[Senate Hearing 112-166]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-166
SAFEGUARDING OUR FUTURE: BUILDING A NATIONWIDE NETWORK FOR FIRST
RESPONDERS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 16, 2011
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
71-532 PDF 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
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas,
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts Ranking
BARBARA BOXER, California OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
BILL NELSON, Florida JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota ROY BLUNT, Missouri
TOM UDALL, New Mexico JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MARK WARNER, Virginia PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania
MARK BEGICH, Alaska MARCO RUBIO, Florida
KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
Ellen L. Doneski, Staff Director
James Reid, Deputy Staff Director
Bruce H. Andrews, General Counsel
Ann Begeman, Republican Staff Director
Brian M. Hendricks, Republican General Counsel
Nick Rossi, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 16, 2011................................ 1
Statement of Senator Rockefeller................................. 1
Prepared statement of Hon. Charles E. Schumer, U.S. Senator
from New York.............................................. 6
Statement of Senator Hutchison................................... 3
Statement of Senator Boozman..................................... 28
Statement of Senator Warner...................................... 28
Prepared statement........................................... 28
Statement of Senator Udall....................................... 32
Statement of Senator Thune....................................... 32
Statement of Senator Blunt....................................... 36
Statement of Senator Klobuchar................................... 37
Witnesses
Hon. Peter T. King, Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 4
Hon. Raymond W. Kelly, Police Commissioner, City of New York..... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Hon. Jack Markell, Governor, State of Delaware and Member,
Executive Committee, National Governors Association............ 11
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Al H. Gillespie, Chief, North Las Vegas Fire Department and First
Vice President, International Association of Fire Chiefs....... 15
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Joseph L. Hanna, President, Directions........................... 19
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Appendix
Hon. Olympia J. Snowe, U.S. Senator from Maine, prepared
statement...................................................... 45
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Raymond W. Kelly
by:
Hon. Claire McCaskill........................................ 46
Hon. Olympia J. Snowe........................................ 48
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Jack Markell by:
Hon. Claire McCaskill........................................ 53
Hon. Olympia J. Snowe........................................ 54
Response to written questions submitted to Chief Al H. Gillespie
by:
Hon. Claire McCaskill........................................ 57
Hon. Olympia J. Snowe........................................ 59
Response to written questions submitted to Joseph L. Hanna by:
Hon. Claire McCaskill........................................ 65
Hon. Olympia J. Snowe........................................ 66
SAFEGUARDING OUR FUTURE:
BUILDING A NATIONWIDE NETWORK
FOR FIRST RESPONDERS
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m. in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John D.
Rockefeller IV, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA
The Chairman. Good morning, everyone.
This hearing comes to order.
My Vice Chair, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison from Texas, is
here, and there are some others who are not would be my general
impression. But you know what? I do not care.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. You are here. We are here and we have a great
subject to discuss.
The 10th anniversary of 9/11 is very quickly coming up in
the fall. Despite the passage of time and of the horror, the
pain, and the deep sadness that marks that day, nothing really
has faded from our national consciousness. That is part of our
eternal time clock, what went on during that day and what
people did during that day and what the nation lost and what
the nation gained that day. And I think that is all appropriate
because these are wounds that, even if they heal, they always
will cause us pain. That is as it should be. We grow as a
nation. We deepen as a nation, and we come to understand more
what people do and can do and will do.
Although strides have been made across the country in
interoperability, mostly in big cities, we are still far from
where we need to be. Although strides have been made, we have
so much more to do. More importantly, tragedy does not know
boundaries. Besides New York or Washington, emergencies occur
every day in urban and rural communities all across the
country. We do not hear about them. We do not read about them
unless it is a Virginia Tech type of event, but they happen all
the time. We live with them, and we should not have to live
with them. Whether it is terrorism or a tornado or a hurricane
or a brush fire, one thing is universally true, when an
emergency happens, who do we rely on? We rely on first
responders like police, fire fighters, and public safety
officials of all kinds to keep us from harm.
Far too often, we talk about the important role that these
brave first responders play, but then we turn around and we
fail to give them the tools they need to do their job. So we
are full of praise, but we are not full of help. We are trying
to redress that situation.
I think it is long past time that we really do something
strong about this, and it turns out that we can do it with a
whole lot of funding left over for deficit reduction because of
the voluntary nature of the auction.
So that is what today's hearing is about, and it is what
led me to introduce and to fight hard for the Public Safety
Spectrum and Wireless Innovation Act. The legislation does two
things.
First, it sets aside 10 megahertz of spectrum known as the
D Block to public safety to support a nationwide interoperable
wireless broadband network that will help keep us safe.
Second, it gives the Federal Communications Commission the
authority to hold incentive auctions based on a voluntary
return of spectrum. And that word ``voluntary'' turns out to be
a very, very important word. These auctions, in turn, will
provide funding to support the construction and maintenance of
public safety networks, and they will free up additional
spectrum for innovative commercial uses.
In short, the bill marries resources for first responders
with good commercial spectrum policy. It can keep us safe and
help our economy grow.
That is why this legislative union has the support of every
major public safety organization across the country. I am proud
that virtually every public safety officer in my great state of
West Virginia has stood up and recognized how essential this
bill really is for strengthening their ability to do their
jobs. They may not be dealing with twin towers, but they are
dealing with their equivalent of twin towers every day and they
never know when it will come upon them. In fact, I am
especially proud of the good work that we have done on the
legislation across our State, and I have had very useful
conversations with first responders in two counties that you
have never heard of, Jackson County and Wood County, about how
this bill would make their work safer.
Across the country, I have also gotten strong statements of
support from governors and mayors. And now we have the full and
unambiguous support of the Administration. It was a tad slow in
coming, but it is here. It is full-force.
There are some people who argue that we simply want to sell
the valuable resource to the highest bidder. I forcefully
reject that, though I have said repeatedly that I will work
with anyone who seeks to make sure that our public safety
officials have the resources they need to communicate so they
can do their jobs and protect our people.
But let me also clarify one thing. This effort is about
saving lives. And to those who say we cannot afford this now, I
say we can afford in no way not to do it. We have to do it and
we have to do it now. The moment is right and everybody is here
and this has great momentum.
But if this is not compelling enough, it is important for
you to know this and important for the world to know this. This
legislation pays for itself many times over. According to the
Administration and industry, incentive auctions will bring in
revenue well above what funding public safety requires, leaving
billions--and I mean $20-plus billions--over for deficit
reduction or for whatever people want to have happen. So this
is a win-win-win from my point of view.
In closing, let me say that we have an opportunity right
now to provide our public safety officials with spectrum they
need to communicate when tragedy strikes. And with incentive
auctions, we can pair this with funding. Some people are not
wild about this idea, and we respect their points of view but
their points of view do not measure up to the facts of what we
are dealing with here. They do not realize that if we have a
voluntary spectrum auction for those who feel they can do that,
we pick up a ton of money, far more than you would need for not
just deploying your interoperability but maintaining the
system, building it out, deploying it, and maintaining it.
To my colleagues, I say let us seize this moment. This is
the right thing to do. This is not a left thing to do. It is
just the right thing to do. So let us do something historical.
Let us do it together, and let us do it starting with this
hearing today.
I will have to say this is my highest legislative priority
for this committee. I say that happily, unabashedly, and
proudly. We will work to get this done before our nation
reaches the 10th anniversary of September 11th, which is coming
upon us quickly. It comes upon us much more quickly than we do
legislation in the U.S. Congress. So the earlier we start, the
better it is.
I thank our witnesses for joining us today, and I will
introduce them, but first Kay Bailey Hutchison.
STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think you have pointed out a lot of the reasons for
addressing this issue. We have all heard too many stories of
our police, fire, and medical personnel who cannot communicate
during emergencies, sometimes even resorting to handwritten
notes passed across piles of rubble. When school children are
walking to school with cutting-edge smart phones capable of
video conferencing and high speed Internet connections, our
first responders should have more than walkie-talkies and notes
across rubble. Oftentimes we see that even the equipment they
have is not interoperable.
So this is the time to act. And you have been a leader, Mr.
Chairman, on this issue and I think you have shown that
commitment this morning.
I said last September that I can support your proposal to
allocate the spectrum known as the D Block to public safety.
However, I do have some concerns about how your legislation
would fund the deployment of the public safety network and
whether we could work together to combine the public safety
allocation with some of my priorities in the wireless area to
drive innovation, investment, and job growth.
I have drafted a comprehensive spectrum bill, the Wireless
Innovation Spectrum Enhancement Act, WISE Act, to be called,
that I hope you will consider. My bill would allocate the D
Block to public safety, as well as provide a stable funding
stream through a combination of grants and zero interest loans
financed by auction revenue to build a public safety network.
Funds would also be specifically targeted to rural and high-
cost areas where so many communities do not have access to
wireless networks. This is important in every state that has
rural communities and smaller communities to get the public
safety broadband network in place and deployed.
In addition to ensuring our first responders will have
access to communications systems they need, my bill will
generate billions in new revenue to help pay down the federal
deficit. It will also spur more efficient and transparent use
of government spectrum, encouraging the Government to use less
of its spectrum allotment so that some airwaves that today are
unused or underutilized can be repurposed for higher use.
Last, my proposal will drive investment, innovation, and
job creation by significantly increasing the spectrum available
for commercial broadband use. This is necessary to maintain the
United States' position at the forefront of the wireless world.
So, Mr. Chairman, I hope that we can combine your priority
and your approach with mine and do something that I think would
be a win all the way around, from public safety spectrum to
paying for it and adding to the commercial capabilities to use
broadband. Thank you.
The Chairman. We always do.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. I want to apologize to the other witnesses,
but Senator Hutchison and I have to be on the floor to manage
an aviation bill at 11 o'clock. I think we can be late, but I
do not think it is a good idea.
So I want to introduce Congressman Peter King from New
York. He has been a longtime advocate for handing the D Block
to public safety. He is Chairman of the House Homeland Security
Committee. By having him kick off the dialogue, I just think it
sets the tone. He is going to make an introduction. But I must
say that I am very honored that you are here, sir. The floor is
yours.
STATEMENT OF HON. PETER T. KING, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. King. Thank you, Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member
Hutchison, Senators.
First of all, it is a great opportunity to be here. I want
to thank you for extending the invitation to me. As a fellow
New Yorker, Senator Rockefeller, I know you took a wrong turn
once and ended up in West Virginia, but we still miss you in
New York and we wish we had you back. But in any event, it is
great to be here and it is good to see my good friend, Senator
Toomey. I knew him when he worked across the street. It is good
to see you, Pat. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, ten years after the September 11 attacks, our
first responders still suffer from a lack of interoperable
communications.
By the way, I identify myself completely with everything
said by you and Senator Hutchison. Whatever differences there
are I hope can be resolved as we go forward. Some of the
underlying motivation I agree with completely.
The current situation is simply unacceptable. We have spent
billions of dollars to upgrade communication systems, but we
still lack interoperability. For instance, at Penn Station in
New York, police officers are unable to consistently use their
communications equipment even when they are only 100 yards away
from one another due to interference.
Now, back in 2004, six and a half years ago, the 9/11
Commission report with Congressman Hamilton and Governor Kean,
recommended that the Congress should support legislation to
provide for the expedited and increased assignment of radio
spectrum for public safety purposes. Six and a half years later
it still has not been done. And for far too long the spectrum
has been allocated to public safety in a piecemeal approach.
We need to implement a new plan for solving our nation's
public safety interoperable communications problem, one that
ensures first responders have the latest technology to get the
job done and to save lives. We need to support a plan that will
provide public safety agencies enough contiguous spectrum to
enable the conversions of voice, video, and data communications
on one network, and this network must have enough capacity and
speed to allow public safety the ability use the latest
equipment and applications to do their job in a secure
environment.
That is why, along with Ranking Member Thompson of the
Homeland Security Committee in the House, I have introduced the
bipartisan Broadband for First Responders Act, H.R. 607. This
is the companion to the bill of Senator Lieberman and Senator
McCain, very close to yours as well, and I look forward to
working with you, Senator McCain, Senator Lieberman, and
Senator Hutchison and as many people as we can on a bipartisan
basis.
By allocating D Block to public safety and providing
sufficient funding, we can finally give the brave men and women
of our law enforcement community, fire service, EMTs the
communications resources that they require and need and which
we as the public require and need as we live in very, very
dangerous times, whether we are talking about natural disasters
or the constant peril of terrorist attack. Just last week,
Secretary Napolitano said that the terror threat is as high now
as it has been since September 11, 2001. So this is a real,
real and present challenge, danger, and threat to our nation,
and I believe legislation of this type is absolutely essential.
Now, my main purpose, Chairman Rockefeller, in being here
today is to introduce New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly
who has truly been a leader. He is here today. There are men
from law enforcement, men from the fire service, men who
literally put their lives on the line every day to protect us
and need the very, very best. Commissioner Kelly has been--
probably no one has been more of a leader, not just a local
leader but a national leader, since September 11. The New York
City Police Department has 1,000 police officers dedicated to
fighting terrorism. That is 1,000 police officers. They have an
intelligence division, a counter-terrorism division. They have
people focused on interoperability. At every stage and every
level of the fight against terrorism, the NYPD has been there
before September 11 but especially since Commissioner Kelly
came back as Commissioner in January of 2002. We in New York
live every day with the constant specter of another attack. We
have been attacked twice, and since Commissioner Kelly has been
commissioner, we have stopped 11 other attacks against the City
of New York. So we realize firsthand the danger.
But we have no monopoly on threats. We have no monopoly on
death. And that is why I am supporting this legislation in a
bipartisan way, why I look forward to working with you, and why
it is really my privilege to introduce Commissioner Kelly to
you today. He and Chief Dobbs from the NYPD have just been
constant and consistent in urging passage of legislation such
as this. So I am proud that Commissioner Kelly is here today.
He will, as always, do a tremendous job in laying out what the
reality on the ground is and what has to be done.
So as Congressman Toomey used to say and I still say, I
thank you for allowing me to testify and yield back the balance
of my time. Thank you, Senator Rockefeller.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
We will have the panel come forward, and as they are doing
that, I want to point out that our three members here today are
all new members to the Committee. So I think that reflects very
well on them and less well on the rest of our colleagues.
[Laughter.]
Mr. King. I am not going to get involved in that, Senator.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Well, it is busy.
I also ask unanimous consent to enter Senator Schumer's
statement in the record. He wanted to be here to support the
bill and to support Commissioner Kelly but had, as they say, a
prior engagement. He is a very busy man.
Mr. King. I know.
[The prepared statement of Senator Schumer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Charles E. Schumer,
U.S. Senator from New York
I am sorry I could not be with everyone before the Committee today,
but I would like to thank the distinguished Chairman, Senator
Rockefeller, for holding this hearing, and his leadership in authoring
this important legislation, the Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless
Innovation Act.
I would like to recognize New York City's Police Commissioner Ray
Kelly who is testifying today for his tireless work in keeping New York
City safe and secure. We are all in his debt. He is one of our nation's
preeminent experts on national security, and his endorsement of this
legislation speaks volumes about its wisdom.
As we all know this year will mark the tenth anniversary of the
attacks of September 11. As we continue to endeavor to understand the
reality of a post-9/11 world, it is imperative that we learn from that
tragedy. The 9/11 Commission's report, which highlighted our gaps in
preparedness for any future attack, has been a principal roadmap for
moving forward. A key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission was to
increase the assignment of radio spectrum for public safety purposes.
The Chairman's bill responds directly to that Commission's
recommendations and advances the cause of safety. For that reason, I am
proud to join him and my colleagues, Senators Cardin, Harkin,
Lautenberg, Klobuchar, Gillibrand, and Nelson, as a co-sponsor of the
Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovation Act.
This bill is an essential step in propelling our first responders
into the twenty-first century. The bill establishes a framework for the
development of a nationwide wireless broadband network for public
safety. By allocating this 10 megahertz of spectrum, or the D Block, to
public safety we are in fact facilitating applications ranging from
location-aware real-time services to multimedia command control
capability. This technology could help a firefighter map out the most
effective entry points of a burning building or ensure that police are
able to effectively communicate in a perilous situation.
We owe it to the American people to do everything we can, not only
to prevent any other attack, but also to equip our first responders
with the tools they need to do their important work. And that means
passing the Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovation Act.
I encourage the Commerce Committee to swiftly mark-up this
important bill in order to ensure that it is passed into law before the
tenth anniversary of 9/11.
The Chairman. Could the panel come forward, please?
Congressman, we thank you very much.
Mr. King. Thank you, Senator. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. So our panel is New York City Police
Commissioner Ray Kelly, who has been introduced; Delaware
Governor Jack Markell. He is on the Executive Committee of the
National Governors Association, NGA. He has a long history. And
I believe one of your first jobs, sir, was working for Nextel,
whose former founder failed to show up this morning.
Governor Markell. I am looking for him.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Yes. But he would be sitting in about that
third seat there from the end. So you can imagine him.
Also, Al Gillespie, Chief of the North Las Vegas Fire
Department and First Vice President of the International
Association of Fire Chiefs. That group has been a longtime
supporter of this legislation. And obviously his testimony will
be important.
Also, Mr. Joe Hanna, President of Directions. He is the
former President of the Association of Public Safety
Communications Officials, and he is also a former Richardson,
Texas police captain.
So we welcome all of you, and I would ask Commissioner
Kelly to begin.
STATEMENT OF HON. RAYMOND W. KELLY,
POLICE COMMISSIONER, CITY OF NEW YORK
Mr. Kelly. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator
Hutchison, members of the Committee.
I also want to thank Congressman King for that very
generous introduction and for his rock-solid support of law
enforcement and fire safety issues in New York City. And in the
interest of full disclosure, I must say that Congressman King's
father was a lieutenant in the New York City Police Department.
Let me begin by expressing my gratitude for this bipartisan
effort on behalf of public safety. Thanks to the leadership of
Senator Rockefeller, Congressman King, Senator Hutchison, and
so many other Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle,
we are closer than ever to providing our nation's first
responders with the tool that they desperately need: a
nationwide broadband network dedicated to public safety. It was
extremely encouraging to see President Obama expressing his
firm support for this initiative last week.
I come to Washington today as the head of a police
department that will benefit enormously from this technology. I
consider it essential to the future of our mission. I know this
view is shared by law enforcement agencies and fire
departments, large and small, urban and rural, across the
country.
That is because our existing communications systems are
fast becoming obsolete. Like virtually all other public safety
organizations, the New York City Police Department relies
principally on the use of two-way voice radios to communicate
with responding officers and direct them to the scene. However,
this technology is extremely limited. We cannot use it to
exchange electronic data. And although we have made progress on
local radio interoperability, the lack of a common radio
spectrum prevents us from establishing a truly seamless
nationwide system for all first responders.
Today a 16-year-old with a smart phone has a more advanced
communications capability than a police officer or deputy
carrying a radio. Given the technology that is available and
the complexity of the threat that we face, this is
unacceptable. It will only change if we succeed in building a
nationwide broadband network to a mission-critical grade of
service.
In New York City, this would enable the NYPD to fully
leverage the powerful technology that we use in our Real Time
Crime Center. This is a state-of-the-art computer facility we
opened at our headquarters in 2005. It is supported by a
massive database containing billions of public and private
records. We have made this database searchable with the latest
software. Around the clock, crime center detectives take calls
from investigators in the field looking to follow up on various
leads they obtained: a partial license plate, a seemingly
untraceable cell phone number, a nickname, or even a tattoo.
They conduct instant, on-the-spot searches, something that
previously took days of calling, faxing between agencies, and
combing through paper files.
We are also about to launch a facial recognition unit
within the Real Time Crime Center. It will use digital
technology to match video images of people at crime scenes to
mug shots that are on file.
With a dedicated broadband network, we would be able to
push this information out to tens of thousands of officers on
patrol. For example, an officer using a handheld device
operating on this network could receive detailed information
before he or she arrives at the location. This would include
who lives there, whether or not the police have been there
before and why, and if any of the occupants has an outstanding
warrant, an order of protection, or a firearms license.
Such a network could also provide officers with an
immediate, digital snapshot of anyone they detain. It would
give them the suspect's address, prior arrest history, and
other critical details. The officer would be able to take
electronic fingerprints at the scene and compare them
instantaneously with those in local, state, and federal
databases. This kind of situational awareness is vital to the
safety of officers and members of the public. And it represents
the next generation of law enforcement communications.
But we cannot get there without a safe, secure, and
effective broadband network over which to deliver this
information, one that is built and run to public safety
specifications and one that we can control. We know from past
experience that we cannot totally depend on systems run by the
private sector. They are too susceptible to failure in a
crisis. On September 11th and after the 2009 crash of a
commercial jetliner in the Hudson River, cell phone networks
were deluged and police and fire communications over them
became virtually impossible.
That is a grave concern in light of the threat that we face
from terrorism. The New York City Police Department trains
every day to prepare for large-scale disasters. But we need a
network that will support a multi-agency response and all of
the technology we use to keep our city safe.
To give you one example, as part of our response to the
attempted car bombing in Times Square last May, we deployed a
robot to inspect the vehicle. As is the case with all of our
robots, it was controlled by its operator through a thin, fiber
optic cable. Our need to maneuver around fire hoses and other
obstacles on the street increased the risk that the cable would
be run over and severed. If that had happened, we would have
lost control of the robot. With an adequate broadband network
in place, we would not have to worry about that. We could
control robots wirelessly, thereby removing these risks.
It would also make it easier and safer to conduct complex
operations involving more than one robot, say, if we found a
secondary device at a bomb scene. With wireless, broadband
technology, we would not have to be concerned about managing
multiple cables. We could also share the video feeds from our
robots with the federal government and other law enforcement
agencies in real time.
Right now, these capacities do not exist. But they will if
we build this network.
Every public safety agency in the nation supports this
effort. That is why I urge Congress in the strongest possible
terms to allocate the D Block directly to public safety and to
ensure funding for this vital resource. We need adequate
bandwidth, network control, and a higher standard of
reliability and survivability that only a public safety network
can provide. Together with our partners from across the
country, the New York City Police Department looks forward to
the day when we can share a broadband capability that delivers
voice, video, and data on a dedicated wireless network. For the
sake of the security of cities and towns throughout our Nation,
I sincerely hope we see that day soon.
Thank you very much for inviting me, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kelly follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Raymond W. Kelly,
Police Commissioner, City of New York
Good morning, Chairman Rockefeller, Senator Hutchison, members of
the Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to testify.
Let me begin by expressing my gratitude for this bipartisan effort
on behalf of public safety. Thanks to the leadership of Senator
Rockefeller, Congressman King, and Members of Congress on both sides of
the aisle, we are closer than ever to providing our Nation's first
responders with a tool they desperately need: a nationwide broadband
network dedicated to public safety. It was extremely encouraging to see
President Obama expressing his firm support for this initiative last
week.
I come to Washington today as the head of a police department that
will benefit enormously from this technology. I consider it essential
to the future of our mission. I know this view is shared by law
enforcement agencies and fire departments, large and small, urban and
rural across this country.
That's because our existing communications systems are fast
becoming obsolete. Like virtually all other public safety
organizations, the New York City Police Department relies principally
on the use of two-way voice radios to communicate with responding
officers and direct them to a scene. However, this technology is
extremely limited. We cannot use it to exchange electronic data. And
although we have made progress on local radio interoperability, the
lack of a common radio spectrum prevents us from establishing a truly
seamless nationwide system for all first responders.
Today, a 16-year-old with a smart phone has a more advanced
communications capability than a police officer or deputy carrying a
radio. Given the technology that is available, and the complexity of
the threat we face, that is unacceptable. It will only change if we
succeed in building a nationwide broadband network to a mission-
critical grade of service.
In New York City, this would enable the NYPD to fully leverage the
powerful technology that we use in our Real Time Crime Center. This is
a state-of-the art computer facility we opened at our headquarters in
2005. It is supported by a massive database containing billions of
public and private records. We've made this database searchable with
the latest software. Around the clock, crime center detectives take
calls from investigators in the field, looking to follow up on various
leads they've obtained: a partial license plate, a seemingly
untraceable cell phone number, a nickname or even a tattoo. They
conduct instant, on the spot searches, something that previously took
days of calling, faxing between agencies, and combing through paper
files.
We're also about to launch a facial recognition unit within the
Real Time Crime Center. It will use digital technology to match video
images of people at crime scenes to mug shots on file.
With a dedicated broadband network, we would be able to push this
information out to tens of thousands of officers on patrol. For
example, an officer using a handheld device operating on this network
could receive detailed information before he or she arrives at a
location. This would include who lives there; whether or not the police
have been there before and why; and if any of the occupants has an
outstanding warrant, an order of protection, or a firearms license.
Such a network could also provide officers with an immediate,
digital snapshot of anyone they detain. It would give them the
suspect's address, prior arrest history, and other critical details.
The officer would be able to take electronic fingerprints at the scene
and compare them instantaneously with those in local, state, and
federal databases. This kind of situational awareness is vital to the
safety of the officers and members of the public. And it represents the
next generation of law enforcement communications.
But we can't get there without a safe, secure, and effective
broadband network over which to deliver this information, one that is
built and run to public safety specifications, and one that we can
control. We know from past experience that we can't depend on systems
run by the private sector. They are too susceptible to failure in a
crisis. On September 11 and after the 2009 crash of a commercial jet in
the Hudson River, cell phone networks were deluged and police and fire
communications over them became virtually impossible.
That's a grave concern in light of the threat we face from
terrorism. The New York City Police Department trains every day to
prepare for large-scale disasters. But we need a network that will
support a multi-agency response and all of the technology we use to
keep the city safe.
To give you one example, as part of our response to the attempted
car bombing in Times Square last May, we deployed a robot to inspect
the vehicle. As is the case with all of our robots, it was controlled
by its operator through a thin, fiber-optic cable. Our need to maneuver
around fire hoses and other obstacles on the street increased the risk
that the cable would be run over and severed. If that had happened, we
would have lost control of the robot.
With an adequate broadband network in place, we wouldn't have to
worry about that. We could control robots wirelessly, thereby removing
these risks.
It would also make it easier and safer to conduct complex
operations involving more than one robot--say if we found a secondary
device at a bomb scene. With wireless, broadband technology, we
wouldn't have to be concerned about managing multiple cables. We could
also share the video feeds from our robots with the Federal Government
and other law enforcement agencies in real time.
Right now, these capacities do not exist. But they will if we build
this network.
