[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE WIRELESS PRIVACY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 1999 AND THE WIRELESS
COMMUNICATIONS AND PUBLIC SAFETY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 1999
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS,
TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 438 and H.R. 514
__________
FEBRUARY 3, 1999
__________
Serial No. 106-2
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
55-150CC WASHINGTON : 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
TOM BLILEY, Virginia, Chairman
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JOE BARTON, Texas RALPH M. HALL, Texas
FRED UPTON, Michigan RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Vice Chairman SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania BART GORDON, Tennessee
CHRISTOPHER COX, California PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma ANNA G. ESHOO, California
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina RON KLINK, Pennsylvania
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California BART STUPAK, Michigan
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
GREG GANSKE, Iowa THOMAS C. SAWYER, Ohio
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
TOM A. COBURN, Oklahoma GENE GREEN, Texas
RICK LAZIO, New York KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
JAMES E. ROGAN, California DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona LOIS CAPPS, California
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
Mississippi
VITO FOSSELLA, New York
ROY BLUNT, Missouri
ED BRYANT, Tennessee
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland
James E. Derderian, Chief of Staff
James D. Barnette, General Counsel
Reid P.F. Stuntz, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
______
Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana, Chairman
MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio, EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
Vice Chairman RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida BART GORDON, Tennessee
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
CHRISTOPHER COX, California ANNA G. ESHOO, California
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
JAMES E. ROGAN, California RON KLINK, Pennsylvania
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois THOMAS C. SAWYER, Ohio
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico GENE GREEN, Texas
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING, KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
Mississippi JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
VITO FOSSELLA, New York (Ex Officio)
ROY BLUNT, Missouri
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland
TOM BLILEY, Virginia,
(Ex Officio)
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Testimony of:
Amarosa, Michael, Vice President of Public Affairs,
TruePosition, Incorporated................................. 39
Dempsey, James X., Senior Staff Counsel, Center for Democracy
and Technology............................................. 32
Finnerty, Maureen, Associate Director, Parks Operations and
Education, Department of the Interior...................... 22
Hanna, Captain Joseph L., Richardson Texas Police Department,
on behalf of the Association of Public-Safety
Communications Officials International, Incorporated....... 18
Sugrue, Thomas J., Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Chief,
Federal Communications Commission.......................... 12
Wheeler, Thomas E., President and Chief Executive Officer,
Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association........... 25
Material submitted for the record by:
Dukes, Jackie N., President, Rural Cellular Association,
prepared statement of...................................... 53
(iii)
THE WIRELESS PRIVACY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 1999 AND THE WIRELESS
COMMUNICATIONS AND PUBLIC SAFETY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 1999
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1999
House of Representatives,
Committee on Commerce,
Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer Protection,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m., in
room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. W.J. ``Billy''
Tauzin (chairman) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Tauzin, Oxley, Stearns,
Gillmor, Deal, Largent, Cubin, Shimkus, Wilson, Pickering,
Fossella, Blunt, Ehrlich, Markey, Gordon, Eshoo, Engel, Wynn,
Luther, Sawyer, Green, and McCarthy.
Staff present: Tricia Paoletta, majority counsel; Mike
O'Reilly, majority professional staff; Cliff Riccio,
legislative clerk, and Andy Levin, minority counsel.
Mr. Tauzin. The subcommittee will please come to order.
Good morning and welcome to the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection's first
hearing of the 106th Congress. It is with great pleasure that I
welcome back my colleagues and I wish now to extend a warm
welcome, indeed, to our new members of the subcommittee, some
of whom have arrived and others perhaps who have not arrived
yet.
Let me, first of all, welcome--let us see who is here. I
see Mr. Roy Blunt. Roy Blunt was born on--let us see--January
10, 1950. I don't know why I'm doing this. I am not going to do
that. And was elected to the Congress in 1996 and is in his
second term. What is interesting about Roy is that Roy was just
selected, by the way, members, as the member to take the place
of our new Speaker, Denny Hastert, as the Chief Deputy Majority
Whip, and, as I read that position at the fast speed of events
lately, he could well be our Speaker in the next few months. I
want you to welcome our new member, Roy Blunt.
And I am going to yield to my friend, Mr. Markey, for an
introduction as well.
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have one new member
this year, who is Bill Luther from the State of Minnesota. The
two big stories in Minnesota this year, of course, Jesse ``The
Body'' Ventura becoming Governor and Bill Luther becoming a
member of this subcommittee.
And we only accept the very best Members of Congress on
this subcommittee. This is a winnowing process which has
ultimately identified you, Bill, as one of the superior Members
of Congress, and we very much look forward to having you as
part of this committee that does try to work as much as
possible with the chairman in a bipartisan fashion to craft
telecommunications legislation. We very much appreciate
everything you have--I know it was a big effort for you to get
on this committee and then to pick this subcommittee. We very
much appreciate that.
Mr. Tauzin. Welcome, Bill. You have much too much hair to
make it in the wrestling ring.
I also want to welcome Mr. Chip Pickering of Mississippi,
who is also in his second term and is a dear friend. And we are
delighted. This is his second big attempt to get on the
committee and he had to fight like a demon to get here. I want
to welcome him and I assure you, Mr. Markey, he is a another
bright star that is going to add a great deal to our committee.
And, Chip, welcome to the subcommittee.
And also I want to welcome as new to the subcommittee
Barbara Cubin, who has been on the full committee before, but
who has just joined our subcommittee. We all know Barbara's wit
and charm and great intelligence, and we welcome you, Barbara,
to our committee.
Mr. Markey. Is it her birthday today?
Mr. Tauzin. No, no birthdays.
And we also have two other members that I want to
acknowledge: Vito Fossella of New York, who will be joining the
subcommittee, and also Mr. Bob Ehrlich, who will be joining the
subcommittee.
So we have now filled in our ranks and we will begin our
work today. Our work today is to receive testimony on the
Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, as
introduced by, indeed, my good friend and colleague Mr.
Shimkus, and the Wireless Privacy Enhancement Act of 1999 as
introduced by, indeed my good friend again, the gentlelady from
New Mexico, Ms. Wilson.
The bills are based on two wireless bills introduced by
myself and others and considered by the Commerce Committee last
year: H.R. 3844, the E911 bill and H.R. 2369, the scanner bill.
Just to give you a little bit of history on these bills, H.R.
2369 passed the House on March 5, 1998, with a bipartisan vote
of 414 to 1. However, the Senate did not take the bill up last
year. H.R. 3844 was voted out of the committee on August 5,
1998 with a unanimous voice vote. And although Senator McCain
introduced a companion bill last summer, the bill was not
marked up before the Senate recess sine die for the 105th
Congress.
Over 60 million Americans carry wireless telephones. Many
carry them for safety reasons. People count on their phones to
be the lifeline in emergencies. A parent driving an interstate
highway with babies in the back seat draws comfort from knowing
that, if the car is involved in a crash, he or she can call 911
for help and an ambulance will be rolling in seconds. An older
American driving alone on a long trip feels safer knowing that,
if an accident occurs or sudden illness strikes, he or she can
use a wireless phone to dial 911 for help and State police will
be on the way. And hunters and fishermen in South Louisiana
know that, even in their pirogues and their duck blinds and
deer stands, if something goes wrong, they can dial 911 and
there should be help if there is a problem.
In many parts of our country, when the frantic parent or
the suddenly disabled older person or the hunter or fisherman
punches 911 on the wireless phone, nothing happens. In those
locations, 911 is not the emergency number. The ambulance and
the police will not come; you may be facing a terrible
emergency, but you are on your own because you don't know the
local number to call for help in that emergency.
This bill will help fix that problem by making 911 the
number to call in that emergency anytime, anywhere. The rule in
America ought to be uniform and simple: If you have an
emergency wherever you are, dial 911.
Regarding the Wireless Privacy Enhancement Act, last year's
hearing was astonishing. We learned that off-the-shelf scanners
are so easily modified to turn them into electronic stalking
devices that we actually did it within a few seconds here in
this committee room. And, as you remember, we all listened into
that private call Mr. Markey made plotting to overturn and
overthrow this committee. I want you to know that this bill
will not only fix that problem with the scanners, but we have
also reached an accord with Mr. Markey and we are now friends
again.
Although the current law and the FCC rules prohibit such
eavesdropping, the technology is readily available to intercept
cellular phone calls. We learned at the hearing that some
people believed that present law did not prohibit modifying
these scanners to turn them into eavesdropping devices. In
fact, a whole modification industry had developed that was
openly advertising in print media and over the Internet,
complete with easy-to-follow instructions. This is alarming,
and we look forward to hearing from our witnesses today as we
address these two issues.
As a side note, 1997 became the first year in American
telecommunications history that Americans bought more cordless
phones than wired phones. We have crossed a remarkable
threshold in the way in which Americans communicate. Now
cordless phones include those cordless phones used within the
house, but, nevertheless, I don't have to tell you,
intercepting conversations on those phones is even easier today
than intercepting conversations on the wireless cellular phone
in your automobile.
Today we hope to begin addressing those serious American
concerns about privacy and about safety, when it comes to using
this wonderful wireless technology.
I am pleased now to yield to my friend Mr. Markey for an
opening statement.
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
for calling this hearing today.
As more and more Americans use wireless phones, wireless
service becomes less and less perceived as an ancillary,
discretionary service. There's no question that every day, as
you have just pointed out, Mr. Chairman, that more consumers
will increasingly be relying on this technology for both
business and safety. A natural result of the proliferation of
this wireless phone technology is that many consumers will use
them to call for help and assistance in time of emergency.
Indeed, many wireless carriers actively promote their service
to consumers as safety devices. And this reemphasizes the need
to make this promise a reality for wireless communications.
