCA's nearly 90 carrier members provide wireless service in
regional, remote, and hard-to-reach areas, with collective FCC licenses
covering over 80 percent of the Nation's geography. RCA members are
community-oriented, community-based, and supportive of those that
protect our communities.
Cellular South is a typical RCA member in that the area we serve is
overwhelmingly rural. Our participation in the Federal universal
service program has enabled us to build out high-quality mobile
wireless services to most of the area where we are licensed to serve.
Additionally, we have deployed high-speed data services to large
portions of our service area. In many of these areas, National carriers
have not constructed networks of comparable reach and quality.
In addition to building out a commercial mobile wireless network,
our company is a strong supporter of public safety and emergency
responders. For example, we received a special commendation from the
Mississippi State legislature for our outstanding work in restoring
service to the Gulf Coast following Hurricane Katrina. Even at the
height of the storm, our network never completely went down and our
entire network was fully restored within 11 days after the storm made
landfall. Furthermore, the State of Mississippi has awarded Cellular
South the State contract for wireless services, which is additional
proof of our coverage and service quality.
Other RCA members support public safety in similar ways. Some offer
discounted service, discounted and donated equipment such as handsets
and air cards, and free technical support, enabling rural public safety
officers to reap the benefits of mobile high-speed data services today
and to serve our communities.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here today, and to offer
testimony addressing the realities of network operation and build out,
the unique benefits of partnering with regional and rural commercial
providers, and the need for interoperability across the entire 700 MHz
band to maximize public safety's communications capabilities. Cellular
South and the RCA share the goal of ensuring that public safety enjoys
the benefits of new technologies and choice, while driving their costs
down to commercial rates. As currently contemplated, the partnership
between public safety and commercial carriers will mean better
services, greater spectrum efficiency, and interoperability across
multiple networks which will allow public safety to focus its resources
on saving lives.
In considering mobile high-speed data networks, there are three
critical elements to successful deployment and operation. First, a
service provider needs spectrum with the appropriate characteristics
and capacity, such as 700 MHz spectrum. Next a service provider must
have sufficient funding to construct a network with ample coverage and
capacity to make it useful for users. Finally, and most important, a
service provider must have access to interoperable equipment, and
devices must be available so that users can access other networks that
use the same technology. We believe that the FCC's National Broadband
Plan accurately identified these three critical elements, and the RCA
supports its Public Safety recommendations.
spectrum availability
Radio waves in the 700 MHz spectrum band travel long distances and
are able to pass through forests, walls, buildings, and other
obstructions with greater ease than higher-frequency airwaves, such as
spectrum above 1 GHz (i.e. 1,000 MHz). These characteristics make the
band well-suited for vast geographic coverage with fewer cell sites,
and therefore, at a lower cost.
Because the D Block and the existing 700 MHz public safety spectrum
are adjacent to other 700 MHz spectrum being used by commercial
carriers, they share the same propagation characteristics as the
commercial 700 MHz spectrum. Therefore, it is technically feasible for
carriers and public safety to use common towers and share other network
facilities because the network designs for public safety and commercial
networks can be the same. Network sharing on adjacent frequencies not
only enhances public safety, but it also greatly improves efficiencies
that will lower the cost of building and maintaining public safety
networks.
interoperability
The most critical factor to ensure the viability and success of a
Nation-wide public safety network is interoperability. Unfortunately,
without FCC or Congressional action, interoperability throughout the
700 MHz spectrum is unlikely to be achieved.
There are currently three major spectrum bands available for mobile
high-speed data services (Cellular, AWS, and PCS) and a fourth (700
MHz) which will be available as early as the end of this year. As
wireless technologies have rapidly evolved, devices in each of the
Cellular, AWS, and PCS bands were built with the capability to operate
on all frequencies within each band. This allows seamless roaming
across the frequency bands on other networks that utilize the same
technology.
In fact, when the FCC awarded the first cellular licenses in the
850 MHz band, the Commission included a requirement that all devices
must work on all 850 MHz cellular networks. This was necessary because
one block of spectrum was set aside for incumbent carriers in each
market, and there was a concern that incumbents might have sufficient
market power to demand equipment that would work on its licensed
spectrum but not on the spectrum of its competitor.
Fast forward to 2010. Today, the largest carriers are developing
devices that only work on certain portions of the 700 MHz band. This
limits consumers' ability to seamlessly roam on otherwise compatible
networks, and their ability to change providers. This also prohibits
public safety users from taking advantage of these economies of scale
to acquire reasonably-priced devices for their networks. The harm that
the FCC sought to avoid almost 30 years ago is becoming a reality
today.
While there are currently three different technologies used for
wireless communications, CDMA, GSM, and iDEN, the emerging consensus
from both public safety and commercial carriers is that 4G technologies
deployed in the 700 MHz band will use Long Term Evolution (LTE)
technology. The FCC in the National Broadband Plan recommended
designating LTE as the standard for the public safety network, a
recommendation supported by both Cellular South and RCA.
As we move into a 4G world, both public safety users and commercial
users would greatly benefit from having access to an interoperable,
technologically-compatible LTE network. First responders would have
universal access to their own LTE network whenever and wherever an
emergency may occur and, where the networks overlap, public safety
users would have the ability to roam on commercial 700 MHz networks to
provide additional capacity. In areas without a public safety network,
emergency responders' devices would work in any place where any
commercial carrier is providing coverage on 700 MHz spectrum.
Unless things change, interoperability on 700 MHz LTE networks will
not be possible because the current 700 MHz Band Classes fragment the
700 MHz spectrum.\1\ Additionally, the developing LTE device and
equipment ecosystem is being designed to prevent interoperability and
seamless roaming across all frequency blocks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 700 MHz Band Classes should not be confused with the 700
MHz Band Plan. The Band Classes are groupings of spectrum which are
approved by an international standards body--in this case, the 3rd
Generation Partnership Project (3GPP)--to facilitate development of
network equipment and end-user devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The plan currently being used for building out the 700 MHz consists
of four bands:
Band Class 12, which includes the lower A, B, and C Blocks
only;
Band Class 13, which includes the upper C Block only;
Band Class 14, which includes the D Block and the public
safety broadband spectrum only;
Band Class 17, which includes the lower B and C Blocks only.
When the band classes are compared to the winners of the various
blocks of spectrum in the 700 MHz band, the interoperability problems
become clearer. With a Nation-wide license of the upper C Block (less
Alaska), Verizon Wireless is the sole carrier operating within Band
Class 13. AT&T holds the majority of licenses for the lower B and C
Blocks, therefore possessing the vast majority of Band Class 17. These
carriers plan LTE deployments in the 700 MHz band as early as this
fall, but the devices being developed for their networks do not include
public safety's Band Class 14. As a result, public safety will not have
the ability to be interoperable with these carriers' LTE networks.
For commercial carriers operating in Band Class 12, this means
customers will not be able to roam on otherwise compatible networks
when they are outside of built-out coverage of their specific spectrum
block. That is wrong, and it is a disservice to all wireless consumers.
But for public safety, this situation could be catastrophic.
For example, if a public safety 700 MHz facility is knocked off the
air by a natural or man-made disaster, but a commercial 700 MHz network
remains operational, public safety devices will not work on those
commercial networks because of the balkanization of 700 MHz spectrum.
Since LTE devices will bring unprecedented capabilities to first
responders, this means they could lose their most effective
communications tools in the very situations where they are needed the
most. The inability for public safety users to access commercial 700
MHz networks is a preventable problem that can be solved by simply
requiring all 700 MHz devices to work on technologically-compatible 700
MHz networks.
In addition, without required interoperability throughout all
paired 700 MHz spectrum, neither public safety nor rural commercial
carriers will be able to leverage the economies of scale necessary to
secure equipment at competitive prices. If 700 MHz devices were
required to be built to work across all paired spectrum, public safety
users would have the opportunity to acquire devices something much
closer to, if not equaling, consumer prices.