Every public safety agency in the nation supports this effort. That
is why I urge Congress in the strongest possible terms to allocate the
D Block directly to public safety, and to ensure funding for this vital
resource. We need adequate bandwidth, network control, and the higher
standard of reliability and survivability that only a public safety
network can provide. Together with our partners from across the
country, the New York City Police Department looks forward to the day
when we can share a broadband capability that delivers voice, video,
and data on a dedicated wireless network. For the sake of the security
of cities and towns throughout our nation, I sincerely hope we see that
day soon.
Thank you again for this chance to testify. I would be pleased to
answer any of your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Commissioner. We are
honored that you are here. You have a very excellent national
reputation.
Mr. Kelly. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. The Governor of Delaware, Jack Markell, is
our next witness. We welcome you, sir.
STATEMENT OF HON. JACK MARKELL, GOVERNOR,
STATE OF DELAWARE AND MEMBER, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, NATIONAL
GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION
Governor Markell. Thank you, Chairman Rockefeller and
Senator Hutchison, members of the Committee. My name is Jack
Markell. I am the Governor of the State of Delaware.
And before I start, I would like to thank the men and women
behind me from public safety and law enforcement, first
responders, and certainly especially those who are behind me
from Delaware. I am grateful to them.
It is a privilege to testify today on behalf of my fellow
governors and also on behalf of the National Governors
Association in favor of reallocating the 700 megahertz D Block
spectrum to public safety. Governors are committed to working
with you and with our federal partners to develop a nationwide
broadband network for first responders.
And I especially appreciate the opportunity to testify on
this particular issue. As you noted, before my political
career, I actually spent years acquiring the spectrum that led
to the nationwide network that became Nextel.
Senator Rockefeller, as you know, it is not always easy to
reach consensus among governors, but when the FCC proposed
auctioning the D Block for commercial use and then giving
priority access to public safety for a fee, governors,
legislators, county officials, and mayors joined with police
and fire chiefs to say no. In our opinion, if we are to build
the system that our first responders need and our citizens
expect, we have got to begin by making the reallocation of the
D Block the cornerstone of our efforts to develop and to deploy
a nationwide interoperable broadband network.
Now, as Governor, I am fortunate to lead a state that has
prioritized interoperable communications. Since the attacks of
September 11th, we have worked diligently in Delaware to
address interoperability by installing a statewide 800
megahertz narrow-band radio system that is used by all of the
public safety agencies within our state. And when we did so, we
became one of the first states to operate a truly interoperable
public safety communications system. But unfortunately, due to
the narrow bandwidth, this system does not have the capability
to provide the robust exchange of broadband data.
And this is where the opportunity to reallocate the D Block
becomes so critical. Instead of a limited, piecemeal system, we
have the chance to build a system to allow all first responders
to share mission-critical video, to download building plans, to
track personnel and equipment in real time. And in fact, if
done correctly, the build-out of a nationwide interoperable
system could save states like ours millions of dollars. This is
because instead of spending taxpayer money to upgrade an old
system, we could invest and leverage our dollars to join a 21st
century system that will reliably provide our first responders
with the critical information that they need to save lives.
Now, as you know, the development of such a system is
dependent upon three things. First is access to sufficient and
dedicated spectrum for public safety. Second is a funding
mechanism to construct, manage, and maintain the network, and
third, clear governance guidelines to ensure nationwide
coverage and interoperability. Efforts to address one issue
without solving the others will only lead to us meeting again
10 years from now to ask why we still do not have interoperable
communications.
Fortunately, Mr. Chairman, your bill, S. 28, the Public
Safety Spectrum and Broadband Innovation Act, takes advantage
of this unique opportunity to move us forward, and by
reallocating the D Block to public safety, first responders
will, for the first time, have sufficient, contiguous broadband
spectrum to support a nationwide system.
S. 28 also addresses the funding question by establishing a
funding source for construction and operation of the network.
And as states continue to face budget gaps after several years
of unprecedented revenue declines, federal funding to support
network construction and maintenance will help ensure its
timely development and nationwide deployment.
I should also note that the reallocation of spectrum will
provide state and local governments greater flexibility to
innovate in the development and administration of the network,
to achieve economies of scale, to utilize public/private
partnerships to reduce the costs of construction and to reduce
the costs of maintaining the network.
And finally, your bill addresses key governance issues
necessary to maintain nationwide interoperability. For example,
while the bill maintains flexibility for local areas to begin
network construction ahead of the state, the legislation also
would ensure that any advance network deployments are
coordinated throughout the state and region. And this
coordination will be critical to facilitating interoperability
and coordination between existing voice communication systems
and the new public safety broadband network. It will also help
ensure that rural areas are included in the nationwide network
in a timely manner.
So the development of an interoperable broadband network
for public safety is essential for enhancing the ability of
first responders to protect our citizens and to respond to
emergencies, and the cornerstone of such a network is dedicated
spectrum and specifically the reallocation of the D Block to
public safety.
Governors greatly appreciate the support and work of this
committee and the fact that S. 28 takes advantage of this one-
time opportunity to avoid the mistakes of the past by
allocating appropriate contiguous spectrum to support the
safety and security of our country.
So on behalf of the National Governors Association, I want
to thank you for the opportunity to testify on this critical
issue. We governors are committed to working with you and our
federal partners to develop, to build, and to deploy a
nationwide interoperable broadband system for first responders.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Governor Markell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jack Markell, Governor, State of Delaware
and Member, Executive Committee, National Governors Association
Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Hutchison and distinguished
members of the Committee, my name is Jack Markell, Governor of the
state of Delaware and a member of the National Governors Association's
(NGA) Executive Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear
before you today to discuss the importance of a nationwide broadband
network for our first responders.
For more than a year Governors have called for the reallocation of
D Block spectrum to public safety to serve as the cornerstone of
efforts to develop and deploy a nationwide, interoperable broadband
system. It is with great pleasure that I testify today to lend
Governors' support for the solutions presented by S. 28, the ``Public
Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovation Act,'' introduced by Senator
Rockefeller.
Overview
As Governor, I am responsible for the safety and security of our
citizens and must ensure that our public safety agencies can respond to
any and all emergencies that may arise. Whether the event is a
terrorist attack, a hurricane, chemical spill or bridge collapse,
Delaware's first responders must be able to communicate seamlessly with
each other and with the public at a moment's notice.
To do so requires a communications network with sufficient capacity
to allow firefighters, police officers and emergency medical personnel
to share video, building plans, and the location of personnel and
equipment in real time. In short, they must have access to the
technology that today's teenagers have at their fingertips.
Almost 10 years after the terrorist attacks of September 11 and
despite a great deal of national attention to first responders'
communications needs, we continue to lack a nationwide network that can
provide these capabilities to first responders.
S. 28, The Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovation Act
The nation's Governors believe the development of an interoperable
broadband network for public safety is essential to enhancing the
ability of first responders to save lives and protect property.
Development of such a system is dependent upon three things: first,
access to sufficient and dedicated spectrum; second, a funding
mechanism to construct, manage and maintain the network; and third,
clear governance guidelines to ensure nationwide coverage and
interoperability. Efforts to address one issue without solving or
supporting a solution for the others will only hinder progress toward
reliable and interoperable communications.
Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, Delaware has worked
diligently to address interoperability by installing a statewide 800
MHz narrowband radio system that is used by all public safety agencies
within the state. In doing so, Delaware became one of the first states
to operate a truly interoperable public safety communications system.
Unfortunately, due to narrow bandwidth, this system does not have the
capability to provide for the exchange of robust broadband data.
S. 28, the ``Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovation Act'',
would take advantage of the unique opportunity to dedicate sufficient
contiguous broadband spectrum to first responder communications by
reallocating the 700 MHz D Block spectrum to public safety,
establishing a funding source for construction and operation of the
network and addressing key governance issues necessary to ensure
nationwide interoperability.
Spectrum Allocation
The chance to allocate the 700 MHz D Block spectrum to public
safety represents an unparalleled opportunity to develop a robust,
modern and reliable nationwide interoperable broadband network.
Past efforts to develop and maintain interoperable communications
across the country have been hindered by the Federal Communications
Commission's (FCC) allocation of small sections of spectrum across
different frequency bands for public safety use--none of which are
large enough to consolidate communications into a single segment of
spectrum. Since devices operating on different frequencies cannot talk
to each other, public safety agencies have sometimes been forced to
install two or more radios in each response vehicle to ensure
neighboring agencies can communicate.
This solution is not only cumbersome but costly. With state and
local budgets that support public safety under continuing strain for
the foreseeable future, it is time to improve the efficiency and cost
effectiveness of critical public services, including first responder
communications.
Without access to the D Block, however, state and local governments
will again be forced to maintain multiple communications networks to
ensure the brave men and women who protect the public and respond to
emergencies can talk to each other.
On the other hand, by combining the D Block with the existing 10
MHz of adjacent public safety spectrum, public safety communications
could eventually be migrated from other spectrum bands to allow for
more streamlined, efficient and cost-effective communications systems.
While the migration of voice systems to broadband should be
explored for potential future consolidation, please note that this
cannot happen overnight. The narrowband spectrum is currently used by
state and local governments for existing or developing interoperable
voice communications systems that cannot be migrated to broadband until
the technology has been further developed.
As you know, current law requires the FCC to auction the 700 MHz D
Block. The FCC plans to auction the D Block for commercial purposes and
provide public safety with roaming and priority access on other 700 MHz
broadband networks for a fee. This will simply not work.
As demonstrated repeatedly during recent disasters, excessive
demand can clog commercial systems and prevent users from accessing the
network. First responders require more reliable access, especially
during times of emergency. It is simply unacceptable for first
responders to be forced to wait for access when lives are at stake.
In contrast, S. 28 is based on the core principle that public
safety communications are simply too important to be placed in other
hands. By adding the D Block to the existing Block of 10 MHz, and by
providing funding mechanisms, Congress will ensure that public safety
controls the design and construction of network facilities sufficient
to meet their exacting standards of performance. No commercial operator
builds to meet those same standards. This is not to say that commercial
providers should not be involved. Public safety should explore the real
potential of working constructively with the private sector to meet its
needs.
Funding
Just as sufficient spectrum is critical to the success of the
nationwide network, so too is a sufficient funding source to ensure
that the network is constructed in a timely manner throughout the
country and that these systems can then be managed, upgraded and
maintained as necessary.
Regardless of whether it is built on 10 or 20 MHz of spectrum,
construction of a nationwide network will be a costly endeavor. As
states continue to face budget gaps after several years of
unprecedented declines, Federal funding to support network construction
and maintenance will help ensure its timely development and nationwide
deployment.
S. 28 would address these funding challenges through the
establishment of grant programs for construction and maintenance. These
grants would be fully funded through future auctions of spectrum and
could provide billions of dollars in financial support for a critical
national public safety asset.
In addition, much like real estate, the D Block is a valuable
asset. If reallocated to public safety, this additional spectrum could
allow state and local government greater flexibility to innovate in the
development and administration of the network. For example, commercial
wireless operators will continue to spend billions of dollars deploying
broadband facilities that mirror those that public safety will
construct and operate. Constructive and innovative partnerships with
commercial operators might achieve economies of scale and allow sharing
of construction and operating costs to the benefit of both parties. By
putting public safety in control of the spectrum, the playing field is
leveled to enable such beneficial arrangements.
Governance
Finally, in addition to the spectrum and funding issues I
mentioned, establishing clear governance guidelines for the network
will be critical to ensuring nationwide coverage and interoperability.
S. 28 recognizes the importance of the coordinated development of
the public safety network by requiring the FCC to establish technical
and operational requirements and by authorizing states to oversee the
issuance of requests for proposals related to the network.
While maintaining flexibility for local areas to begin network
construction ahead of the state, the legislation would ensure that any
advanced network deployments are coordinated throughout the state or
region. This will facilitate interoperability and coordination between
existing voice communications systems, such as land mobile radio, and
the public safety broadband network. It will also help ensure that
rural areas are included in the nationwide network in a timely manner.
Conclusion
The development of an interoperable broadband network for public
safety is essential for enhancing the ability of first responders to
protect our citizens from harm and respond to requests for emergency
assistance. The cornerstone of such a network is dedicated spectrum;
specifically, the reallocation of the 700 MHz D Block to public safety.
Governors greatly appreciate the support of this committee and the
introduction of S. 28. We also appreciate the President's support and
his commitment to reallocating the D Block to public safety.
By reallocating the D Block to public safety, S. 28, the ``Public
Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovation Act,'' would ensure that the
nation takes advantage of this one time opportunity to avoid the
mistakes of the past and allocate appropriate contiguous spectrum to
support the safety and security of our country.
On behalf of the National Governors Association, thank you for the
opportunity to testify. I encourage this committee to work closely with
Governors as you consider the legislation and to report it favorably to
the Senate as soon as possible.
The Chairman. I thank you, sir.
Chief Gillespie?
STATEMENT OF AL H. GILLESPIE, CHIEF, NORTH LAS VEGAS
FIRE DEPARTMENT AND FIRST VICE PRESIDENT,
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE CHIEFS
Mr. Gillespie. Good morning, Chairman Rockefeller and
Ranking Minority Member Hutchison, and the honorable members of
the Committee. I am Al Gillespie, the Fire Chief for the City
of North Las Vegas, Nevada, and the First Vice President of the
International Association of Fire Chiefs, the IAFC, on whose
behalf I appear.
My testimony today is in support of S. 28. A top priority
for all public safety, police, fire, and EMS, is to build a
nationwide public safety wireless interoperable broadband
network. This urgent need is recognized in many studies such as
the 9/11 Commission and Hurricane Katrina reports. Mr.
Chairman, S. 28, the legislation you introduced, will allow
public safety to realize its nationwide communications goal by
providing both the spectrum and the funding which is required.
This bill also has the support of the Public Safety
Alliance, an organization of nine national public safety
organizations, including the IAFC, and with the support of a
diverse range of entities from both the public and private
sectors. Our goal is supported by the seven national
organizations representing state, county, and local
governments, as well as many of the leading technology
integrators, telecommunication carriers, and equipment
manufacturers.
We are very appreciative of the recently announced support
from the Obama administration. The President's budget announced
earlier this week contains provisions for allocation of the D
Block to public safety and methods for funding. We look forward
to working with the administration, as well as Congress, to
make possible a nationwide public safety broadband network,
bringing public safety communications into the 21st century to
better serve America's citizens.
Over the past 50 years, America's domestic defenders have
been allocated thin slices of spectrum in each new band as it
became available. That is why today we have over 55,000 public
safety agencies each operating their own mission-critical radio
system over six or more different bands. This makes our goal of
interoperability both difficult and expensive.
After numerous major events and other significant
disasters, it is clear that a new model is necessary: a
national architecture for public safety wireless
communications. To achieve a nationwide public safety wireless,
interoperable, broadband network, key elements need to be in
place.
The network must have sufficient capacity to achieve a
national public safety broadband network, connectivity coast to
coast, border to border, 10 megahertz of D Block spectrum,
currently slated for FCC auction, must be added to the current
10 megahertz of spectrum licensed to public safety in order to
build out a 20 megahertz network. The currently licensed public
safety spectrum abuts the D Block and is perfect for public
safety. 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.
S. 28 will accomplish this one-time opportunity to get it
right.
Public safety must control the network. Local control of
the network by public safety agencies is critical. Utilizing a
single technology with sufficient spectrum will ensure
nationwide interoperability and allow us to effectively manage
day-to-day operations, as well as any major incident.
The network must be mission-critical at the onset. Key
elements of mission-critical are: the network must be hardened
to public safety requirements; 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;
and the network must have backup capabilities in the event of
network loss and at public safety requirements.
There are numerous examples and applications for possible
fire and emergency medical services. For example, live video
feed to provide instantaneous situational awareness for mass
casualty incidents like the Tucson shooting, major hazardous
materials spills, and real-time situational awareness to
incident commanders, as well as elected officials and other
decisionmakers.
In the area of emergency medical services, we envision
digital imaging, portable EKG's, portable ultrasounds, and
field blood work with direct links to the hospital's emergency
department. This would put a virtual physician in the back of
an ambulance with an emergency medical technician to expedite
the proper lifesaving treatment. This will be especially
critical in rural areas where transit time to the hospital is
longer. These types of applications for fire and EMS are only
possible with broadband capability.
And funding is important for the build-out of a public
safety broadband network. State and local government budgets
are challenged. The broadband network needed by public safety
cannot be built without federal funding support. S. 28
recognizes this fact and offers a solution.
Mr. Chairman, the IAFC and the public safety support S. 28.
The bill provides public safety with what it needs to begin the
task of building out a nationwide public safety broadband
network. The 10th anniversary of the tragic events of September
11, 2001 will be marked in about seven months. Thus, we
urgently need to move forward on a plan to develop the
envisioned public safety broadband network communications. We
thank you for your personal attention and leadership on this
issue and will continue to work with you and the Committee to
assure prompt passage.
I will be available for questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gillespie follows:]
Prepared Statement of Al H. Gillespie, Chief, North Las Vegas Fire
Department and First Vice President, International Association of Fire
Chiefs
Good morning Chairman Rockefeller and Ranking Minority Member
Hutchison. I am Al Gillespie, Chief of the North Las Vegas Fire
Department and First Vice President of the International Association of
Fire Chiefs (IAFC) on whose behalf I appear. The International
Association of Fire Chiefs represents the leadership of over 1.2
million firefighters and emergency responders. IAFC members are the
world's leading experts in firefighting, emergency medical services,
terrorism response, hazardous materials spills, natural disasters,
search and rescue, and public safety policy. Since 1873, the IAFC has
provided a forum for its members to exchange ideas and uncover the
latest products and services available to first responders.
My testimony today is in support of S. 28 (the Public Safety
Spectrum and Wireless Innovation Act). A top priority for all public
safety--law enforcement, fire and emergency medical services--is to
build a nationwide, public safety, wireless, interoperable, broadband
network. This urgent need is recognized in many studies such as the 9/
11 Commission and Hurricane Katrina reports. Mr. Chairman, S. 28, the
legislation you introduced, will allow public safety to realize its
nationwide communications goal by providing both the spectrum and
funding which is required. This bill also has the support of the Public
Safety Alliance, an organization of nine national public safety
organizations, including the IAFC, and with the support of a diverse
range of entities from both the public and private sector. Indeed, our
goal is supported by the seven national organizations representing
state, county and local government, as well as many of the leading
technology integrators, telecommunications carriers and equipment
manufacturers.
We are very appreciative of the recently announced support from the
Obama administration. The President's Budget, announced earlier this
week, contains provisions for allocation of the D Block to public
safety and methods for funding. We look forward to working with the
administration as well as Congress to make possible a nationwide public
safety broadband network bringing public safety communications into the
21st century to better serve America's citizens.
Over the past fifty years, America's domestic defenders have been
allocated thin slices of spectrum in each new band as it became
available. That is why, today, we have over 55,000 public safety
agencies each operating their own mission critical radio system over
six or more different bands. This makes our goal of interoperability
both difficult and expensive. After numerous major events and other
significant disasters, it is clear that a new model is necessary: a
national architecture for public safety wireless communications. To
achieve a nationwide, public safety, wireless, interoperable, broadband
network, key elements need to be in place.
The network must have sufficient capacity. To achieve a nationwide
public safety broadband network--connectivity coast to coast, border to
border--10 MHz of D Block spectrum, currently slated for FCC auction,
must be added to the current 10 MHz of spectrum licensed to Public
Safety in order to build out a 20 MHz network. The currently licensed
public safety spectrum abuts the D Block and is perfect for public
safety. 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. S. 28 will
accomplish this onetime opportunity to get it right.
Public safety must control the network. Local control of the
network by public safety agencies is critical. Utilizing a single
technology with sufficient spectrum will ensure nationwide
interoperability and allow us to effectively manage day to day
operations, as well as any major incident. 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 without delay.
A ``no service'' signal is not an acceptable element of emergency
operations. The lives of firefighters, the lives of medics, the lives
of law enforcement officers depend on this. It is our responsibility.
Public safety expects to work with others and enter into public-
private partnerships. We will work with state, county and local
governmental agencies, Federal partners, utilities and others who
respond to emergency incidents. But, public safety must have control
over the operation of the network in real time. It cannot rely on
commercial operators to provide its critical governance needs. Network
control will give public safety assurance that it will have full,
preemptive priority over its spectrum on a when-needed basis.
The network must be mission critical at the outset. In the
beginning, this system will handle only data and video. At some future
time--years away--we believe there will be a transition to mission
critical voice. 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. This will happen when the technology is
developed, public safety has confidence in it, and its cost is
affordable. Here are the key elements of ``mission-critical:''
The network must be hardened to public safety requirements.
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. Redundancy is necessary.
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'' mode--also known as simplex. This is a command and
control imperative. You know well 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. This is the essence of public safety
communications.
The network must have back up capabilities in the event of
network loss and at a public safety standard. We envision
satellite capability for the network to be available when a
tower is disabled or other crippling malfunction. Satellites
also can cover remote areas that do not have towers. Our
mission is geography-oriented whereas commercial carriers are
concerned with population.
Funding is important for the build-out of a public safety broadband
network. State and local government budgets are challenged. The
broadband network needed by public safety cannot be built without
Federal funding support. S. 28 recognizes this fact and offers a
solution. And, this network, much like current 700 and 800 MHz Land
Mobile Radio (LMR) systems, must also be accessible to Federal public
safety users nationwide as well as ``second responders,'' such as
utilities and highway agencies. Both a Construction Fund and a
Maintenance and Operation Fund will be created and authorized to a
maximum of $11 billion for both funds. These funds will provide
matching grant programs at the U.S. Department of Commerce to build the
network and at the FCC to operate and maintain the network. The bill
will fund the Construction Fund by auctioning, at a minimum, 25
megahertz of contiguous spectrum at frequencies located between 1675
MHz and 1710 MHz.
It is important to recognize how this public safety broadband
network will revolutionize the fire and emergency medical services.
Examples of applications include: live video to provide instantaneous
situational awareness for mass casualty incidents (e.g., Tucson
shootings), major hazardous materials spills, and real time situational
awareness to incident command as well as elected officials and other
decisionmakers. In the area of emergency medical services we envision
digital imaging, portable EKGs, portable ultrasounds, field blood work
with a direct link to the hospital's emergency department. This would
put a virtual physician in the back of the ambulance with the Emergency
Medical Technician to expedite the proper life saving treatment. This
will be especially critical in rural areas where transit time to the
hospital is longer. These types of applications for fire and EMS are
only possible with broadband capability.
Mr. Chairman, the IAFC and public safety support S. 28. This bill
provides public safety with what it needs to begin the task of building
out a nationwide public safety broadband network. S. 28 is the vehicle
for finally securing this critical asset, and we look forward to
continuing to work with you and your colleagues in the Senate to
further refine this legislation in order to enact the best possible
bill into law. The 10th anniversary of the tragic events of September
11, 2001 will be marked in about 7 months. Thus, we urgently need to
move forward on a plan to develop the envisioned public safety
broadband communications network. We thank you for your personal
attention and leadership on this issue and will continue to work with
you and the Committee to assure prompt passage. I am available to
respond to any questions you may have.
The Chairman. Thank you, Chief, very much.
And we turn now to Mr. Hanna.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH L. HANNA, PRESIDENT, DIRECTIONS
Mr. Hanna. Chairman Rockefeller and Vice Chairman
Hutchison, and members of the Committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to be here today to testify on this significant
piece of legislation. But I am sorry about my voice. This is
the day my cold has to settle in here.
As Senator Rockefeller mentioned, I currently serve as
President of Directions, which is a public safety-focused
wireless communications practice. For the last six years, I
have focused almost full time to the issue of this very topic
today about a national broadband network.
The comments I am making today are solely my views and
should not be construed to represent any of my clients or any
past affiliations I have had. So I am just speaking from my
experience in the field here.
Again, Senator, I would like to thank you for your
leadership on this critical issue. It is, as folks have noted,
well time that we move down the road to get this thing done.
I think everybody in this room agrees that our first
responders should have all the tools they need to serve the
public, including access to state-of-the-art wireless broadband
communications. We fail to agree, however, on the fact that
there are two paths that can provide public safety with the
wireless broadband services that they need and that they
deserve. Congress has provided public safety with 24 megahertz
of spectrum in the 700 megahertz band. If prudently used, this
allocation can provide public safety entities with the capacity
they require for their day-to-day needs. Using that capacity in
connection with commercial spectrum in the 700 megahertz band,
as proposed in the FCC's National Broadband Plan, will give
public safety the bandwidth necessary in situations in which
the public safety allocation may become overloaded.
The difference between S. 28's recommendation to reallocate
the D Block to public safety and that of the paradigm
envisioned in the National Broadband Plan is that the LTE
platform, which is now standardized as the interoperable
vehicle for a public safety network, already provides for a
seamless, priority-accessible mechanism that can be triggered
in the event of an overload of the baseline public safety
network.
Equally as important, partnering with commercial entities,
a cornerstone of the National Broadband Plan, will allow first
responders to take advantage of both reductions in the cost of
building the core network while taking advantage of the
benefits of commercial networks and the economies of scale that
we have already heard mentioned that will allow for terminal
products that are needed by first responders.
Core communication capabilities for the public safety
broadband network should be centered around a dedicated public
safety grade broadband network, and it should recognize no
distinction between urban, rural, and suburban boundaries. I
believe my fellow panelists and I also agree that the
widespread financial crises that are facing America's cities,
counties, and states throughout the nation will not allow
America to realize implementation of this dedicated public
safety network without a massive infusion of federal funds.
Unlike my fellow panelists, however, I do not believe that
first responders need to be the licensee for all the spectrum
that they need to use.
I commend Senator Rockefeller for your inclusion of the
language in S. 28 that will help public safety use the spectrum
they do have presently allocated through flexible use in the
700 megahertz band. We currently have 12 megahertz of narrow
band spectrum in that band, and there are jurisdictions that
have indicated that they have no desire to implement narrow
band technologies. As they have indicated, it is a somewhat
archaic technology. So to not be able to use that spectrum in
an aggregated form has a massive potential to leave a large
volume of this critical spectrum lying fallow in some parts of
the country.
I think the greatest flaw in the reallocation of the D
Block to public safety, in lieu of the current law and the
proposal in the broadband plan, would be the unintended
consequences of creating an island technology, a band class 14
subset that only first responders will use. With no commercial
economies of scale, public safety will again find itself held
hostage by a limited number of providers resulting in the same
low-demand, high-cost marketplace faced every day in the public
safety land mobile environment.
Additionally, budget estimates for a public safety network
as calculated in the National Broadband Plan were based on a
model in which the dedicated public safety network would be
built in conjunction with a commercial rollout of their LTE
networks. The broadband cost estimates for a stand-alone public
safety network more than triples the cost of a shared
deployment.