One piece of legislation that has been recently
reintroduced is the wireless scanner legislation that the
committee and the House of Representatives overwhelmingly
approved last session. That legislation modifies wireless
scanner prohibitions contained in the Communications Act and
updates them to address digital wireless technologies. The
legislation also clarifies our intention that legally protected
frequencies should not be readily available to scanner
enthusiasts who buy scanners for entertainment but not to
eavesdrop on their neighbors.
The second piece of legislation before us this morning
seeks to enhance public safety by making 911 the national
public safety designated number. The bill also includes a
provision that I added to last year's wireless 911 legislation
to protect personal privacy. Information-rich location systems
that do wonders to help save lives on our Nation's roadways
also pose significant risks for compromising personal privacy
as the ability to locate and track individual's movements
throughout society become available.
The recent episode surrounding Intel's new Pentium III
microprocessor highlights how technology designed and developed
for one purpose, such as security, can significantly undermine
personal privacy simultaneously. Fortunately, technology itself
does not predetermine how other societal values are balanced in
products and services, and Intel quickly reversed course,
announcing it would redesign the chip to better balance between
commercial security and personal privacy issues.
The privacy amendment I offered last year, which is
contained in the bill again this morning, seeks to balance
commercial public safety and personal privacy issues by
ensuring that location information will not be used except for
911 emergency purposes or with the express prior approval of
commercial for any ancillary services that wireless carriers
may commercially offer utilizing the location technology. I am
glad that the industry supports this legislative approach and I
am hopeful that the committee can move quickly to approve both
pieces of legislation.
On a final note, Mr. Chairman, the legislation this year
does not contain provisions addressing tower siting on Federal
property. I hope that we can continue to pursue issues related
to this as the year proceeds. In particular, the utter lack of
common sense, expedited process to place towers where there are
currently pressing public safety concerns such as Rock Creek
Park, is mystifying. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the
government ought to be able to figure out how to accommodate
towers on park land where the Park Service itself has
constructed buildings, has a gigantic parking lot, and a
stadium tennis court in the middle of an urban area. These are
not wilderness areas. They are multiple-use, urban green space
whose essential character will not be compromised by an
occasional tower.
Mr. Chairman, you and I have worked together on this issue,
and I think that Rock Creek actually serves as a perfect
example of what has to be done in order to change----
Mr. Tauzin. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Markey. I would be glad to yield.
Mr. Tauzin. I am confused. We had a hearing a year ago and
I was told at that hearing--I think you were there and you got
the same assurances--that that would be solved in 60 days. Have
60 days passed? Have I missed something?
Mr. Markey. I think we used the old budgetary counting on
this, Okay? And I don't think they have upgraded at the Park
Service to use the new, modern, accurate numbers that we are
using in government today. And you know what I recommend to
you, Mr. Chairman? Maybe you and I and any other members,
especially those in the Bell Atlantic service like Mr. Wynn,
maybe we could pay a visit out to this facility, so that we can
see what the difficulty is in making sure that Rock Creek has,
in fact, accommodated the needs of consumers.
Mr. Tauzin. Well, I'd like to go with you, Mr. Markey, but
what would happen if we got mugged? Who would we call? How
would we get help?
Mr. Markey. It is a good question. I think Mr. Wynn would
probably be able to help us out in that situation.
Mr. Tauzin. Okay.
Mr. Markey. I have great confidence in his ability to
protect us in this instance.
Mr. Wynn. If I may interject, I refer you to Delegate
Norton.
Mr. Markey. So perhaps we could do that, Mr. Chairman? Take
a little field trip some morning?
Mr. Tauzin. I think that is a good idea.
Mr. Markey. Great.
Mr. Tauzin. I thank you, Mr. Markey.
Next I would like to recognize the vice chairman of our
subcommittee, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Oxley, for an
opening statement.
Mr. Oxley. Mr. Chairman, I waive my opening statement.
Mr. Tauzin. All right. Let me do it this way: Are there any
other members who wish to make an opening statement? The
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Stearns.
Mr. Stearns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
When we worked on the emergency 911 bill during the last
Congress, I think all of us here believed that it was a good
work product to alleviate the disparities in the emergency
system for wireless communication. Unfortunately, as often
happens here in Congress, we didn't think through some of the
localism issues in the bill, like granting wireless providers
access to Federal sites to deploy necessary equipment for
transmission of their networks. It is a necessary imperative to
allow our local cities and counties to play a primary role in
tower siting issues that affect their local communities. At the
same time, by removing the Federal leasing provisions of the
bill, we may have undercut the necessary funding to support a
seamless 911 system for wireless throughout the Nation.
Now in the original bill, Mr. Chairman, in the last
Congress, H.R. 3844, the funds for Federal leasing would have
been used to upgrade the existing public safety answering
points so that emergency calls could be properly and
effectively routed to police, fire, and health emergency
response providers in order to avoid situations where a citizen
faces a dire emergency and they cannot use their wireless
device because of dead zones. The funding would also have been
used for grant and research funding. Under this new version, we
will only require the FCC to lend technical support to the
States in the development of statewide PSAP upgrade plans
through consultations with interested parties.
My fear is that a national seamless emergency 911 system
will be delayed through difficulties establishing the necessary
upgraded standards. I foresee that certain States will develop
more efficient and orderly systems while others lag behind
which, unfortunately, may lead to continued tragic situations
where emergency personnel cannot reach those in distress. I
hope, as we proceed to pass this legislation through our
committee, more thought can be focused on resolving some of
these possible inequities in deploying a 911 system.
I would also like to share the concern that my colleagues
raised during the process last Congress regarding privacy
standards. That is, any technology developed and put in place
to locate the wireless user for emergency services is not used
for commercial purposes. I believe such privacy protection for
these situations must be required.
One provision that I think is greatly important in this new
version is the extension of liability protection for those
wireless providers who have to carry emergency calls on their
systems and help provide emergency services. Wireless providers
should have equal protection under the law as wireline
providers do.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I believe the second bill under
discussion, the Wireless Privacy Enhancement Act, will be
effective as it was in the last Congress, after making the
necessary changes to protect the needs of the amateur radio
community and the needs of news organizations and others who
rely on scanners to perform their duties.
I look forward to both bills being marked up, out of our
subcommittee and the full Commerce Committee, so they can reach
the House floor very soon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you very much. The gentlelady from
California, Ms. Eshoo.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is nice to be back,
and welcome to the new members of the committee. I think that,
speaking from my own experience, that this is going to be an e-
ticket for you. This is a great subcommittee that has really
produced some very important pieces of legislation and I am
proud to be a part of the subcommittee and work with you, Mr.
Chairman, and all the members that are here.
I think that this is important legislation that we are
having hearings on today, the two bills. Of course, we haven't
had too much time to see them because we are just starting up
but, nonetheless, they are important for many reasons for the
people in our country.
We have been told that the Wireless Privacy Enhancement
Act, which will protect the wireless telephone user, is
essentially the same bill this committee and the full House
passed overwhelmingly in the last Congress. This being the
case, then the bill should receive quick approval.
The second piece of legislation we are addressing today is
the Wireless Communication and Public Safety Act of 1999. These
titles get longer and longer, don't they? It is legislation
that, simply put--I think in many people's views--this is going
to save lives.
This safety legislation accomplishes two important public
policy goals. First, it designates a national universal number
of 911 and, second, it instructs the FCC to do more in making
this critical issue a priority. While this legislation
accomplishes these goals, I don't really think it goes far
enough in addressing the E911 problem. I think that it is
significantly less substantive than the bill we passed last
year.
Mr. Chairman, last year you were a strong advocate for
addressing this problem of improved emergency care and cash--
crash prevention. I don't know if we want to get into ``cash
prevention.''
That is a good slip of the tongue, whatever that means.
Through your own personal experiences as well as the
knowledge you have gained in studying the issue, you became a
champion for the cause. I know you are committed to providing
real solutions to the problem. So I think that this safety
legislation is important and it should be passed, but I also
believe that we need to do more and I hope, as further
legislation on this issue is introduced, that we can count on
your support.
Mr. Tauzin. I thank the gentlelady, especially for her warm
words, again, of welcoming.
Indeed, I want to welcome you all again to this year's
work. We have got a great subcommittee, great new members, and
we are going to have a lot to do, so hang on tight.
Any other members wishing to make an opening statement? The
author of the bill, Mr. Shimkus, for an opening statement.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to thank
you for allowing me to put my name on this bill. This bill is
slightly changed. We have addressed the privacy concerns. We
have addressed the tower sitings. There may be some
shortcomings. I think those shortcomings come with the fact
that, with the tower siting issue, there is a loss of revenue
and our ability to do some others things that were addressed.
But this is legislation that can move and it is legislation
that everyone's name really could be on it since there was a
bipartisan consensus that we really want it. I want to thank
the chairman for allowing me to be the named individual.
Last Congress, we heard hearings about lives that were
saved. And that is what this legislation is designed to do, is
to save lives. I even recounted my story of late one night
driving back from the district, making a call on my cell phone.
I look forward to the trip to Rock Creek Park if and when there
is a tower there.
There is another problem, Mr. Chairman. Unless we pass this
legislation, we will not be sure what number to call. Will it
be 911? Will it be *55? Will it be numerous other numbers that
are across this country? And that will be addressed in this
legislation establishing one number nationwide. I think we are
going to hear testimony to that effect, and I thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Tauzin. Will the gentleman yield for a second?
Mr. Shimkus. I will.
Mr. Tauzin. Just to point out the other incredibly
important safety aspect of the gentleman's legislation; that is
that wireless phones should be locatable. It will do us little
good to call 911 if, on a wireless phone, emergency help can't
find you. This bill will provide that capability and will help
make sure that, when someone dials 911 and emergency help is
obtained, they know where to go. It, hopefully, will lead to
the day when our automobiles will be smart enough to
communicate directly when we have an accident with emergency
help. So I want to thank the gentleman for agreeing to lead
this effort this year and encourage him in the legislation.
Any additional opening statements on this side? How about
this side? Any members? The gentlelady, Ms. Wilson, the author
of the privacy bill, Ms. Wilson, for an opening statement.