As referenced in the FCC's technical paper on developing the public
safety network, ``This lack of scope is compounded if the public safety
entity is operating on an LTE network that utilizes spectrum in a band
class assigned exclusively for the public safety community. This would
be the case if the D Block was reallocated to public safety. In this
situation, there would be no commercial service provider in LTE Band
Class 14 in the 700 MHz band. While technically such a system could be
deployed and supported, the costs of the network equipment, most
notably the devices, would increase substantially.''\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Federal Communications Commission. ``A Broadband Network Cost
Model: A Basis for Public Funding Essential to Bringing Nationwide
Interoperable Communications to America's First Responders,'' OBI
Technical Paper No. 2. May 2010, 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requiring interoperability across all paired bands of 700 MHz
spectrum is the only way to ensure a Nation-wide network for public
safety. To build a public safety network, simply partnering with AT&T
or Verizon will not provide public safety with the necessary coverage
throughout the country, and rural communities will suffer. Even if
public safety partnered with AT&T or Verizon, chipsets must be
developed for the public safety network operating in Band Class 14.
These chipsets must then be put in equipment that also has chipsets for
either Band Class 13 or Band Class 17. Additionally, the public safety
network will be limited to the speed and areas of deployment for the
National carrier. And as many consumers with iconic devices have
learned, National carriers do not always build their networks with
sufficient capacity, let alone reliability.
If the LTE ecosystem is allowed to progress in a manner that
prevents a partnership between the public safety network and rural
carriers, the first responders in rural areas likely will not be able
to utilize the Nation-wide broadband public safety network until the
largest carriers deploy 4G LTE service in their areas and certainly
will not be able to take advantage of rural carriers' excess capacity
in times of emergency. Recent statements by National carriers support
the broad consensus that these carriers will begin their 4G deployments
by overlaying their current 3G service areas, and likely not deploy
services in rural America until long in the future. Conversely,
Cellular South, like other winners of 700 MHz lower A Block spectrum,
intends to deploy 4G LTE services in rural America as quickly as
possible.
Indeed, Upper 700 MHz licensees have an incentive to focus on
densely-populated areas at the expense of rural areas. When the various
blocks of 700 MHz were auctioned, different build-out requirements were
implemented with the different blocks. For example, the upper C Block
spectrum requires build-out within a specific time frame of certain
population percentages, while the lower A Block requires certain
geographic percentages of build-out. Logically, a carrier needing to
reach a higher percentage of the population will deploy services first
in the most densely-populated urban areas. It is virtually guaranteed
that population-based build-out requirements will be satisfied long
before the largest carriers' network deployment reaches the rural areas
of the country. Lower A Block licensees do not have this luxury, and
beyond already catering more specifically to rural America, they are
required to cover larger percentages of geography including remote and
sparsely populated areas.
The recent mining tragedy in West Virginia made it clear that our
Nation's first responders require the ability to access cutting edge
communications even in our Nation's remote rural areas. Volunteer
firefighters and sheriffs' departments in rural areas are typically at
an equipment disadvantage when compared to their counterparts in
metropolitan areas. This does not have to be the case with next-
generation public safety networks. If Congress or the FCC requires
interoperability across the 700 MHz spectrum, the public safety network
can have a build-out that is concurrent with commercial build-outs
throughout the Nation and all first responders will have access to a
robust network with sufficient overflow capacity to cover any need.
funding
The best way to fund a public safety network is a commercial
auction of the D Block. An auction, which the FCC can conduct quickly
and efficiently, is the only proven means of maximizing the revenues
needed to build a high-quality public safety network. The Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) estimates that a D Block auction would raise
between $2 billion and $3 billion if auctioned to commercial carriers.
The actual auction proceeds could be much higher. In the last 700 MHz
auction (Auction 73) congressional estimates expected the auction to
bring revenues of $10.182 billion, but the net winning bids actually
totaled $18.96 billion.
Given the scarcity of available low-band spectrum (e.g., 700 MHz)
for competitors of the ``Big Two'' it is entirely possible--if not
likely--that current CBO estimates would be exceeded. A near-term
auction would provide immediate capital to be used as a timely down
payment on the deployment of the public safety network. As FCC Public
Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Chief Admiral James Barnett, Jr.
has previously testified, allocating the D Block to public safety would
not only ``nearly destroy the commercial market for equipment and
devices for public safety[,] isolating public safety on a technological
island the way they are today'' but would also ``vastly increase the
cost of building the network for public safety by billions of
dollars.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Barnett, Jr., Admiral James Arden. Quote from: U.S. Congress.
House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology
and the Internet. ``Legislative Hearing on a Discussion Draft to
Provide Funding for the Construction and Maintenance of a Nationwide,
Interoperable Public Safety Broadband Network and for Other Purposes
and on H.R. 4829, the Next Generation 911 Preservation Act of 2010.''
(6/17/10), available at http://energycommerce.house.gov/documents/
20100617/transcript.06.17.2010.cti.pdf, 47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to leverage the Nation-wide commercial build out of LTE at
700 MHz, public safety must be prepared to build-out the network at the
same time as commercial carriers deploy service. Cellular South and RCA
welcome the FCC's commitment to make an additional 500 MHz of spectrum
available for mobile high-speed data services, and recognize that the
auction of this additional spectrum may also be a significant source of
funding for the public safety network. Despite the revenue generated
from future auctions, if funding is not available for the public safety
network at the time of commercial build out (which includes planned LTE
coverage for 95 percent of the United States population by 2015)\4\ we
will lose a clear path to delivering a network for our Nation's first
responders. The FCC estimates that building a separate public safety
network, including the 44,800 sites necessary for adequate coverage,
would cost an additional $9.4 billion compared to leveraging an
incentive-based partnership. Time is of the essence if the public
safety network is to leverage a parallel commercial build out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ OBI Technical Paper No. 2, 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the funding that would be provided from a commercial D Block
auction is needed immediately, the additional capacity of reallocating
the D Block to public safety is not only excessive today but
unnecessary going forward. The claims that it is necessary to
reallocate the D Block to public safety in order to meet capacity needs
are based on the outdated deployment practices of first and second
generation technologies that are impractical for use with 4G
technologies.
As the Coalition for 4G in America has pointed out, deploying a LTE
public safety network using a low-site, cellular-like approach with the
existing 2 5 MHz currently allocated to public safety would provide
greater system capacity with half the amount of spectrum as compared to
utilizing outdated high-site deployments on a potential 2 10 MHz of
spectrum where the D Block is reallocated to public safety.\5\ Beyond
being more spectrally efficient, the cellular-like deployment will
provide more robust signal coverage and network redundancy while
avoiding potential problems with issues such as interference. RCA
believes the current allocation provides more than adequate capacity
Nation-wide--and certainly in rural America.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Doug Hyslop & Chris Helzer, Wireless Strategy 700 MHz Upper
Band Analysis (July 19, 2010), available in Coalition for 4G in
America, Written Ex Parte Presentation, WT Docket No. 06-150; PS Docket
No. 06-229; GN Docket No. 09-51 (July 19, 2010), available at http://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020549812.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
conclusion
Cellular South and RCA members strongly support both Congressional
and FCC action to ensure the timely deployment of a robust Nation-wide
interoperable wireless broadband public safety network. To leverage the
advancements and deployments of commercial wireless carriers in 4G LTE
technologies, the success of the public safety network depends on
requiring interoperability throughout all paired 700 MHz spectrum.
Congress and the FCC must take action to ensure interoperability in
order to facilitate seamless roaming on 700 MHz networks and to
significantly decrease the cost of public safety devices. RCA members
continue to support an auction of the D Block and dedication of the
auction proceeds to building the public safety network.
Thank you again for the opportunity to participate in today's
hearing, and I welcome any questions.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Richardson. I thank all the witnesses for their
testimony. I will remind each Member that he or she will have 5
minutes to question the panel. I will now recognize myself for
questions. First of all, Mr. Graham, did I understand you then
to say that you don't support the direct allocation to public
safety, only the auction option?
Mr. Graham. That is correct.
Ms. Richardson. Okay.
Mr. Graham. We do not support a direct allocation of the D
Block to public safety.
Ms. Richardson. Also, Mr. Graham, did I understand
correctly? I looked back in your testimony the remarks that we
had. Did--I thought I heard you say that you would expect that
the auction would exceed the initial estimate. Did you mean
that in terms of price?
Mr. Graham. Yes. I believe the total receipts from a D
Block auction would exceed the Congressional estimates.
Ms. Richardson. So why do you think it didn't the first
time it was initially attempted?
Mr. Graham. I think there were two main problems with the D
Block in Auction 73, one being uncertainty of public safety's
requirements for the eventual D Block winner, the greatest
being the large size of the D Block license.
It was a Nation-wide license. With a Nation-wide license
the reality is there are only one, two, maybe three potential
bidders for a license of that size. If recollection serves, the
reserve price was approximately $1.3 billion just for the
license. That was before any build-out. Other individual
bidders who had been interested in regional areas were
effectively locked out because they could not bid on a National
license.