Budget provisions in S. 28 are already somewhat below the
cost projections made in the broadband plan's concept of a
shared build-out. We have a shortfall in federal funds provided
through this bill. Public safety will be faced with the
difficult choice of determining either having to come back to
Congress and ask for billions of additional dollars in funding
or to choose where the network will be built and where it will
not be built. Instead of building a bridge to nowhere, we will
be building half a bridge, then forcing the unnecessary
expenditures of additional billions of dollars to complete the
bridge or leaving a substantial portion of America's first
responders without the broadband service that they need and
they deserve.
While S. 28 has addressed many of the key elements needed
to make a nationwide public safety network a reality, the
proposed legislation misses one key element, and that is that
of governance and the administrative structure required for the
deploying of this initiative. If we fail to address the
underlying issue of governance and administration at the
beginning, we guarantee extended delays in implementation,
massive, needless cost, and the failure to have services
implemented nationwide in an acceptable timeframe.
Again, Senator, I would like to thank you for the
opportunity to speak today, and I would also be glad to answer
any questions you may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hanna follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joseph L. Hanna, President, Directions
Introduction
Good morning, Chairman Rockefeller, Vice Chairman Hutchison, and
members of the Committee. My name is Joe Hanna and I currently serve as
the President of Directions, a public safety focused wireless
telecommunications consulting practice. Prior to starting this
practice, I retired from the public safety communications and public
policy arena after 30 years of service. Additionally, I had the
privilege to serve on the Association of Public Safety Communications
Officials--International, or APCO, International Board of Directors
from 1996-2000 and served as President during the 1999-2000 period.
Since starting my consulting practice, I have remained an active member
of APCO, the National Emergency Numbering Association (NENA), and have
actively participated in meetings of the National Public Safety
Telecommunications Council (NPSTC), Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) events related to public safety, and have had the privilege to
speak at numerous national conferences on topics related to public
safety wireless communications. I have served as a public safety
advisor to the 800 MHZ Transition Administrator and currently serve as
a Senior Fellow for the Center for Digital Government. Thank you for
inviting me to join this distinguished panel to address the need for a
nationwide interoperable network for first responders.
Summary
Everyone in this room agrees that our first responders should have
the tools they need to serve the public, including access to state-of-
the-art communications systems. We differ on the most effective path to
get to that result. Congress provided public safety with 24 megahertz
of spectrum in the 700 MHZ band. If prudently utilized, this allocation
can provide public safety entities with the capacity they require for
day-to-day needs. Using that capacity in connection with commercial
spectrum in the 700 MHZ band, as proposed in the FCC's National
Broadband Plan, will give public safety the bandwidth necessary for
disaster situations. Equally as important, partnering with commercial
entities will allow first responders to take advantage of the benefits
of commercial networks and handsets that consumers have come to enjoy.
Public Safety Must Have a Nationwide Interoperable Network
As I am sure that you will hear from all of the panelists, it is
inexcusable that almost 10 years following the tragic events of
September 11 and the carnage inflicted upon the residents of the Gulf
Coast following Hurricane Katrina, America's first responders still
find themselves ill equipped to communicate to the degree they need and
deserve.
My real estate agent can take a client to a home, take out her
laptop computer and pull up photos of the interior of the house, tax
records, surveys and plats, and a list of comparable values in the
neighborhood. But a firefighter at a burning building cannot pull up a
floor plan to aid in a search and rescue or identify known hazardous
conditions inside the building. A pedophile in a park can sit on a
bench with a smart phone, take photographs of vulnerable children, and
then instantly send his pictures to other pedophiles around the world.
But a police officer who has responded to that park to investigate this
suspicious person cannot upload or download a photograph or scanned
fingerprint of that person to a local, state or national database to
help determine if this subject is indeed a known threat to the
community.
I believe that every member of this panel can agree on a common set
of principles for a public safety broadband network that will best
serve our nation. First, America's first responders deserve and require
the same communications capabilities used every day by our real estate
agents and junior high school students. Second, these core
communications capabilities should be centered around a dedicated,
public safety grade broadband network. Third, America's first
responders need for these communication capabilities to recognize no
distinction between urban, suburban, and rural boundaries. In fact,
rural America may have the greatest need for high-speed data. An
accident victim in Brewster County, Texas or Webster County, West
Virginia bleeds just as fast as an accident victim in New York City or
Houston, Texas. The only difference is that the time it takes to
respond to that victim and to transport him or her to the nearest
medical facility may be measured in hours rather than minutes. The
deputy stopping a suspicious van on a dark highway in Hillsville,
Virginia recognizes that his closest backup may be 20 to 30 minutes
away. The volunteer fire fighter understands that fire burns as quickly
in Mountain View, Arkansas as a house fire in Dallas, but the nearest
resources will take considerably longer to respond.
Public Safety Users Need Funding and a Plan for the Efficient Use of
the Existing Spectrum Allocation
I believe that every member of this distinguished panel will also
agree that, at a minimum, there are two fundamental elements for
providing America's first responders with the wireless broadband tools
that we need--dedicated spectrum and funding. I assume that my fellow
panelists will agree that the widespread financial crisis facing
cities, counties, and states throughout the nation will not allow
America to realize the nationwide implementation of a dedicated, public
safety broadband network without a massive, unprecedented infusion of
Federal funds. At a time when we are seeing major cities laying off
substantial numbers of police officers and as fire departments are not
able to upgrade critical equipment with more reliable or efficient
models, communications systems far too often fall victim to these
fiscal realities. One need look no further than the 21 jurisdictions
that have been granted waivers by the Federal Communications Commission
for early deployment of public safety broadband networks. Only 7 of
these 21 jurisdictions have initiated steps to actually deploy their
network. The remaining 14 jurisdictions have not. The difference
between the 7 who are actively attempting to deploy and the 14 who are
not? Funding from the Federal Government in the form of a grant from
the Broadband Technology Opportunity Program, or BTOP.
While I agree with the views of my fellow panelists on most issues,
unlike them, I don't believe that first responders need be the
licensees of all the spectrum they may need to use. Working through one
of the most ambitious schedules imposed by the Obama administration,
the FCC was charged with development of a National Broadband Plan. One
key element of the National Broadband Plan was the proposal for the
deployment of a nationwide, interoperable dedicated public safety
wireless broadband network. The proposal was made possible through tens
of thousands of person-hours of intensive research, interviews, and a
thorough understanding of technical requirements needed to implement
this network. While proposal is not perfect, I believe that the
National Broadband Plan fundamentally ``got it right.'' In addition to
the proposal's recognition of the need for funding, the cornerstone of
the proposal is a dedicated public safety network utilizing the 10
megahertz of spectrum allocated to public safety by Congress in 1997.
Recognizing that a September 11 or Hurricane Katrina situation could
tax the 10 megahertz allocation, the National Broadband Plan proposed
to allow public safety to utilize the capacity of commercial wireless
carriers on a priority basis. The fundamental assumption of the
National Broadband Plan was that the 10 megahertz of public safety
spectrum would be more than adequate for the day-to-day, routine needs
of the national network. This basic assumption remains true today. The
question is how to address spectrum needs when faced with infrequent,
but critical events that require additional capacity.
This question is faced every day by every public safety entity in
the Nation. While designing and managing my communication center in
Richardson, Texas, I had to evaluate our daily, annual, and average
call volumes to determine the number of call takers, dispatchers, and
support personnel. This is no different than my counterparts here at
the table. While we all try to provide resources based on our heaviest
need, no public safety entity can provide enough telephone trunks,
radio channels, or personnel to handle the extreme cases such as
September 11 and Hurricane Katrina. I could have equipped my suburban
call center with 500 trunk lines instead of 7, but I would not have 500
people to answer the overload of calls if faced with an event the
magnitude of a September 11 or Hurricane Katrina. Even if I could
produce 500 people to answer the phones, there would not be 500 first
responders on the street to respond to the 500 calls being answered.
While I don't believe that the reallocation of the D Block as
proposed by S. 28 is the key to an effective first responder broadband
network, I do strongly support another provision of the bill that will
help public safety use the spectrum they are allocated more
effectively. S. 28 would provide for the flexible use of the 700 MHZ
public safety spectrum allocated for narrowband communications. While
the overwhelming majority of public safety entities have voiced
opposition to this concept, failure to provide this flexibility will
result in critically needed spectrum to remain fallow in many parts of
this Nation. New York City representatives, for example, have made
multiple public statements that they have no desire to deploy any new
voice systems that utilize narrowband land mobile radio, or LMR,
technology. If New York City's position remains unchanged, the 12 MHZ
of beachfront 700 MHZ spectrum currently assigned to them for
narrowband technology will lie fallow in one of the most spectrum-
pressed jurisdictions in the Nation. While coordination of narrowband
and broadband spectrum is challenging, it can be accomplished and this
flexible use can provide additional broadband capabilities within the
current public safety allocation.
Public safety has multiple other spectrum resources; in particular,
50 megahertz of spectrum in the 4.9 GHz band is well suited for many
emerging broadband applications. Public safety cannot allow this, or
any spectrum to lie fallow or under-used in an era in which a
``spectrum crisis'' has been identified by the administration. While no
one would argue that the 4.9 GHz spectrum suited for the backbone of a
national public safety broadband network, it can certainly be used to
put flesh on the skeleton.
LTE Technology Allows Public Safety Sharing of Commercial Networks
The difference between current spectrum use and the paradigm
envisioned in the National Broadband Plan is that there is a viable
alternative for accessing spectrum needs in an overloaded broadband
network. As you may be aware, the public safety community has embraced
a technology known as Long Term Evolution, or LTE, as the technology of
choice for the proposed national public safety broadband network. The
FCC has, for justifiable cause, broken a longstanding tradition of
technical neutrality and proposed codifying LTE as the communications
protocol for the future public safety broadband network. While this
choice will not only provide for the critical requirement of
interoperability within the network, this same technology provides for
the ability of the proposed public safety broadband to seamlessly and
automatically tap the networks operated by commercial carriers on a
priority basis. Those commercial networks will also be using LTE
technology.
Public safety has correctly specified and demanded preemptive
capabilities that will give it priority over all users in an emergency.
An analysis of the current LTE standards shows that this capability
exists today. Through a mutually agreeable partnership between the
public safety broadband network and a commercial wireless operator,
public safety can be guaranteed automatic, seamless, access to
additional capacity on a priority basis--with priority including the
functional equivalent to ``ruthless preemption'' in today's circuit
switched networks. From an operational, functional perspective, this
process also gives public safety control of this shared spectrum, a
requirement that public safety has identified as critical. This element
provides the cornerstone for the National Broadband Plan's notion that
a commercial carrier operating in the 700 MHZ D Block can bear the
burden of building that portion of a network and reducing the building
requirements of the public safety portion the network.
The fly in the ointment for the shared spectrum concept is the
willingness of current or future wireless carriers to agree to such an
arrangement. Some national carriers have made public statements that
they have no desire or intent to enter into a spectrum sharing
arrangement with public safety, as they do not wish to potentially
degrade services to their subscriber base. Their position is
unreasonable and contrary to the public interest. Commercial users in
an LTE world will not be totally preempted, but just put at the rear of
the network access line. Thus, the policy question is whether
commercial carriers--who hold their FCC licenses to serve the public
interest--should be permitted to decline participation in a shared
network. In an environment in which spectrum is a national resource,
slower access to commercial applications is a relative small price for
the needs of public safety.
A Public--Private Partnership with the D Block Licensee will Provide
First Responders with Significant Benefits
The greatest flaw with Congressional reallocation of the D Block to
public safety in lieu of the current law and the proposal in the
National Broadband Plan, however, are the unintended consequence of
creating an island technology--a technology that only first responders
will use. With expenditures of billions of dollars over the past 20
years, the shortcomings of public safety reaching interoperability
through traditional land mobile communications is beyond debate. Quite
simply, public safety land mobile communications has been balkanized
into a number of technologies scattered over thousands of
jurisdictions. With the limited market in which public safety operates,
the technology has changed relatively little (in terms of basic
functionality), but costs have soared. It is the norm for a single,
portable LMR radio to cost $5,000, with some models costing
considerably more. Contrast that with the commercial wireless market
over its twenty-year life span, where prices for terminal products have
decreased significantly, while the capabilities of these devices have
developed exponentially. The difference? The scope of the marketplace.
Current estimates for the total number of first responders range
from two to three million users, a fragmented market divided among
thousands of independent purchasing units. Press reports released last
week estimates that Verizon will sell one million iPhones during their
first week of sales. Another report noted that Samsung delivered over
ten million units of one phone model in the last 6 months of 2010, plus
one million tablet computers during the month of December.
Under the National Broadband Plan, the public safety broadband
network would have access to the 700 MHZ D Block, plus possible access
to other 700 MHZ band commercial networks at such time that technology
allows. On the other hand, if the D Block is reallocated to public
safety, it is less likely that public safety entities will have access
to commercial networks. AT 700 MHZ, equipment is expected to operate
within designated spectrum bands, known as band classes, but not
necessary across band classes. The current public safety and D Block
comprise the entire band class 14. Therefore, if public safety were
reallocated the D Block, there would be no incentive for any commercial
operators using other band classes to include band class 14 into the
handsets they order from manufacturers. With no commercial orders for
use of band class 14, there is no incentive for baseband chip vendors
to design band class 14 into their baseband chipsets. With no
commercial economies of scale, public safety will again find itself
held hostage by a limited number of providers, thus resulting in the
current low demand, high cost marketplace.
Additionally, the network budget estimates calculated by the
National Broadband Plan were based on a model in which the dedicated
public safety network would be built in conjunction with commercial
deployments of their LTE networks. Co-located sites, sharing of some
key components, and simultaneous deployment will result in reduced
costs. These simultaneous or shared build outs would also permit public
safety to access commercial sites where they might have elected to
forego infrastructure deployments. As noted in the current round of
early deployment by the City of Los Angeles, the initial public safety
network will be built with approximately 350 sites. In that same
geographic area, one of the Nation's four largest carriers currently
has over 5,500 sites already in operation. Based on the reduced number
of sites being built in the public safety network, those sites must
work at higher power levels and will have greatly diminished cell-edge
coverage and performance. The only viable path in this design to
enhance coverage and performance is to add significantly more spectrum
to the network. Commercial carriers address these same issues without
additional spectrum by adding cell sites. Under the National Broadband
Plan, public safety entities could take advantage of this more
responsible strategy as well.
Budget figures in S. 28 are already below the cost projections made
in the National Broadband Plan's concept of a shared build out. If the
paradigm shifts to one in which public safety builds a stand-alone
network in the D Block, there will be additional costs of building a
national broadband network. With a shortfall in Federal funds, public
safety will be faced with the difficult choice of determining either
how to ask Congress for billions of additional dollars In funding or to
choose where the network will be built and where it will not. Instead
of building a bridge to nowhere, we are now faced with building half a
bridge, then forcing the unnecessary expenditure of additional billions
of dollars to complete the bridge or leaving a substantial portion of
America's first responders without the broadband services they deserve.
The Critical Element of Governance Must Be Addressed
While S. 28 has addressed most of the key elements needed to make a
nationwide, dedicated public network a reality, the proposed
legislation misses one key element--that of the governance and
administrative structure required for the deployment of this complex
undertaking. The decades-long absence of a national strategy to manage
land mobile communications within public safety has fostered the
unacceptable lack of interoperability. While billions of local, state,
and Federal funds have been poured into legacy land mobile voice
communication systems, those funds have generally been allocated and
spent with no national strategy to ensure interoperability. As complex
as interoperability within land mobile voice systems may be, it pales
in comparison to the complexity of broadband networks. If we fail to
address the issue of governance and administration of this proposed
network at the outset of this effort, we are guaranteed extended delays
in implementation, massive needless costs, and failure to have services
implemented nationwide in an acceptable timeframe.
Public safety is well suited to define its operational needs, but
has relatively little sophistication in network architecture. It is
also unreasonable to expect any project for which billions of dollars
are allocated can be managed by a small group of well meaning
associations. Given the fact that we have already watched 12 years pass
from the time that the 700 MHZ band was first allocated until it was
made available to public safety, and, given the fact that we have been
actively trying to take concrete steps to get broadband services in the
hands of first responders for almost 6 years, any legislation proposed
by this Congress should ensure the creation of a multi-disciplinary
governance/management structure that can deliver this network to those
that critically need it without having to wait another 6 or 12 years.
If we fail to find an appropriate alternative to the practices of the
past, we are doomed to repeat the failures of the past.
To emphasize the critical nature of the role of an effective
governance and management structure, there are 21 waivers granted by
the FCC, 7 of which are actively in the process of deploying LTE
systems. While there has been discussion about creating a ``network of
networks'' within these 7 jurisdictions, each of these waiver
jurisdictions is effectively proceeding on its own--initiating
procurements, negotiating and implementing interoperability plans, and
certification and compliance testing protocols Each jurisdiction will
build and staff a network operating center to manage these complex
centers. Without a governance structure that understands and controls
issues such as these from the outset, the road to a nationwide
interoperable broadband system is guaranteed to be bumpy and paved with
expensive, redundant capabilities.
Conclusion
I again commend Senator Rockefeller for his leadership in bringing
awareness of this critical issue to the forefront. At the end of the
day, my greatest fear is that this debate will linger far too long. In
the 6-years since I helped introduce the concept of broadband to the
public safety community, we have seen the commercial sector move
through three generations of broadband technology. In the midst of
high-minded policy debates and national policy discussions, it is easy
to overlook the simple fact that broadband is not a political issue; it
is not an ``I win, you lose'' contest, but instead, is a matter of life
and death for our first responders on the street. We should ask
ourselves why it took 12 years for public safety to gain access to the
700 MHZ spectrum that it desperately needed and why it has been another
6 years since the debate over a dedicated broadband network has
lingered with no results. The bottom line is that there are two
fundamental approaches that can provide the same functional product to
the police officer, fire fighter, or EMT on the street. In one model,
public safety can control its own destiny as it has in the narrowband
world--a world that does not take advantage of new technology or a
widely built network paradigm. The other option is to take advantage of
the fundamental constructs of the National Broadband Plan that will
allow the most prudent stewardship of both our limited spectrum
resources and precious Federal funds.
I appreciate your time and look forward to working with you on this
critical issue.
The Chairman. I thank you very much.
As I indicated, Senator Hutchison and myself have to be on
the floor to do the aviation bill, and you kind of care about
aviation. But we have got them to push it back just a little
bit. So I am going to have somebody here for me because you may
want to go downstairs. So we will be covered. But I want to
apologize upfront for that. We had no idea that aviation was
going to be brought up as the first bill. I mean, I am glad it
is, but I am not happy right now because I want to spend two
hours with all of you.
Let me just ask a question to the public safety witnesses
and the Governor. Much of the debate has been about how much
spectrum public safety needs for broadband. You have discussed
that, each of you. Some interests maintain that public safety
needs no more than 10 megahertz of spectrum for broadband and
can at times of emergency be given priority access to
commercial networks.
I would start with you, Commissioner Kelly. In your opinion
does this reliance exclusively on commercial networks work for
public safety? Number two, are there fundamental differences
between commercial and public safety networks that you could
describe for us? Are commercial networks built to withstand
disaster conditions? You gave one example in your testimony.
Are there special protections needed in public safety networks
not present in commercial networks?
Mr. Kelly. Mr. Chairman, as I said in my prepared remarks,
I do not think the private sector can totally guarantee
availability when we need it. I have experienced other examples
besides the one in my prepared statement when the system became
overloaded. And I am told by the experts that 10 megahertz is
simply not enough, particularly as we look down the road as
technology becomes more complex, as the threat--certainly the
threat in New York City as far as terrorism is not going to
abate anytime soon. Everything that I am told by our experts is
that we simply are not in a position to rely on the private
sector.
We know that they also have obligations, when there is an
emergency, to keep citizens informed. Citizens have to be able
to notify their loved ones in the event of a major catastrophe.
So my sense is that your legislation or similar pieces of
legislation in this day and age simply make common sense, and I
would not want to have to totally rely on a private carrier or
carriers to conduct our business.
The Chairman. Governor?
Governor Markell. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like
to say, with Senator Warner coming in, it is a pleasure to see
you again. Senator Warner, when the history books are written
about the creation of the cellular and wireless industry in
this country, you should be featured prominently. And it is
great to see you here.
I agree with Commissioner Kelly that the issue with relying
on commercial systems is really one of reliability and that
public safety has got to be able to rely on communications in
all corners of the country when all else has failed. And that
may not be a standard that commercial operators would build to.
And so I agree with Commissioner Kelly.
At the same time, I do believe that there are plenty of
opportunities within your proposed legislation for there to be
creative partnerships between the public and private sectors.
And so I think as a general matter we should not be in a
position where public safety has to rely on a private sector
network, but I do believe that there should be and would be
opportunities for the private sector to participate.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
Chief Gillespie?
Mr. Gillespie. Thank you, Senator.
I also agree that we do not believe 10 megahertz is enough.
We respectfully disagree with our folks on the other side of
the table of this thing. The demonstration of that has happened
over and over throughout our country. A good example is a GETS
phone line. You have to ask for permission and you have to be
able to get through to get your GETS phone line to work. In
many cases that just does not work either. So going to somebody
and asking permission to get on their system at the time of an
emergency is just not feasible for us.
We certainly support a model where we have control of the
spectrums and we work closely with public/private partnerships
to develop and use those systems. We do not need them like
every day like perhaps they do in New York City, but Las Vegas
is a pretty urban area also. We have a lot of issues there, but
there are a lot of rural areas across our country that only
need them intermittently. So we have great opportunity to share
with our friends in the private sector, not only to use the
spectrum but also to build out the system.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Hanna?
Mr. Hanna. Senator, I have not heard anyone yet suggest
that we rely solely on a commercial network for the service. My
testimony, I think, clearly stated I fully support building the
core platform, the base platform of the 5 by 5 in a dedicated
network.
The notion of using commercial spectrum--I think we have to
realize that the existing LTE standard that this network will
be built to, as proposed by public safety, allows a different
paradigm than we have had in the past, unlike GETS where you
have to ask permission and flip switches to make this work. The
existing LTE standard allows for an automatic, seamless
migration into that shared spectrum that will give public
safety access to that spectrum if they have reached an
agreement with a carrier to do that.
So I think we agree fundamentally that we need a dedicated
core for this system to work. No question about that. I think
there is some misunderstanding about the technology as to how
you work in that shared environment, and the folks that did the
National Broadband Plan understood that process and thus
developed the share model.
The Chairman. I thank you, sir.
And I turn to Senator Hutchison.
Senator Hutchison. I just have one question and it is a
follow up really because I was going to ask the question that I
think Mr. Gillespie just answered for himself. But it is that
regardless of the need for the D spectrum to be allocated,
which I think we all agree with in principle, are there not
still places where we can have public/private partnerships
where public safety spectrum could share with commercial users
on an as-needed basis in exchange for the upkeep and repair of
the system that would not have to be at public expense. I think
you, Mr. Gillespie, said you think there are ways, particularly
in areas where the public safety spectrum will not be needed on
a constant basis, and that would allow for, obviously, more
build-out and also taking some of the costs off the public
sector for the maintaining of the equipment and technology.
I would like to ask if there are others who would have a
view on that as we are working through trying to write a bill
that would meet all the needs.
Mr. Kelly. Obviously, New York is----
Senator Hutchison. It is different.
Mr. Kelly.--different. We do have a great need, we believe,
for a public sector or public safety controlled system. But,
obviously, in other parts of the country, it is not going to be
so. And I think the legislation, as I read it, lays out the
very strong possibility of the excess capacity being made
available to the private sector. So it seems only logical to me
that there will be opportunities there and the opportunity, of
course, also to fund part of the cost of the bill.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
Anyone else care to comment? If not, if it is basically the
same view, then I will pass it to my colleagues.
[No response.]
Senator Hutchison. All right. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. All right.
Senator Boozman?
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I guess one of my frustrations is that we all agree that
this needs to get done and probably should have already gotten
done in the sense of having interoperability. We live in a
country where it is very difficult to protect ourselves against
all the challenges that we face from a number of different
areas, but we need to have the ability to respond once
something happens. Again, we just are not able to do that.
So I really do not have any questions right now. I am
enjoying the discussion. So I will go ahead and defer to
somebody else at this time and yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
Senator Warner?
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK WARNER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA
Senator Warner. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank you and the ranking member for your leadership on this
issue. I look forward to working with you to try to get this
done.
I do have some comments. I will submit my full comments for
the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Warner follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mark Warner, U.S. Senator from Virginia
Thank you, Chairman Rockefeller for your work to make the issue of
communications infrastructure for first responders a priority. This
issue has languished for years and I am hopeful that on the eve of the
10th anniversary of September 11, Congress may reach a bipartisan
compromise that delivers a nationwide interoperable broadband network
for primary use by public safety that responsibly contains costs,
leverages commercial technology, and ends the practice of building
communications systems that fail to deliver on promises of
interoperability between local, state, and Federal first responders.
I do have some serious concerns about the true cost of building a
new network, particularly given that some are advocating for a stand-
alone network, which dramatically increases the costs. I also believe
that Congress must do the hard work of insisting on multiple cost
saving measures, including a complete transition of narrowband systems
to the new broadband network within 10 years. Finally, I think Congress
does its best work under pressure. I strongly encourage the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) to move forward with the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking regarding the auction of the D Block of 700 MHz so
that if Congress has not reached consensus within a year, the FCC
should auction the spectrum as is required under current law.
Costs
I remain deeply concerned about the estimated costs of constructing
a new network for several reasons-to say nothing of the ongoing costs
of operating and maintaining such a network over time.
Some of you may know that I have spent the last year working with
our Republican colleague, Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, on long-term
deficit reduction efforts. There are many tough choices ahead for our
country, given the fiscal realities we face today. I have a hard time
saying we have to make tough choices everywhere in the budget, except
for building a new communications network.
All the cost estimates show that if the D-block is not auctioned,
then it becomes more expensive to build this new network and much
harder to introduce commercial technology that meets public safety
needs. This is because public safety only has two to three million
users, at most. That goes up to approximately six million users if you
include Federal users and others. That's a far cry from the 90 million
users of the two largest commercial networks--90 million users each.
Public safety is never going to be big enough to direct the commercial
market in terms of technology or the network, so we need to make sure
we insist on cost-effective devices and equipment that meet the
legitimate needs of first responders.
It's a disgrace that we don't have a nationwide network already.