Ms. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also am very pleased
to be the person who is trying to coordinate this effort this
year and I am very pleased that there is such a large number of
members of this subcommittee who are cosponsoring this again
this year.
Sixty-eight million Americans have some form of cell phone
or digital phone or those new personal communication services
that give you everything from video to paging and messaging and
caller ID, sometimes on something as small as a wristwatch. But
the law has not kept up with the technology and that is what
this bill is intended to do.
People expect cell phones to be private. They act as if
they are. But they are not. And while Mr. Markey was here last
year plotting the overthrow of the committee while everyone
else tuned in, I was back in New Mexico learning the same
lesson in a little bit different way when, after my second
child was born, I heard voices coming from the baby's room,
which happened to be my neighbor's phone being picked up on the
baby monitor.
The modification of scanners to allow eavesdropping is not
clearly prohibited by law and that is what this bill does. It
updates the scanner manufacturing ban to new wireless
frequencies. It prohibits the modification of scanners to
intercept calls. It makes it illegal to intentionally intercept
or divulge the contents of private radio communications. And it
increases the penalties for violators and requires the FCC to
investigate rather than the confusing system now where it is
either the Department of Justice or the FBI.
In another place and another time, another context, it was
once said that gentlemen shouldn't read each other's mail.
Well, gentlemen shouldn't listen to each other's cell calls
either. And that is what this bill is about.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, Ms. Wilson.
Do you represent Roswell, New Mexico?
Ms. Wilson. No, sir, I do not.
Mr. Tauzin. Okay. I wondered if maybe those voices you were
hearing were coming from somewhere else, though. I thank the
gentlelady for agreeing to lead this effort and we welcome our
first panel.
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Barbara Cubin, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Wyoming
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the first of what I'm sure
will be a series of insightful, helpful, and interesting hearings on
telecommunications and technology issues. I am excited to be on the
Subcommittee and look forward to working with you and the other members
of the Subcommittee on these and other issues.
Wireless telephone service is the fastest growing segment of
telecommunications services. Cellular telephones are so popular now
that they are actually being sold in 7-11 and WalMart.
Wyoming, being one of the most rural states in the U.S., benefits
greatly from wireless telephone service. Although much of the state is
made up of ``dead zones,'' much of the state has partial or full
service, making it possible to at least make a phone call from your
vehicle when you're traversing the vastness of the state.
Many people in rural areas have a wireless telephone out of
necessity. People in the West may travel 50 miles or more without
seeing a town with a pay phone. Wireless phones are useful for calling
in traffic accidents and crime reports. The most important use,
however, is for personal safety.
That is why I believe the Emergency 911 number must be universal.
For those who travel from one state to the next, it would be virtually
impossible to remember another state's emergency number if it weren't
911. Without the universal 911 number, response times for critical
emergencies would be delayed; lives would be endangered.
I supported the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act when
it was introduced by Chairman Tauzin during the last Congress and I
intend to support it again in the 106th Congress.
The privacy of wireless communications is extremely important and
an issue I am very interested in. Although the airwaves are public,
phone calls over those airwaves are and should continue to be private.
If current laws do not clearly state that eavesdropping is a serious
crime, we must act to ensure that the law is crystal clear in this
regard.
The Wireless Privacy Act, of which I am an original cosponsor, does
just that. The bill makes it very clear that modifying a scanner to
listen in on wireless communications is illegal and calls on the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to strengthen its rules to
prevent the modification of scanning receivers.
The two bills which we are here to discuss today are thoughtful
ways in which to address the problems associated with wireless
communications. I commend the Chairman and Congresswoman Wilson for
their work on these bills and look forward to their passage.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding what looks to be a very
insightful hearing. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tom Bliley, Chairman, Committee on Commerce
I commend Chairman Tauzin for holding this hearing today. It is the
first hearing of the 106th Congress in the Commerce Committee.
The hearing represents a direction that you are going to see early
in this Congress. We are going to spend the early months moving bills
that had wide support but didn't quite make it through last Congress.
Today, we are going to hear about two bills that the Subcommittee
and the Full Committee considered in depth last Congress. They are
important initiatives that deserve our attention.
It is noteworthy that as we approach the Third Anniversary of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, we deal with two bills that promote
consumer welfare. The Telecom Act was about and is succeeding in
bringing the benefits of competition to consumers. Consumers are
benefitting from lower prices, better services, greater innovation and
new technologies because of the Telecom Act.
The first bill before us deals with wireless communications
privacy. The bill has two fundamental purposes: close some perceived
loop-holes with current privacy protections and make it more difficult
for consumers to alter scanners for illegal purposes.
The scanner bill is properly balanced to increase the privacy
protections afforded wireless users while not infringing on reasonable
use of scanners. For instance, we want cellular and P-C-S
communications protected from interception. Being from Richmond, I know
we have a few NASCAR fans in our nation. Scanners can be used to
enhance the racing experience and we have taken care of that in the
bill.
The Federal government can only do so much to protect privacy. But
when we have an opportunity to promote privacy without infringing on
other legitimate interests, we should move forward. We all have an
interest in protecting personal privacy. If we do not act to protect
privacy of personal communications, we all stand to lose. Recent
reports indicate that Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman may move to
Australia because they want more privacy for their family than can be
offered in Hollywood. This is not too surprising given the nature of
Hollywood, but this decision comes just two months after a photographer
allegedly intercepted a cellular communication between the two. Is this
a coincidence?
The second bill--wireless E-9-1-1--is a slimmed down version of a
bill we moved last year. We reluctantly removed the federal land siting
provisions, since those proved controversial to land managers. While I
don't mind a good fight, I don't want to hold up efforts on setting a
national 911 number for emergency calls and encouraging the rapid
deployment of wireless services. If necessary, we will revisit the
removed portions at a later time.
The bill before us will do a number of things to help consumers and
wireless companies promote public safety. For instance, promoting a
universal emergency telephone number for consumers to use will reduce
confusion and improve emergency care. As consumers become more
untethered, we can ensure that they don't have to be unsure whether the
proper number to summon someone to their rescue is ``9-1-1'' or ``star-
7-7'' or ``pound 5-5''. Dialing one number will bring the desired
response. The bill also properly retains the privacy protections and
liability parity provisions from last year's bill, in order to provide
the appropriate incentives to wireless carriers to aggressively build
out these networks that can do so much to promote public safety and,
convenience.
On a related point, I'd note that Virginia Governor Gilmore
recently announced members to serve on the Wireless E-9-1-1 Service
Board. The board is intended to address funding and safety issues for
emergency calls made by wireless communications users in Virginia. I
commend Governor Gilmore for his leadership on promoting wireless
safety. I hope the witnesses will be able to provide a picture of what
the status is in other States on deploying a communications emergency
infrastructure.
I thank the Chairman.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Illinois
Thank you Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend you for bringing to
national attention two very important pieces of legislation: the
Wireless Communications and Public Safety Enhancement Act and the
Wireless Privacy Enhancement Act.
The Wireless Communications and Public Safety Enhancement Act
focuses on a vital public health issue that deserves national
attention. Most Americans are not aware that 911 is not a universal
emergency number, many states have designated other emergency numbers
within their jurisdiction. Hence, wireless users who roam from city to
city or state to state are sometimes required to learn each state's 911
surrogates.
In the age where technology is evolving and wireless telephones are
prevalent in our society, it is important that in emergency situations
wireless customers have access to enhanced 911 or E911. Having access
to E911 allows wireless phone users to dial 911 and have the call
routed to an attendant who has information on the caller's telephone
number and location. Unfortunately, as we sit here today most wireless
telecommunications services do not have E911 capabilities. On the other
hand, emergency attendants that do have access to 911, usually lack the
capability of determining a user's location. Therefore, in an emergency
situation or a life threatening situation a wireless user who dials 911
may not receive proper medical attention because an operator cannot
determine his exact location.
The Wireless Communications and Public Safety Enhancement Act
addresses this problem by enacting 911 as a universal emergency number.
This Act will save lives by reducing the response time for emergency
assistance.
The timeliness of the Wireless Privacy Enhancement Act is important
in the realm of today's technology because it makes illegal the
interception or disclosure of certain radio communication. We are
embarking on a technological revolution as we approach the millennium
and the lines of technology and privacy have become blurred. The
increasing availability of digital scanners allows the interception of
cellular signals. Therefore, this Act is needed to address this matter.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Thomas C. Sawyer, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Ohio
Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing today on the
Wireless Privacy Enhancement Act and the Wireless Communications and
Public Safety Enhancement Act. I also want to thank our witnesses for
coming to testify before us.
As has been highlighted these bills passed this subcommittee and
the full Committee last year with overwhelming bipartisan support.
Unfortunately, however, they were not enacted into law and that is why
we are reconsidering them today. I plan to keep my remarks short so we
can hear from our witnesses. However, I want to make a short statement
regarding the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Enhancement
Act, otherwise known as the E-911 bill.
Some studies have shown that many Americans buy cellular phones for
peace of mind. On any given day, more than 80,000 emergency cellular
calls are made. However, if cellular users are unable to make or
complete cellular phone calls in emergency situations because of ``dead
zones'' then the phone is of no use to them for that specific purpose.
Similarly, if in an emergency situation an injured victim's location
cannot be quickly and easily identified then the cell phone is of
little use. In these instances, many accident victims' injuries were
made much more serious by the delay.
The E-911 bill seeks to promote greater public safety by creating a
national uniform wireless 911 emergency system that will allow for end-
to-end cellular phone transmissions. Cellular companies are given
liability protections from lawsuits in cases where emergency calls are
not connected. I hope this protection encourages them to build out
their networks to reduce the number of dead zones so emergency response
units have the ability to respond to emergency calls in a timely
manner. Also, the FCC is required to work with state and local
governments to ensure that Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs)
develop effective statewide E-911 plans. Finally, cellular users will
be given privacy assurances that their personal information will not be
distributed without their prior consent.