Ms. Richardson. Okay.
Let us see, Chief Dowd, I believe, in your testimony on the
last page, you referenced that the RFP process would allow
carriers, private wireless data providers, et cetera, to
participate and you laid out some of the benefits. What I
didn't follow was how you viewed that to be able to assist in
an on-going funding stream?
Chief Dowd. Well, our position on it is simply this, is
that if you had public-private partnerships, you would be
allowing for secondary use of commercial services on the public
safety network but still be in complete control of the network.
So that would allow you to--so for example, I will give you one
quick example.
Public utilities have already expressed interest in the
potential of utilizing on a public safety, a hardened public
safety network and to pay for that service to, you know, a
State government or local government that builds that network.
That does a couple things for you. It allows them to stay
up and running, you know, in emergencies and to not have to
compete on commercial networks which they typically do now like
we all do.
So, you know, it is a very attractive model from the
perspective of, you know, there are already many entities out
there that are looking at this, you know, carriers, potential
users, that would create or generate a funding stream for that
municipality on that spectrum. In other words, you are
leveraging enterprising the value of that spectrum on a second,
third, or fourth tier priority that would allow for that
dynamic use of the spectrum.
Ms. Richardson. I am concerned----
Chief Dowd. The other thing it could do if I could really
quick is that, you know, for smaller carriers that are
concerned about access to spectrum, this is a way of getting
access to that spectrum without having to bid and pay
expensive, as Eric pointed out, very high rates to access or to
buy that spectrum. You would----
Ms. Richardson. What concerns--excuse me, I am sorry.
Chief Dowd. Sure. It is all right.
Ms. Richardson. I have only got 1 minute and 40 seconds.
What concerns would you have with the risk and the
vulnerability of having all of the local governments, you know,
the whole municipality dependent upon the system?
Chief Dowd. Well, again, the uniqueness of LTE technology
is that if you are in control of the network, you know, or, you
know, you have got the joystick as Jeff Johnson mentioned
earlier is that you are in control and set the priorities.
So first responders would always have a preemptive priority
on the network, and you would allow for secondary use on lower
priority levels. So you would actually you know push them back
or slow them down on their throughput and still allow for the
first responders to get immediate access to the spectrum.
Ms. Richardson. But what were to happen if the network were
to be compromised is my question? So for example, what if all
of a sudden, you know, public safety is blocked out, public
works is blocked out. That could be very detrimental to
municipal government. I served on the city council for----
Chief Dowd. Oh, I apologize. Are we talking about
commercial networks or public safety networks?
Ms. Richardson. I am talking about if there were a public
safety network and if all of public safety was on it as well as
local governments, municipalities, public works, et cetera as
you are suggesting----
Chief Dowd. Yes.
Ms. Richardson [continuing]. My question is what do you
think, in terms of the cyber security implications or if the
system were to go down, that your whole--everyone would be
dependent on that?
Chief Dowd. Well again, and why we think the original
auction failed is we would build this with redundancy in it and
survivability in it that would keep that system up and running.
Our contention is that the way we build public safety
networks is, is that if our network went down, then everybody
else's network is already down. So, you know, we would be the
last network to go down.
Ms. Richardson. Well, as I think I have said initially in
my comments, you know, I am a very big supporter, and you have
a fan here so that is not the issue.
But I would caution that we probably need to go back and
delve into that further because what I have found, as I said in
my time of being here, is that if something can happen it in
fact will happen.
I think although we would want to build a system that we
would think would have complete redundancy and no issues, to
say that no issues would happen I don't think is probably
realistic in light of some of the things that have already
occurred.
So the question should still probably be considered of
being very careful when you have everything tied up into one
system. I am not saying--I am not opposed. I am just saying
that is an important thing to explore.
Mr. Rogers for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Graham, I didn't agree
with much you said, but I liked the way you said it.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Rogers. We Southerners have to stick together. I do
want to ask you though do you believe that the reallocation of
D Block to public safety would harm market competition for
devices or increase the costs?
Mr. Graham. Yes, I do believe that.
Mr. Rogers. Okay. If so, would you support research and
development program for these devices to overcome that?
Mr. Graham. I would support that if it would lower the
cost. But unfortunately even that won't lower the cost as much
as the scale of mass-produced consumer devices.
Mr. Rogers. I want to ask--I represent a large rural
Congressional district and the county sheriffs in my district
support this reallocation of D Block. Why should I not heed
their opinions aside from the fact they vote?
Mr. Graham. Well, I have spent a little bit of time in your
district at Pop's Charburgers in Heflin----
Mr. Rogers. Yes.
Mr. Graham [continuing]. And popping golf balls at The
Meadows in Sylacauga. But I think they viewed the reallocation
of the D Block as making a bad situation better. But I am not
sure that they are fully aware of all the capabilities that
could be available if the D Block went to commercial users. I
don't know what they are paying for their devices right now.
But I can tell you that we have commercial devices in our
stores today that we sell, at least one that is a military spec
device with push-to-talk one-to-one or one-to-many that comes
in at consumer pricing. Contractors buy this because it is hard
to damage this phone. That phone comes in at consumer prices.
It is not at $1,000, $2,000 like they typically pay.
I think if they were fully aware of the capabilities they
would have under a system where the D Block went to a
commercial user, particularly a local provider and, to be
honest, Cellular South would bid for the spectrum in your area.
That is where we are moving. They would have greater
capabilities much sooner than by reallocating this D Block to
public safety.
I would venture to say, and I don't think it is much of a
stretch, that in most of the areas of your district, volunteer
fire fighters and sheriff's departments could be up sooner on a
commercial D Block sharing the commercial D Block than they
would ever be if the D Block was reallocated to public safety
and public safety had to build out those rural areas.
Mr. Rogers. Chief Johnson, can you tell me why D Block is
so important to public safety and why other spectrums that
might become available in the future won't work?
Chief Johnson. Yes, Congressman. Yes, Congressman. The D
Block's important because it is a spectrum that is contiguous
to 10 megahertz of spectrum already licensed to the public
safety community.
What that will allow is it will allow adequate throughput
for things like video, for mobile wireless license plate
readers, and all the various things from controlling robots
that disarm bombs to all the other needs that we have, the
efficiency that happens at the local level when, for example, I
can see traffic cameras from my command vehicle.
I can send one unit instead of three to a freeway accident,
and we can evaluate the accident remotely. These things all
save us money.
I think one of the other big things that happen, we just
don't talk about it enough, is what happens when you identify
an adequate swath of spectrum, it will actually bring the
market, as Mr. Graham said. I actually agree with him, when you
get everybody using one technology, then you are going to bring
down the cost of the devices.
By giving us enough spectrum, not only today but for the
future, it will draw the users to that space and it will draw
the manufacturers to the space. When we get everybody in one
chunk of spectrum that has predictability and adequacy, then
what we are going to do is we are going to quit spending money
tying these diverse slices of spectrum together all over the
map.
Interoperability, I think this panel is very wise to see
the problem. Interoperability has yet to be achieved and will
never be achieved because it requires that systems overlap each
other in order to have a gateway allow the access to the
system, which means you can't still overrun your system by
much. We won't solve interoperability until we have one
adequate chunk of spectrum.
To get to the last part of your question about another
slice of spectrum, all the different spectrums have different
characteristics in terms of propagation. So for example, some
spectrums penetrate buildings and some do not.
When we say the public safety's going to be on the 700 for
data and 700 for voice, which it is, then we can rely on that
for certain voice penetration capabilities and certain data
capabilities. When you put another part of the data spectrum or
voice spectrum in another frequency band, it may not penetrate
buildings. When you create unpredictably in our communications
tools, people quit using them.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you very much. My time is up.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Rogers.
Chief Johnson and Chief Dowd, Admiral Barnett stated that
there has been great involvement by public safety in this
process. Do you agree and if not why?
Chief Johnson. I will start that, Madam Chairwoman. I think
we have had numerous communications with the FCC, and I think
Admiral Barnett fairly characterizes his openness and the
openness of the FCC to talk with us.
But there is a difference between feeling heard and having
a dialogue. Public safety, we do not feel that they feel our
urgency and feel the severity of our opinion as the users of
this system. I also think that there has been some disconnect
in terms of the timing.