But let's not waste the opportunity to actually deliver a network. It
can't happen if we rely on a system based on high-cost, proprietary
technology that has failed every promise to reach interoperability over
the past 30 years.
The National Broadband Plan estimated $6.5 billion in capital
expenditures under the best-case scenario if the D Block is auctioned
and network deployment occurred during the 4G rollout. Unfortunately,
we have missed that boat. Verizon rolled out its 4G deployment in 40
cities in December 2010. It is my understanding that Verizon did not
map its network for public safety network needs, as was originally
discussed. AT&T has yet to deploy, but without other commercial service
providers in 700 MHz, you just don't get the same cost savings when you
try to deploy a network like this.
So, the cost estimate is now $15.7 billion in cap-ex to build a
shared network. That's expensive, but it's a much better deal than the
upper estimates-ranging from $41 billion to at least $47 billion for a
stand-alone network. Frankly, we're probably underestimating those
costs if we provide funding for a network, but do little to ensure the
money is well-spent.
The President's budget request for FY 2012 included only $10.7
billion for the network, and $3 billion of that was to cover the cost
of giving away the D-block. We know that's not going to be enough at
this point. This is also on top of the $1.5 billion we've already spent
over the last few years for interoperable communications that never
materialized. Some of the highlights, according to the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) are as follows:
Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grant Program
($968 million in FY 2007)
COPS Interoperable Communications Technology Grant Program
($269 million from FY 2003-2006)
Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program ($200
million from FY 2007-2010)
Interoperable Communications System, after Hurricane Katrina
($20 million in FY 2009)
These numbers don't count billions in taxpayer money spent over the
past three decades for related purposes, including state and local
funds for the purchase of devices, because the GAO and others are
struggling to even track where we've spent our money. For instance,
when Virginia built the first statewide public safety network several
years ago, we spent $5000 per device for first responders.
All of us have already spent billions of taxpayer dollars at the
Federal, state and local level for interoperable communications. What
do we have to show for it?
We Need Serious Savings
If we're going to move forward-and I think we should try-there are
a number of cost saving measures Congress should consider. Some of the
things we should prioritize include:
A new governance structure for licenses that gives the
states a leading role in developing regional interoperability
plans, mapping buildout to cover 98 percent of the population,
and most importantly, creating a competitive process for
building out the network in different parts of the country,
instead of relying on a limited pool of companies for buildout.
Only building new infrastructure where we lack it, which
means we should focus on rural areas. Network upgrades,
collocation, infrastructure sharing with the commercial sector
are some of the lower cost options we need to prioritize
wherever possible. We've already spent billions on public
safety communications infrastructure. We don't need to recreate
the wheel.
Permitting licensees to lease excess wireless broadband
capacity to the private sector to create another funding stream
for ongoing O&M for all public safety entities, not just big
cities. I'm not all that worried about the best first responder
technology getting to northern Virginia. I'm worried about
rural southwest Virginia.
Migrating public safety narrowband networks, including
Federal law enforcement, to the new broadband network within 10
years. I would also like to credit Rep. Peter King and Sen.
John McCain for including limited narrowband migration language
in their legislation. I think we can do better in the Senate
Commerce Committee. We should set up separate incentive
auctions for narrowband spectrum within the next 5 to 8 years,
as I discussed during last September's hearing. Whatever we're
not able to clear would be auctioned after a few years, so we
can create an incentive for early adopters of cost-saving
technology. We can use the revenues for ongoing O&M costs and
we'll save money by not funding two networks. We do not need
both a broadband network and a narrowband network in
perpetuity. If taxpayers aren't paying for narrowband
indefinitely, I have a feeling new technologies will emerge
much more rapidly than previously expected.
Supporting these efforts by requiring interoperability
standards for devices and network components, including funding
for R&D for new technologies like mission-critical voice
capabilities. Senator Roger Wicker and I are working on
bipartisan legislation--the Next-Generation Public Safety
Devices Act-that we believe starts this process, but there's no
pride here. There may be even better ways to generate
innovation and lower costs--I'd welcome that discussion.
Finally, Congress has tried and failed to address this issue
before. The politics of making tough choices on this issue are not
easy. But I think there are Republicans and Democrats on this Committee
who are ready to make good decisions about using limited resources.
Congress operates best with a deadline. Let's move the NPRM on the
auction so that if we can't reach consensus in a year, we're not stuck
in the same place we are today.
There are no easy choices in the current fiscal environment. I
appreciate the amount of work the Chairman and Ranking Member have
contributed already. I stand ready to work with the Committee on
possible solutions as we move forward. Thank you.
Senator Warner. First of all, I want to also welcome my
good friend, the Governor from Delaware, and correct his one
comment. We worked on the creation of wireless networks
together. I made a lot of the money. He did a lot of the work.
[Laughter.]
Senator Warner. It was a great working relationship.
[Laughter.]
Senator Warner. And it is a real tribute to know Jack
Markell to see the great progress he has made in his both
private sector career and public sector career.
And let me also state that I have a number of colleagues
here from the Commonwealth of Virginia, and we have had robust
conversations, Mr. Chairman, about this issue.
Let me put at the front end of my comments that I share, as
every member on this committee does and like the Senator from
Arkansas has mentioned, we need a dedicated, fully
interoperable public safety network that takes advantage of
advanced technology. Now, how we get there ought to be a robust
debate.
And let me just add one other comment. In my previous
tenure as Governor, we in the Commonwealth of Virginia, I think
at that point leading in the country, put our money where our
mouth was, north of a $400 million investment, in creating that
interoperable network for our state law enforcement.
And I look forward to working with the Chairman to get to
where we need to be on S. 28, but I do want to make a couple
comments.
I am very concerned on the cost issue. The National
Broadband Plan outlined that this dedicated network would cost
about $6.5 billion if it had been done in conjunction with the
build-out of the 4G network. That is not going to happen. The
costs, by the time this would get rolled out even with this
dedicated source, an estimate at about $15 billion just on
capital expenditure. And that is based on a shared network. If
we are not to do some level of shared network, we are probably
talking in most estimates in a $40 billion area. And the
President's proposal puts about $10 billion out on this.
My concern is how do we make sure that, if we are going to
do a D Block allocation, even if we are going to do a straight
public safety D Block allocation, in the days when you will see
us constantly cutting back, find the capital, particularly if
it is coming from other spectrum reallocations or other
spectrum auctions, to make sure that we build out a system. I
have a concern--and I have shared this with the chairman--that
we may build out the New Yorks, the Las Vegases, the northern
Virginias, maybe the Charlestons and the Wheelings. But how do
we make sure that rural communities where the cost level of
getting that kind of full system built out is going to be put
in place? And I really think we need to drill down on this and
work with our partners in public safety so that we are all
going into this with open eyes if we do a straight allocation
of the D Block. Point number one.
Point number two.
And again, it is great to see the Governor here.
We have talked about interoperability forever, and I have
made the comment before this committee before. It is much
easier to get Republicans and Democrats to agree than it is to
get radio engineers to agree on actually sharing spectrum in an
interoperable way. I am concerned. And if we look back on
Congress's history, since 9/11, there have been five or six
efforts already where we have tried to promote
interoperability. And frankly, we have not gotten there. So if
we are going to move forward with the plan, the Chairman's
proposal, we need to, I think, even strengthen further the
interoperability requirements.
And when we think about governance, we need to make sure
that our local partners and our state partners, in terms of
collocation and in terms of build-out, all have skin in the
game. Again, shared tower space, shared other things, terribly,
terribly important. I know my time is about up.
And let me just add two quick comments. I am not going to
get to a question. I apologize. I have got other members. But I
feel a little passionate on these issues.
Just to stir the pot a little bit more, I believe in the
narrow band, the notion of trying to migrate existing law
enforcement narrow band spectrum into broadband over a defined
period of time and if we migrate, giving some of those dollars
back to law enforcement in terms of an operating and
maintenance budget so that even if we get the capex done, no
network is ever finished. There are always going to be
upgrades, and we are going to need to make sure that there is
some dedicated source other than coming back to Congress on a
regular basis. I know you do not want to give up your narrow
band, and I know you do not want to migrate. I know you want to
look at some of your other spectrum. But if you can get a piece
of that in terms of long-term operation and maintenance, it is
terribly important.
So I look forward to working with my colleagues from
Virginia and the Chairman on getting this right. I do also
think we ought to go ahead and start the clock ticking. This
stuff always takes longer.
And I do believe on basic cost structure--final comment--
that there are different needs in public safety, but technology
is changing and the market in public safety will never approach
a commercial market. And the cost differential is so great. We
have got to find some ways to level that. And I think the
chairman has got some ideas there. I think some of us have got
some other ideas, and we have got to get this done in a timely
way as we approach 9/11 so we can show real, tangible progress
and not continue to avoid the hard choices that we need to
make.
I really thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership on
this issue.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Warner.
I simply want to apologize to you. This aviation safety,
the whole question of how do you deal with fatigue, and all
kinds of things, and a modern air traffic control system which
we do not have in this country, digitalized, the only one in
the industrialized world that does not have it. That is what we
are debating now, and Senator Hutchison and I have to do that
on the floor. I desperately apologize to you. We did not know
this bill was coming up when we set this hearing. So I want to
apologize to you.
Senator Udall is going to stand in for me, and Senator
Blunt are you as going to stand in?
Senator Blunt. Yes.
The Chairman. OK.
Please accept my apologies and thanks.
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Udall [presiding]. Thank you.
I think the next in line is Senator Thune.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all very much for your testimony today. It has, I
think, been very enlightening.
I would like to direct a question, if I might, to you,
Chief Gillespie. In your testimony, you mentioned that public
safety must have control over the network. I wonder if maybe
you could talk a little bit more how you would see the
administration of that sort of a network.
Mr. Gillespie. Thank you, Senator. Well, at this particular
juncture, I am going to leave the governance issues to the
folks that have more letters behind their name than I do. I
think it is important that we do have control of that. There
are a number of different models out there, and I think we will
find the right one as we wind this up. The less different
licensures we have out there I think the better, but the
general governance at this point--it is more important to me as
a fire chief out on the streets to make sure that we have this
available to us than how it is governed.
Senator Thune. Under any circumstance, could you envision a
public/private partnership that could manage such a network in
a manner that meets the needs of first responders?
Mr. Gillespie. I think we have to look at all the options
certainly. But I have got to tell you from the public safety
side of this thing, if we do not have the control, whether it
be by the number of votes or by just control in general, I
think we are always going to be at odds with when and how we
have access to a system.
Senator Thune. You mentioned also in your testimony and
also in follow-up on some of the things the Senator from
Virginia asked about--I represent a very rural State. South
Dakota is a state that is made up of rural areas. Could you
expand a little bit about some of the remarks that you made in
your testimony about how this public safety broadband network
could have positive results in rural America?
Mr. Gillespie. Certainly. Well, first of all, I think that
is a great opportunity for our public and private partnerships
using facilities that are already in place and adding
facilities as the network is built out.
I am from the West also. I spent most of my career in
Washington State, and I have been mobilized on a number of
wildland type fires. So I have worked in very urban settings
and worked in very rural and wilderness settings.
The ability to have the information at your fingertips, as
people talked about, that folks in the teenage years have right
at their fingertips right now--to have that available to our
first responders working out in remote areas like that is just
extremely important. We know that one of our largest loss of
lives in the fire service has been in the wilderness areas
responding to wildland fires. If they had the technology at
their fingertips that had the weather information, had the fire
movement, all of that in the commander's viewpoint right now in
real time, they might be able to better respond to those
things.
If we have a medical incident in a very remote area, in a
farming community in your state or in mine, then we could have
the ability of the responders that are responding to this
incident to have linked in with the terminus where they are
going to be taking these patients to the hospital, have them
linked in all the way into the hospital because sometimes we
are talking about not minutes but hours transporting these
people into medical care facilities that can deal with their
issues. And they can work with the doctors that are there,
making sure that the doctor sees the EKG that they see, the
condition of the patient. They could actually have a video of
the patient as they are coming in, seeing that information
going back and forth. The responders could have the doctor
right there working with the team inside the hospital.
So I think those are just a couple of quick examples where
that would be a great opportunity for us to work that.
Senator Thune. Mr. Hanna, I appreciate the ongoing debate
about auctioning versus allocating the D Block to first
responders. If the D Block is ultimately auctioned, what
restrictions should be placed on this auction to ensure that
first responders would have priority access in times of an
emergency?
Mr. Hanna. Well, I will make clear that this answer is
definitely my opinion and certainly not representing anybody
else.
I think envisioned in the broadband plan--and even going
back to the last attempt to have an auction on this spectrum,
it was always envisioned, I believe, that there would be a hook
in the D Block portion of this that would have a fundamental
requirement that the D Block winner have a relationship with a
public safety partner. To the extent that that hook goes
outside the D Block, I mean, I think that is something that
certainly is open for debate as well if other carriers choose
to provide this access. But I think having that hook in the D
Block, it certainly will impact the auction value of that
spectrum, but that has been envisioned from day one. And it
goes back, I say, to the last attempt we had to make this thing
work.
Senator Thune. My time has expired. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you all very much.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much.
Just to remind all the Committee members, the rule we are
functioning in, in terms of order--this committee functions in
early bird, time of arrival, regardless of party. So we are
following that rule. So, Senator Blunt, I am going to recognize
myself now since I am on that list and move along here.
Thank you all very much for your testimony. I want to say
to the Chairman--I know he is not here, but I really look
forward to working with him on S. 28. I think it is a good,
solid piece of legislation. It has many, many good things in
it.
The thing that concerns me is what was mentioned by Senator
Warner, Senator Thune, and some of the other Senators here:
rural areas and how we deal with rural areas. And in New
Mexico, we are a border state, and four states are along the
border with Mexico. You obviously have border states along the
northern border with Canada. And what is going down on the
border right now are things like drug smuggling, human
trafficking, many other illegal activities that are growing
concerns for ranchers and other residents. And so we get
ourselves into a situation on the border, and there are drug
cartels operating on the other side of the border. And some of
that is flowing in. A rancher was killed recently in Arizona as
a result of violence, I think, flowing across the border.
So I guess what I am wondering is how we work the border
into this situation. And my question is how should a new public
safety network be optimized to meet the needs of those living
along the nation's border with Mexico in light of the problems
I mentioned? Any one of you can jump in.
Mr. Kelly. About ten years ago, I was the U.S. Customs
Commissioner before there was a customs and border protection.
So I am very aware of some of the issues and concerns of the
border communities. As a matter of fact, the problems have only
exacerbated in ten years' time.
I think it is sort of a classic situation, spoken about by
the Chief before, where you have events that can happen in an
area where multiple jurisdiction personnel could respond
because there is no one jurisdiction that has enough personnel
for major events. And that is where I think the benefit of this
system comes in. It allows for sharing of information. Some of
the examples the chief gave I think are appropriate. You can
use aviation assets to send video back to a central command or
share with other agencies, I think sharing of information
between local entities and the Federal Government. We need more
of that. I believe this is the vehicle that will enable us to
do precisely that.
I can think of many examples of sending forensic evidence,
for instance, to a lab from a remote area. Chemical,
biological, radiation detection equipment findings can be sent
instantaneously to many partners. Any database that needs to be
accessed can be accessed by multiple agencies. I think sharing
is the operative word when we talk about this system, as far as
law enforcement is concerned, and I think along the border
sharing of information and the sharing of resources is as much
an issue now if not more so than ever before.
Governor Markell. Several of you have raised the issue of
the rural states, and I think it comes up in connection with
the border issue as well.
One thing that I think is important for you to understand
is, at least in the President's proposal, he suggests investing
$5 billion for rural networks separate from public safety. But
the reason I think that is important is because many of you
have talked about the potential public/private partnership.
That is a very clear place where much of the expense in
building out a network has to do with construction of towers
and some of that kind of infrastructure. And there is certainly
an opportunity there for the public and private sectors to
participate and share.
The broader issue that has been raised a couple times--
Senator Thune brought it up again with respect to the kind of
opportunity for public/private collaboration. The challenge is
that the incentives are so different on the public and private
sides. And so on the public side, we all want to make sure that
there is build-out in all parts of the country so that your
rural constituents can be served as well. And not surprisingly,
the private sector folks will be more likely to build where the
density is greatest and where the demand is going to be
greatest, which is why I think there are tremendous
opportunities for a public/private collaboration and
partnership, but I also think it is very important that it is
the public side that be overall responsible.
Senator Udall. Thank you for those answers.
Senator Blunt, why do we not come to you now for
questioning?
STATEMENT OF HON. ROY BLUNT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI
Senator Blunt. All right. Well, thank you all for being
here. I was in an Intel meeting. I wanted to be here for this
and I do not want to recreate a lot of the discussion that has
already happened.
But in this whole area of the spectrum, we continue to
think, among other things, that people who have spectrum can
use less and less of it. And I am really wondering how much we
need to reserve and how much we can afford to build out. I
mean, one of the ways we would finance this, Mr. Hanna, I am
told is that we would ask people who have been allocated
spectrum to give up some of the spectrum they have. And what I
am wondering is why have we allocated more spectrum to the
private sector than we now think they may need, but we still
think that the allocation to the public sector needs to be as
big as we thought it needed to be a few years ago. What we do
not want to wind up with here is a lot of allocated spectrum
that we cannot develop. Whatever we need to do to serve the
rural areas--I think we all understand the need to do that.
But, Mr. Hanna, what is your sense of how we could have
this paid for by other people giving up part of the spectrum
that we have decided they do not need and we still think we
need all we have allocated to the D Block for the public
effort?
Mr. Hanna. Senator, there has been a lot of discussion
about incentive auctions, reclaiming spectrum, and for the most
part, I think that the focus has been on broadcast spectrum, so
returning spectrum from the broadcast community, not
necessarily from--I have not seen any carriers offering up
spectrum for public safety. So I think most of this will either
be federally owned spectrum or the broadcast spectrum.
Certainly through this last year, there was major
discussion about the country has a spectrum crisis, and
obviously people pay billions of dollars. So they see value in
that.
There is certainly opportunity to raise a significant
amount of money through spectrum auctions. I think the unknown
at this stage is exactly how much that is going to be. If we
did it three years or four years ago, it would be one value. If
we did it a year and a half ago, there would be a very
different value based on what is happening in the economy. So
to a degree, we are venturing out, committing money based on
speculation of what we think auctions will bring in. And I
think they will bring in a great deal of money. No question
about that.
Senator Blunt. Governor, in your State, have you got all of
the public safety people now where they can communicate with
each other from whatever the highway patrol would be, which is
what we call it in Missouri, and I think what that is called in
Delaware, to other areas?
Governor Markell. We do. Right. We built one of the first
interoperable systems. But what it does not have is the robust
communications potential that a broadband and contiguous
spectrum offer together. So that means everything from if a
paramedic arrives at a scene and can literally download video
to the doctor at the emergency room or to have a fire fighter
walk into a building and have the plans sort of right there in
front of him on the screen.
So there are really two huge benefits. One has to do with
interoperability. We are a small state. We border on Maryland,
Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. And so right now the
interoperability between our agencies and those states--it is
really a patchwork.
And Senator Warner said, I think very appropriately, that
one of the great difficulties that this industry has had over
time is getting radio frequency engineers to agree with each
other in terms of a whole range of issues. And one of the
opportunities that you have with this piece of legislation, if
you are talking about a nationwide block, you can deal with
some of those types of governance issues. Like the chief, I am
going to stay away from any specific suggestions in terms of
governance, but I think what you have is the potential to
really ameliorate many of those potential issues by authorizing
this in one block.
Senator Blunt. And currently are we able to share any of
these examples that really the three of you have given on what
is already developed privately on the spectrum? The information
to the emergency room. Is there some reason that cannot be sent
now? Commissioner? Anybody that wants to answer that would be
fine.
I mean, we have got all these things that we would like to
be able to do. What I am asking is is there some reason we
cannot do those on the developed spectrum already. Are you
blocked out of that? Is this too sensitive to send across that?
Is there anything keeping you from doing that now as opposed on
the D Block that is not funded and developed? Commissioner?
Mr. Kelly. We have what we call an ICE 1 system in New York
City that can do some of this. However, it does not penetrate
buildings, for example. This is, obviously, a significant
restriction for us. We want to be able to have responding
police officers get, for instance, a bank robbery suspect. We
want to get that picture out immediately. We cannot do that as
yet. We are limited in terms of broadband capacity, I am told.
And there is a whole series of initiatives that we would like
to put in place that experts tell me we just cannot do because
of the narrowness of the band that we have now.
Senator Blunt. Well, I am interested in being able to do
all those things. I am also interested in figuring out the way
that we are most likely to be able to get that network in
place, whether we get it in place with public money quicker or
we get in place with private development with assured access.
Senator Warner and I have been talking about that and others.
It is a critically important issue. And to have all of you here
today and to have the people backing you up in this hearing
room is meaningful to us. But we want to have a system that we
can use and as quick as we use it.
Chairman I have used up my time.
STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar [presiding]. Thank you very much, Senator
Blunt.
It is good to be here with all these great and renowned
witnesses.
I have to tell you I am taking over the chair here from
Senator Rockefeller who is significantly taller than me, and so
my feet do not touch the ground, but I am trying to look
mature.
[Laughter.]
Senator Klobuchar. I first wanted to just talk about why I
am so interested in this. I head up the 9-1-1 Caucus along with
Senator Burr. Also, my own experience with this came from my
years as a prosecutor and two tragedies in our state.
The first was when a police officer was killed in St. Paul,
Minnesota, and he was killed by someone who got away. And there
was a huge chase. And literally we had six or seven different
radios, multiple walkie-talkies, and telephones that were
connecting different departments and helicopters and other
people as they chased him down. And it was simply unacceptable.
Then you fast-forward to the tragedy of our 35W bridge
collapse where since then we have made many upgrades especially
in Hennepin County where I worked under the leadership of
Sheriff McAllen. And as you know, that eight-lane bridge right
in the middle of the Mississippi River, 55 cars in the water,
and sadly while 13 people died, many more would have died if we
did not have the kind of system we had in place to bring in
emergency personnel and get people there to rescue people in
the water. So that was a tale of things working well from an
emergency coordination perspective.
And that is why I am so interested in moving this along,
and I am supportive of the work that Senator Rockefeller has
done. I understand that the Fraternal Order of Police is now
supporting this effort as well, and I think you will see a real
interest in this in the Senate.
Now, from the 911 perspective, Commissioner Kelly, I want
to ask you about New York's Real Time Crime Center and the
support that is offered to your investigators and how you think
we might incorporate into a national model using some of the
work that you have done there.
Mr. Kelly. Well, thank you. We are very proud of our Real
Time Crime Center. It really is the first in the country.
We were probably the biggest user of whiteout and carbon
paper in 2002. So we created a data warehouse and we put a lot
of information into it. And we put on top of that data
warehouse this Real Time Crime Center which is staffed by
detectives 24 hours a day. And it gets information out into the
hands of investigators when a crime happens, a murder, a
robbery. We deal with a recidivist criminal population. So the
quicker we can make an arrest, the more likely we are
preventing further crimes. So we put out victimology. We put
out 911 call information, up to 10 years of that. We have the
history in a particular location. And it gives us the ability
to very quickly check things such as tattoo files and
information, both publicly available information and
proprietary information.
But this system that we are talking about now will enable
us to share that, to share it on a regional basis with other
law enforcement entities.
Senator Klobuchar. It is the tie-in----
Mr. Kelly. That is the tie-in with the D Block.
Senator Klobuchar. Senator Burr and I are reintroducing the
Next Generation 9-1-1 Preservation Act which also fits into
this and looks at how we can have better access to all. People
are not just calling in with their emergency calls anymore.
They are texting. For instance, Mr. Gillespie, you can send
blueprints to fire fighters at a building ready to go in. You
could actually get them the blueprints to that building. And
looking at how we can update the 911 system, and that is what
this bill does, complements the work that is being done on the
spectrum bill, to make sure that we are updating the 911
system.
Do you think that would be helpful to update some of that
technology as well?
Mr. Kelly. Absolutely.
Senator Klobuchar. All right. Very good.
Governor Markell, I have a question about Delaware's
experience with developing a statewide public safety network
and what insights you have to offer here in terms of how we can
develop a national public safety network that would work
better.
Governor Markell. Well, I mean, it has been extraordinarily
helpful in Delaware to have one network organized at the state
level. As you know, neither crime nor emergencies stop at
either the city boundary or the county boundary, and the idea
of having everybody on one network has been tremendous.
That being said, the idea of also being on the same network
as neighboring states, as having the more robust communications
capability that I mentioned earlier, we see nothing but up-side
in the proposed legislation.
Senator Klobuchar. Very good.
I think Senator Warner has a second round of questions
here.
Senator Warner. Thank you, Madame Chairman, and I will try
to actually get to a question this time.
Senator Klobuchar. Maybe I should say your first round.
[Laughter.]
Senator Warner. Just one other quick little point, though.
Maximum public safety devices--my estimates--would anybody
disagree with the maximum universe of public safety devices out
there, even with full build-out, $2 million to $3 million?
Anybody going to disagree with that? I did not see anybody in
the back nodding.
We do have to recognize that we build out on the commercial
side right now robust, interoperable, pretty darned good
handsets on a worldwide market that have consumer prices of a
couple hundred dollars, many, unfortunately, still in our
public safety market. Now, there are clearly durability
requirements that are higher. We have bought radios that cost
$5,000 for a handset.
I agree with Governor Markell. The D Block allocation will
give the ability to build out a network in a truly more
interoperable way. But that delta, unless we can find a way to
better public/private partner, is not going to diminish
greatly. And I do get concerned that the construction costs of
this network are much higher than what has been built in and
baked into the plan, and that an ongoing operating and
maintenance piece of that is going to be continuing to upgrade
your units.
Let me do get to a question, though, and this is for the
Governor and for everyone on the panel. If we were to do some
allocation like this that did not include an auction, how do we
make sure, for your own long-term interests, that everybody has
got some skin in the game? And Governor, I know you cannot
commit the Governors Association or commit your localities. But
the notion, again as you well know better than I, of
collocation--and every local community in Delaware and every
local community in Virginia and in Missouri and in Minnesota
all see their water towers and their tower sites as revenue
sources right now. But could we work together on something
where they will all have skin in the game? Would the public
safety community be willing to say we will do collocation? We
will do build-outs together. Will you do narrow band migration
and then take some of that spectrum, and if you got a piece of
the pie, in terms of ongoing operating, would you take--I think
Senator Blunt has asked some of the right questions.