Mr. Chairman, I cosponsored this legislation in the 105th Congress.
I have agreed to cosponsor it again because I believe it helps to
enhance public safety. I look forward to working with you, Mr. Shimkus
and our other colleagues to pass this legislation through this
Committee and the House, and I hope the President will have the
opportunity to sign it into law.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Texas
Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing on wireless
communications privacy and public safety. Today we are here to discuss
two pieces of legislation the Wireless Privacy Enhancement Act and the
Wireless Communication and Public Safety Act or E-911. I support each
of these bills.
E-911 is of great interest to me, as a state legislator I helped to
create the 911 emergency network in Harris County, and now as a Member
of Congress working on enhanced 911 seems to be the next logical step.
While I support the Wireless Communication and Public Safety Act.
However, I was disappointed to find out that the Wireless Communication
and Public Safety Fund was pulled from this E-911 legislation. I
believe this fund would have gone a long way in demonstrating the
federal support and commitment to E-911. I just hope that we can find
alternative funding sources to upgrade our PSAPs and for the continued
research and development of automatic crash notification systems.
While the leasing provision and the trust fund have been pulled
from the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act it still has the
essentials to start to implement a national end-to-end emergency
wireless communications system. It still has the essential backbone
provision to designate 911 as the universal emergency number for both
wireline and wireless communications. It removes the barrier of the
lack of liability parity between wireline and wireless communications,
and it also attempts to address our privacy concerns with respect to
the use and access to location information. Two weeks ago I drove from
Houston to Washington DC and learned first hand the need for a uniform
emergency number.
These are the building blocks upon which the states with their
respective E-911 plans to upgrade their Public Safety Answering Points
and emergency networks can build upon. Back in my home city of Houston,
we have already taken many steps to implement E-911 services. I am
proud of what the city and the Greater Harris County 9-1-1 Emergency
Network has accomplished and hope that other cities and localities
would use Houston as a good model for E-911 services.
I just want to reiterate to all of my colleagues the importance of
this E-911 legislation. Let's remember that injury is the fourth
leading cause of death for persons between the ages of one and forty-
four. With enhanced 911 services, we will be instantly notified of when
and where a crash has occurred, and to be able to provide accurate and
up-to-date information on the severity of an accident. E-911 will save
lives.
Again, thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing.
Mr. Tauzin. If the panel would please assemble, we will
commence our work today.
Let me introduce them first en masse and then we will
introduce them separately. Mr. Thomas Sugrue, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau Chief, Federal Communications
Commission is here today. Captain Joe Hanna of the Richardson
Texas Police Department is here on behalf of the Association of
Public Safety Communications Officials; Ms. Maureen Finnerty,
Associate Director of Parks Operations and Education,
Department of the Interior, who will tell us what is really
happening in Rock Creek Park; Mr. Thomas Wheeler, President and
CEO, Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association, here in
Washington, who has been a great help to this committee and in
these hearings; Mr. James Dempsey, Senior Counsel, Center for
Democracy and Technology, here in Washington, and Michael
Amarosa, Vice President of Public Affairs for TruePosition,
Incorporated, New York, New York.
Gentlemen and ladies, we are, indeed, pleased to have you
here. Welcome. Thank you, again, for assisting us in this work.
And we will begin by hearing from Mr. Thomas Sugrue, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau Chief for the FCC. Mr. Sugrue.
STATEMENTS OF THOMAS J. SUGRUE, WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS
BUREAU CHIEF, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; CAPTAIN JOSEPH
L. HANNA, RICHARDSON TEXAS POLICE DEPARTMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE
ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC-SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS OFFICIALS
INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED; MAUREEN FINNERTY, ASSOCIATE
DIRECTOR, PARKS OPERATIONS AND EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR; THOMAS E. WHEELER, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, CELLULAR TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION;
JAMES X. DEMPSEY, SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL, CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY
AND TECHNOLOGY; AND MICHAEL AMAROSA, VICE PRESIDENT OF PUBLIC
AFFAIRS, TRUEPOSITION, INCORPORATED
Mr. Sugrue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, and
good morning to the members of the subcommittee. I am Tom
Sugrue, the new Chief of the Wireless Bureau at the FCC. I
assumed this new position 2 weeks ago, and I am delighted to
accept this invitation at the beginning of my tenure and to
join this distinguished panel to address the issues that are
raised by the legislation you are considering today.
I would like to begin by noting that, although I am new to
the tasks facing me as Chief of the Wireless Bureau, the issues
this legislation is addressing are very important to me in my
longer-term job as the father of two daughters. My wife and I
decided to join the ranks of wireless subscribers when our
older daughter celebrated her 16th birthday, got her driver's
license, and headed for the Beltway. The Sugrue family doubled
our cellular holdings when our second daughter turned 16 and
also became a much more mobile member of the household.
Like many families, we became wireless subscribers in large
part because of our concerns about our children's safety. As a
dad worrying about my kids, I understand the importance of
being able to get through to emergency help on your wireless
phone. Our family has been fortunate in not having to face such
emergencies, discounting the frequent occasions when daughter
No. 2, who has no sense of direction, calls to report that she
is lost on her way to her destination and is driving around
aimlessly. But, other then that, I take great comfort that, if
a serious emergency were to occur, my children would be able to
reach help by using the cellular phone.
These concerns about safety underscore the fact that we
need to have wireless emergency communication systems that
work. We need to have 911 service available for everybody all
the time and everywhere in the Nation.
With these issues in mind, I would like to make four brief
points about the matters the subcommittee will be considering
as you review the legislation before you. First, the use of
wireless services in emergencies has grown dramatically and
that growth is very likely to continue. According to industry
estimates, wireless phones are used to make 98,000 emergency
calls every day. Wireless systems, as well as equipment and
facilities used by emergency service providers, must be
designed to accommodate this growth and they must be engineered
to deliver reliable, effective service.
Second, the Commission, the public safety community,
consumer groups, the wireless industry, the Congress, and, in
particular, members of this subcommittee, have all taken
important steps toward the goal of ensuring that every wireless
911 call goes through. Our rules for enhancing the features of
wireless 911 service have been adopted in large part based on
the joint commitment of all these players to realizing the goal
of ubiquitous, highly reliable wireless emergency
communications. This is an area where I believe we are all
pretty much on the same page as far as goals. That we really do
agree on where we want to get to.
Third, having said that, as always, the devil is in the
details and serious issues remain on details, on the means of
getting to where we want to go. For example, to cite some of my
concerns, the deployment of the first phase of wireless 911
enhancements has not progressed as rapidly as we would like. We
also need to develop more effective ways to improve the
reliability of wireless 911, especially in rural areas.
Moreover, the Commission must ensure that our phase two
location rules are applied in a competitively neutral fashion
while, at the same time, ensuring that those location
technologies are deployed as soon as possible so consumers
start getting the benefits of those advanced services. The
Commission is committed to responding to concerns about the
implementation of E911 and we want to provide guidance and
leadership to the industry and the public safety community in
working to give consumers even better wireless 911 services.
Finally, and most importantly, the legislation currently
before you presents an opportunity for the Congress to take
actions that will promote the development of higher quality,
ubiquitous, end-to-end wireless communications infrastructure
to meet safety needs.
In some of these areas, the Commission's authority to
address all the issues may be open to question. Accordingly, it
is appropriate in my view that if there is to be a national
policy that prevails, the Congress should enact legislation.
Among those areas are the establishment of 911 as a universal
emergency telephone number throughout the Nation; addressing
the concerns raised by wireless carriers that they should
receive protection from liability under Federal and State laws
in their provision of wireless services; clarifying both the
protected treatment of location information under the
Communications Act and the authority of wireless carriers to
divulge such information to emergency service providers; and
deciding on appropriate and effective ways to protect the
privacy of wireless phones by broadening and strengthening
prohibitions against certain uses of scanning receivers.
All of these issues have important impacts on the pace and
the scope of 911 deployment and I commend the subcommittee for
taking them up at this time. Again, I would like to thank the
subcommittee for this opportunity to provide my comments. I
look forward to working with you and with your excellent staffs
as we go forward on this project and I will try to answer any
questions you might have for me. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Thomas J. Sugrue follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas J. Sugrue, Chief, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission
i. introduction
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Good morning. I am
Thomas Sugrue, Chief of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau at the
Federal Communications Commission. I welcome this opportunity to
comment on legislation designed to promote public safety by making
improvements in wireless 911 service, and to report to you on the
Commission's efforts to improve the quality and delivery of wireless
911 services throughout the Nation.\1\ I am also pleased to comment on
the legislation designed to enhance wireless privacy by expanding and
strengthening the prohibitions against the manufacture and distribution
of certain scanning receivers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The comments and views expressed in this Statement are offered
in my capacity as Chief of the Commission's Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau and may not necessarily represent the views of individual FCC
Commissioners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. importance of wireless enhanced 911 service
Wireless telephones have evolved in a few years from a business
tool or personal luxury installed primarily in cars to a familiar
pocket-sized way to send and receive calls almost anywhere. More than
67 million cellular, PCS, and other wireless phones are now in use in
the United States and their number continues to grow rapidly. One of
the most compelling reasons why Americans purchase wireless phones is
safety, especially in emergencies. Having a wireless phone at hand
allows one to call for help, both for oneself and for others, when and
where help is most needed.
The number most Americans dial in emergencies is 911. Since the 911
emergency number was introduced in 1968, it has become the most widely
recognized and used emergency number, the number almost all Americans
know to call when they need help fast. Moreover, in the case of
wireline calls, most 911 systems and Public Safety Answering Points
(PSAPs) have been upgraded to enhanced 911 (E911), which adds features
that permit more efficient and speedy response by emergency personnel.