The National Broadband Plan came out before we had an in-
depth discussion about the merits of that broadband plan, and
the discussion about what capacity the system has and what our
needs are. That was subsequently dealt with in a paper by the
FCC dealing with what kind of capacity 10 megahertz of spectrum
would carry.
So I think it is fair to say that they have been talking
with us and dialoguing with us. We greatly appreciate that, but
we do have dysfunction in terms of them seeing our perspective
and us being brought to a place where we see the wisdom of
their decision.
Ms. Richardson. Have you provided that feedback to Mr.
Schaffer and also to Admiral Barnett?
Chief Johnson. Yes, we have.
Ms. Richardson. Okay. What was their response?
Chief Johnson. Well, I think, you know, on the timing
issues I think they acknowledge that it was unfortunate that
there were other factors that drove essentially the release of
the National Broadband Plan. They were quick to circle back
with the public safety community and have a dialogue about it.
But I think they essentially believe it was unfortunate.
Ms. Richardson. So regarding your specific recommendations
or things you would like to see, you said other than being
heard you haven't really seen them being incorporated as of
yet?
Chief Johnson. Not as of yet, but they have been very open.
We continue a dialogue with the FCC, DHS, and the
administration on what a solution eventually could be. I mean,
I don't want to oversimplify this.
But if you look back in history at what public safety was
willing to do, Madam Chairwoman, public safety was willing to
take the D Block, allow a cellular provider to use it and
actually carry cellular traffic on it, but it would be licensed
to public safety, which meant we controlled the network. So
when we needed it we got the upgrade.
It is a small shift in terms of the thinking, but if you
take the same spectrum and you don't auction it but you give it
to public safety, we create a public-private partnership with
the cellular industry or whoever.
They pay us for access to that network. We use the money to
build out the network and to operate the network, but we know
because we have the license we control the joystick. When we
need it we get it.
It is a good parallel is the freeway system today. I don't
own the freeway system. It is commonly used by commercial
carriers and private motorists. But when my fire apparatus
pulls onto that freeway and turns on its red lights and siren,
people pull to the right and stop. In radio parlance that is
what we are talking about.
We are talking about everybody can use it if you have an
agreement to get on it and it creates revenue to build out the
system. But when public safety keys the mike everyone pulls to
the right and stops.
Ms. Richardson. Okay. Other than--I already mentioned that
I had served on a city council for 6 years--other than Federal
grants how would you anticipate any available funding in your
budgets? I am speaking to the two chiefs, to be able to fund an
interoperable system?
Chief Dowd. Well, again, you know, I think we have to work
from the presumption that, you know, these communications
networks are absolutely necessary in order for us to do our
job.
You know, so we look at it from the perspective of, again,
if you look at the President's memorandum that he recently
issued about identifying 500 megahertz spectrum, Larry Summers,
his economic adviser in comments the day that that was
published, said that the first place that they would want to go
with the proceeds from the sale of any portion of that 500
megahertz of spectrum would be to build out public safety's
network Nation-wide.
So our argument is that 10 megahertz that we are asking for
is less than 2 percent of the total 500 that the President says
needs to be identified for broadband services, yet it would
double our spectrum.
Our argument is well, then if they are going to sell that
why don't we take the best of both worlds? Why don't we
leverage the sale of that spectrum for the broadband, you know,
for the broadband build-out for public safety but still
reallocate the D Block to public safety?
Ms. Richardson. Right. But my question is do you foresee
any money in your budget aside from Federal grants that you
currently receive for this, do you foresee having any money in
your budget to be able to assist in this process?
Chief Dowd. Well, sure. Yes. The city is prepared to commit
those funds because they understand the value of broadband
services. That is why we have already built a broadband system
in New York City. The mayor directed that 5 years ago.
It operates on different spectrum that doesn't give the
kind of public safety quality coverage in building coverage
that we need, but the monies are there.
The other issue is, and we--something that is kind of
related to this--is there is an unfunded mandate on the part of
the FCC for everybody below 512 in the spectrum range to narrow
band their radio systems, which would fall upon us, too.
We have already estimated that to cost between $100 million
and $300 million for the city of New York to do that for the
police radio system. Rather than applying monies to that old
technology, we would prefer to see the FCC make a change in
that mandate and allow us to explore, again, the broadband
technology for mission critical voice capability and ultimately
put all of our communications capabilities, voice and data, on
a mission critical level into the broadband services.
So again, you know, there are some different ways of
approaching this. You know, in not having to spend monies on
unfunded mandates that the FCC doesn't seem concerned about
funding.
At the same time, if you look at the efficiencies of
broadband and how we are already using it, the idea of not
wanting to build it or not trying to push public safety into
that technology for the future just doesn't make a whole lot of
sense.
Ms. Richardson. Okay.
Mr. Rogers, did you have any further questions?
Mr. Rogers. Yes, ma'am.
Chief Dowd, Chief Johnson gave a great example of using the
public highways and the priority that public safety gets in
that venue. It is my understanding that public safety has
priority access to commercial networks. My questions to you are
can you rely on that access? Can you tell me examples of where
it has not been a priority?
Chief Dowd. The simple answer to that is we cannot rely on
it. You know, you listen to what was said here and it is kind
of a cart before the horse scenario. Jeff kind of alluded to it
already. You look at the broadband plan. It came out before the
FCC's white paper talking about spectrum requirements, you
know.
When you look at it and say, you know, commercial networks,
can you use commercial networks to rely on in emergencies? The
answer is every experience that we have ever had tells us that
commercial networks will not be there when we need them in an
emergency.
I will give you a couple of quick examples. No. 1, you
remember Cory Lidle, the New York Yankee who crashed his light
plane into a building in Manhattan. You know, all of our
command staff, and we had, I think, close to 650 first
responders at the scene of that. I got screamed at the next day
because they say my cell phone, my data, I couldn't--nothing
worked. I couldn't get any information.
Again, it is because, you know, the only priority it had is
what they call next in queue priority or as the Admiral
referred to it earlier, first in line priority. That simply
will not work for public safety.
So that priority is not a legitimate priority. They haven't
figured it out yet. They have determined that that is the
solution even though they haven't figured it out. I think it
was the Chairwoman that pointed that out. You know, they have
figured out a solution, you know, without knowing whether it
can work or not. Our experience says that it will not work.
Another example is if you look at the Times Square bomb
incident, and had a conversation recently with the commanding
officer of the bomb squad. That bomb was a mechanical device.
It was, you know, a switch trip device, but, you know, we know
from experience in watching what happened in Madrid that
sometimes these devices are tripped by cellular phone calls.
The device is set off that way.
So the scenario there was--and I said to him, ``Well, if
you had that scenario and you believed the device you were
looking at was going to be tripped potentially by a cellular
device, what would be your first action?'' He said, ``We would
shut down or request the immediate shutdown of the commercial
networks in the area.''
Now, if the commercial networks are there to back us up in
an incident like that when we have to, you know, we have a
large concentration of first responders and now we have maxed
out on our 10 megahertz of spectrum, where do we go? We have
just shut those systems down. So it is just not a workable
model.
Mr. Graham. Congressman, could I respond?
Mr. Rogers. Yes, go ahead.
Mr. Graham. Because that, while that is--every bit of that
is true for everything up until today and when we launch LTE
technologies, none of that is true, virtually none of that is
true for LTE and beyond. What LTE will let us do, and LTE, make
no mistake, is the technology going into the 700 megahertz
space, LTE will allow carriers to manage users on an individual
basis.
LTE will allow the commercial providers to prioritize
emergency responders in such a way that not only does traffic
move to the side of the road, traffic moves completely off the
highway well before that fire engine, that police car starts
going down the highway. We will have that capability. We will
be able to limit all but public safety and first responders'
traffic on that network.
Mr. Rogers. What about the situation where he said a plane
flew into a building in New York and he had people screaming at
him the next day? By the way, the problems are here in New
York. If you came to Alabama, we don't scream at police chiefs.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Graham.
Mr. Graham. Sure. There are two ways to do that. One is at
the first notice that public safety needs the spectrum we can
pull the plug on the commercial users for that LTE network, the
LTE portion of the network. The second way would be to pre-
prioritize those public safety users so that when they cued up
their mics or they fired up their devices, it would clear
everybody off.
It wouldn't be first in line, to the example in the first
panel. It wouldn't be I am ready to travel first class but
there are no seats. It would be I am public safety. I pull
somebody off the plane and now I get that seat.