But we do have spectrum in public safety that, under any
kind of modern utilization, is not fully utilized to the
maximum value. We have voice spectrum that could still have
voice communications, but that could be done more efficiently.
There are ways.
What I guess I would ask the Governor and then the public
safety community is will you be willing, if the Federal
Government were to take on this enormous commitment of this
huge construction cost build-out and give up the revenue source
that would be generated by kind of a shared spectrum auction?
Will you put skin in the game as well?
Governor Markell. Well, first of all, Senator, I appreciate
the context of the question which is, of course, states across
the country have very difficult financial situations.
That being said, we understand--certainly when it comes to
public safety, I think many people would argue that protecting
the public is at the very top of what we as governments are
expected to do. We have demonstrated for a very long time now
that we had skin in the game, whether it is, in the case of
Delaware, the construction of the interoperable network over
the last 12 or 13 years. And of course, in this business, that
is going to require upgrades over some period of time.
We believe that actually this program and this initiative
could end up saving us money. I mean, first of all, the
President's plan does allocate a significant portion, billions
of dollars, specifically toward the build- out of this network.
There is additional funding that goes to the rural piece. And
again, as I mentioned earlier, we think that whether it is the
sharing of towers or other infrastructure, that that is one
great place for public/private partnership. But I do think that
in the spirit of all of us trying to figure out how to pay for
this, that the idea of some kind of public/private
collaboration and partnership is certainly something that
should be on the table.
Where I have an issue is when the conversation gets flipped
and the question is what about a private network that gives
priority access to public users. And I think the real challenge
there again--it is not just a matter of priority access. It is
about where is the network going to be built out because the
private sector has much less of an incentive to build out in
places where there is going to be less private sector demand.
Senator Warner. Unless the guaranty of the grant of the
spectrum had build-out requirements in it--coverage
requirements.
Governor Markell. But I think again whether it is the money
from the incentive auctions specifically focused on this
network, whether it is funding specifically for the rural
piece, whether it is the necessity of some kind of state
investment--and states are going to have to, over any period of
time, continue to have to invest in their own public safety
networks, along potentially with some kind of private/public
partnership--it seems to me that there are several potential
sources.
Senator Warner. Again, I apologize, Madame Chair, but my
time has expired. But I would like to include the notion of
working with local governments to make sure that siting
locations and other things are done at the least possible price
and cost.
And if we could just get a quick comment from the public
safety colleagues whether they would be willing to say that you
would look at migration of narrow band, other kind of spectrum
that may not be fully utilized to make sure that if some of
that was then better deployed, if resources that came from that
could then go back to operating or building out this D Block.
Mr. Kelly. It simply makes sense, Senator. Sure, we would
be willing to do that.
In New York--a rough analogy--we have a Lower Manhattan
coordination center where we have cameras and license plate
readers that protect the lower part of Manhattan. In that
facility, we have private sector stakeholders with New York
City police officers and other government folks working
together, working collaboratively. We are open to working with
the private sector. They are very important to help us protect
the city.
We have another organization called NYPD Shield where we
have 7,500 private sector entities that work with us.
So we need the private sector. We know we have to work in
partnership.
Senator Warner. Chief, would you agree that potentially
even reallocating, moving around some other spectrum that may
not be used, if you are going to get some great----
Mr. Kelly. I think if it is available, it makes sense. Yes,
sir.
Mr. Gillespie. Senator, obviously, we are very interested
in the government's model and that we have full access and that
we decide when we have access and when we need it. That
certainly is important. As the technology becomes available to
make some sort of migration, it would be foolish for us not to
look at those things, obviously.
We have a specific need not only in the fire departments
but certainly in the police agencies around the country also
for simplex or talk-around or one-to-many and one-to-one, those
sorts of conversations that take place in the area you are
talking about. We have that need and as the technology becomes
available, certainly I think those are things we could look at.
Senator Warner. Other existing spectrum could be looked at.
Mr. Gillespie. I think we could look at it, certainly.
Senator Warner. I will not put the migration of all the
existing narrowband into broadband under a ten-year frame. You
are not saying you are endorsing that, are you?
Mr. Gillespie. No. No, please do not put me there.
Senator Warner. Sorry, Madame Chair.
Senator Klobuchar. Do you have any more questions really,
Senator Warner?
[Laughter.]
Senator Klobuchar. All right.
Senator Blunt, any closing comments? Anything?
Senator Blunt. Well, I do think our goal here should be
getting this system working, getting it working across the
country, the ability to communicate within a state. As the
governor said, these things do not know county lines or city
lines. They also do not know state lines. But I am particularly
concerned that we do not allocate a lot of spectrum that nobody
can afford to develop particularly prior to exhausting every
other avenue we might take so that we have full access to
develop spectrum, that we understand the public safety aspect
of that. And what I would hate to see is that five years from
now we are still saying, OK, we have got this big block of
allocated spectrum to public safety, but it is really
undeveloped still because our needs are now. And as Senator
Warner mentioned, be sure that we are maximizing the publicly
available technology at increasingly lower cost so that we are
seeing how much of that is transferrable to the true public
safety that each of you and so many people in this audience
represent.
So I think this is a decision. We need to figure out how to
move forward in the way that produces the best possible result
in the short term. The medium term in this area is so hard to
plan for because everything changes so quickly, and saying,
well, we may need this 10 years from now or 15 years from now--
in any discussions I have had on any of these issues, none of
the challenges have ever been anywhere near what anybody
thought they were going to be, and the opportunities have been
significantly greater than anybody thought they were going to
be.
So we want to work together and continue to talk with
everybody that is represented here today to be sure that we get
these tools available--at least my goal would be to get these
tools available to you in the quickest possible way and the
best possible way rather than continuing to reserve things that
do not get developed. I think this hearing was an important
part of that and, Madame Chairman, I am glad to be part of it.
Senator Klobuchar. Well, thank you very much.
I want to thank you, Commissioner, for your good work and,
Governor, Chief, and Mr. Hanna, for being here. I think you see
from the high rate of attendance, the number of Senators that
showed up here today, there is a lot of interest in this issue.
But I do remember us having a hearing on this--I have only been
here 4 years--the first year I was here. And I think there is
some impatience, which I feel, a sense of urgency on the public
safety side that we move forward in this area.
And I just wanted to note before I got here, I was at a
Judiciary hearing. The issue of rural service as well was
mentioned. It is more than just New York City, as you know. As
you look at the region that you want to share your information
with, Commissioner, especially some of the rural areas in our
state have had some real issues with interoperability and
getting the information that they need. So I am really hopeful
by the number of people interested in this, in Senator
Rockefeller's work. People are pledging here to work on a
solution that we can move ahead.
And I want to thank you all for being here and let you know
that we will keep the record open for the next two weeks for
submissions and questions and other things.
With that, the hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Hon. Olympia J. Snowe, U.S. Senator from Maine
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on public safety
communication. As we all know, in less than a year we will observe the
tenth anniversary of 9-11 and I am concerned that we haven't yet
realized the goal of establishing a nationwide interoperable public
safety wireless broadband communications network. Such a network is
vital to effectively responding in times of regional or national
emergencies because of the enhanced mission-critical services it will
provide to first responders. This network, if properly designed and
built, will provide greater safety and protection to all citizens and,
because of that, is long overdue.
The need for this network cannot be overstated but my concern is
compounded by the ongoing debate regarding the fate of 10 megahertz
(MHz) of 700 MHz wireless spectrum known as the ``D-Block.'' This issue
has unfortunately overshadowed deliberation over the future of this
critical infrastructure.
Last fall, this committee held a hearing similar to the one today
and it made clear the importance of public safety having enough network
capacity to respond to emergency events. But no matter how much
spectrum is utilized for this nationwide network, it will not be
effective unless we also address several key areas such as adequate
funding for the network, proper planning and governance to build and
administer the network, and seamless coverage and interoperability to
ensure undisrupted communications.
I raise the last two points because the lack of interoperability
and coverage are not necessarily remedied by additional spectrum but
more directly associated with equipment and infrastructure deployment
as well as planning and governance. The inability of public safety
officials to effectively communicate with each other has been a
constant problem it was even cited as a major problem in the 9/11
Commission report. And the lack of nationwide service coverage, which
precludes responders from communicating at all--is a difficulty that
continues to plague rural areas across the country. So I hope we do not
focus solely on one aspect such as spectrum when what is required is a
multi-faceted approach to comprehensively address the challenges we
face.
We also must closely examine how we will fund the construction and
maintenance of the wireless broadband network because the funding
challenges that exist are compounded by the fiscal constraints our
nation and most states face. Current law requires the Commission to
auction the D Block but if it is directly allocated, then approximately
$3 billion in auction revenue would be lost--these funds could be used
to assist in the construction of this critical asset.
Furthermore, the Commission concluded a public safety network would
require ``a substantial investment''--with initial estimates between
$12 and $16 billion for construction and operating costs over ten
years, which dwarfs previous federal funding for public safety
communications. If public safety were to rely on a stand-alone network,
construction and operating costs would most likely exceed $30 billion
over the same period.
Also, no amount of spectrum and funding will be effective without
sufficient planning. A clear example is with interoperability more than
$7 billion of taxpayer money has been spent over the past 7 years
without proper planning and coordination. And as a result, only
incremental improvements have been made--many experts state it may be
several more years before it is completely resolved. In addressing this
issue, we must balance providing the public safety community with the
tools and resources it needs to effectively respond to emergencies with
our fiscal responsibilities to taxpayers to ensure their hard-earned
money is used wisely and responsibly. And without proper planning, we
could expend more money without improving the safety and security of
citizens in times of emergency or putting them at risk due to
incomplete and disparate systems.
I would like to commend you, Mr. Chairman, for your attention to
this critical issue but I do have some outstanding concerns about the
current draft of the legislation, which I would like to work with you
and your staff to address. I believe making these corrections will
improve the legislation to ensure public safety has sufficient
resources to build and operate this critical asset effectively.
I have been calling for comprehensive spectrum reform for almost
two years. Last Congress, Senator Kerry and I introduced comprehensive
spectrum legislation to modernize our nation's spectrum planning,
management, and coordination activities and fix fundamental
deficiencies that exist. It is my intent to reintroduce this
legislation or some variation of it this Congress to continue to
advance the legislative discourse on spectrum reform.
The problem we are facing is growing demand for spectrum by both
non-federal and federal users in order to enhance the services provided
to consumers and citizens. To meet the ever-increasing demand, users
have to utilize existing spectrum more efficiently and we also have to
develop more robust spectrum management models that involve sharing and
reuse of this finite resource. Because it is not just public safety
that is calling for more spectrum, it is the wireless industry,
utilities, and numerous government agencies. So I hope we will have an
additional hearing on spectrum reform to discuss this issue important
to meeting the future needs of all spectrum users.
But in regard to this hearing's topic, this nation has for too long
lacked a nationwide interoperable public safety network, so the
quickest and most feasible path to achieve that goal must be found.
Let's not allow the tenth anniversary of 9/11 to pass while we are no
closer to protecting our nation than we are now.
Given the importance of this issue, I look forward to working with
my colleagues in Congress to ensure public safety officials have the
resources and necessary communications network to effectively respond
to any future emergency events this nation faces.
Thank you.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Claire McCaskill to
Hon. Raymond W. Kelly
Question 1. The Wireless initiative that the President has put
forward is a plan that is worth strong consideration. As I stated in a
forum that I held in Missouri last year with FCC Chairman, it is
paramount that rural and underserved areas have access to broadband.
The President has stated that his plan would reduce the deficit by $9.6
billion and that about $28 billion would be raised through incentive
auctions. However, I want to get a better handle on these calculations.
How are we determining that $28 billion would be raised?
Answer. As you state, the President has stated that these saving
would occur and that $28 billion would be raised in incentive auctions.
These are his figures and I respectfully suggest that the President's
budget experts are the most appropriate people to explain the process
by which they arrived at these budgetary numbers.
Question 2. There is a lot of uncertainty about how much spectrum
would be voluntarily given up for auction--do we have assurances that
we can actually reach this figure?
Answer. Since LTE is a new technology and public safety
communications are mission critical, public safety agencies including
the NYPD are understandably reluctant to specify an exact amount of
spectrum that they would be willing to give up at this time. However, I
hasten to add that if public safety's needs are met by the 700 MHz
public safety broadband network, there would be no reason, technically
or economically, to retain large blocks of spectrum in other bands. In
particular, public safety data networks now operating on 25 Khz
channels would be the first to be replaced by a public safety broadband
wireless network.
Question 3. Conversely, I have concerns about how we would pay for
a public safety network under the FCC's plan. The estimate is that we
can raise $3 billion by auctioning off the D Block. I realize that this
would be a different type of auction than what was attempted a few
years ago but, given that that effort failed, how (do) we know we're
going to get $3 billion?
Answer. As you know, I am not in favor of auctioning the D Block. I
am in favor of assigning the D Block to public safety and auctioning
off alternative spectrum.
The D Block auction failed for many reasons, but one of the primary
reasons was a requirement that the D Block auction winner partner with
public safety and build a network to public safety standards which are
much more stringent than commercial standards, and provide service
nationwide including in areas where there were insufficient customers
to support the network and still provide the network owners with a
positive return on their investment.
Our opposition to the D Block auction and desire to have it
allocated to public safety are driven by two basic concerns. The NYPD
has consistently maintained that the D Block will be required to
support the broadband needs of public safety, particularly if these
requirements include the eventual migration of mission critical voice
to the public safety broadband wireless network. The City of New York
submitted a white paper to the FCC supporting this contention.\1\ The
requirement for contiguous spectrum is important since LTE increases in
spectrum efficiency as the channel bandwidth increases. Doubling the
channel bandwidth more than doubles the channel capacity. This is the
essence of broadband and is one of the reasons that it is more
spectrally efficient than narrowband. The wider the channel bandwidth
the more spectrally efficient LTE becomes. The D Block is the only
available spectrum that is adjacent to the public safety broadband 700
MHz spectrum. Furthermore, we maintain that if the D Block were to be
auctioned to a commercial entity, the resulting network deployed would
cause interference to the adjacent public safety 700 MHz broadband
network, decreasing its capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See NYC Filing under FCC Docket 06-229 posted 02/23/2010
entitled ``700 MHz Broadband Public Safety Applications And Spectrum
Requirements'' available on the FCC website (FCC.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By auctioning alternative spectrum without the restrictions imposed
by the previous D Block auction, we believe that the market would react
more positively. Spectrum is a limited resource. All commercial
wireless network providers realize this and they also realize that
demand for broadband wireless service will increase over time. Since
the D Block auction, Long Term Evolution (LTE) has become the
technology of choice among commercial wireless providers worldwide,
thus reducing technology risk.
Long Term Evolution (LTE) is a very spectrally efficient
technology. It approaches the theoretical limit. As more spectrum is
auctioned, less remains; particularly in the frequency bands preferred
by commercial wireless network operators. The scarcity of appropriate
spectrum coupled with the reduced technology risk, the removal of
previous auction restrictions and the anticipated accelerated demand
for wireless broadband services are all factors that will combine to
increase the commercial value of the remaining spectrum on the open
market.
Question 4. If we donate more spectrum to public safety agencies,
can you give me any assurances that interoperability between different
jurisdictions would work? And that you would have economies of scale to
get good technology at good cost?
Answer. Interoperability has been elusive since the early days of
public safety radio. In the early years, the primary impediment to
interoperability was that public safety agencies operated on different
frequency bands. Later, digital systems were introduced. Although these
systems provided many features and benefits, they also introduced an
additional obstacle to interoperability; the digital systems were
incompatible since they were developed by companies in competition with
each other. Although APCO has strived to resolves some of these issues,
the fact remains that many public safety agencies lack the ability to
communicate with each other directly.
One of the primary benefits of the public safety broadband wireless
network will be native interoperability, that is, the ability to
communicate directly without the aid of intermediary devices such as
gateways or cross band repeaters. The 700 MHz public safety broadband
wireless network will go a long way to solving the interoperability
dilemma, by adapting a common air interface (LTE) and a common
frequency band (700 MHz).
Since commercial wireless networks will also use LTE technology,
device costs will decrease. Public safety will benefit from research
and development funded by commercial interests. Ultimately, when the
vision of a public safety wireless broadband network supporting video,
voice and data is realized, public safety will be able to satisfy its
wireless requirements using a single network. One of the major cost
factors in the current pubic safety radio environment is the high cost
of proprietary subscriber units manufactured specifically for public
safety. The FCC's Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau has found
that, ``while a-state-of-the-art consumer cellular device typically
costs a few hundred dollars, a typical land mobile radio for pubic
safety communications may cost as much as $5,000 . . . Commission staff
expect that leveraging the commercial mass market could reduce costs
for public safety devices substantially . . .'' as noted by FCC
Chairman Genachowski in his letter to the Honorable Henry A. Waxman,
dated July 20, 2010.
Question 5. If the spectrum is auctioned off, the non-profitable
public safety share of this deal could slip as commercial demand grows.
How do we ensure that private entities will ensure that the needs of
public safety are met?
Answer. To be clear, I am not in favor of auctioning the D Block.
As previously discussed, The D Block is the only available spectrum
that is adjacent to the public safety broadband 700 MHz spectrum
allocation. Public safety requires a dedicated broadband wireless
network of sufficient capacity to meet its current and future
communications needs. Nevertheless, we are not opposed to partnering
with commercial networks to add capacity for non mission critical
connectivity, provided that these networks meet public safety
requirements. We would also advocate partnering with commercial
wireless networks to share radio sites and backhaul facilities as a
means of reducing costs and expediting network deployment.
Question 6. There is a lot of discussion about up-front costs of
maintaining a public safety network but not a lot about ongoing
operating costs. How much is this going to cost in 10 years? Or in 20
years? How will that be paid for?
Answer. The FCC estimates expenses that constructing a public
safety network through partnerships with commercial providers will cost
approximately $6.3 billion over 10 years. Adding in operating costs
bring the total to $12-16 billion over 10 years. The FCC also estimates
that constructing a stand-alone public safety network would cost
approximately $16 billion over 10 years and that adding in operating
expenses would bring the total to approximately $34.4 billion over 10
years. It is impossible for me at this time to project costs twenty
years into the future.
We hope that the federal government will assist state and local
government in paying for the construction of the network and for
ongoing network costs. The federal government should consider
auctioning alternative spectrum, reducing network costs by leveraging
existing public safety infrastructure and entering into partnership
agreements with critical infrastructure entities such as electric and
natural gas utilities. To some extent however, the users of the network
may be required to help to pay for network operating costs. To that
end, our goal should be to maximize the number of users on the proposed
700 MHz public safety wireless broadband network without overloading
the network, thereby reducing the cost per user while ensuring network
access for first responders. Costs can be further reduced by sharing
sites and backhaul with commercial entities. In areas where the number
of public safety users is small, we should consider allowing critical
infrastructure users onto the network to help mitigate the cost to
public safety. This, however, would likely require Congressional
legislative action. In the longer term, migrating legacy public safety
mission critical voice and data to the 700 MHz nationwide broadband
public safety wireless network can further reduce costs by eliminating
duplicative services and utilizing lower cost non proprietary user
devices.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to
Hon. Raymond W. Kelly
Question 1. Beginning with the Radio Act of 1927 and continuing
with the Communications Act of 1934, the federal government began
defining the public airwaves, or radio spectrum, as a resource that
must be used in the public interest and, more specifically, ``for the
purpose of national defense'' and ``for the purpose of promoting safety
of life and property through the use wire and radio communications.''
Since 1927, local, county, state and regional public safety
organizations across the nation have built, maintained and updated
their individual communications facilities. To meet those
communications needs, it is my understanding that public safety
entities utilize approximately 104 MHz of spectrum--including 24 MHz of
public safety spectrum in the 700 MHz band for both broadband and
narrowband services. Can you elaborate on the existing spectrum
utilized by public safety, such as what frequency bands are used, how
much spectrum in each band is used and what communications services are
supported in those bands?
Answer. Public safety uses frequencies in the following bands: Very
High Frequency (VHF), Ultra High Frequency (UHF) and Super High
Frequency (SHF). The VHF land mobile frequency bands are 30 MHz-50 MHz
and 150 MHz-174 MHz. Within these allocations, public safety channels
are interspersed with commercial channels throughout the band on a non-
exclusive basis.
In the UHF band, public safety operates in the following sub-bands:
450 MHz-470MHz; 470 MHz-512 MHz; 700 MHz and 800 MHz. Within both the
450 MHz-470 MHz and 470 MHz-512 MHz sub-bands, public safety channels
are interspersed with commercial channels. Within the 470 MHz-512 MHz
sub-band land mobile radio users, including both public safety and
commercial licensees, share the band with television broadcasters based
upon area of operation. Specifically, in the largest urban areas, a
maximum of three television channels, a total of 18 MHz, may be
allocated to land mobile radio. This includes both public safety and
commercial licensees.
Within the 700 MHz UHF sub-band, public safety is allocated 24 MHz
of spectrum divided into narrowband and broadband channel assignments.
Within the 800 MHz UHF sub-band, public safety has exclusive use of 6
MHz of spectrum and shares the 806 MHz-860 MHz sub-band with commercial
licensees. In the SHF band, public safety is assigned 50 MHz of
spectrum for broadband applications (4940 MHz-4990 MHz).
All of the public safety frequency assignments are narrowband with
the exception of the 700 MHz broadband channels and the 4.9 GHz
channels, which are also broadband. The narrowband frequency
allocations primarily support mission critical voice operations,
although some of these channels are now used for data. However, data
rates on these channels are typically limited to 19.2 kbps.
As you point out, public safety is currently assigned over 100 MHz
of spectrum. However, much of this spectrum is not available
nationwide. Furthermore, public safety frequency allocations are
scattered throughout the RF spectrum on many disparate frequency bands,
which impedes interoperability. 50 MHz of the public safety spectrum
you reference is in the 4.9 GHz band. This frequency has very poor
propagation characteristics. It is used primarily for incident scene
broadband data applications and limited local surveillance video. The
poor propagation characteristics of this band make any wide area
network deployment cost prohibitive.
Question 2. What services, if any, will migrate to the new wireless
broadband network? How many first responders in the field are expected
to be supported by this wireless network?
Answer. The first services likely to migrate to the new wireless
broadband network are data services. Currently, many public safety
agencies use narrowband (25 kHz) channels for mission critical voice as
well as low speed (19.2 kbps) data. With the deployment of the new
public safety wireless broadband network, data-only services currently
using 25 kHz channels, such as digital dispatch, could be migrated to
the new public safety wireless broadband network relatively easily and
quickly. In fact, it would be prudent to make this transition sooner
rather than later since Long Term Evolution (LTE) will support much
greater data rates and is spectrally more efficient than utilizing 25
kHz bandwidth channels for data, as these channels were intended
primarily for voice communications and were used for data because they
were the only channels available at the time. In the longer term, the
NYPD believes that public safety mission critical voice can also be
migrated to the new public safety wireless broadband network.
The limitation on how many first responders in the field can be
supported simultaneously at a given location (per cell, or per cell
sector) is a question of user density. Doubling the channel bandwidth
more than doubles the channel capacity. This is the essence of
broadband and is one of the reasons it is more spectrally efficient. In
fact, the wider the channel the more spectrally efficient LTE becomes.
Question 3. If there are radio-based services that will migrate to
the wireless broadband network or aren't required anymore due to the
new enhanced services that will be available on the wireless broadband
network, would public safety work with the Commission to develop a
transition plan to relinquish underutilized spectrum over a certain
period of time?
Answer. The NYPD would be willing to work with the Commission on
this issue provided that sufficient broadband spectrum is allocated to
public safety, and a comprehensive migration plan was developed.
Question 4. The FCC estimates expenses for its plan of constructing
a public safety network through partnerships with commercial providers
and infrastructure will total approximately $6.3 billion over 10 years.
Adding in operating expenses would bring the approximate total to $12-
16 billion over 10 years. The FCC also estimated that constructing a
stand-alone public safety network would require approximately $16
billion over 10 years and that adding in operating expenses would bring
the total to approximately $34.4 billion over 10 years. A Verizon study
for the Southern Governor's Association back in 2007, suggested that a
network would cost $61 billion over 10 years for construction and
maintenance.
If the D Block were directly allocated to public safety, would
public safety look to build its own network, utilize existing
commercial infrastructure, or a hybrid, or both? Would it be one
nationwide network or a compilation of regional/state networks, or
virtual networks over existing carrier's networks?
Answer. These issues are the subject of ongoing discussions among
the various stakeholders. No final decision has been made at this time.
The NYPD is not opposed to partnering with commercial wireless networks
to share radio sites and backhaul facilities as a means of reducing
costs and expediting network deployment, nor would we be opposed to
partnering with commercial networks to extend coverage into areas not
yet covered by the public safety broadband wireless network.
Question 5. Who would maintain the network--would it be
centralized, regional or state operated? How would new users be
authenticated and granted access to use the network? Also how many
additional personnel would be needed to maintain it on a day to day
basis?
Answer. These issues are the subject of ongoing discussions among
the various stakeholders. No final decision has been made at this time.
Question 6. When will there be a greater and more detailed
discussion on planning and governance issues related to the broadband
wireless network? Are these issues critical to addressing
interoperability as well as overall design of the network and
subsequent costs?
Answer. Planning and governance are critical issues. Some of this
work is already underway; discussions are ongoing within the public
safety community, the Obama administration, federal government agencies
and industry experts regarding these very issues. Preliminary public
safety requirements are defined by the NPSTC Statement of Requirements
document issued July 2009. The National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) is engaged with the waiver recipients, the Public
Safety Spectrum Trust (PSST) numerous LTE vendors and other
stakeholders to further define public safety's requirements. The
optimal public safety network design is a topic being actively
discussed by public safety stakeholders, industry experts and the FCC.
Question 7. The 9/11 Commission report found that ``the inability
to communicate was a critical element'' at each of the ``crash sites
where multiple agencies and multiple jurisdictions responded.'' Even
with the lack of interoperability clearly highlighted, efforts to
improve this significant problem have fallen short and at best have
only been incremental.
To remedy this problem, the FCC established the Emergency Response
Interoperability Center (ERIC) to ensure that the applications,
devices, and networks that public safety groups utilize all work
together, so that first responders nationwide can communicate with each
other seamlessly. ERIC is supposed to hold its first meeting very soon.
The National Broadband Plan noted that past efforts to create a
public safety narrowband network failed and that many public safety
radio systems lack basic interoperability. It also found that most
jurisdictions that have improved their systems still only have an
``intermediate'' level of interoperability at best--not the advanced
level of interoperability that is required for truly seamless
communications in the event of a major emergency. Should those with
industry expertise in designing and building nationwide networks have a
greater voice in the development of interoperable systems?