For example, an emergency 911 call made from a wireline phone is
typically routed to an attendant at the most appropriate PSAP, along
with the caller's telephone number, which can be called back. In
addition, E911 includes Automatic Location Identification (ALI)
capability, which informs emergency services personnel of the location
of the call. Over 89 percent of wireline phones in the United States
are served by 911, and almost 85 percent of wireline 911 services
include some form of E911.
Unfortunately, E911 has not been available for wireless calls. Even
in locations where wireline E911 capability is in place, the attendant
at a PSAP generally does not automatically receive information on the
telephone number of a wireless phone or, most importantly, its
location. This can be critical in emergencies, because the mobile phone
user may not know his or her location. Even if the location is known,
the caller may not be able to describe it adequately or accurately to
the PSAP attendant. Providing information on the location of an
emergency rapidly and accurately allows emergency organizations to
respond more quickly and effectively.
iii. what the commission has done to promote wireless e911
The Commission, of course, has set aside 911 as a national
emergency number for wireline phones. In the E911 rulemaking docket (CC
Docket No. 94-102), the Commission has acted, in response to requests
by public safety organizations, consumer groups, and the wireless
industry, to require wireless carriers to deliver 911 calls and to meet
a schedule for introducing the features of enhanced 911. Effective
April 1, 1998, wireless carriers were required to implement Phase I of
this schedule, provided certain conditions were met. Under Phase I
rules, carriers must provide automatic number identification (ANI) and
cell site information for 911 calls to PSAP. Phase II, which requires
the deployment of the capability to determine the location of callers
(with accuracy to within about 400 feet), is scheduled for October 1,
2001. These Phase I and Phase II requirements apply only if the carrier
receives a request for such services from a PSAP capable of receiving
and using the enhanced services, and a mechanism for the recovery of
costs relating to the provision of such services is in place.
Since those rules were adopted, we have seen substantial, rapid
progress in E911 technology. Phase I technologies are commercially
available. Many manufacturers are competing to provide innovative ways
to satisfy the Phase II location requirements. Phase II trials have
been successfully conducted in New Jersey, in Denver, Colorado, and
elsewhere. Increasingly, automatic location capability has been
recognized as a major new business opportunity, both here and in other
countries around the world. There is a growing consensus that it is
technologically possible and achievable to meet the Commission's Phase
II ALI requirements by the 2001 deadline.
But there are still many issues and obstacles to be overcome.
Actual E911 deployment has been slow for Phase I. According to a recent
survey taken by the National Emergency Number Association (NENA), only
7 percent of PSAPs have upgraded to Phase I. According to the NENA
survey, public safety entities point to several reasons for the slow
implementation of Phase I. The need for PSAP equipment upgrades and the
lack of funding to pay for those upgrades are the principal reasons
given by PSAPs for the delayed implementation of Phase I services. We
understand that, in some cases, there are negotiations taking place
between the carriers and PSAPs as to the appropriate technology to
deploy. In any case, wireless E911 is clearly not operating in most of
the Nation, almost a year after the Commission's rules took effect.
What can be done next, to make universal E911 happen on schedule?
We intend to remain active in taking the steps necessary to ensure
that the goals of the Commission's E911 rulemaking are realized. For
example, we will continue to work with the wireless industry and
consumer groups to develop more effective ways to improve the
reliability of wireless 911, especially in rural areas. We also will be
taking steps to help ensure that the Commission's Phase II rules are
applied in a competitively and technologically neutral way that
encourages use of the best automatic location methods, whether they are
located in the carriers' networks or in handsets. If issues arise
regarding implementation of Phase I and Phase II of the Commission's
E911 rules, we will place a priority on our being responsive to these
concerns because we believe that continuing guidance and leadership by
the Commission will play an important role in providing consumers with
even better wireless 911 services.
iv. important role of e911 legislation
These and other efforts by the Commission are to support the
overarching goal of improving public safety by helping to make 911 work
effectively for all wireless callers and to make 911 the universal
emergency number across the United States.
But moving forward to making universal, enhanced 911 a reality for
people using wireless phones everywhere in the Nation requires efforts
by many businesses, agencies, and individuals, including State and
local governments, local wireline carriers, and equipment
manufacturers, not just wireless carriers. And achieving the necessary
coordination among all of these necessary partners in the E911 program
raises a range of questions about whether the Commission has the
authority or the tools to address all of these issues.
It is in the areas where the Congress believes a national policy
should prevail, but where the Commission's authority may be limited or
uncertain, that we think legislation may be helpful in establishing
nationwide policies and programs. We believe it is appropriate for the
Congress to make these judgments and take steps at the national level
to move toward the goal of a more ubiquitous emergency wireless system.
The pending legislation has played a valuable role in focussing
attention on several key issues that may require action in order to
advance policy goals we all share regarding the effective provision of
wireless 911 services.
Universal Emergency Telephone Number.
The Commission has set aside 911 as a national emergency number and
required wireless carriers to forward all 911 calls to PSAPs. But
wireless industry groups have expressed concern that some State and
local jurisdictions use other three-digit or seven-digit numbers to
route wireless emergency calls to central answering points. Moreover,
other local authorities have not established any centralized means of
handling emergency calls, relying instead on different numbers to route
calls to the police, fire departments, and emergency medical personnel.
These are matters that have historically been left to State and
local authorities. The Commission, to date, has not asserted the right
to impose such obligations on the thousands of such authorities across
the Nation. Instead, we have chosen to limit our 911 rules to wireless
carriers.
The proposed legislation recognizes the importance of examining the
best means to ensure that wireless callers are not thwarted in their
efforts to receive assistance in emergency situations. I believe the
legislation takes a positive step in giving the Commission
responsibility for designating 911 as the universal emergency number.
We would welcome the opportunity to work with the staff of the
Subcommittee in order to gain a better sense of the role the Commission
would be expected to play, following the designation of 911 as the
universal emergency number, in achieving the congressional goal of
implementing the use of 911 by State and local jurisdictions across the
Nation.
Parity of Protection for Provision or Use of Wireless Service.
The Commission has also been asked by the wireless industry to
preempt State tort laws governing wireless carrier liability for
delivery of 911 and other calls. This is, again, an area that
historically has been left to State legislators, public utility
commissions, and courts. Emergency calls are almost always local in
nature, not interstate communication.
On the other hand, wireless carriers have frequently identified the
lack of liability protection as an impediment to their implementation
of E911 service. While we believe there is a reasonable case to be made
in favor of harmonizing the rights and responsibilities of wireless and
wireline carriers in this area, the Commission has been properly
cautious about exerting its policy judgments over those of State and
local authorities.
Here, too, legislation to set national policies could help resolve
liability issues in ways that meet the legitimate needs of wireless
carriers, local and State governments, and--more importantly--wireless
users.
Authority To Provide Location Information.
The proposed legislation clarifies that location information
concerning the user of a commercial mobile service is to be treated as
Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) requirements of the
Communications Act. The proposed legislation also clarifies that
carriers will not be in violation of those requirements if they provide
location information in an emergency situation to public safety and
similar organizations and certain family members.
I recognize that wireless carriers have raised concerns regarding
possible conflicts between the CPNI and ALI requirements, and I thus
believe it will be helpful to clarify that the statute protects
location information as CPNI, but that this information may be released
in emergency situations to certain designated persons.
The Subcommittee is to be complimented for its efforts to address
these critical issues to help ensure a universal 911 emergency service
infrastructure. We stand ready to provide further comments and
assistance as the Congress moves forward in considering these issues.
v. wireless privacy enhancement act
On February 5, 1997, William Kennard, who was then the Commission's
General Counsel, testified before this Subcommittee at an oversight
hearing on cellular privacy. At that time he reported that, consistent
with the Telephone Disclosure and Dispute Resolution Act (TDDRA), the
Commission has established rules denying equipment authorization for
any scanning receiver that is capable of:
receiving transmissions in the frequencies allocated to the
domestic cellular radio service;
readily being altered by the user to receive transmissions in
such frequencies; or
being equipped with decoders that convert digital cellular
transmissions to analog voice audio.
Further, the Commission's rules prohibit the manufacture and import of
such scanning receivers as of April 26, 1994.
I am pleased to report that, subsequent to the oversight hearing,
the Commission took a number of actions to increase awareness of these
regulations and step up our enforcement efforts. For example, the
Commission issued a notice advising the public that modification of
scanners to receive cellular frequencies is illegal and took action
against organizations that were offering services to modify scanners,
ensuring that such activity ceased. The Commission has also worked with
manufacturers to better assure that scanners are not capable of being
readily altered to receive cellular signals.
In May 1998 the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) in ET Docket 98-76 to propose amendments to its rules to further
ensure that scanning receivers do not receive cellular signals. The
NPRM proposes new requirements to ensure that scanning receivers do not
pick up cellular signals when tuned to frequencies outside the cellular
frequency bands. The NPRM also proposes to require scanning receivers
to be ``hardened'' to prevent modifications to receive cellular
frequencies, such as requiring scanning receivers to be designed so
that the tuning and control circuitry is inaccessible and attempts to
modify the device are likely to render it inoperable. The NPRM also
proposes other changes to close perceived loopholes in current
regulations, such as prohibiting the marketing of scanning receiver
kits.
A wide range of comments on the NPRM were submitted by
manufacturers, cellular service providers, and scanner enthusiasts. It
is my understanding that the Commission plans to adopt a Report and
Order implementing these proposed rules with appropriate revisions in
the near future.
While the Commission is strengthening its rules for scanning
receivers, there are limits to what can be done under the current law.
For example, Section 302(d) of the Communications Act specifically
authorizes the Commission to prohibit scanning receivers that tune the
cellular radio service. The statute does not expressly authorize the
Commission to prohibit scanning receivers that cover frequency bands
used by other commercial mobile radio services, such as Personal
Communications Service. Nor does it authorize the Commission to
prohibit scanners that are capable of decoding digital signals used by
paging services and specialized mobile radio services. I believe that
new legislation may be advisable if the Congress finds that the
Commission needs to take action to prohibit scanners that tune or
decode services other than the cellular radio service.