Mr. Rogers. Great, thanks.
Mr. LeGrande, the FCC chairman suggests that ``Auctioning D
Block will create an environment of interoperability.'' Do you
agree?
Mr. LeGrande. No, I don't. I think the FCC's National
Broadband Plan already creates a plan for interoperability. I
mean, really, we are not talking about making things more
interoperable. It is already designed. We have stabilized by
saying we are going to be on the LTE technology.
We are doing operational standards. We are doing roaming
standards between private networks. We are doing roaming
standards between the commercial networks and the private
networks that we are talking about.
In fact, you know, the suggestion that, you know, that
there is only going to be a private network if you give public
safety the D Block is simply not true because we are already
building these networks, even with them having the 10 megahertz
of spectrum, to be interoperable with the commercial industry.
So the suggestion that public safety will not have them as
a partner, they will have them as a partner. Further, the
suggestion that, you know, we can just move everyone off is,
you know, that is pretty accurate but you can always on the
commercial environment move folks off.
But the question is is the commercial carrier on the case
of having the D Block will have the authority to move when they
think it is best to move versus public safety having the
authority to move people when it is best to move?
That scenario is best for our country, having public
safety, the control and the capacity to manage their network
resources, not the commercial carriers.
Mr. Rogers. Great, thank you.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Rogers.
I just have two last remaining questions. For both chiefs,
as you noticed I mentioned to the Assistant Secretary Mr.
Schaffer about being more engaged in this process and how DHS
has not been as vocal in terms of some of the concerns that
your agencies have expressed. What would you like to see DHS do
differently?
Chief Johnson. Madam Chairwoman, I think a healthy dialogue
about what interoperability is, why it isn't working, and how
our money is being spent and what the outcomes are would be a
healthy place to start because I think the outflow of that
would be clarity about why the D Block belongs in public
safety's hands and why we need that much contiguous spectrum.
I talked to the Secretary before he left and as the chair
of a State-wide interoperability network I have learned a few
things about interoperability and how we spend our money.
First, interoperability is connecting together disparate
pieces of spectrum on existing systems. You take the State of
Oregon, for example, there are 49 independently owned,
operated, and maintained radio networks.
What we are doing today in Oregon is building a single
State-wide radio umbrella and people can choose to abandon
their own, choose to abandon their own and become subscribers.
What will eventually happen, based on States like Alabama and
Michigan and Wyoming, is that there will be a mass migration to
a single system.
Given adequate spectrum that ends interoperability once and
for all, that allows you to make investment in redundancy and
layers and to integrate these local systems. I think DHS
engaging us in those kinds of discussions will move us toward a
place where we stop spending money in the name of
interoperability and start spending money on a common picture
moving forward.
That will by its very nature, as was mentioned, by its very
nature will be interoperability. I think that is the most
important thing they can do.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you.
Chief Dowd, did you have anything you wanted to add?
Chief Dowd. Well, again, what we want to see happen is
there be a collaboration between DHS, FCC, and first
responders. You know, Secretary Schaffer talked about forming a
task force and, you know, what was a little bit troubling about
it is he only mentioned Federal entities.
You know, first response is a local event. First responders
need to be heavily involved in any process that determines how
we do our business.
Just quickly, in response to the response to my comments
before, every experience any police or fire chief I have ever
spoken to when they have talked about the use of commercial
networks for mission critical work or for your 911 system,
said, when you need them they are not there. They will fail.
They will fail before our networks do. It is just not a
workable model. Also, in order to get that priority access you
have to get on something called the access channel. If you
can't get in on the access channel, the system does not
recognize you as prioritized. So again, if the spectrum is on
our network that recognition is automatic and instantaneous.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you.
Mr. LeGrande, have you been involved at all with the
discussions about this issue from the FCC or DHS perspective?
Mr. LeGrande. Yes, Madam. I have over the years, back when
I was with the district and until now, I think it has been 6
years since we launched----
Ms. Richardson. But I mean, currently the discussions that
are being had right now, have you been invited to participate?
Mr. LeGrande. No, I haven't been invited.
Ms. Richardson. Okay, would you please submit your interest
if you do have an interest to Assistant Secretary Schaffer and
also to Admiral Barnett and do a copy to this committee?
Mr. LeGrande. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Richardson. Okay. Thank you.
All right, my last question then would also be to the two
chiefs. Would you provide to us, preferably by the end of the
week--I know that is asking a lot in Government, but if you
could do your best--if you could provide to this committee in
writing specifically what you would like to see DHS do further?
It is answering the question that I just asked you as well
as the FCC. Then that way I will forward it from this committee
to them, asking them to work with you to address those issues.
So I am asking you to help me to help you, and I would be happy
to do it.
Feel free in the letter to say that it is under my
direction. That way you don't have to look like the bad guys. I
do.
Chief Johnson. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chief Dowd. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Madam Chairwoman,
if I could real quickly, respectfully, I would like to request
that two documents be entered in the record, the New York City
white paper on public safety spectrum requirement that was done
by the City of New York and the Public Safety's Alliance review
of the FCC's white paper on spectrum requirements.
Ms. Richardson. Without objection.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The information was retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Dowd. Thank you.
Ms. Richardson. Mr. Rogers, any further questions?
Mr. Rogers. No, ma'am.
Ms. Richardson. Okay. I thank all the witnesses for your
valuable testimony and the Members for their questions. The
Members of the subcommittee may have additional questions for
the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond in an expeditious
way in writing, preferably within 2 weeks unless I otherwise
specified.
Hearing no further business, the hearing is adjourned.
Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X I
----------
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
A P P E N D I X I I
----------
Questions From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson of Mississippi for James
Arden Barnett, Jr.
Question 1. What discussions, if any, did the FCC have regarding
the possibility of levying a fee within the telecommunications industry
to assist in the funding of a Nation-wide, public safety broadband
network? What is the status of this type of funding proposal?
Answer. The National Broadband Plan (NBP) recommends public funding
for both capital expenses for construction of the Nation-wide
interoperable public safety broadband network and on-going expenses for
the operation, maintenance, and evolution of such a network. With
regard to those operational expenses, however, public funding will
likely not be enough. Thus, the NBP recommends that Congress consider
imposing a nominal public safety fee on all U.S. broadband users. Such
a fee could be assessed on the communications industry. Congress would
have to authorize the creation of such a fee and its administration.
The NBP recommends that Congress should explore creating such a funding
mechanism in fiscal year 2011, but no later than fiscal year 2012. The
NBP leaves the source of funding network construction and operation to
the discretion of Congress, but the suggestion of funding on-going
expenses through this mechanism is a still valid and active proposal.
The complete NBP proposal is available at: http://www.broadband.gov/
plan/16-public-safety/#s16-1.
Question 2. Under the National Broadband Plan, how would commercial
providers prioritize spectrum use among fire and police in one or
multiple jurisdictions, or among State and Federal officials?
Answer. Under the National Broadband Plan, commercial providers
would have no say in how public safety agencies use and prioritize
among themselves when they are operating on the public safety broadband
spectrum that constitutes the core of the network. A fundamental
principle of the NBP proposal is that public safety would control its
own core network, preserving as many options to itself as reasonably
possible for determining how the public safety spectrum would be used.
With regard to priority access and roaming by public safety on
commercial spectrum, the NBP recommends that the FCC should conduct a
rulemaking that would require commercial providers to allow public
safety users priority access to commercial broadband networks in the
700 MHz band. The NBP also anticipates that both commercial and public
safety networks in the 700 MHz band would use LTE technology, which has
15 levels of prioritization that will facilitate such priority access
arrangements. Addressing how prioritization will function for
commercial networks would be one of the matters addressed in the
recommended rulemaking.
Question 3. Under the National Broadband Plan, what contingency
plans are in place to provide continued operation and priority access
to public safety if commercial networks are down or unable to provide
priority access because they are overloaded?
Answer. First, under the NBP, public safety will always have its
own network on which to rely, and public safety will be able to govern
and control usage and priority on this dedicated network. Public safety
would only roam onto, and obtain priority access on, commercial
broadband networks when the public safety network is at capacity or
otherwise unavailable. Second, the NBP contemplates that, in those
circumstances, public safety could have access to multiple commercial
networks for roaming and priority access services. Being able to access
multiple commercial networks in this manner provides greater
reliability and redundancy to public safety than relying solely on a
single commercial network, and increases the options for public safety
in the event that some commercial facilities become disabled or
congested. In short, under the NBP's analysis, the most resilient and
reliable plan is to have a high-capacity, hardened public safety
network that is backed up by multiple independent commercial networks,
if and when they are needed.