Answer. The failures in communications that you describe above are
the result of disparate frequency assignments and the lack of a common
air interface. The migration of public safety communications to a
single frequency band and a common wireless platform over time are key
elements in providing native interoperability between public safety
agencies nationwide. The selection of LTE technology by the FCC and
public safety is a first step in achieving this goal.
Industry experts are currently engaged in preliminary discussions
related to the design of the public safety wireless broadband network.
The NIST Public Safety Communications Research Program (PSCR) is
overseeing the deployment of two test LTE networks, one in a radio
quiet zone at Table Mountain, Colorado just north of the NIST facility
in Boulder and one in Washington, D.C. The results of these test
networks coupled with ongoing dialog between public safety, industry
experts and federal officials will further define the network
architecture.
Question 8. Wouldn't we more properly address this if public safety
outlined the operational requirements and services that needed to be
provided by the network and then private sector experts develop the
standards and network design to meet those needs?
Answer. Much of this work is already underway. The National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is engaged with the waiver
recipients, numerous LTE vendors and other stakeholders to further
define public safety's requirements. The optimal public safety network
design is a topic being actively discussed by public safety
stakeholders, industry experts and federal agency officials. The choice
of LTE as the wireless transport technology by the FCC in consultation
with public safety was an encouraging first step in this process.
Question 9. Last year, the FCC granted more than 20 waivers to
public safety entities to begin building out wireless broadband
networks using the existing 10 MHz that is already assigned to public
safety in the 700 MHz band.
Public safety officials have noted that these waiver build-outs
will provide data important in the deployment of the proposed national
network. A New York public safety official was quoted as saying ``We
have always made the argument that granting these waivers will further
the ability to understand what it is that we want to build and how to
build it.'' How can public safety say it definitely needs the
additional 10 MHz of spectrum from the D Block if these waivers are
being used for determining what to build and how to build it?
Answer. Granting the waivers set a process in motion that engaged
industry experts and federal government agencies to more clearly
articulate the minimum network requirements. The waivers provided an
incentive for equipment manufactures to become involved in two test
networks sponsored by NIST. The NYPD has never doubted that the D Block
will be required to support the broadband needs of public safety,
particularly if these requirements include the eventual migration of
mission critical voice to the public safety broadband wireless network.
The City of New York submitted a white paper to the FCC supporting this
contention.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See NYC Filing under FCC Docket 06-229 posted 02/23/2010
entitled ``700 MHz Broadband Public Safety Applications And Spectrum
Requirements'' available on the FCC website (FCC.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The same forces driving commercial network operators to seek
additional spectrum will drive public safety. As wireless broadband
capabilities become available commercially, the demand for these
features will increase. Public safety officials will seek ways to
tailor these capabilities to meet their mission requirements. The
waivers are designed to allow early builders to deploy public safety
broadband wireless networks in advance of the planned nationwide
network. Long Term Evolution (LTE) provides a suite of standards to
which the network will be built. Public Safety national organizations,
such NPSTC in consultation with federal agencies such as the FCC and
NIST will establish minimum network requirements, not the waiver
recipients.
Question 10. The FCC and others have suggested giving public safety
the option to use 700 MHz narrowband spectrum for broadband in order to
provide additional broadband capacity. Is this feasible? If not, why?
Answer. The 700 MHz public safety narrowband spectrum will continue
to be required for off network tactical (unit-to-unit) voice
communications. In addition, many public safety entities have just
recently deployed, or are in the process of deploying, P25 radio
systems on the 700 MHz narrowband channels and expect an appropriate
return on their investment. Narrowband voice networks will continue be
needed until mission critical voice over LTE becomes a reality that is
accepted by the public safety community as a viable alternative to
existing public safety land mobile radio networks.
Wireless networks traditionally are built from urban cores and
extended outward over time to less populated areas. Public safety
agencies generally, and those in rural and sparsely populated areas in
particular, must be given sufficient time to transition from existing
legacy narrowband radio networks to the proposed nationwide public
safety wireless broadband network. The transition will not be quick nor
will it be easy. One of the goals of the National Broadband Plan is
that at the end of this transition period public safety will have a
reliable wireless broadband nationwide network that supports video,
voice and data with native interoperability.
Question 11. It is my understanding that there are several federal
departments and agencies involved with public safety communications--
including the FCC, Department of Commerce, Department of Homeland
Security, and the Department of Justice. I'm concerned there isn't one
agency responsible and with all the agencies involved it presents
challenges to making progress and proper planning.
In addition to this bureaucracy, I am concerned about the funding
challenges that have existed and will likely continue to exist with
public safety interoperability. It is my understanding that more than
$7 billion of taxpayer money has been spent over the past seven years
in federal grants without proper planning and coordination. As a
result, only incremental improvements have been made--many experts
state it may be several more years before it is completely resolved.
This includes Public Safety Interoperability Communications (PSIC)
grant program and about $4.3 billion DHS has spent to improve
interoperability.
My concern is that we are hastily providing resources to public
safety without proper planning to ensure those assets, whether it is
funding or spectrum, are properly utilized. What can we do differently
this time to ensure we achieve the goals necessary for public safety to
sufficiently respond and communicate in emergencies and ultimately
protect our Nation's citizens but upholding our fiscal responsibilities
to taxpayers to ensure their hard earned money is widely used and
responsibly?
Answer. The lack of radio interoperability among public safety
agencies today is largely a result of past mistakes. The two salient
obstacles to seamless interoperability are: short-sighted public safety
land mobile radio frequency allocations across multiple frequency
bands, and a failure to agree on a single air interface. Prior to the
advent of digital land mobile radio communications, the air interface
was simply analog. However, beginning in the 1970s, when trunked radio
systems were introduced, the air interface quickly became an issue.
Although the voice channels in these early trunked radio systems were
analog, the control channels were not and competing vendors developed
their own proprietary systems. The result was that there were now two
barriers to interoperability, disparate frequency assignments and non-
compatible air interfaces. APCO Project 25 is an attempt to solve one
of these problems, the non-compatible air interface. However, it does
not solve the problem of disparate frequency assignments. The NYPD is
aware that there are numerous external devices available that patch
channels from different frequency bands together to enable basic voice
interoperability during an emergency; we have several of them. However,
these devices sacrifice spectrum efficiency in order to achieve their
goal. Furthermore, they are expensive and often cumbersome to set up
during an emergency. Public safety would be served best by migrating
over time to a broadband network on a single frequency band using a
common air interface that provides native interoperability without
relying on external devices. Consolidating public safety communications
onto a contiguous spectrum of sufficient bandwidth and adapting a
global standard air interface are key elements to controlling future
costs and ensuring native interoperability.
Question 12. If the D Block were directly allocated to public
safety then it would utilize 34 MHz of spectrum as its primary spectrum
for both narrowband and broadband communications. While this wouldn't
necessarily present a problem in the event of a natural disaster, there
is a concern about over reliance on this band during a disaster or
terrorist attack.
If public safety principally relies on a relative narrow band of
spectrum, then a coordinated attack could disrupt, or worse cripple,
public safety communications through the use of high-power wireless
jammers. For example, a recent University of Pennsylvania report
highlighted the susceptibility of the P25 System to active traffic
analysis and selective jamming attacks.
Is this a serious concern that needs to be addressed? Wouldn't the
public safety network be more resilient by utilizing the existing
public safety spectrum in 400 MHz, 800 MHz and 4.9 GHz by using
technologies such as dynamic spectrum access, cognitive radio and
spectrum aggregation as well as just greater interoperability with
commercial systems, which operate in various bands?
Answer. Broadband networks are inherently more resistant to
frequency jamming than narrowband networks. LTE is much more
technically advanced than Project 25. LTE utilizes thousands of sub-
carriers. The LTE network constantly monitors the RF channel for
interference and schedules transmissions accordingly, choosing sub-
carriers that are free from interference while avoiding those where
interference exists, adjusting power levels accordingly to ensure the
transmission will be successfully received.
The University of Pennsylvania study points out the ability for an
adversary to monitor Project 25 conversations and determine the
approximate location of the users. In addition, it illustrates the
ability for an adversary to use this information to selectively jam
such conversations. The vast majority of public safety radio networks
in use today are subject to vulnerabilities similar to those described
in the University of Pennsylvania report. Most public safety radio
networks are unencrypted narrowband networks that are easy to monitor
and are vulnerable to jamming. Broadband networks are far more
difficult to jam than narrowband networks. The vulnerability of
narrowband networks to monitoring and jamming is one of the reasons
that the NYPD advocates the eventual migration of public safety radio
communications (including mission critical voice) to 700 MHz LTE.
Spectrum aggregation generally refers to aggregating channels
within the same frequency band, since aggregating channels from
disparate bands results in different propagation patterns. Dual or
triple band user devices are either extremely expensive or they
compromise performance specifications to meet size constraints, or
both. The most cost effective high performance user devices are single
band devices.
Question 13. What impact would greater interoperability with
commercial systems across the entire 700 MHz band have upon the costs
and time to market of providing mobile broadband capabilities and end
user devices for first responders?
Answer. One of the preliminary requirements of the public safety
broadband wireless network is interoperability with commercial systems.
Mobile broadband capability is available to first responders today in
many jurisdictions if they choose to use the commercial networks;
however, mission critical communications require networks built to
public safety standards. Public safety requires its own network to
ensure adequate network capacity for first responders and to ensure
that the network infrastructure meets public safety standards for
reliability and availability. Nevertheless, we are not opposed to
partnering with commercial networks provided that they meet public
safety requirements, particularly during the early stages of network
deployment as a means to extend coverage into areas not yet covered by
the public safety broadband wireless network.
We would also advocate partnering with commercial wireless networks
to share radio sites and backhaul facilities as a means of reducing
costs and expediting network deployment.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Claire McCaskill to
Hon. Jack Markell
Question 1. The Wireless Initiative that the President has put
forward is a plan that is worth strong consideration. As I stated in a
forum that I held in Missouri last year with the FCC Chairman, it is
paramount that rural and unserved areas have access to broadband. The
President has stated that his plan would reduce the deficit by $9.6
billion and that about $28 billion would be raised through incentive
auctions. However, I want to get a better handle on these calculations.
How are we determining that $28 billion would be raised?
Answer. The $28 billion revenue estimate was prepared by the White
House. Questions regarding the analysis used to reach this number would
best be directed to White House staff.
Question 2. There is a lot of uncertainty about how much spectrum
would be voluntarily given up for auction--do we have assurances that
we can actually reach this figure?
Answer. The President's Wireless Initiative and the Federal
Communications Commission's (FCC) National Broadband Plan highlight the
possibility of not only improving the efficient use of spectrum but
also raising revenue to fund important communications initiatives
through the use of incentive auctions. By sharing a portion of auction
proceeds with existing spectrum license holders, the FCC believes
significant portions of spectrum may be voluntarily freed up for new
purposes. The FCC may be able to provide greater detail regarding how
much spectrum is suitable for auction.
Question 3. Conversely, I have concerns about how we would pay for
a public safety network under the FCC's plan. The estimate is that we
can raise $3 billion by auctioning off the D Block. I realize that this
would be a different type of auction than what was attempted a few
years ago, but how do we know we're going to get $3 billion?
Answer. The $3 billion estimate was prepared by the FCC. Questions
regarding this analysis would best be directed to them.
Question 4. If we donate more spectrum to public safety agencies,
can you give me any assurance that interoperability between different
jurisdictions would work? And that you would have economies of scale to
get good technology at a good cost?
Answer. One of the reasons public safety agencies from different
jurisdictions lack interoperability is because they operate on
different bands of spectrum that have been assigned over the years by
the FCC. Without a sufficient section of spectrum in the same bandwidth
that can accommodate public safety users, true interoperability will be
very costly and complex. This is why reallocation of the D Block is so
important. An additional 10 MHz of spectrum in the 700 MHz range will
provide the opportunity to consolidate public safety communications on
a single network as it is developed and deployed, as opposed to our
current communications capabilities that have been patched together
over the years to achieve cross-jurisdictional connectivity.
When combined with the existing 10 MHz of public safety spectrum,
the D Block would allow greater flexibility for state and local
governments to develop innovative means to fund the deployment and
maintenance of the network. With 20 MHz instead of only 10, it may be
possible in many areas to allow other government services such as
transportation officials to utilize the network or to engage in public-
private partnerships to reduce costs. Furthermore, the additional
spectrum would allow more users on the network, which would increase
demand for devices and further reduce costs through economies of scale.
Question 5. If the spectrum is auctioned off, the non-profitable
public safety partnership of this deal could slip as commercial demand
grows. How do we ensure that private entities will ensure that the
needs of public safety are met?
Answer. In order to ensure that public safety's needs are met, the
network must be dedicated for public safety and cannot be a shared
network with commercial users. Public safety control of the network
will ensure it is designed and built to mission-critical standards. It
will also remove uncertainty regarding when and how first responders
will be granted priority access to the network, which is a significant
cause for concern in the FCC's proposal to have public safety users
share the network with commercial customers.
Question 6. There is a lot of discussion about upfront costs of
maintaining a public safety network but not a lot about ongoing
operating costs. How much is this going to cost in 10 years? Or in 20
years? How will that be paid for?
Answer. For detailed information regarding the costs to build the
network, please refer to the analyses conducted by the White House and
the FCC. These analyses propose several different mechanisms to fund
network construction and maintenance, including through the proceeds
from incentive auctions.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to
Hon. Jack Markell
Question 1. The 9/11 Commission report found that ``the inability
to communicate was a critical element'' at each of the ``crash sites,
where multiple agencies and multiple jurisdictions responded.'' Even
with the lack of interoperability clearly highlighted, efforts to
improve this significant problem have fallen short and at best have
only been incremental.
To remedy this problem, the FCC established the Emergency Response
Interoperability Center (ERIC) to ensure that the applications,
devices, and networks that public safety groups utilize all work
together, so that first responders nationwide can communicate with one
another seamlessly. ERIC is supposed to hold its first meeting very
soon.
The National Broadband Plan noted that past efforts to create a
public safety narrowband interoperable voice network have failed and
that many public safety radio systems lack basic interoperability. It
also found most jurisdictions that have improved their systems still
only have an ``intermediate'' level of interoperability at best--not
the advanced level of interoperability that is required for truly
seamless communications in the event of a major emergency. Should those
with industry expertise in designing and building nationwide networks
have a greater voice in the development of interoperable systems?
Answer. To be successful, those with industry expertise must work
closely with public safety officials to ensure the network is
interoperable. While industry expertise is important, industry experts
may lack a full understanding of public safety requirements and how
communications capabilities may be used in the field. This public
safety field expertise is critical to ensure the network is designed
and built to meet the needs of public safety.
Question 2. Wouldn't we more properly address this if public safety
outlined the operational requirements and services that needed to be
provided by the network and then private sector experts developed the
standards and network design to meet those needs?
Answer. To ensure the network is successful, public safety
officials and industry experts should work together to design and
implement the network. These discussions are important to ensure that
all parties share the same understanding of what is feasible with the
technology as well as what will be the required and desired
capabilities of the network.
Question 3. Last year, the FCC granted more than 20 waivers to
public safety entities to begin building out wireless broadband
networks using the existing 10 megahertz of spectrum that is already
assigned to public safety in the 700 MHz band.
Public safety officials have noted that these waiver build-outs
will provide data important in the deployment of the proposed national
network. A New York public safety official was quoted as saying ``We
have always made the argument that granting these waivers will further
the ability to understand what it is that we want to build and how we
want to build it.''
How can public safety say it definitely needs the additional 10
megahertz of spectrum from the D Block if these waivers are being used
for determining what to build and how to build it?
Answer. Current research shows that with over 55,000 public safety
jurisdictions in existence nationwide, reallocation of the D Block to
form a contiguous band of 20 MHz of spectrum will be necessary to
ensure that all jurisdictions will be able to utilize the network and
gain access to the kinds of video and data services that many Americans
currently enjoy. The waivers to begin construction on the existing 10
MHz of spectrum are important to test the new technology and ensure
that it will meet public safety's needs as the network is further
developed.
Question 4. The FCC and others have suggested giving public safety
the option to use 700 MHz narrowband spectrum for broadband in order to
provide additional broadband capacity. Is this feasible? If not, why?
Answer. The FCC's suggestion to use narrowband spectrum for
broadband communications is not technologically feasible at this time.
The 700 MHz narrowband spectrum is being used for interoperable voice
communications that are critically important to our Nation's first
responders. The flexible use of narrowband spectrum for broadband
services could produce interference with current radio communications
and poses too great a risk to the safety and well-being of citizens and
first responders. While there may be potential for migration of
existing narrowband systems to broadband technologies in the future,
there is currently no guarantee that both can be supported at the same
time on the same network.
Question 5. It is my understanding that there are several federal
departments and agencies involved with public safety communications--
including the FCC, Department of Commerce, Department of Homeland
Security, and the Department of Justice. I am concerned there isn't one
agency responsible and that with all the agencies involved it presents
challenges to making progress and proper planning.
In addition to this bureaucracy, I am concerned about the funding
challenges that have existed and will likely continue to exist with
public safety interoperability. It is my understanding that more than
$7 billion of taxpayer money has been spent over the past 7 years in
federal grants without proper planning and coordination. And as a
result, only incremental improvements have been made--many experts
state it may be several more years before it is completely resolved.
This includes the Public Safety Interoperability Communications (PSIC)
grant program and about $4.3 billion DHS has spent to improve
interoperability.
My concern is that we are hastily providing resources to public
safety without proper planning to ensure those assets, whether it is
funding or spectrum, are properly utilized. What can we do differently
this time to ensure we achieve the goals necessary for public safety to
sufficiently respond and communicate in emergencies and ultimately
protect our nation's citizens but upholding our fiscal responsibilities
to taxpayers to ensure their hard-earned money is used wisely and
responsibly?
Answer. It is important to note that the reallocation of the D
Block is time-sensitive and must be a top priority. The FCC is under
legal obligation to auction the D Block to commercial providers unless
Congress removes this requirement. Once an auction takes place, the
spectrum will be gone and the nation will have missed perhaps its
greatest opportunity in decades to improve the efficiency and cost
effectiveness of public safety communications.
Once sufficient spectrum is allocated for the network, establishing
a governance structure for the development and maintenance of the
system will be necessary. Beginning with the Public Safety
Interoperable Communications (PSIC) grant program, Congress required
that state and local officials work together to create and implement
communications plans to guide investments and measure progress in
achieving interoperability. These plans, as well as the National
Emergency Communications Plan, have improved governance and helped
ensure coordination necessary for the effective use of taxpayer funds.
These plans should be leveraged in the development of the
nationwide broadband network for public safety. Doing so will ensure
that various Federal, state and local agencies work together and avoid
duplication of effort. By including all appropriate agencies, it will
also ensure that the network ultimately meets various agencies' mission
requirements and will help reduce spending on multiple communications
systems.
Question 6. If the D Block were directly allocated to public safety
then it would utilize 34 MHz of spectrum as its primary spectrum for
both narrowband and broadband communications. While this wouldn't
necessarily present a problem in the event of a natural disaster, there
is concern about possible overreliance on this band during a disaster
or terrorist attack.
If public safety principally relies on a relatively narrow range of
spectrum then a coordinated attack could disrupt, or worse cripple,
public safety communications through the use of high-power wireless
jammers. For example, a recent University of Pennsylvania report
highlighted the susceptibility of the P25 System to active traffic
analysis and selective jamming attacks.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sandy Clark and others, Security Weaknesses in the APCO Project
25 Two-Way Radio System, CIS Technical Report MS-CIS-10-34, University
of Pennsylvania, November 18, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this a serious concern that needs to be addressed? Wouldn't the
public safety network be more resilient by utilizing the existing 700
MHz assignment with existing public safety spectrum in 400 MHz, 800
MHz, and 4.9 GHz by using technologies such as dynamic spectrum access,
cognitive radio, and spectrum aggregation? As well as just greater
interoperability with commercial systems, which operate in various
bands?
Answer. Governors and our public safety officials share your
concerns regarding network security and reliability. As the network is
developed, it must be ``hardened'' against attack and include
redundancies to ensure the ability to communicate during an emergency.
Technologies such as dynamic spectrum access and spectrum aggregation
are still considered developing technologies and are therefore
unreliable in the event of disaster. In addition, some of these
technologies, like dynamic spectrum access, require additional software
for interoperability, which would increase costs.
It should be noted that the reason the 700 MHz band is so valuable
is because of its ability to reach users through buildings, concrete
and even underground. This is a characteristic of the 700 MHz band that
would prove invaluable to the public safety network. Additionally,
spectrum in other bands will still be required for some time for voice
communications until the LTE technology has been proven capable of
reliably supporting first responder voice communications.
Question 7. What impact would greater interoperability with
commercial systems across the entire 700 MHz band have on the costs and
time to market of providing mobile broadband capabilities and end users
devices for first responders?
Answer. While greater interoperability with commercial systems
might ultimately be beneficial, it cannot be a substitute for
reallocation of the D Block to public safety. Public safety must have a
dedicated 20 MHz of spectrum for a nationwide network in order to
ensure public safety's critical requirements are met. By their nature,
commercial systems must serve their customers and would have little
incentive to prioritize first responder communications over those of
their customers during an emergency.
Furthermore, sharing commercial systems could be dangerous. In the
event of a bomb scare, for instance, law enforcement may need to shut
down wireless communications within a specified area. If public safety
uses those same networks to communicate, this would mean disabling
critical first responder communications, which is unacceptable.
Question 8. In your opening testimony you stated ``almost 10 years
after the terrorist attacks of September 11th and despite a great deal
of national attention to first responders' communications needs, we
continue to lack a nationwide network that can provide these
capabilities to first responders.'' However, a set of standards known
as Project 25 (P25) was initiated back in 1989 by public safety
agencies and manufacturers to ensure radio interoperability with
emergency communication systems but to date only a portion of the
standard set has been developed. It is also my understanding that there
has been only one single demonstration of interoperability and that was
between Motorola and Harris land mobile radio handsets.
In your opinion, what have been the key reasons 21 years later we
still don't have nationwide radio interoperability? How will public
safety approach this issue with broadband so as not to repeat the same
mistakes? My concern about this is that the European standard (TETRA)
was successfully completed in only a few years and its handsets are
significantly cheaper than P25 devices.
Answer. A key reason the nation lacks true interoperability is the
manner in which public safety radio communications have developed over
the decades. Over time, public safety users have been allocated small
segments of spectrum in different frequency bands, none of which can
communicate directly with each other and none of which were coordinated
as they were developed across multiple jurisdictions. Without a single
contiguous section of spectrum to accommodate all public safety users,
achieving interoperable voice communications has often required first
responders to carry multiple radios or use gateway systems to patch
together different radio networks. The reallocation of the D Block to
public safety can help avoid repeating these mistakes as we move to
broadband. In addition, there has been significant progress in
establishing effective governance structures to coordinate the
development of communications systems that will greatly improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of the broadband network's deployment.
Question 9. Is the P25 standard based on open standards? How many
companies are involved in the development of P25 equipment and devices?
How does this affect the cost of P25 equipment?
Answer. For questions regarding P25 standards, please refer to the
Office of Emergency Communications at the Department of Homeland
Security.
Question 10. In your testimony you mention Congress can ensure that
public safety controls the design and construction of network
facilities sufficient to meet their exacting standards of performance
by directly allocating the D Block and providing funding mechanisms.
You also mention that no commercial operator builds to meet those same
standards. Can you elaborate on what standards you are referring to?
Are they codified somewhere and how were these standards developed?
Answer. The standards I was referring to are the ``mission
critical'' requirements of first responders and are the standards to
which public safety radio communications systems are built. These
requirements include more rigorous features for safety and redundancy
and do not tolerate dropped calls as occur on systems built for
commercial purposes.
Question 11. How much experience does public safety have in general
in designing and building wireless broadband networks? If that
experience is limited, then is public safety actually capable of
managing a new, complex technology such as LTE (Long Term Evolution)?
If not, who should? Should there be a greater group of industry parties
involved in the standards and technology development--wouldn't that
help reduce costs?
Answer. Public safety officials have been designing and building
communications systems for years. LTE is a new technology that is just
now being tested in both the commercial and public sectors. To ensure
this technology is developed to include public safety requirements,
public safety must have a seat at the table and must be a key player in
efforts to design and build a nationwide broadband network. Without
public safety leading efforts to design the network, it would likely
fail to meet the somewhat unique and rigorous requirements of our
Nation's law enforcement officers, firefighters and emergency medical
service providers.
Question 12. You also mention state and local budget strains and
the importance of improving the efficiency and cost effectiveness of
critical public services. Isn't the lack of uniform standards
contributing to the excessive cost in public safety communications?
Answer. Public safety communications are costly today in part
because they lack interoperability. As discussed above, the disparate
segments of spectrum that have been allocated to public safety over the
years has led to the development of multiple communications systems
that cannot talk to each other. Achieving interoperability has required
first responders to often carry two, three or even four different
radios to communicate across jurisdictions. This increases equipment
costs and also requires additional personnel costs to maintain these
systems. By devoting resources to one network, we can greatly reduce
the costs incurred at the local, state and federal level.
Question 13. Wouldn't it be more cost effective if public safety
utilized one network for both voice and data communications?
Answer. While it might be more cost-effective in the future,
unfortunately the technology doesn't allow flexible use without risk at
this time. While Governors and their public safety officials support
the eventual migration of both voice and data to one system, we must
ensure that the network will be able to support both before we fully
devote ourselves to that premise.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Claire McCaskill to
Chief Al H. Gillespie
Question 1. The Wireless Initiative that the President has put
forward is a plan that is worth strong consideration. As I stated in a
forum that I held in Missouri last year with the FCC Chairman, it is
paramount that rural and unserved areas have access to broadband. The
President has stated that his plan would reduce the deficit by $9.6
billion and that about $28 billion would be raised through incentive
auctions. However, I want to get a better handle on these calculations.
How are we determining that $28 billion would be raised?
Answer. First it's important to understand that S. 28 does not rely
solely on incentive based auctions. Like its predecessor, S. 3756, as
well as Senator Lieberman and McCain's legislation, S. 3625, it
includes spectrum proceeds from other auctions as well. This language
was also part of the House Bipartisan Commerce Committee Discussion
Draft that was circulated last year. It is our understanding that
commercial carriers and industry experts provided the estimate on the
amount of money the incentive auctions will raise. Public safety is not
in a position to agree or disagree with the projections. We believe
that as Congress and the administration work together to clear
additional spectrum, there is sufficient spectrum to auction in order
to pay for the build out and maintenance of the public safety broadband
network while allocating the D Block to public safety. Furthermore, a
recent study by the Phoenix Center clearly establishes that the
allocation of D Block to public safety will realize greater deficit
reduction and $3.4 billion more in value than its commercial auction.