We note that the Wireless Privacy Enhancement Act would make
certain amendments to Section 705 of the Communications Act. In light
of the close relationship of the wiretapping and related provisions of
the criminal code, and at the request of the Department of Justice, it
is the Commission's longstanding general practice to coordinate
complaints regarding potential violations of Section 705 with the
Department in order to make sure that our administrative actions do not
interfere with any criminal investigations initiated by the Department.
This approach is in accordance with a Memorandum of Understanding
between the Commission and the Department (effective since 1953 and
revised and re-executed in 1989).
The Wireless Privacy Enhancement Act would amend Section 705 to
make it a violation to intercept or disclose (rather than the current
intercept and disclose) certain radio communications. Further, the
Commission would be required to investigate alleged violations and to
determine whether to initiate proceedings to impose forfeitures.
I want to thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to provide
comments when this legislation was being drafted. I assure you that, if
the Wireless Privacy Enhancement Act should become law, the Commission
will promptly amend its rules as required and will enforce them
vigorously.
vi. conclusion
I would like to thank the Subcommittee for this opportunity to
provide my comments regarding the pending legislation. And I will look
forward to assisting you in your efforts to address the important
issues of public policy involved in the pending legislation.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you very much, Mr. Sugrue and, indeed, we
all understand your dilemma on those 16-year-olds with the
highways. We have all gone through that, and I appreciate your
personal and professional interest in what we do here today.
Captain Joe Hanna from Texas. I think I met you on a Texas
highway, Joe. I am not sure.
Somewhere on the Bayou maybe. But welcome, Captain Hanna,
and your testimony is now welcome and we appreciate your being
here, sir.
STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH L. HANNA
Mr. Hanna. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, today I
have the honor of addressing you on one of the most significant
issues facing the delivery of public safety services throughout
the United States. My comments this morning are going to be
based really from about three different perspectives. First of
all, I am here representing the Association of Public-Safety
Communications Officials Inc.--we will call it APCO--which
represents about 13,000 members around the United States,
people who manage and operate public safety communication-
related facilities, including the delivery of 911 service.
In another capacity, I have the pleasure today of joining
Tom Wheeler from CTIA, representing the ComCARE Alliance. For
those of you who followed this bill this last year, you may
recall the ComCARE Alliance is an affiliation of 30 plus
members who represent a broad spectrum of emergency services,
including public safety, the wireless carriers, local exchange
carriers, trucking industry, motor assistance programs, and
other similar services. The Alliance has certainly worked
diligently with the committee staff to work to craft the bill
that you are looking at today.
Third, I want to bring to you a perspective of my daytime
job. And that is I serve the commander of a communications
center for the city of Richardson, Texas. And, in that
capacity, I think I am probably the one person here on the
panel today who has to deal with these issues on a frontline
basis.
Over the last several decades this Nation has spent
considerable time dealing with the issue of criminal justice
and public safety. We have helped a great deal with putting
cops on streets. We have enhanced penalties for different
offenses. We have looked at a number of technological
improvements that help us in detection and apprehension of
criminals. But one of the issues that we have seemed to
misplaced is the first step of people dealing with those public
safety agencies and that is how they contact 911, in this case.
We have all heard numbers today. The numbers are
overwhelming and it is interesting how they grow by millions as
we speak here. But we know that, each year, that 911 centers
handle more than 100 million 911 calls. These are handled by
5,500 autonomous public safety answer points or PSAPs. We are
currently dealing with the wireless subscriber base now,
someplace in the range of 60 to 65 million users. These people
place someplace in the neighborhood of 30 million wireless
calls into 911 centers. These calls now account for anywhere
from 20 to 40 percent of all the calls that were received in
the PSAPs. Again, in my city, we did our last statistical line
and 29.9 percent of all calls received to 911 were coming from
wireless subscribers.
In response to these issues, the FCC released docket 94-102
back in 1994. The underlying goal of this docket was to provide
emergency services to callers with wireless instruments
equivalent to that for traditional wireline customers. Many if
not most wireless customers were surprised and have been
surprised to learn that today public safety answer points have
no information on who that caller is and no idea where they are
calling from. And that is a surprise, believe it or not, to
most of these people. And we have already discussed the fact
this morning that people are buying these for safety.
In 1996, four groups, including APCO, NENA, NASNA, the
State administrators and CTIA reached a consensus agreement on
how we could come to the table to bring location and traveler
information to our customers. Nothing in that agreement,
however, addressed the recognition of 911 as the universal
number to be dialed for emergency calls. It has already been
mentioned again this morning that you have a variety. If you
are in Florida, you call *FHP. In some places, it is *55.
While we have made some progress in meeting the goals of
docket 94-102, there is much left to do. It is critical that
this committee, in considering the current legislation, review
its mandate to the FCC to ensure the timely implementation of
the consensus agreement reached by public safety in the
wireless industry. I am pleased to see Tom Sugrue here today.
We look forward to his leadership in expediting this process,
which has dragged out far too long.
As you consider this bill, you should recognize that this
legislation is not just a communications bill. It is a
lifesaving issue. It is a transportation issue. It is a safety
issue. Members of this committee have been bombarded with these
issues over the past year. Unfortunately the general public has
not. Any legislative action taken on this critical issue will
help bring this message to the public officials at the State,
county, and local level throughout this Nation.
One last comment I would make: As has been pointed out this
morning, one of the concerns that we now have under this bill
is that we are not addressing the issue of funding and funding
is a critical issue. It is a critical issue in the ability of
wireless carriers to facilitate a better quality of signal. It
is a critical issue to the public safety answer point. You have
to be able to increase volume of calls. It is a critical issue
to the public safety community which has to develop the
infrastructure internally to modify computer dispatch systems
and mapping systems and other technology to bring this to the
table.
On behalf of APCO and ComCARE, I urge you to act on this
bill in the earliest possible time to provide the gift of life
and safety to the citizens of this Nation. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Captain Joseph L. Hanna
follows:]
Prepared Statement of Captain Joseph L. Hanna, President Elect,
Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International,
Inc.
Chairman Tauzin, members of the Committee: Today I have the honor
of speaking with you on one of the most significant issues confronting
the delivery of public safety services throughout the United States.
This presentation is offered from the perspective my role as President
Elect of the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-
International, Inc. (APCO). APCO is the nation's oldest and largest
public safety communications organization with over 13,000 members
involved in the management and operation of law enforcement, fire,
emergency medical, and other vital public safety communications
systems. APCO is a FCC certified coordinator for public safety radio
frequencies. Additionally APCO was one of four (4) signers of the
consensus agreement brokered between public safety and the wireless
industry leading to the implementation of Phase I and Phase II of the
FCC's wireless 9-1-1 rules (FCC Docket 94-102). In addition to the
perspective I bring to you as an officer of APCO, I also bring the
perspective of my daily role as the Commander of a public safety answer
point (PSAP) for the City of Richardson, Texas. Located on the northern
border of Dallas County, the City of Richardson has a population of
85,000, and is directly impacted by the issues addressed by the
Wireless Communications and Public Safety Enhancement Act of 1999.
While considerable attention has been given to public safety over
the past several decades, the overwhelming focus has been on putting
cops on streets, enhancing penalties for a range of offenses, and
dealing with technological improvements related to the detection and
solution of crimes. Without question, each of these efforts is
essential to the preservation of order in our society. Somewhat lost in
the equation, however, has been attention on the first step taken by
most members of our society when a problem has been encountered: the
means of making the initial contact with the appropriate public safety
responder.
It is estimated that the 271 million citizens of the United States
are currently served by approximately 5,500 autonomous public safety
answer points (PSAPs). These 5,500 PSAPs receive an estimated 110
million 9-1-1 calls each year. Prior to the implementation of 9-1-1,
these calls were routed to 5,500 different telephone numbers, as each
jurisdiction had its own unique telephone number. With the widespread
implementation of 9-1-1 services, however, the majority of our citizens
now need to know only one number. However, this 9-1-1 system as we know
it today was built around an architecture of a wireline-based
infrastructure.
In this same 10 year period, wireless telephones have expanded from
a number in the thousands to an estimated 65 million users today. These
wireless users placed an estimated 30 million 9-1-1 calls in 1997, or
approximately 82,000 9-1-1 calls per day. These numbers account for
anywhere from 20-40% of the total 9-1-1 calls received by PSAPS. In the
City of Richardson, for example, the actual percentage of 9-1-1 calls
originating from wireless telephones is almost 30%.
Industry experts predict that the number of wireless communications
users may soon surpass wireline users. AT&T recently announced a plan
that, if followed by other carriers, will potentially push many
subscribers away from traditional wireline service. Similarly, a major
wireless carrier is testing a ``fixed wireless'' solution in the Dallas
metroplex.
In examining the expanding role of wireless service, industry
research has consistently reported that safety is the overwhelming
reason for the purchase of wireless telephones. In almost every study
reported by the wireless industry, 50 to 60 percent of all subscribers
have cited safety as the primary motivator for their decision to
purchase a wireless telephone. As noted above, these figures are
reflected in the percentage of emergency calls placed to public safety
answer points throughout the nation.
Unfortunately, the wireless industry, in its zeal for expanded
market shares, and public safety agencies, in their desire to see
additional ``eyes and ears'' in the community, have done a poor job in
managing expectations within the 65 million wireless subscriber pool.
While the public is accustomed to dialing 9-1-1 for emergencies
throughout the United States, there are significant areas in which 9-1-
1 has been the wrong number to dial. Those driving through Florida, for
example, may have noted signs that have advised motorists to dial *FHP.