Question 4. How does the National Broadband Plan ensure we have a
reliable and interoperable network for rural communities? Conversely,
how would reallocating the D Block to public safety affect build-out in
rural areas?
Answer. A critical focus of the NBP is to ensure that rural
communities will have access to a Nation-wide public safety broadband
network. To ensure this, the NBP recommendations rely on two major
tools. First, the NBP recommends that there be sufficient funding, both
for capital and on-going expenses, to ensure coverage and service to 99
percent of the Nation's population. Second, by recommending the auction
of the D Block, the NBP establishes a framework for leveraging
commercial economies of scale and reducing equipment costs for the
benefit of public safety, thus making public safety network deployment
and operation in rural areas more affordable. Specifically, making the
D Block available for commercial use creates incentives for stimulate
development of consumer-priced devices and equipment, and provides
multiple potential partners for public safety network deployment and
operation. In this respect, the NBP seeks to bring greater economic
efficiencies to the public safety marketplace that would enable lower
cost devices for public safety and a more cost-effective Nation-wide
network deployment.
Reallocating the D Block to public safety has the potential to
negatively impact rural build-out by increasing its cost. If public
safety is unable to leverage the economies of scale in the consumer
electronic marketplace, the cost of the public safety network could
potentially rise from approximately $6.5 billion for construction costs
and approximately $8-10 billion in operating costs to an estimated
combined total of $35-$48 billion over 10 years.
Further, the D Block and the public safety broadband spectrum make
up what is called ``Band 14'' in the 700MHz band for equipment
development purposes. Without a commercial carrier in the D Block
portion of Band 14, the pool of potential users of Band 14 equipment is
likely to be reduced dramatically, providing less incentive for
equipment manufacturers to develop or upgrade products. Without the
ability to capitalize on consumer electronic market research and
development, and choose from a broad array of commercial equipment
manufacturers, public safety users risk being saddled with
disproportionately high costs for communications equipment and devices
that are rapidly outdated and not readily replaceable. These high costs
could have a particularly harmful impact on the feasibility and
affordability of extending the network to rural areas.
In short, reallocating the D Block may threaten to put the public
safety broadband network out of reach for many communities, including
those in rural areas. Delaying deployment may also damage any ability
to leverage commercial deployments now or in the future, and makes it
more likely that Nation-wide interoperability will not be achieved in
any reasonable amount of time.
Question From Honorable Dina Titus of Nevada for James Arden Barnett,
Jr.
Question. As you may know, I represent Southern Nevada, a popular
business and vacation destination for millions from around the world
and home to hundreds of thousands of hotel rooms. On any given weekend,
we have thousands of tourists who most likely know next to nothing
about local emergency procedures. Because of this unique dynamic, it is
imperative that the private sector institutions, like hotels and other
attractions, work seamlessly with public safety officials. It is vital
that public safety officials are able to send and receive information
from the private sector, especially during an emergency.
As this discussion and decision-making process continues, I hope
that a solution can be found that not only leverages the lower-cost
devices and expertise of the private sector, but also provides public
safety agencies and officials the ability to improve and increase their
communications capabilities.
Mr. Barnett, as the Chief of the Public Safety and Homeland
Security Bureau of the FCC, can you please outline what considerations
were made for the types of public-private partnerships that exist in
Las Vegas during the development of the National Broadband Plan? Did
you consult public safety officials from areas where these partnerships
are critical? As currently written, do you estimate the NBP will have
any type of impact on these types of public-private partnerships?
Answer. Access to public safety spectrum in the 700 MHz band is
governed by Section 337 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47
U.S.C. 337. As part of a pending rulemaking proceeding and during
development of the NBP, the FCC has been carefully evaluating how to
best enable public-private partnerships that will foster the rapid and
cost-effective deployment of the public safety broadband network. One
of the open issues that the FCC continues to evaluate is whether the
FCC has statutory authority under Section 337 to permit non-public
safety users to utilize public safety spectrum in the 700 MHz band. In
considering this issue, the FCC is also evaluating how to ensure that
if such users have access to the network, public safety will retain
primary access to the spectrum when it needs it most. Accordingly,
while we recognize that such partnerships can play a critical role
during emergencies it is also necessary to create a regime that is
balanced and ensures that public safety has access to the network
capacity that it needs when it needs it.
Questions From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson of Mississippi for Gregory
Schaffer
Question 1. Please discuss how the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) was included in the FCC's efforts to develop the National
Broadband Plan's D Block auction recommendation?
Answer. Consistent with the Federal Communications Commission's
(FCC) role as an independent regulatory agency, the FCC did not share
specifics with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or the
Emergency Communications Preparedness Center (ECPC) regarding its final
recommendations in advance of the public release of the National
Broadband Plan, including any final D Block decisions.
As the FCC's Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau developed
the Public Safety elements of the Plan, the Bureau provided the Office
of Emergency Communications (OEC) with a number of briefings on options
under consideration, especially those concerning the proposed Nation-
wide public safety broadband network. OEC, in turn, provided general
comments to the Bureau, particularly on outreach to State and local
emergency responders. Prior to the FCC's release of its Plan, OEC
facilitated a meeting of the SAFECOM Executive Committee, during which
the Bureau briefed SAFECOM members on likely recommendations in the
Plan. DHS also participated in several public workshops sponsored by
the FCC to gather input for the development of its Plan. Additionally,
the FCC provided briefings to the ECPC on its development of the
National Broadband Plan.
Question 2. The FCC's National Broadband Plan does not mention
DHS's National Emergency Communications Plan that Congress required DHS
to develop and update. Were efforts taken to align the National
Broadband Plan (NBP) with the National Emergency Communications Plan
(NECP)?
Answer. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released the
National Emergency Communications Plan (NECP) in July 2008 to drive
advancements in operability, interoperability, and continuity of
communications at all levels of government. The NECP primarily focused
on traditional emergency communications, such as land mobile radio
technologies, while also stressing the importance of planning for new,
emerging technologies such as broadband.
The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) National Broadband
Plan (NBP) references the NECP and DHS's efforts to implement the goals
of the NECP in Chapter 16, ``Public Safety'' (p. 328). That section of
the NBP also identifies the 700 MHz spectrum band as ideal for
deploying a Nation-wide wireless broadband network for use by first
responders. Since release of the NBP, OEC has been working in concert
with Federal, State, local, territorial, and Tribal public safety
representatives, including the FCC, to update the NECP so that it
accounts for the planned deployment of a Nation-wide public safety
network. DHS, via the NECP, also addresses key issues that impact the
public safety community regardless of the use of current (land mobile
radio) or emerging (broadband/4G) technologies, such as governance,
planning and partnerships, training, requirements, standards, and
research and development.
Question 3. Please describe in detail the questions and issues that
need to be resolved before a final decision on the D Block is made,
particularly the technical and legal aspects of the framework for
priority access and roaming.
Answer. The administration and the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) support public safety's need for broadband communications that
meet their mission requirements. As DHS evaluates any potential plan to
develop and deploy a Nation-wide public safety broadband network, it is
focusing on the following technical and legal aspects:
First and foremost, interoperability must be built into any
broadband network architecture from the outset.
We must use lessons learned from the development of land
mobile radio (LMR) technologies and avoid developing
systems that are not built to open standards. Unless
industry uses open standards emergency response
communication equipment will be unable to interoperate
without substantial investment in expensive add-on
components.
Second, network coverage in both urban and rural areas is
essential.
Emergency responders across the entire range of response
official--from metropolitan police departments to rural
county volunteer fire departments--must benefit from
broadband communications capabilities to meet their mission
requirements.
Third, the solution must allow public safety devices to
heavily leverage commercial technology.
If public safety and commercial providers can leverage
common infrastructure, chipsets, and base station
technologies which also meet public safety requirements,
both sides will benefit.
Fourth, any solution must provide a path for the network to
evolve and grow, progressively adding greater capability and
providing better mission support.
Technical specifications on how standards, such as Long
Term Evolution, should be implemented.
An interface that will allow for roaming among early
adopters (waiver cities) and eventually across the Nation-
wide public safety broadband network.
A test and evaluation process to ensure that emerging
technology meets specifications to enable interoperability
across systems.