Question 2. There is a lot of uncertainty about how much spectrum
would be voluntarily given up for auction--do we have assurances that
we can actually reach this figure?
Answer. We agree there is a lot of uncertainty, but again there are
also a lot of other spectrum bands that can be repurposed for
commercial services. We understand that in order to free up additional
spectrum, Congress must start somewhere, and the FCC and the Obama
Administration join with Chairman Rockefeller and others to include
incentive based auctions as part of that equation. When Congress passed
legislation that established the hard date for the DTV transition,
there was no certainty that the auction would raise the $12 billion
that was required by law, however, the auction raised nearly $20
billion, $8 billion more than estimated. And that was without the D
Block, which was originally calculated within the $12 billion estimate.
Therefore, it is not unreasonable to believe that the current
projections will meet or even exceed current estimations as projected
in the President's plan.
Question 3. Conversely, I have concerns about how we would pay for
a public safety network under the FCC's plan. The estimate is that we
can raise $3 billion by auctioning off the D Block. I realize that this
would be a different type of auction than what was attempted a few
years ago but, given that that effort failed, how we know we're going
to get $3 billion?
Answer. The President's budget plan provides an offset of $3.2
billion for reallocating the D Block to public safety and moving it
away from a commercial auction. We believe that is more than what any
auction would receive, particularly if potential bidders were
restricted from participating and/or even limited public safety
requirements/provisions were included in the auction rules. A good
analysis of the questions related to D Block auction vs. allocation are
provided in the new paper by the Phoenix Center (http://www.phoenix-
center.org/PolicyBulletin/PCPB26
Final.pdf). The Phoenix Center report makes it clear that the cost of
not allocating D Block to public safety, and then having public safety
have to build out two separate infrastructures in two different
spectrum bands for their current and future broadband needs would well
exceed any revenue derived from a potential commercial auction of D
Block now.
Question 4. If we donate more spectrum to public safety agencies,
can you give me any assurance that interoperability between different
jurisdictions would work? And that you would have economies of scale to
get good technology at a good cost?
Answer. Yes, public safety is united on ensuring that the network
is interoperable and provides seamless roaming across the country to
first responders. While the number of public safety users on the
network might be around 2 million, the number of devices and other
users will exceed all predictions, which will exponentially increase
the need for spectrum resources. Device-to-device communications will
eventually outpace the actual number of users on the network. In
addition, adoption of LTE technologies by the U.S. and global public
safety communities will create a market demand that lowers cost of
equipment, networks and applications by creating greater market demand,
competition and innovation. Indeed, the U.S. public safety community
adopted LTE as its standard for public safety broadband in order to
leverage commercial technology and build out, to ride the commercial
market, and create efficiencies, drive down costs and spur competition
and innovation within the marketplace.
Question 5. If the spectrum is auctioned off, the non-profitable
public safety partnership of this deal could slip as commercial demand
grows. How do we ensure that private entities will ensure that the
needs of public safety are met?
Answer. If the spectrum is auctioned, public safety will not be
able to rely on commercial systems for mission-critical services. To
ensure private entities meet the needs of public safety, Congress and
the FCC will need to place considerable requirements (as they did for
the last auction) on commercial providers to ensure systems are
reliable, redundant, secure, and provide a higher level of priority
access, specifically ruthless preemption, to public safety at times of
emergency. Commercial carriers will need to give up control of their
networks to public safety during emergencies. These conditions would
make it impossible for commercial carriers to create a profitable
business model to bid for the spectrum and provide mission-critical
services to public safety. They have told us as much.
Question 6. There is a lot of discussion about upfront costs of
maintaining a public safety network but not a lot about ongoing
operating costs. How much is this going to cost in 10 years? Or in 20
years? How will that be paid for?
Answer. FCC's National Broadband Plan states that the build-out of
a 10-MHz broadband network will cost approximately $6 to $10 billion
over the next 5 years. The cost of building a 20-MHz network is
practically the same, if not less, as there are some efficiencies that
would be gained in building out 20 MHz versus 10 MHz. The difference is
who will pay for it. The FCC's plan requires the Federal Government to
pay for the build-out. However, if public safety were able to leverage
the excess network capacity, utilize existing public safety
infrastructure when building out the network, and secure partnerships
with other public and private industry partners, the actual cost to
local, state, tribal and Federal Governments would be less.
A combination of leasing excess capacity, prioritized Federal grant
programs and revenue from other auctioned spectrum would help build and
sustain the nationwide interoperable public safety broadband network,
while creating a budget neutral funding model.
There are a number of funding models to support the build-out of
the network. While no single solution will pay for the entire network,
a flexible program will make it possible to offset many of the costs
associated with its construction. Some of the funding mechanisms
include:
1. Excess network capacity not utilized by public safety can be
leased out to commercial providers or other users on a
secondary basis. This will ensure efficient use of the
spectrum, while still giving local public safety agencies
control over who is able to use the spectrum and when they are
able to use it. The lease revenue of the network would offset a
portion of the build-out and maintenance of the network.
2. Proceeds from other spectrum auctions are proposed to
finance the establishment of a grant program that will fund the
build-out and maintenance of the network.
3. Current Homeland Security, Justice, Transportation and other
Federal grants could be authorized and prioritized by Congress
to assist state and local governments in building a broadband
network.
4. Universal Service Funds (USF) can also be prioritized to
help local and state government deploy broadband networks in
underserved and unserved areas.
5. A nominal monthly fee can be imposed on consumers of
commercial broadband services to aid local and state
governments in building the network.
6. Public safety agencies can partner with private industry
such as utilities to share the cost of building the network.
7. Funding will also come from state and local public safety
operational expenses.
If the D Block spectrum is auctioned, then the cost of building out
the 10-MHz of public safety broadband network will need to rely solely
on Federal grant dollars. Given that scenario, public safety will not
be able to leverage the excess capacity of the network in order to
create flexible partnership and funding programs.
The long-term strategy and vision is for public safety to migrate
to converged IP systems that are capable of mission-critical voice, as
well as data and video. Therefore, the long-term costs of maintaining
traditional Land Mobile Radio networks, as well as future public safety
broadband networks, will evolve into converged mission-critical voice
capable broadband networks. The only unanswered question is not if, but
when? The interim cost is the real challenge.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to
Chief Al H. Gillespie
Question 1. Beginning with the Radio Act of 1927 and continuing
with the Communications Act of 1934, the Federal Government began
defining the public airwaves, or radio spectrum, as a resource that
must be used in the public interest and, more specifically, ``for the
purpose of the national defense'' and ``for the purpose of promoting
safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio
communication.'' Since 1927, local, county, state and regional public
safety organizations across the nation have built, maintained and
updated their individual communications facilities. To meet those
communications needs, it is my understanding that public safety
entities utilize approximately 100 Megahertz of spectrum--including 24
megahertz of public safety spectrum in the 700 MHz band for both
broadband and narrowband services. Can you elaborate on the existing
spectrum utilized by public safety such as what frequency bands are
used, how much spectrum in each band is used, and what communications
services are supported in those bands?
Answer. Today, more than ever, our nation's public safety agencies
must have the tools they need to perform their critical tasks.
Appropriate radio spectrum is at or near the top of the list of those
essential tools. The lack of sufficient radio spectrum for public
safety has several significant consequences including channel
congestion, overloading of systems, and lack of capacity. The lack of
spectrum during incidents.
Current allocation of public safety spectrum is compartmentalized
across various spectrum bands.
Public Safety Narrowband Land Mobile Radio (LMR) Spectrum
29-50 MHz
The spectrum is non-contiguous and it is interleaved with other
uses. Total spectrum allocation in the block is 7.2 MHz.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequencies Amount of Spectrum (MHz)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
30.98-31.98 1
33.02-33.98 0.96
35.02, 35.64, 35.68 0.06
37.02-37.42 0.4
37.90-37.98 0.08
39.02-39.98 0.96
42.02-42.94 0.92
43.64, 43.68 0.04
44.62-46.58 1.96
47.02-47.66 0.64
Total 7.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
150-174 MHz
The spectrum allocation is non-contiguous and it is interleaved
with other uses. Total spectrum allocation in the block is 3.8 MHz.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequencies Amount of Spectrum (MHz)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
150.7750-150.8050 0.03
150.9950-151.4975 0.5025
152.0075 0.02
153.7400-154.47875 0.73875
154.6500-156.2400 1.59
157.45 0.02
158.7225-159.4725 0.75
163.25 0.01125
166.25 0.01125
170.15 0.01125
170.425 0.006
170.475 0.006
170.575 0.006
171.425 0.006
171.475 0.006
171.575 0.006
172.225 0.006
172.275 0.006
172.375 0.006
173.075 0.006
173.20375 0.006
173.21 0.006
173.2375 0.006
173.2625 0.006
173.2875 0.006
173.3125 0.006
173.3375 0.006
173.3625 0.006
173.39 0.006
173.39625 0.006
Total 3.805
------------------------------------------------------------------------
450-470 MHz
The spectrum allocation is non-contiguous and it is interleaved
with other uses. Total spectrum allocation is 3.7 MHz.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequencies Amount of Spectrum (MHz)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
453.0125-453.99375 0.98125
458.0125-458.99375 0.98125
460.0125-460.64375 0.63125
465.0125-460.64375 0.63125
462.9375-463.19375 0.25625
467.9375-463.19375 0.25625
Total 3.7375
------------------------------------------------------------------------
470-512 MHz
The spectrum allocation is made up of 6 MHz contiguous and is
interleaved with other uses. Total spectrum allocation varies by
geographic area from 6 MHz to 18 MHz.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16 MHz Spectrum Block Number of Licenses Issued Major Metro Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
470 to 476 1,133 public safety licenses Boston, Chicago, Miami, Los Angeles, New York
City, Cleveland, Pittsburgh
476 to 482 376 public safety licenses Chicago, Detroit, New York City, Cleveland
482 to 488 1,133 public safety licenses San Francisco, Los Angeles, Detroit, Boston,
Dallas/Fort Worth, New York City
488 to 494 140 public safety licenses San Francisco, Houston, Washington, D.C.
494 to 500 41 public safety licenses Washington, D.C., Pittsburgh
500 to 506 278 public safety licenses Philadelphia, Southern NJ, Northeastern NJ,
Nassau County, NY
506 to 512 171 public safety licenses Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Southern NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
768-775/798-805
The spectrum allocation is contiguous. Total spectrum allocation is
14 MHz.
806-809/851-854 MHz
The spectrum allocation is contiguous. Total spectrum allocation is
6 MHz.
809-815/854-860 MHz
The spectrum allocation is non-contiguous and it is interleaved
with other uses. The total spectrum allocation is 3.5 MHz.
Wide Area Broadband
763-768/793-798
The spectrum allocation is contiguous. Total spectrum allocation is
10 MHz.
Hot Spot and Microwave Broadband
4940-4990 GHz
The spectrum allocation is contiguous. Total spectrum allocation is
50 MHz.
Question 2. Progress has clearly been made in the assignment of or
availability of spectrum for public safety addressed directly to the
issue of interoperability. However, within each spectrum there are a
multitude of issues that affect licensing, coverage, operability, and
interoperability. What services, if any, will migrate to the new
wireless broadband network? How many first responders in the field are
expected to be supported by this wireless broadband network?
Answer. The initial services that will migrate to broadband
networks are data and video. Eventually, when voice over LTE equipment
is available, which can provide the same level of mission-critical
voice services as existing LMR systems, then we expect public safety
systems to begin migrating their LMR systems to the wireless broadband
network. The goal will be to support every first responder and those
who provide support and logistical services to first responders.
The number of first responder users might be over two million, the
number of equipment that might access the network could easily be over
ten million. Industry experts believe that device-to-device or machine-
to-machine equipment and applications will quickly outpace the actual
number of users on the network. This is especially true when you
consider monitoring services and situational awareness applications.
Question 3. If there are radio-based services that will migrate to
the wireless broadband network or aren't required anymore due to the
new enhanced services that will be possible on the wireless broadband
network would public safety work with the Commission to develop a
transition plan to relinquish underutilized spectrum over a certain
period of time?
Answer. Yes, if the migration of LMR systems to broadband networks
would increase efficiency, improve interoperability and reduce cost for
the agencies. Agencies that migrate their systems to broadband networks
should release their licenses in the lower bands as currently required
of the existing RPC process.
Question 4. The FCC estimates expenses for its plan of constructing
a public safety network through partnerships with commercial providers
and infrastructure will total approximately $6.3 billion over 10 years.
Adding in operating expenses would bring the approximate total to $12-
16 billion over 10 years. The FCC also estimated that constructing a
stand-alone public safety network would require approximately $16
billion over 10 years and that adding in operating expenses would bring
the total to approximately $34.4 billion over 10 years. A Verizon study
for the Southern Governors Association back in 2007, suggested that a
network would cost $61 billion over 10 years for both construction and
maintenance.
If the D Block were directly allocated to public safety, would
public safety look to build its own network, utilize existing
commercial infrastructure, or a hybrid of both? Would it be one
nationwide network or a compilation of regional/state networks, or
virtual networks over existing carriers' networks?
Answer. Public safety strongly believes that it needs to work
together with multiple public and private partners to build the
nationwide broadband network. We will utilize existing public safety,
commercial, and private infrastructure to build out the network.
Commercial carriers will play a big role in helping to build out the
nationwide network, and they will be critical partners to public
safety.
This will reduce cost and create efficiencies. The nationwide
network architecture will allow local, regional and statewide systems
to be built to a national standard that ensures nationwide roaming and
interoperability.
Question 5. Who would maintain the network--would it be
centralized, regional, or state operated? How would new users be
authenticated and granted access to use the network? Also, how many
additional personnel would be needed to maintain it on a day-to-day
basis?
Answer. Like any other network, there will be multiple levels for
network maintenance. This function could vary from a localized (single
tower maintenance) to a regional core that is maintained by a
commercial or industry partner.
At this time, we do not have information on the number of personnel
that would be needed to maintain the network, but we are confident that
building out and maintaining such a network will create thousands of
new and sustainable high paying professional jobs.
Question 6. When will there be a greater and more detailed
discussion on planning and governance issues related to the broadband
wireless network? Are these issues critical to addressing
interoperability as well as overall design of the network and
subsequent costs?
Answer. Yes, this discussion is underway within the Administration
and within public safety. The current governance will most likely need
to change, however, the change should not undo the great work that has
already been done by public safety.
Question 7. The 9/11 Commission report found that ``the inability
to communicate was a critical element'' at each of the ``crash sites,
where multiple agencies and multiple jurisdictions responded.'' Even
with the lack of interoperability clearly highlighted, efforts to
improve this significant problem have fallen short and at best have
only been incremental.
To remedy this problem, the FCC established the Emergency Response
Interoperability Center (ERIC) to ensure that the applications,
devices, and networks that public safety groups utilize all work
together, so that first responders nationwide can communicate with one
another seamlessly. ERIC is supposed to hold its first meeting very
soon.
The National Broadband Plan noted that past efforts to create a
public safety narrowband interoperable voice network have failed and
that many public safety radio systems lack basic interoperability. It
also found most jurisdictions that have improved their systems still
only have an ``intermediate'' level of interoperability at best--not
the advanced level of interoperability that is required for truly
seamless communications in the event of a major emergency. Should those
with industry expertise in designing and building nationwide networks
have a greater voice in the development of interoperable systems?
Answer. We strongly rely on industry experts to inform us on how to
build out the nationwide network; however, we must ensure that the
network is designed and built to meet the needs of first responders and
public safety. In other words, while we will strive to ensure industry
experts have a greater voice in the development of the interoperable
systems, we must recognize that the voice of public safety users must
be primary.
Question 8. Wouldn't we more properly address this if public safety
outlined the operational requirements and services that needed to be
provided by the network and then private sector experts develop the
standards and network design to meet those needs?
Answer. That is what we tried to do with the Project 25 standards,
but after 25 years, we are still struggling to develop standards and
network design to meet public safety needs. That is why public safety
endorsed LTE standards, and now we are working with the Public Safety
Communications Research program (PSCR), to ensure public safety
requirements are considered in the IEEE standards setting process.
Question 9. Last year, the FCC granted more than 20 waivers to
public safety entities to begin building out wireless broadband
networks using the existing 10 megahertz of spectrum that is already
assigned to public safety in the 700 MHz band.
Public safety officials have noted that these waiver build-outs
will provide data important in the deployment of the proposed national
network. A New York public safety official was quoted as saying ``We
have always made the argument that granting these waivers will further
the ability to understand what it is that we want to build and how we
want to build it.'' How can public safety say it definitely needs the
additional 10 megahertz of spectrum from the D Block if these waivers
are being used for determining what to build and how to build it?
Answer. It is public safety's industry partners that are saying we
definitely need an additional 10 MHz of spectrum. These industry
partners are the ones that are building out the systems for the waiver
entities, and they are the ones that are determining that 10 MHz
systems built today will not meet the future needs of public safety.
Question 10. The FCC and others have suggested giving public safety
the option to use 700 MHz narrowband spectrum for broadband in order to
provide additional broadband capacity. Is this feasible? If not, why?
Answer. No. FCC's recent NOI clearly shows that network flexibility
is not going to be possible because of the potential interference it
will cause to existing narrowband systems and future broadband systems.
Industry experts have refuted this notion and have provided a clear
argument as to why this will not work.
Question 11. It is my understanding that there are several federal
departments and agencies involved with public safety communications--
including the FCC, Department of Commerce, Department of Homeland
Security, and the Department of Justice. I am concerned there isn't one
agency responsible and that with all the agencies involved it presents
challenges to making progress and proper planning.
In addition to this bureaucracy, I am concerned about the funding
challenges that have existed and will likely continue to exist with
public safety interoperability. It is my understanding that more than
$7 billion of taxpayer money has been spent over the past 7 years in
Federal grants without proper planning and coordination. And as a
result, only incremental improvements have been made--many experts
state it may be several more years before it is completely resolved.
This includes the Public Safety Interoperability Communications (PSIC)
grant program and about $4.3 billion DHS has spent to improve
interoperability.
My concern is that we are hastily providing resources to public
safety without proper planning to ensure those assets, whether it is
funding or spectrum, are properly utilized. What can we do differently
this time to ensure we achieve the goals necessary for public safety to
sufficiently respond and communicate in emergencies and ultimately
protect our Nation's citizens but upholding our fiscal responsibilities
to taxpayers to ensure their hard-earned money is used wisely and
responsibly?
Answer. More and better planning and learning lessons from prior
failures.
Public safety shares these concerns and we would like to work with
you to find the solution to that will provide proper oversight and
accountability to ensure efficiency and maximum utilization of all the
resources.
Question 12. If the D Block were directly allocated to public
safety then it would utilize 34 MHz of spectrum as its primary spectrum
for both narrowband and broadband communications. While this wouldn't
necessarily present a problem in the event of a natural disaster, there
is concern about possible over reliance on this band during a disaster
or terrorist attack.
If public safety principally relies on a relatively narrow range of
spectrum then a coordinated attack could disrupt, or worse cripple,
public safety communications through the use of high-power wireless
jammers. For example, a recent University of Pennsylvania report
highlighted the susceptibility of the P25 System to active traffic
analysis and selective jamming attacks.\1\ Is this a serious concern
that needs to be addressed? Wouldn't the public safety network be more
resilient by utilizing the existing 700 MHz assignment with existing
public safety spectrum in 400 MHz, 800 MHz, and 4.9 GHz by using
technologies such as dynamic spectrum access, cognitive radio, and
spectrum aggregation? As well as just greater interoperability with
commercial systems, which operate in various bands?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sandy Clark and others, Security Weaknesses in the APCO Project
25 Two-Way Radio System, CIS Technical Report MS-CIS-10-34, University
of Pennsylvania, November 18, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer. Jamming, regardless of what spectrum band public safety
operates on, is a serious concern. However, a jammer can be used to
cripple networks on multiple bands and brute force jamming does not
distinguish between public safety spectrum and commercial spectrum. If
a jammer is being used to block a public safety network, then most
likely it will also cripple a commercial network, as well. In order to
utilize multiple spectrum bands, in any given area, you will need to
build out a network on all the spectrum bands, which will increase the
cost of the network astronomically. It is not economically feasible or
efficient utilization of spectrum resources to build a 700 MHz, 400
MHz, 800 MHz, and 4.9 GHz network.
Question 13. What impact would greater interoperability with
commercial systems across the entire 700 MHz band have on the costs and
time to market of providing mobile broadband capabilities and end users
devices for first responders?
Answer. Commercial services providers can answer this question
better than public safety, but it is our understanding the technology
is currently not available. We are very interested in having the
ability to roam across the entire 700 MHz band and would like to see
this technology come to fruition as soon as possible.
Question 14. In your testimony you stress that the wireless
broadband network must be mission critical at the outset. You also
state, in the beginning, the system will only be able to handle data
and video, and that mission critical voice is years away--some have
even indicated that it is decades away.
This is somewhat confusing because innovation and technological
advancement in wireless and broadband are measured in months. Also, the
Long-Term-Evolution standard includes ``voice over LTE'' capabilities,
which will promote scale, reduce complexity, and implement roaming--all
issues critical to public safety. Also, Verizon Wireless announced that
it had successfully made the world's first voice over LTE call over its
commercial network yesterday morning. So there is rapid advancement in
this space. How did you come to this assessment that mission critical
voice is ``years away?'' How soon would you prefer to have mission
critical voice supported by the LTE-based broadband wireless network?
Answer. Our preference is to have a mission-critical voice system
supported by the LTE broadband network today; however, it is not there
yet. The technology must be proven, reliable and available to public
safety at a reasonable cost. It is our understanding that the IEEE
standards process has not even begun considering such standards, and if
and when they are ready to do so, it could take years to finalize the
mission critical voice standard. The technology also needs to allow for
peer to peer and one to many communications without the need to go
through the network (e.g., the talk around or simplex mode).
We are encouraged that the administration budget provides
considerable funding for research and development (R&D) for LTE mission
critical voice equipment. We hope this will considerably shorten the
length of time it will take to have the mission-critical voice system
on the LTE network.
Question 15. You also mention that it has to be affordable. Are the
current narrowband land mobile radios affordable? If not--why not?
Answer. No, current LMR systems are expensive, but there is no
alternative. There are a number of reasons why LMR systems cost as much
as they do. First and foremost, the radios need to be reliable and
sturdy. They need to be able to work under extreme conditions, and they
need to be durable enough to operate after being severely damaged.
Second, most radios operate only one band. This makes LMR systems
unique to each agency and jurisdiction and limits competitions and
variety. Third, many LMR systems are proprietary. In order to operate a
radio on the network, you have to buy the radio from the network
manufacturer. This limits completion and interoperability. Fourth, the
public safety market is a specialty market. Only very few other public
or private entities have the same needs as those of public safety. This
limits the number of companies that are willing to invest in developing
products that will meet public safety's needs.
Question 16. Wouldn't the long-term operation of two separate
networks--one for voice and one for data--be more expensive than
operating one converged network that carries voice, video, and data and
also compound interoperability issues due to the required
interconnectivity necessary between narrowband and broadband systems?
Answer. Yes, absolutely, and that is why we do not intend to
operate two separate systems unless there is no other choice. Having a
single system that does everything you need at a lower cost is
preferable and desirable. However, until we have a system that can do
that, we need to operate two systems on a parallel track. When public
safety is ready to switch tracks, we will.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Claire McCaskill to
Joseph L. Hanna
Question 1. The Wireless Initiative that the President has put
forward is a plan that is worth strong consideration. As I stated in a
forum that I held in Missouri last year with the FCC Chairman, it is
paramount that rural and unserved areas have access to broadband.
The President has stated that his plan would reduce the deficit by
$9.6 billion and that about $28 billion would be raised through
incentive auctions. However, I want to get a better handle on these
calculations. How are we determining that $28 billion would be raised?
Answer. Not being an expert in the auction arena, I have no
personal knowledge as to the amount of funds that may result from a
potential auction. The professional literature and information
discussed in public forums indicates that spectrum is indeed a premium
commodity and commercial carriers are willing to pay considerable sums
for spectrum. The last round of auctions certainly paved the way for
future auctions to generate considerable amounts of funds for the
Treasury. Dependent on the conditions, or lack thereof, on the D Block
specifically, valuations are hard to predict. As all spectrum in the
700 MHz band is considered beachfront property, an unencumbered D Block
will bring a premium price. Based on information in the trade press,
AT&T is currently negotiating with Qualcomm to acquire an unpaired 6
MHz block of spectrum in the 700 MHz band for a reported $2 billion.
When looking at a projected $28 billion auction proceed, however,
one must also consider that the bulk of proposed spectrum to be
auctioned would come from an incentive-based broadcast pool. Based on
the theory behind incentive auctions, a considerable portion of the
proceeds of the auction would be returned to the carriers (thus
``incentive''). Additionally, funds from the auction would also be
required to relocate broadcasters who elected to not auction their
spectrum in the same band to provide for a clear band. Thus $28 billion
does not equal $28 billion to the U.S. Treasury.
Question 2. There is a lot of uncertainty about how much spectrum
would be voluntarily given up for auction. Do we have assurances that
we can actually reach this figure?
Answer. I have no expertise regarding the probability of the amount
of spectrum that might be put up for auction.
Question 3. I have concerns about how we would pay for a public
safety network under the FCC's plan. The estimate is that we can raise
$3 billion by auctioning off the D Block. I realize that this would be
a different type of auction than what was attempted a few years ago
but, given that that effort failed, how we know we're going to get $3
billion?
Answer. The amount of funds that would result from the D Block will
clearly be insufficient to pay for the proposed public safety broadband
network. It is my understanding that the funding from for this network
would come from the large auction pool. The larger question is whether
the Congress is willing and able to forego the funds that have already
been scored by the Congress for the D Block. If the D Block is not
auctioned, that will require the expenditure of future auctions to make
up for this loss.
Question 4. If we donate more spectrum to public safety agencies,
can you give me any assurance that interoperability between different
jurisdictions would work? And that you would have economies of scale to
get good technology at a good cost?