In other jurisdictions, other numbers such as *55 have been designated
as the number to call for emergencies. While these unique numbers may
have some meaning for local residents, they have little meaning for
motorists or other visitors entering the jurisdiction. It has been
estimated that Orlando, Florida, for example, attracts approximate 40
million visitors per year. Myrtle Beach, South Carolina draws an
estimated 13 million visitors per day during peak season. Las Vegas
similarly brings 32 million non-residents to their city each year. What
number is appropriate to call from a wireless instrument in each of
these cities? Differing emergency numbers, coupled with the stress
associated with a medical emergency, a life threatening injury, an
automobile accident, or a lost child creates a prescription for a
deadly outcome. The public has an expectation that in many cases is not
met. There is a school of thought that the expectation of having
something that one does not have may well be worse than not having it
at all.
In response to wireless 9-1-1 concerns, the Federal Communications
Commission released Docket 94-102 in 1994. The underlying goal of this
docket was the provision of emergency services for callers from
wireless instruments equivalent to that of the traditional wireline
customer. Many, if not most, wireless customers have been surprised
that public safety answer points have no information related to the
identity of the caller or their location. In 1996, public safety and
the wireless industry were able to craft a consensus agreement that
would address these issues under a set timetable. Nothing in the
resulting FCC rules however, addressed the recognition of 9-1-1 as the
universal number to be used for emergency calls. While progress has
been made in meeting the goals of Docket 94-102, much is left to do.
We must recognize that there are a multitude of components which
must mesh together to ensure the same level of 9-1-1 service that has
been developed on the wireline side. These components range from the
initial wireless subscriber, to the instrument used to dial the call,
to the wireless infrastructure, to the local exchange carrier, and to
the public safety answer point's 9-1-1 equipment. The ability to
uniformly dial 9-1-1 serves as one of the single greatest barriers to
the implementation of this network. The Wireless Communications and
Public Safety Enhancement Act of 1999 provide the essential first step
in this process by establishing 9-1-1 as THE one number to know.
The Wireless Communications and Public Safety Enhancement Act of
1999 also recognizes future technologies under development that,
coupled with current 9-1-1 technology, have the potential to save a
significant number of lives each year. Research developed in
conjunction with intelligent highway technology is leading to systems
that would allow for automatic crash notification to the nearest public
safety answer point. The ultimate integration of auto crash
notification and other intelligent highway systems with 9-1-1 has
dramatic potential for saving lives.
In addressing the myriad issues associated with the delivery of 9-
1-1 services, the impact of wireless telephone users on public safety
answer points remains one of the most visible omissions. While public
safety answer points welcome the broadening of opportunities that
wireless technology has brought to the table to enhance earlier
notification, it has become a two edged-sword. Where a call on an
urban/suburban freeway once resulted in two or three calls (pre-
wireless), there are now 25-30 calls. Additionally, each wireless call
may well take two to three the times as long to process by the public
safety telecommunicator, as there is no caller or location information.
Each call must be screened to ensure that each of the sudden volume of
calls is related to the same incident. While considerable attention has
been given to the issue of funding Phase I and Phase II systems on the
hardware side of the equation, little consideration has been given to
the staffing needs based on increased call volume and call processing
time.
Additionally, the 9-1-1 workstations used throughout the
overwhelming majority of public safety answering points is geared to
handle a limited amount of text information traditionally associated
with wireline calls. As public safety answering points migrate to
workstations that can visibly display computer maps to display the
location of wireless callers, this migration will require a massive
upgrade/replacement of 9-1-1 equipment throughout the United States.
Additionally, while the focus on location determination technology for
Phase II has been on the wireless industry, there is an equally massive
effort required for the public safety answer points. Without computer-
based maps created and maintained with the greatest possible accuracy,
information provided by wireless carriers will be useless. Again, there
is a significant cost of these systems within the public safety answer
points that has been overlooked by the public and the wireless
industry.
To that end, it is critical that public safety, the wireless
industry, and government at the local, state, and national level
reevaluate the issue of funding for 9-1-1 services as an integrated,
comprehensive, complex system.
On behalf of APCO, I want to again thank Chairman Tauzin and the
Subcommittee for this opportunity to appear before you.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you very much, Joe.
And now we are pleased to welcome the Assistant Director of
Park Operations and Education, Ms. Maureen Finnerty, for her
statement to this committee.
STATEMENT OF MAUREEN FINNERTY
Ms. Finnerty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my privilege
to appear before the committee today to represent the
Department of the Interior and to present the views of the
National Park Service on its compliance with the
Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Since the Executive Order was signed in 1995 and the
passage of the act in 1996, the National Park Service has been
actively engaged in preparing policy guidance and guidelines
for our field areas to comply with both the executive order and
the public law. In 1997, in consultation with the
telecommunications industry, a group of folks met and prepared
a policy statement that went out and was subject to public
review. Ultimately comments were received and the policy was
finalized late in 1997.
In early 1998, again in consultation with the
telecommunications industry, National Park Service individuals
sat down and worked out a whole set of guidelines that further
articulate and specified the procedures that were to be
followed by National Park managers to comply with both the
executive order and the public law. Those guidelines have
recently been finalized, so we now have in place final and
approved policy and guidelines, both of them done in
consultation with the industry, both of them subjected to
public review and comment. So we do have procedures in place.
We also, just last month, surveyed the parks within the
National Park system to find out how many of them had dealt
with this issue and we found out that there were 56 parks
throughout the system that had had some activity as it pertains
to the siting of telecommunications facilities. Of those 56
parks, 31 do have new or existing facilities that are located
within the boundaries of the park. There are 16 applications
pending and we found that only 2 applications had been denied
as part of that review process.
Obviously, as has already come up, there has been a lot of
interest in and discussion with the Rock Creek Park issue and
the two pending applications from Bell Atlantic. There has been
a great deal of frustration over the process and the timeliness
or lack of timeliness of the process over the last year or so.
It is my understanding that, late yesterday, the director of
the National Park Service, in a meeting with the communications
representatives from Bell Atlantic and the members of the
national capital region which have oversight of Rock Creek Park
that an agreement has been reached finally to complete the
review process within 90 days at a significantly reduced scope
and cost of the project.
Mr. Tauzin. I don't normally do this, but I want you to
repeat that for us. An agreement was reached last night to do
what?
Ms. Finnerty. We have an individual here who was at that
meeting and I was not. But it is my understanding that, in
meetings late yesterday with the director of the National Park
Service and representatives of Bell Atlantic, an agreement was
reached to process the application within 90 days at a
significantly reduced cost and scope of the project.
Mr. Tauzin. So, to sum it up----
Ms. Finnerty. And we have someone here that can speak to--
--
Mr. Tauzin. The application is not approved yet.
Ms. Finnerty. No, it is not.
Mr. Tauzin. They have simply agreed to a timetable on
processing that?
Ms. Finnerty. I believe that is the case. The application
is approved. Okay. It is the environmental assessment process,
I guess, that is the 90 days.
Mr. Tauzin. To be able to be finalized. It is not finished
yet. Okay.
Ms. Finnerty. Application approved, but no NEPA compliance.
That is the 90 days. Okay?
In conclusion, I'd like to say we have been in
conversations with members of the committee and staffs and we
would like to continue the dialog as we continue to improve our
procedures and guidelines and certainly look forward to working
with you and members of the committee to modify those as
needed. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Maureen Finnerty follows:]
Prepared Statement of Maureen Finnerty, Associate Director, Park
Operations and Education, National Park Service, Department of the
Interior
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department's views on the siting of telecommunication antennas in
National Parks in compliance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
In 1994 and early 1995, the National Park Service experienced a
growing number of contacts with multiple companies across the nation,
inquiring about the possibility of siting wireless antenna facilities
in National Parks. By that time there already were a few sites
constructed and operating in some parks. At the same time, we were
contacted by the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association
(CTIA), requesting knowledge of and input into our then-developing
policy and guidance for this subject.
On August 10, 1995, a memorandum from the President directed the
heads of all Departments and agencies to facilitate access to federal
property for the purpose of siting mobile service antennas. While the
memorandum directed agencies to ``facilitate appropriate access'' to
their properties for the siting of these antennas, it also listed
several qualifying provisions. Such siting should be in accordance
with: 1. Federal, State, and local laws and regulations; 2.
Environmental and aesthetic concerns; 3. Preservation of historic
buildings and monuments; 4. Protection of natural and cultural
resources; and 5. Protection of National Park and wilderness values.
We strongly believe that any legislation on this issue must
recognize these standards for placement of mobile service antennae on
federal lands. For example, I think we can agree that no one would want
to see a cellular phone tower on the rim of the Grand Canyon or in
sight of Old Faithful.
The National Park Service, in conjunction with the CTIA and other
industry representatives, had been drafting policy and procedures
specific to telecommunications and immediately included these precepts
into their work in progress.
On February 8, 1996, the President signed the Telecommunications
Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 332). Section 704(c) of the Act requires the
President to develop procedures by which federal departments and
agencies may make available federal properties, rights-of-way, and
easements for wireless telecommunication services. On March 29, 1996,
the GSA issued a notice in the Federal Register (61 FR 14100) of
general procedures for implementing the provisions of Section 704(c) of
the Act. The GSA issued an enhancement of these procedures in the
summer of 1997 that clarified and emphasized the same points as they
had previously stated. Congress provided additional guidance in the
Conference Report it issued with the FY 1997 Interior Department
appropriations act (P.L. 104-208). The report states the Service
``should promulgate rules which ensure that the public has the
opportunity to participate fully and comment on the issuing of permits,
rights-of-way or easements for any telecommunications facility placed
in any unit of the National Park System.''
The National Park Service formed a task force whose members were
drawn from the telecommunications industry, the CTIA, and personnel
from every region of the Service. The purpose of this task force was to
draft policy and procedures regarding processing applications for
permitting telecommunications. This was a difficult task since the Act
directed federal agencies to implement siting these facilities and to
avoid the derogation of park resources, values or purposes for which
the parks had been established.