Our efforts are focused on ensuring that public safety has the
capabilities to communicate as needed, on demand, and as authorized at
all levels of government and across all disciplines. Ultimately, the
development of a Nation-wide public safety broadband network must meet
the needs of public safety. Under the Federal Communications
Commission's (FCC) proposal, public safety communications would
transition into a commercial environment characterized by increased
infrastructure to maximize spectrum reuse and the utilization of
commercial devices and base station technology to achieve significant
cost and capability advantages for public safety users and the Nation.
We believe that the FCC's proposal has merit, with a number of
significant caveats. Any final decisions about the public safety
broadband network must address the following issues:
First, the FCC's proposal relies on development of a new
generation of technical capabilities and additional legal
authorities, which are intended to allow public safety to roam
onto commercial spectrum with priority access in emergency
events. Both the technical and legal frameworks for this type
of plan must be evaluated, and capacity and capability outcomes
understood, before any decision can be made regarding the
spectrum requirements for public safety.
Second, the FCC's plan will necessitate sufficient funding
to build out the infrastructure required for the network.
Effective network operations require that sufficient cell sites
and base stations be built out and that the network be hardened
as appropriate. One significant advantage of the FCC's plan is
that network costs are expected to be significantly less than
other alternatives, and costs are of course an important factor
for public safety.
Third, the FCC expects that commercial networks can
ultimately be enabled to handle not only mission-enhancing
public safety data communications traffic but eventually,
mission-critical public safety voice traffic as well. While the
use of Long Term Evolution wireless broadband technology as a
replacement for existing public safety voice-traffic systems is
years away, it is essential that significant efforts be
undertaken now to solve the following critical technical
challenges associated with public safety use of commercial
networks:
The networks and associated equipment must be able to
operate in a one-to-many mode, as LMR systems do today, in
addition to the one-to-one mode of typical commercial
cellular phone systems;
The networks and associated equipment must be able to
operate peer-to-peer (or handset-to-handset) in the event
of network outages;
The networks must be able to provide clear understandable
voice communications in high-noise environments like
burning buildings, and with minimal voice delay; and
The networks must be able to penetrate to and from the
interior of large buildings without significant degradation
of capability.
Although we are focused on the above-referenced questions at this
time, we also recognize that additional issues may be identified as DHS
works along with other members of the administration to research the
particulars of the FCC's plans and as more details about the
capabilities of new 4th generation communications technologies become
available.
Question 4. Do you believe the FCC's Emergency Response
Interoperability Center (ERIC) should be located within the Department
of Homeland Security? If not, what functions do you think DHS should
perform in relation to the ERIC?
Answer. Given the regulatory and technical responsibilities of the
Emergency Response Interoperability Center (ERIC) concerning the
operation of the Nation-wide public safety broadband network, the ERIC
is appropriately located within the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC). The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will have a leadership
position within ERIC by providing a detailee to serve as Deputy
Director. At the same time, DHS and other Federal entities also have
statutory responsibilities regarding emergency communications. As a
result, DHS and other appropriate Departments are working to develop a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to form a partnership, in order to
provide consistent and integrated Federal support for the Nation-wide
public safety broadband network and to synchronize their on-going
activities, including their coordination and consultation with State,
local, and Tribal public safety organizations with ERIC functions. This
partnership will leverage the unique capabilities of each Department
with respect to non-regulatory matters, and enable each party to
execute its preexisting statutory duties in a coordinated manner.
Although the governing MOU is still in progress, the following
functions are representative of the partnership's proposed activities:
Establish policies and strategic plans, to coordinate the
roll-out of the proposed Nation-wide public safety broadband
network;
Ensure the availability of technical assistance to eligible
parties at all levels of government (including quasi-
governmental responders) to facilitate the rapid development,
deployment, and adoption of the network and its integration
into day-to-day operations;
Develop coordinated guidance, applicable to all Federal
programs that provide grants or other financial assistance for
activities in connection with the network, that encourages
planning and training for broadband capabilities and supports
the adoption of the network at the most rapid possible rate;
Coordinate Federal activities in support of development,
testing, and evaluation for technologies related to the
network;
Coordinate administration positions on proposed FCC actions,
notices, etc. affecting public safety communications in
connection with the operations of the network for submission to
the National Telecommunications and Information Administration;
Develop and implement procedures, where possible, for the
resolution of disputes arising among or between network
operators, users, and other stakeholders, including informal
procedures that can seek to resolve those disputes prior to
formal ERIC regulatory and enforcement activities; and
Collaborate with the ERIC to ensure that all ERIC actions
are successfully integrated with relevant planning processes
and governance structures and to facilitate the effective
deployment and adoption of the proposed network.
Question From Honorable Dina Titus of Nevada for Gregory Schaffer
Question. As you may know, I represent Southern Nevada, a popular
business and vacation destination for millions from around the world
and home to hundreds of thousands of hotel rooms. On any given weekend,
we have thousands of tourists who most likely know next to nothing
about local emergency procedures. Because of this unique dynamic, it is
imperative that the private sector institutions, like hotels and other
attractions, work seamlessly with public safety officials. It is vital
that public safety officials are able to send and receive information
from the private sector, especially during an emergency.
As this discussion and decision-making process continues, I hope
that a solution can be found that not only leverages the lower-cost
devices and expertise of the private sector, but also provides public
safety agencies and officials the ability to improve and increase their
communications capabilities.
I want to ask you to share the Department's perspective on this
issue of public-private sector interoperability. When developing DHS's
position on the NBP, do you consider public-private partnerships? Does
DHS believe that the NBP can be used to improve and expand these
partnerships? How so? What steps is DHS taking to ensure that these
recommendations are implemented effectively?
Answer. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) strongly
encourages public/private partnerships and values the expertise that
the private sector is able to provide to the public safety community.
DHS supports the vision of a National public safety broadband network,
which leverages commercial technologies and applications, to meet
public safety and emergency response requirements. By design, the
adoption by the public safety community of the commercially-based long-
term evolution (LTE) standard as the air interface for the network, and
the Federal Communication Commission's (FCC) adoption of this
recommendation in its National Broadband Plan, opens up new
opportunities for partnerships between first responders and the private
sector. DHS is continuing to collaborate on further consideration and
implementation of these recommendations with the FCC and other Federal
agency members of the Emergency Communications Preparedness Center
(ECPC), and will include recommendations for effective implementation
of partnership opportunities in its updated National Emergency
Communications Plan (NECP).
The planned deployment of new fourth generation, or 4G, mobile
technologies by many commercial carriers over the next several years
presents a historic window of opportunity to secure a range of high-
speed, cutting-edge, inherently interoperable capabilities for our
Nation's public safety and emergency response community. These new
technologies can be leveraged to augment the existing land mobile radio
(LMR) solutions that the public safety community currently uses to
perform its vital mission: Delivering a robust, operable, and
interoperable Nation-wide public safety network. This improved network
would support rural jurisdictions and urban areas alike, ensuring that
all emergency responders have access to the new capabilities. If
employed effectively, it will facilitate the development of new
technologies tailored to public safety.
Questions From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson of Mississippi for Robert
LeGrande, II
Question 1. How would reallocating the D Block to public safety
ensure the build out of a Nation-wide, interoperable emergency
communications network in our rural communities?
Answer. The FCC's plan to fund network build out in all areas,
combined with the reallocation of the D Block will ``ensure'' National
network build out. The plan directs a local government-driven approach
and addresses the key problem with universal build-out; funding.
Further to the plan, I suggest a shared D Block spectrum lease option
(page 6) that will allow local jurisdictions to share spectrum and
thereby by address the lack of commercial broadband availability in
rural areas. Some may suggest that this recommendation supports a
regional auction approach; however, we tried a one-size-fits-all
auction option for public safety in 2008 and it did not work. We should
provide the State and local governments with the flexibility to do what
is in their best interest. This approach will satisfy the rural and
National carriers as they may gain access to the D Block spectrum in
some areas without an auction cost. Some may also suggest that this
recommendation is too complicated for many rural governments. In my
opinion, any solution we choose will be complicated; which is why I
recommend leveraging the National Network Build Process on pages 7 and
8. This proactive process allows the Federal Government and PS
organizations to work with State and local governments throughout the
network development lifecycle and will promote efficient network
designs and sound, sustainable business solutions.
Question 2. What are public safety's spectrum needs for
catastrophic events versus other less severe disasters and normal
operations?