Answer. Public safety interoperability can indeed be assured if
there is a governance and implementation model that is defined at the
outset. Unfortunately, no such structure has yet been defined. There is
currently (as of this past week) some disagreement within public safety
writ large regarding the governance and nature of the proposed public
safety broadband network. One element is currently calling for a single
national network design, with another faction suggesting that failure
to provide local control over networks will be unacceptable. If a
public safety network is built with a nationwide plan that covers urban
and rural areas equally and provides for a common, centralized
governance structure, interoperability can indeed be achieved, just as
is done in the commercial world.
Regarding economies of scale, a dedicated public network operating
solely within the current public safety broadband block and the D Block
(thus, Band Class 14) will significantly restrict any realistic notion
of economies of scale. At final buildout, the proposed public safety
network will cover and estimated 2.5-3 million users. According to
today's press reports, APPLE sold an estimated 5 million IPad2 devices
in one week. Samsung reported selling 60 million units of a single
device this past year. Not only will public safety be plagued with low
volume, but specifications for ruggedized devices will compound design
issues. Without access to commercial bands, public safety will be
guaranteed low volume, high cost devices.
Question 5. If the spectrum is auctioned off, the non-profitable
public safety partnership of this deal could slip as commercial demand
grows. How do we ensure that private entities will ensure that the
needs of public safety are met?
Answer. If the D Block remains in the auction pool as required by
current law, the FCC clearly has the ability to mandate conditions or
restrictions on that spectrum. Thus, a winner of the D Block could be
mandated to provide public safety with access to the band on a priority
basis. Less clear, although desirable from my perspective, is whether
the Commission has the authority ex post facto to require similar
access in carriers in the 700 MHz band who have already acquired
spectrum in previous auctions.
Question 6. There is a lot of discussion about up-front costs of
maintaining a public safety network but not a lot about ongoing
operating costs. How much is this going to cost in 10 years? Or in 20
years? How will that be paid for?
Answer. The rule of thumb across most wireless networks runs
approximately 10 percent of the cost to build a system. Most of the
bills introduced in both the House and Senate appear to propose a
maintenance fund that would cover some of these costs, but I would
suggest that public safety should be prepared to cover these costs on
an ongoing basis. Currently, a substantial number of public safety
entities either build non-interoperable broadband systems or, more
commonly, pay for commercial services through major carriers. I happen
to subscribe to a school of thought that state and local entities have
a responsibility to pay for a portion of their services, as they do
today. Given the magnitude of the initial build out costs for a
national broadband network, however, exclusive use of local and state
funds will not provide for the initial deployment of a national
infrastructure.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to
Joseph L. Hanna
Question 1. Beginning with the Radio Act of 1927 and continuing
with the Communications Act of 1934, the Federal Government began
defining the public airwaves, or radio spectrum, as a resource that
must be used in the public interest and, more specifically, ``for the
purpose of the national defense'' and ``for the purpose of promoting
safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio
communication.'' Since 1927, local, county, state and regional public
safety organizations across the nation have built, maintained and
updated their individual communications facilities. To meet those
communications needs, it is my understanding that public safety
entities utilize approximately 100 Megahertz of spectrum--including 24
megahertz of public safety spectrum in the 700 MHz band for both
broadband and narrowband services.
Can you elaborate on the existing spectrum utilized by public
safety such as what frequency bands are used, how much spectrum in each
band is used, and what communications services are supported in those
bands?
Answer. Public safety is currently allocated 97 MHz of spectrum.
This spectrum is spread throughout the VHF (both low band and high
band), UHF, 700 MHz, 800 MHz, and 4.9 GHz bands. Much of the spectrum
in the VHF and UHF bands are shared with other non-public safety radio
services. To date, the overwhelming use of public safety spectrum has
been limited to narrowband voice communications, with limited
narrowband data services utilized by some public safety entities. As a
result of waivers issued this past year by the FCC, 20 jurisdictions
have been given approval to implement early deployments of broadband
operations in the 700 MHz band. Due to the nature of the spectrum,
public safety uses of the 4.9 GHz band have generally been limited to
short range broadband operations.
Question 2. What services, if any, will migrate to the new wireless
broadband network? How many first responders in the field are expected
to be supported by this wireless broadband network?
Answer. Few existing services used by public safety will migrate
from existing bands to the public safety broadband platform in the 700
MHz band in the foreseeable future. An extensive array of high speed
applications that have been outlined in numerous documents, including,
but not limited to, document transfer, video, telemetry, and sensors,
are not currently available on the narrowband frequencies currently
licensed to public safety and will thus find a home in the broadband
network. While broadband spectrum in the 4.9 GHz is allocated to public
safety, this spectrum is limited to short range applications and is not
suited to large area mobile applications.
Mission critical voice communications may, at some point in the
future, migrate to the broadband network. At this time, however, public
safety has not yet addressed the requirements for mission critical
voice communications over broadband. Once public safety completes such
a set of requirements, these requirements will have to be standardized
in the worldwide 3GPP standards process, manufacturers will have to
ramp up for these standards, and user equipment will have to be
designed around these standards. While mission critical voice
capabilities appear promising, several mission critical capabilities,
including peer-to-peer (i.e., calls that can be made from one device to
another off network) create challenges in an architecture designed for
network-based communications. Additional issues related to local
command and control within dispatch centers will create challenges for
the widespread use of mission critical voice over broadband services.
A number of jurisdictions have deployed proprietary mobile
broadband networks on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis. The
fragmented and proprietary nature of these deployments do not allow for
interoperability outside the jurisdiction. Jurisdictions who have
deployed these systems have done so at considerable costs, but out of
necessity due to the lack of a nationwide public safety network.
According to most studies, first responders, if defined as police,
fire, and emergency medical personnel, can load a national network with
2.5-3 million users. The number of devices may ultimately exceed that
number, as sensors and fixed equipment could add to that total. That
said, it will take a number of years before a nationwide network will
be completed, with a resulting level of system loading considerably
lower than the 2.5-3 million users in the early years of deployment.
Additionally, the low number of potential users (low in comparison to
the several hundred million commercial customers served by commercial
carriers), will significantly impact the number of devices made
available to the public safety community in the early years of the
network.
Question 3. If there are radio-based services that will migrate to
the wireless broadband network or aren't required anymore due to the
new enhanced services that will be possible on the wireless broadband
network, would public safety work with the Commission to develop a
transition plan to relinquish underutilized spectrum over a certain
period of time?
Answer. While several legislative proposals currently being
considered in both the House and Senate have proposed spectrum give
backs once a national broadband network is deployed in the 700 MHz
band, I would argue that such give backs come with substantial
drawbacks. First, the spectrum used for narrowband voice operations in
the 150 MHz and 400-512MHz are generally scattered and interleaved with
other radio services, including, but not limited to, amateur radio
services and the business, industrial and transportation categories.
Clearing of only the public safety channels will not provide any clear
blocks of spectrum suitable for future auctions.
Additionally, all current public safety users operating in spectrum
below 512 MHz have either completed or are in the process of narrow
banding their land mobile radio systems to comply with a FCC mandate
for narrow band operations by January 1, 2013. Hundreds of millions of
dollars, all funded by the licensees, have been, or are being, spent to
meet this mandate. Any forced migration from these narrow banded
systems will substantially impact the return on investment for this
migration.
More significantly, lower frequency bands in the 150 and 400-512
MHz have excellent propagation characteristics for suburban and rural
areas, as well as excellent in building penetration in urban
environments. As noted above, almost all users of these frequency pools
have either just completed, or are in the process, of spending hundreds
of millions of dollars to meet an FCC mandate to narrowband these
frequencies. Additionally, the cost to replace these systems with 700
or 800 MHz channels will be many times higher than the spectrum
currently in use, as 700 and 800 MHz systems require far more radio
sites than required for lower-band systems. Rural users (e.g., Western
Texas, Arizona, North Dakota, Nevada and most of the western United
States) would face massive costs to replace existing lower band systems
with 700-800 MHz systems. No such transition from lower band systems to
700-800 MHz systems could be contemplated without massive expenditures
in the billions of dollars range coming from the Federal Government,
thus offsetting any potential future auction proceeds from reclaimed
spectrum.
If relinquishing spectrum in the lower bands is the price for
reallocation of the D Block to public safety, it is my strong opinion
that this cost is both harmful to the vast majority of public safety
entities, is a poor return on investment, and sacrifices the financial
investments and best-use of spectrum for far too many public safety
entities. During a recent meeting (February 28-March 1, 2011) of the
National Public Safety Telecommunications Council, its Governing Board
passed a resolution citing its opposition to the giveback of spectrum
below 512 MHz in recognition of the adverse impact on public safety and
other users in the band.
Question 4. The FCC estimates expenses for its plan of constructing
a public safety network through partnerships with commercial providers
and infrastructure will total approximately $6.3 billion over 10 years.
Adding in operating expenses would bring the approximate total to $12-
16 billion over 10 years. The FCC also estimated that constructing a
stand-alone public safety network would require approximately $16
billion over 10 years and that adding in operating expenses would bring
the total to approximately $34.4 billion over 10 years. A Verizon study
for the Southern Governors Association back in 2007, suggested that a
network would cost $61 billion over 10 years for both construction and
maintenance. If the D Block were directly allocated to public safety,
would public safety look to build its own network, utilize existing
commercial infrastructure, or a hybrid of both? Would it be one
nationwide network or a compilation of regional/state networks, or
virtual networks over existing carriers' networks?
Answer. While many within public safety have advocated a network
controlled and operated by public safety, I will argue that broadband
networks should be build and operated by companies or commercial
operators who do this on a daily basis. In the current public safety
governance structures (Public Safety Spectrum Trust, National Public
Safety Telecommunications Council, APCO, etc.), there is no indication
of any expertise in the design, operation, or maintenance of highly
sophisticated broadband networks. This is not to say that public safety
should not have a strong voice in the design of functional
requirements, procurement and governance of such a network.
Unfortunately, public safety has a relative poor record in
designing, building, or managing large scale telecommunications
networks beyond the local level. Project 25, for example, has been in
existence for over 20 years, yet still has a significant number of
standards yet to be completed. The national record is replete with
documentation regarding the lack of interoperability between existing
P-25 systems in spite of the billions of dollars that have been spent
on these systems to date.
Ten years following FCC requirements for wireless carriers to
deliver location and subscriber information to public safety answer
points for persons placing 9-1-1 calls, a significant number of SAPS
throughout the United States have yet to upgrade their internal systems
to accommodate receipt of location/subscriber identification data.
In terms of network design, i.e., a single national network or a
network of networks, is currently being debated within the public
safety community. During sessions at the International Wireless
Conference and Exposition in Las Vegas during the week of March 7-11,
2011, there was considerable dialog that demonstrated that this issue
clearly has no definitive agreement within public safety writ large. I
would suggest that any hope of delivering true nationwide
interoperability, as well as fundamental operability within a
substantial part of the United States (particularly in rural areas)
will only be accomplished through the deployment of a single nationwide
network. As long as local jurisdictions demand control over their
portion of a network, the silo mentality that has prevented
interoperability in the land mobile radio environment to date will
simply be perpetuated.
Last, it is hard to imagine any network design that does not take
advantage of the commercial deployments throughout the United States.
Technology in place today allows for the co-location of various users,
either through site sharing or virtual division of common equipment.
Failure to follow this path guarantees poor use of valuable Federal
funds.
Question 5. Who would maintain the network--would it be
centralized, regional, or state operated? How would new users be
authenticated and granted access to use the network? Also, how many
additional personnel would be needed to maintain it on a day-to-day
basis?
Answer. Until such time as a governance model can be defined and
made operational, this question will remain challenging. To date, the
National Public Safety Telecommunications Council has advocated a
centralized model of governance. Without a strong, centralized model, I
would argue, as noted above, that the fundamental issues of
interoperability, maintenance, refresh, and other essential
requirements of a true, nationwide effort, will be made considerably
more difficult.
There should be no mistake that additional personnel will be
required to administer, operate, and manage a national broadband
network. The underlying question is whether public safety is best
equipped to perform administration, operation, maintenance of this
network, or whether this task is best left to experienced network
operators (existing or new), with public safety's role better focused
on the policies related to the use of this network.
Question 6. When will there be a greater and more detailed
discussion on planning and governance issues related to the broadband
wireless network? Are these issues critical to addressing
interoperability as well as overall design of the network and
subsequent costs?
Answer. Following the Senate Commerce hearing on this topic on
February 16, 2011, the topic of governance has become a central topic
of conversation. It is somewhat regretful that a number of public
safety leaders still argue that legislation providing spectrum
reallocation and funding should precede the final determination of a
governance structure. Sadly, however, there is no consensus within
public safety, nor has there been any articulated plan for this
ultimate governance structure, nor has there been any definitive
document regarding the plans for the design, deployment, management,
operation, or maintenance of the ultimate network. Again, without a
governance plan in place prior to passage of legislation, we guarantee
unwarranted and unnecessary delays in the implementation of a network
for the Nation's first responders.
One need look no farther than the San Francisco Bay Area to confirm
this argument. A consortium within the San Francisco Bay area was
granted a waiver for early deployment of a public safety broadband
network in the 700 MHz broadband allocation. Additionally, TOP funds
were granted for this construction. Due to internal issues within this
regional effort, however, considerable questions have been raised
regarding governance, authority, purchasing decisions, etc. Similar
regional issues were faced by the National Capitol Region when
deploying a trial broadband network several years ago. While both
regions are to be commended for their initiative and desire to deploy
broadband networks for their first responders, an essential lesson has
been presented for the need of a well-defined governance model at the
front end, not the back end, of the process.
Question 7. The 9/11 Commission report found that ``the inability
to communicate was a critical element'' at each of the ``crash sites,
where multiple agencies and multiple jurisdictions responded.'' Even
with the lack of interoperability clearly highlighted, efforts to
improve this significant problem have fallen short and at best have
only been incremental.
To remedy this problem, the FCC established the Emergency Response
Interoperability Center (ERIC) to ensure that the applications,
devices, and networks that public safety groups utilize all work
together, so that first responders nationwide can communicate with one
another seamlessly. ERIC is supposed to hold its first meeting very
soon.
The National Broadband Plan noted that past efforts to create a
public safety narrowband interoperable voice network have failed and
that many public safety radio systems lack basic interoperability. It
also found most jurisdictions that have improved their systems still
only have an ``intermediate'' level of interoperability at best--not
the advanced level of interoperability that is required for truly
seamless communications in the event of a major emergency. Should those
with industry expertise in designing and building nationwide networks
have a greater voice in the development of interoperable systems?
Answer. Without question, industry expertise should be an integral
component in the design and implementation of the proposed network.
Question 8. Wouldn't we more properly address this if public safety
outlined the operational requirements and services that needed to be
provided by the network and then private sector experts develop the
standards and network design to meet those needs?
Answer. Yes.
Question 9. Last year, the FCC granted more than 20 waivers to
public safety entities to begin building out wireless broadband
networks using the existing 10 megahertz of spectrum that is already
assigned to public safety in the 700 MHz band. Public safety officials
have noted that these waiver build-outs will provide data important in
the deployment of the proposed national network. A New York public
safety official was quoted as saying ``We have always made the argument
that granting these waivers will further the ability to understand what
it is that we want to build and how we want to build it.'' How can
public safety say it definitely needs the additional 10 megahertz of
spectrum from the D Block if these waivers are being used for
determining what to build and how to build it?
Answer. Unfortunately, there has been no engineering analysis or
documentation from the public safety community regarding the amount of
spectrum that will be required.
Question 10. The FCC and others have suggested giving public safety
the option to use 700 MHz narrowband spectrum for broadband in order to
provide additional broadband capacity. Is this feasible? If not, why?
Answer. Per my testimony during the February 16 hearing, I believe
that flexible use within the 700 MHz narrowband public safety
allocation should include a flexible use capability. While flexible use
is not a simple element, it can be accomplished with proper
coordination. Without such flexible use, large jurisdictions such as
New York City who have made public statements about their lack of
intent to deploy any narrowband technologies in the future, we will see
extremely valuable spectrum lie fallow for years to come. If the
predictions for mission critical voice capabilities are realized, this
flexible use of the narrowband channels will provide automatic access
to 10 MHz of prime spectrum.
Question 11. It is my understanding that there are several Federal
departments and agencies involved with public safety communications--
including the FCC, Department of Commerce, Department of Homeland
Security, and the Department of Justice. I am concerned there isn't one
agency responsible and that with all the agencies involved it presents
challenges to making progress and proper planning.
In addition to this bureaucracy, I am concerned about the funding
challenges that have existed and will likely continue to exist with
public safety interoperability. It is my understanding that more than
$7 billion of taxpayer money has been spent over the past 7 years in
Federal grants without proper planning and coordination. And as a
result, only incremental improvements have been made. Many experts
state it may be several more years before it is completely resolved.
This includes the Public Safety Interoperability Communications (PSIC)
grant program and about $4.3 billion DHS has spent to improve
interoperability.
My concern is that we are hastily providing resources to public
safety without proper planning to ensure those assets, whether it is
funding or spectrum, are properly utilized. What can we do differently
this time to ensure we achieve the goals necessary for public safety to
sufficiently respond and communicate in emergencies and ultimately
protect our Nation's citizens but upholding our fiscal responsibilities
to taxpayers to ensure their hard-earned money is used wisely and
responsibly?
Answer. This question is well advised. As noted above, there is no
doubt that America's first responders require and deserve a world-class
broadband network. Without a well defined governance structure and
implementation model (nationwide vs. jurisdiction based, public safety
vs. commercial operator, etc.), there will be no way to avoid long term
delays in implementation.
Of equal concern, there appears to be an emerging tug of war within
the Federal Government regarding control of the proposed public safety
broadband network. While the FCC has provided initial guidance and
leadership through its National Broadband Plan, the Office of the Vice
President, Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, and
the Department of Commerce/NTIA have all emerged with interests in this
issue. Each of these entities has a valid interest and contribution to
the effort, but the potential for fragmentation and control issues is
increasing as time passes.
The key is to balance the development of a firm governance model
and implementation plan within a reasonable timeframe.
Question 12. If the D Block were directly allocated to public
safety then it would utilize 34 MHz of spectrum as its primary spectrum
for both narrowband and broadband communications. While this wouldn't
necessarily present a problem in the event of a natural disaster, there
is concern about possible over reliance on this band during a disaster
or terrorist attack.
If public safety principally relies on a relatively narrow range of
spectrum then a coordinated attack could disrupt, or worse cripple,
public safety communications through the use of high-power wireless
jammers. For example, a recent University of Pennsylvania report
highlighted the susceptibility of the P25 System to active traffic
analysis and selective jamming attacks.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sandy Clark and others, Security Weaknesses in the APCO Project
25 Two-Way Radio System, CIS Technical Report MS-CIS-10-34, University
of Pennsylvania, November 18, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this a serious concern that needs to be addressed? Wouldn't the
public safety network be more resilient by utilizing the existing 700
MHz assignment with existing public safety spectrum in 400 MHz, 800
MHz, and 4.9 GHz by using technologies such as dynamic spectrum access,
cognitive radio, and spectrum aggregation? As well as just greater
interoperability with commercial systems, which operate in various
bands?
Answer. An underlying principle of the FCC's National Broadband
Plan was the ability to provide a diverse path for public safety. As
the question notes, systems operating in a single band may well be more
prone to failure than through diverse paths. While commercial sites may
not always be built to public safety grade standards, there are
hundreds of thousands of commercial sites currently in play. In any
given catastrophic situation such as Hurricane Katrina, or the more
recent events in Japan, diverse infrastructure can only be viewed as an
asset.
Question 13. What impact would greater interoperability with
commercial systems across the entire 700 MHz band have on the costs and
time to market of providing mobile broadband capabilities and end users
devices for first responders?
Answer. This question creates a two sided sword for consideration.
As noted in my initial testimony on February 16, a network dedicated
only to public safety users is faced with the underlying issue of
economies of scale, or the lack thereof. With a user base of less than
3 million first responders, handset providers are challenged with
providing specialized terminal products at price points realized in the
commercial market. According to recent press reports, Apple sold more
than 5 million IPad2 devices in less than a week. With no access to
other commercial bands, whether the D Block operated by a commercial
entity or other spectrum within the 700 MHz band, devices will
unquestionably be limited in variety and will come at a premium price.
This point, should, however, be tempered with the fact that making
devices that can operate across the entire 700 MHz band will present
engineering challenges. It is my understanding that there are no such
devices available today. That said, if public safety is unable to build
out a network with the speed that commercial operators have been able
to demonstrate, failure to have access to commercial systems in the
lower portions of the band may well preclude nationwide access to
broadband services by first responders.
Question 14. One of the problems that has been raised about
auctioning off the D Block spectrum is the uncertainty surrounding
public safety preemption and prioritization over commercial rules in a
public-private shared broadband network and that the FCC current
recommended rules for the D Block do not require cooperation between
the public and private sectors. Has this been a major sticking point
attributable to the unsuccessful attempt to auction the D Block? How
can the FCC resolve this issue properly?
Answer. Without question, the issue of access to, and priority
access within, commercial systems has been a sticking point for public
safety. Recent technical papers have demonstrated beyond any question
that LTE technology allows for shared access and priority access
(including the functional equivalent of preemption). The issues of
public safety access to commercial systems and priority access within
that access is indeed tied to FCC rules, not technical restraints. If
the D Block is not allocated to public safety, I would continue to
argue, as I did in my original testimony, that, as a minimum, public
safety should be guaranteed access on a priority basis within the D
Block. In the ideal world, commercial operators in the 700 MHz band
would embrace a public service mindset and allow for this same priority
access. Based on public statements of several of the Nation's largest
carriers, however, this voluntary public service does not appear
imminent. To the extent that the FCC's authority would allow for the
mandatory access to networks across the 700 MHz band could be
permitted, I would argue that this action would be in the public's
interest.
Question 15. If the D Block were directly allocated to public
safety, what impact would that have on public safety's ability to take
advantage of lower handset prices and more feature-rich equipment?
Answer. Per my original testimony on February 16, it is my strong
opinion, and one that has not seen a response to the contrary from any
manufacturers, is that providing the D Block to public safety will have
the unintended (but predictable) consequence of creating an island
technology that will result in greatly increased pricing and limited
availability of user equipment for first responders. While public
safety should never expect to see ``feature rich'' handsets available
at the pricing at levels consumers have become accustomed, devices
created for a band class 14-only market will, without question, come at
a premium price and in limited variety. This concept alone can
substantially negate many of the benefits that were the cornerstone of
the concept of a dedicated public safety broadband network. With prices
considerably above those realized by commercial consumers, the logical
question is whether we perpetuate a distinction between haves and have-
nots within public safety.
Question 16. Could public safety also use other 700 MHz commercial
systems on the same basis? Would that provide even greater coverage and
redundancy benefits?
Answer. While I believe that commercial systems offer a great deal
to public safety, I will continue to argue, as I have for the past 6
years, that public safety requires a core, dedicated infrastructure.
Given the loading on commercial systems, it is unlikely that public
safety will ever be able to receive guarantees of access, not to
mention preemptive priority access, on these commercial systems. I
strongly believe that public safety requires and deserves a dedicated
core network that can provide the levels of access they need on a daily
basis. That said, I equally believe that the FCC's analysis and
recommendations within the National Broadband Plan regarding access to
commercial networks for overflow situations during major emergencies is
the optimum solution when considering the economics of the day and the
demands for spectrum throughout other communities.
Question 17. Public safety has built and operated its own
communications systems for decades. What is public safety's track
record on the implementation of those systems and the technology they
use? What are the advantages of having public safety partner with
commercial providers in the development of a 700 MHz broadband network?
Answer. As noted above, public safety has done a relatively good
job of building and managing voice systems within their own
jurisdictions. It is interesting to note, however, that a considerable
number of these entities have turned over the maintenance of these
systems to commercial providers. That said, the record is equally harsh
regarding public safety's inability to realize interoperability beyond
the jurisdictional level. Interestingly, however, many of these same
entities never blink at using nationwide, shared systems from
commercial providers for broadband services. For many years, public
safety users have purchased CDPD, 1XRTT, EDDO, EDGE, and HSAA/HSAA+
services from commercial providers. Each of these purchases utilizes
the nationwide offerings of commercial carriers. While none of these
commercial offerings will provide the quality of service guarantees
that public safety needs and requires, the existing model does
demonstrate that commercial providers and be valuable partners in the
delivery of broadband services.
Question 18. In addition to the direct allocation of the D Block to
public safety, the Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovation Act
Chairman Rockefeller introduced also provides the FCC with incentive
auction authority--allowing existing spectrum licensees to voluntarily
relinquish their airwaves in exchange for a portion of the proceeds of
the commercial auction of their spectrum--and primarily relies on
incentive auction revenue to raise the funds for the construction and
maintenance of the public safety broadband network.
In order to raise the necessary funds, there may have to be
significant voluntary participation by broadcasters. However, if there
is less than expected participation then the network runs the risk of
being underfunded.
Is this a valid concern and how should it be addressed? Also, even
though this is voluntary for broadcasters, if there were less than
expected participation, could there be pressure applied to broadcasters
to participate given the reliance on funds from incentive auctions to
pay for the public safety network? How might we prevent this from
happening?
Answer. As stated in my testimony of February 16, I am not able to
speak as an auction expert. From reading extensively on the subject,
however, I can offer some thoughts on this question. Clearly, no person
or entity has a crystal ball that can make valid predictions about the
extent to which broadcasters will participate in the proposed auctions.
Nor can anyone make a valid estimate on the value of spectrum that may
come up for auction. The more spectrum that might appear available for
auction, the less dollars per MHz that will be offered. The less
spectrum that might appear, the higher the potential value of that
spectrum. Both assumptions, however, may well be tempered by the status
of the national economy at the time of the auction.
Equally to be considered with any discussion on auctions is the
amount of funds that will ultimately result from said auction. If, for
example, an auction were to result in $30 billion of bids, the rules of
an incentive auction would require the return of a portion of those
funds to the entity offering up the spectrum-no (or low) incentives
equals little spectrum being offered. Second, once the incentives were
returned to the original licensee, additional funds would then be
required nationwide to move incumbent carriers that did not provide
spectrum for auction to allow for clear bands of spectrum. Needless to
say, this will result in considerable expense. Thus, $30 billion is not
equal to $30 billion to the treasury.
Question 19. In your opinion, how long will it take to raise the
necessary funds for the construction and maintenance of the public
safety network, if the primary funding mechanism were auctions? Might
multiple auctions need to take place and how long does it typically
take to set up and execute a spectrum auction?
Answer. Again, while I have no expertise in auctions, the record is
relatively clear that the path for realization of auction proceeds is
longer than it is short. That said, the time to begin meaningful
construction for a public safety broadband is now, not years down the
road.