Answer. The FCC produced a network capacity document that says
10MHz of 700MHz spectrum is enough for all events, while New York City
and the District of Columbia produced documents that say we will need
at least 20MHz. The fair answer to this question is that no one knows
with absolute certainty . . . Every catastrophic event is different, as
is less severe disasters and normal operations. In one case you may
need the Federal Department of Transportation, the CIA, and State and
local first responders and in another your may need regional and
National responders. Further complicating this issue is the exponential
increase in wireless broadband solutions and devices. 5 years ago no
one knew what an IPhone or Droid PDAs were. Now they dominate the
market and strain our existing commercial networks. The only thing we
know for certain is that 5 years from now, after many commercial and PS
LTE networks are built, there will be newer and more innovative
solutions and devices all requiring increased bandwidth and it is for
this reason that we must provide PS the D Block spectrum to ensure we
have enough spectrum to meet their communications needs today and
tomorrow.
Question 3. Some who support the auction of the D Block suggest
that public safety uses spectrum inefficiently and does not understand
the full capabilities of broadband. What insight can you provide on
these claims that public safety utilizes broadband inefficiently and
does not understand the full capabilities of broadband?
Answer. In the past, spectrum was given to PS in non-contiguous
chunks and this has resulted in inefficient network designs. PS has
made many steps forward to more efficient spectrum use and network
designs. Neither industry nor the FCC promoted the first PS wireless
broadband network leveraging commercial technology 6 years ago. This
was accomplished by the District of Columbia Government. PS continues
to promote efficient spectrum use as evidenced by the New York State
Association of Counties model outlined in page 10 of this document.
Here 57 counties in the State of New York have agreed to the same
spectrally efficient technology (LTE), to leverage the same BB radio
frequency (700MHz), and to a comprehensive State-wide network design
that saves money while ensuring local control. These efforts, along
with many other PS 700MHz broadband efforts in America are evidence of
PS' willingness and determination to move away from inefficient
spectrum use and thereby fully leverage the capabilities of broadband
wireless communications.
Attachment A.--Recommended Public Safety National Broadband Approach
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Questions From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson of Mississippi for Eric
Graham
Question 1. Do you believe the National Broadband Plan's
recommendation to auction the D Block would ensure the build out of a
Nation-wide, interoperable emergency communications network in rural
communities?
Answer. While an auction of the D Block facilitates the build out
of a Nation-wide, interoperable emergency communications network in
rural communities by providing immediate funding, the actualization of
this network is also dependent on mandating interoperability throughout
the 700 MHz spectrum.
As discussed in the written testimony, true interoperability--not
only interoperability amongst the different public safety entities
throughout the country but also with all commercial 700 MHz networks
operating on the same Long Term Evolution (LTE) technology--is required
to have Nation-wide service. Partnership with commercial providers is
necessary to build out the public safety network in an economical way.
This partnership is only possible in areas where commercial providers
are building out their own 4G LTE 700 MHz networks.
The current band classes, as established by the 3rd Generation
Partnership Project (3GPP), create spectral islands through different
band classes for the D Block and the existing Public Safety Spectrum
(Band Class 14), the Upper C Block (Band Class 13), the Lower A, B, and
C Blocks (Band Class 12), and the Lower B and C Blocks (Band Class 17).
Under this band plan, devices used on the public safety network would
only work on networks that are technologically compatible with Band
Class 14.
Rural and regional wireless providers hold a significant amount of
Lower A Block 700 MHz spectrum which will operate on Band Class 12.
These providers are not only more likely to operate in rural
communities already, but they also must meet geographic build out
requirements which ensure that coverage with these licenses will be
broad-based and not just confined to cities and towns. Geographic build
out requirements ensure that networks are deployed in rural
communities, as opposed to population-based build out requirements that
entice a license holder to build out first to the highest population
urban areas and expand service to rural areas subsequently, if at all.
This build out requirement makes Lower A Block licensees ideal partners
for constructing the public safety network in rural areas.
If interoperability is not required, public safety users will not
have the ability to partner with, or even roam on, rural and regional
holders of Lower A Block spectrum like Cellular South. In the event of
a disaster such as Hurricane Katrina, public safety responders will be
required to roam onto additional spectrum held by commercial providers.
For the additional capacity, roaming onto spectrum held by commercial
providers will provide not only 10 MHz of additional capacity but allow
access to up to 70 MHz of 700 MHz broadband spectrum. Under the current
band plan, first responders would be technically barred from roaming
onto these networks in places operating on differing band classes. This
means that even in areas where a 700 MHz LTE network is operational,
public safety network users would be unable to roam onto the commercial
700 MHz network for additional capacity or if the public safety network
goes down.
In order to ensure the build out of a Nation-wide, interoperable
public safety network in rural communities, full interoperability
throughout the 700 MHz broadband spectrum must be mandated in addition
to auctioning the D Block to provide adequate revenue to build the
network in all areas of the Nation.
Question 2. How would rural America be affected if Congress
reallocates the D Block to public safety?
Answer. If Congress reallocates the D Block to public safety, it is
unlikely that the public safety network will be built out and
operational in rural America in the near future, if ever. Reallocating
the D Block to public safety will immediately eliminate an estimated
$2-$3 billion--possibly more based on Auction No. 73 spectrum
valuations--that could be used to build out the public safety network,
and it will do so without creating an appropriate alternative funding
mechanism to ensure that public safety can deploy a network throughout
the Nation in a timely manner.
Question 3. If the D Block is reallocated to public safety, do you
believe sufficient revenue for network build out and operation could be
obtained by the leasing of spectrum to commercial providers,
particularly in rural areas of the country?
Answer. Any uncertainty will lead to lower revenue.
Due to the significant capital investment necessary to build,
maintain, and operate wireless networks, regulatory and operational
certainty are crucial before wireless providers are willing to invest
in next-generation networks. Spectrum auctions provide the greatest
certainty for licensees because bidders know the terms of the license
in advance of the auction, including terms for renewal. Some have
speculated that the D Block auction failed in Auction No. 73 due to the
uncertainty of the terms surrounding that spectrum. Although Cellular
South believes that the geographic size of the license was the greatest
factor leading to the D Block's failure to reach its reserve price,
there is no doubt that the uncertainty surrounding the terms of that
license was a factor as well.
If the D Block were reallocated and then leased for commercial use,
there would still be tremendous uncertainty surrounding that spectrum.
The Commission or Congress would be forced to set forth uniform lease
terms, or risk a patchwork of lease terms that vary from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction. Renewal terms would require a high level of certainty,
or lessees would not make the capital investments necessary to build
and maintain a high-quality network. The incentive to invest would
decrease over time as the lease term expires. Additionally, it would be
very unlikely that a service provider would build new towers--thus
increasing coverage--if the carrier risked losing its lease at the end
of a term. These problems are avoided when spectrum is licensed through
the auction process with build-out based renewal terms that are not
subject to future increases in lease prices.
Absent interoperability throughout the 700 MHz spectrum, rural and
regional providers are unlikely to lease the D Block spectrum for two
reasons. First, many rural and regional providers made significant
investments in 700 MHz spectrum and already have access to this
spectrum. Second, the commercial equipment in the 700 MHz band will not
be able to operate on the D Block spectrum. Therefore, although leasing
spectrum from a reallocated D Block may yield funding for the public
safety networks in urban areas, where greater population densities lead
to increased spectral demand, it is unlikely this plan would secure
appropriate revenue amounts in a realistic timeframe to build and
operate a public safety network in rural areas. Further, as with
commercial networks, public safety networks are more likely to
experience greater spectral demands in urban areas, meaning that the
demand for leased spectrum would exist primarily in areas where public
safety networks need additional capacity most and the spectrum
available for lease to commercial providers would exist in areas
without such demand for either public safety or commercial carriers.
This is not the solution to provide funding to ensure that first
responders have the network they need.
In contrast, auctioning the D Block could introduce additional
commercial competitors into the 700 MHz space, while providing
immediate funding for the public safety network in urban and rural
areas alike.
In either case, it is imperative that Congress mandate
interoperability throughout the 700 MHz broadband spectrum to ensure
that all wireless users who access any portion of paired 700 MHz
spectrum will have the capability to access all compatible networks
operating on paired 700 MHz spectrum. This would further increase the
value of the D Block spectrum, whether at auction or through a spectrum
lease, increase economies of scale for mobile broadband public safety
devices, and would allow the greatest possible flexibility for all
wireless users.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