A draft policy statement was written and published in the Federal
Register for comment in the fall of 1997. In addition, the Service held
meetings with industry and the public to receive their input. On
December 11, 1997, the Service published its final policy statement on
Wireless Telecommunications as Director's Order #53A. This order points
out that Congress and the President have established a compelling
federal interest in promoting the efficient implementation of the new
telecommunications technology. The Park Service will follow the
requirements and intent of the Act, the President's memorandum, and the
GSA procedures while also recognizing its responsibility for complying
with provisions of the National Park Service Organic Act and other
statutes applicable to the operation of units of the System.
Once the policy statement was approved and distributed, the Service
undertook development of procedural guidance to assist park managers in
implementation of the policy. Draft guidelines were published in the
Federal Register in February 1998, for public comment. The 60-day
comment period ended on April 24, 1998. The appropriate comments that
we received during this period were incorporated into the body of the
final procedures, which were subsequently approved and distributed
throughout the national park system.
We surveyed the parks in the summer of 1997 concerning requests to
site telecommunication antennas in the parks. Of the 21 parks
indicating they had had some activity in this category, only 5 had
actually received a combined total of 12 written applications, with the
other 16 parks receiving approximately 50 phone or other verbal
inquiries.
We surveyed the parks again in January 1999. Of the 56 parks
indicating they had activity in this category, 16 indicate they are in
the process of reviewing a permit application. Three of these permit
applications have been denied.
The National Park Service is in the process of reviewing two
applications submitted by Bell Atlantic Mobile for permits to site two
wireless telecommunications facilities in Rock Creek Park. The
processing of these applications has attracted a fair amount of
attention, and we would like to address some of the issues that have
been raised about this process.
We are sympathetic to the frustration experienced by Bell Atlantic
Mobile in going through the permitting process. This frustration
essentially relates to the length of time it has taken the National
Park Service to process Bell Atlantic Mobile's permit applications. We
are presently scrutinizing this process and are committed to taking
care of this problem in an expeditious manner. For example, we have
determined that we can prepare the Environmental Assessments required
for these applications with National Park Service personnel, rather
than through private contractors. This has resulted in a change of our
cost estimate from approximately $300,000, to roughly $40,000, for the
preparation of these Environmental Assessments, though this estimate is
subject to further refinement.
We must note, however, that in processing an application for a
permit to operate a wireless telecommunication facility in Rock Creek
Park the National Park Service has an obligation to ensure that such a
facility would comply with all applicable federal laws. We would
strongly oppose any weakening of environmental review requirements.
These laws were enacted to protect and preserve federal lands and
should not be circumvented.
During the 105th Congress, legislation was introduced which, if
enacted, would have made it difficult for land management agencies to
fulfill their mission of protecting and preserving vital resource
values. The bill, H.R. 3844, would have required federal land
management agencies to make final determinations on applications for
mobile service antennae within 60 days of receipt of an application. By
letters dated July 22, 1998, and October 1, 1998, copies of which are
attached to this testimony, the Department expressed the following
concerns about such legislation:
1. The bill's failure to include in the policy statement significant
protective language found in the Telecommunications Act whereby
requests for use of federal property must not be in direct
unavoidable conflict with the agency's mission.
2. The bill's failure to require specific information of an applicant
seeking to use federal land as a telecommunications
transmission site as required by 36 CFR Part 14.
3. The bill's failure to protect the interests of the United States in
circumstances when an agency denies an application by shifting
the burden of proof from an aggrieved party to the United
States, and
4. The bill's failure to observe the protections afforded by compliance
with laws such as the Federal Land Policy and Management Act,
the National Historic Preservation Act, the Wilderness Act, the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, and the
Endangered Species Act, by restricting an applicant's
compliance to the Federal Communications Commission's
regulations pertaining to the National Environmental Policy
Act.
The Department cannot forsake its stewardship responsibilities in
the interest of expedited decision making which fails to take into
account these important considerations.
In conclusion, I would like to say that the National Park Service
has shown its willingness to work with both the telecommunication
industry and the public on the question of siting telecommunication
antennas in units of the park system. Our policy statement on this
subject has been finalized and distributed. The procedural guidance
implementing that policy was published in the Spring of 1998. We feel
that we are fully complying with both the provisions and the intent of
the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
We understand there is a possibility that a bill relating to the
siting of wireless telecommunication facilities in National Parks may
be introduced in this Congress. We would be happy to provide the
committee with our views on such a bill after it has been introduced.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be
pleased to answer any of your questions.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you very much, Ms. Finnerty. We will, of
course, want to know a lot more about why the process took so
long in Rock Creek, but we will get to that in Q and A.
Mr. Wheeler, again, welcome, Tom, and this committee deeply
appreciates your work in the past on these bills and welcomes
your testimony today.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS E. WHEELER
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members
of the subcommittee.
Wireless phones are the greatest safety tool since the
development of 911. You have heard the numbers previously this
morning: 98,000 times a day somebody uses their phone to call
to save a life, to stop a crime, to render assistance. Let me
put that in perspective. Since we have been here this morning,
4,100 calls have been made across the country using a wireless
phone to save a life, to stop a crime, to help someone in an
emergency.
The great gift the wireless phone is to the safety of
Americans is time. You know, the trauma physicians talk about
time being tissue. The closer you can get medical treatment to
the injury, the better the chance of survival. Take a look at
this chart that was just put up there to kind of put this in
perspective.
In an urban area, the average period of notification about
a car crash is 5.2 minutes. Now this is how long it takes
before 911 gets a call. Why don't you put the chart back up
again for a second, if you would please. If that can be reduced
by 3 minutes--this is just the first call--if you can cut that
time by 3 minutes, you can increase survivability by 16
percent.
Now let us look at the other chart about rural America.
This fact is even more important in rural America. Look at
the disparity between the miles traveled and the fatalities in
rural America. All of this is because, in rural America, the
notification time--the time from an accident to the time that
the 911 call gets placed--is almost double what it is in urban
areas. So what we are talking about is time and how you can use
wireless phones to cut the period of time and, therefore, save
lives.
There is another important component as well and that has
been referenced previously and that is that you have to know
where that incident occurred. Because on a wireline phone, you
know the address of that telephone number. But on a wireless
phone it could be anywhere. So we are proud of the fact that we
worked with APCO and other public safety community
representatives and the FCC to come up with the rule that
developed the enhanced 911, latitude and longitude location
capability for wireless phones when the victim uses it to call
emergency services. It is clear: Wireless phones save lives.
Unfortunately, I am here to report today that the wireless
safety net has all kinds of holes in it and that those holes
don't need to exist. Wireless subscribers don't know what
number to dial to summon help. You had in this hearing last
year Representative Danner testifying about an experience in
her district where someone called three different numbers, and
they were all the wrong numbers, on the wireless phones trying
to report an unsafe driver to the police. They couldn't get
through because the numbers didn't work, and as they drove down
the road they found that this person they had been trying to
report had crashed into another car, killing a mother and her
child. She talked about how there are six different numbers
that you would have to use as you drive from Washington to her
district in Kansas City. That is why we support making 911 a
uniform national number.
But even if Good Samaritans do know the number to call, the
call must go through. And that means there must be an antennae
to hear the call. The Rock Creek Park situation would be silly
if it weren't so shameful. And it is representative of other
experiences across the country. Outside of Federal properties,
the FCC has told us that they will not do for the placement of
antennas to receive emergency what they have done for the
placement of antennas to receive Jerry Springer reruns. There
is something wrong in that process. There must be a solution
here and it won't happen without a deadline.
We have talked how location technology can save lives, but
location technology won't happen without some kind of State
coordination. There are thousands of public safety answering
points out there right now, each of them a god unto itself.
There needs to be a common plan amongst them all.
Let me give you one example in the State of Virginia. In
Virginia, the State police handle all 911 calls from wireless
phones. That is an issue in and of itself; it shouldn't go to
the State police. But the State police has refused to receive
911 from PCS phones, saying instead, ``go to the PSAPs.'' Go to
public safety answering points. So when the PCS carriers go to
public safety answering points, they say, ``no, we don't do it.
Go to the State police.'' And they are getting ping-ponged back
and forth and people can't call, simply because there isn't a
State plan in place.
Last year's legislation created a State plan. It did it
through the funding mechanism. There is no such mechanism this
year. We hope that at the very least the FCC will move in this
area and, hopefully, this bill will too.
Finally, we need to stop discouraging Good Samaritans, both
corporate and individual as well as PSAPs from doing the right
thing. If I place a call from my landline phone to 911 and
something untoward happens--an Act of God--I am not liable nor
is the carrier. If I do that on my wireless phone, I can be
liable as can the carrier.
This raises a couple of simple questions. No. 1: If
consumers knew that being Good Samaritans exposed them to
liability, how would they act? And, No. 2: If you are a carrier
and you are being asked by this rule that we negotiated with
public safety and the FCC to put new location technology--new,
risky technology in place--would you do it if you knew that
your liability was being expanded by this? And, finally, the
biggest outrage: There are public safety answering points, 911
services, who are not answering the phones because of their
fear of liability.
In suburban Chicago, they don't answer 911 calls from PSC
phones because they interpreted the statute to say that this
dealing with airwaves, which is a very fragile connection,
could increase their liability. That is wrong. We have got to
fix that.
I look forward to discussing these issues and to also
supporting your efforts on the eavesdropping bill to stop the
electronic stalkers.
[The prepared statement of Thomas E. Wheeler follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas E. Wheeler, President and CEO, Cellular
Telecommunications Industry Association
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to present the wireless
industry's views on legislation to promote and enhance public safety
through the use of emergency 9-1-1 service. I am Thomas E. Wheeler,
President and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications Industry
Association (CTIA) representing all categories of commercial wireless
telecommunications carriers, including cellular and personal
communications services (PCS).1 The wireless industry is
founded on innovation, competition and safety. Today, my testimony will
focus on safety and discuss how Congress can be instrumental in
delivering unprecedented safety benefits to consumers across America.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CTIA is the international organization which represents all
elements of the Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) industry,
including cellular, personal communications services, wireless data.
CTIA has over 750 total members including domestic and international
carriers, resellers, and manufacturers of wireless telecommunications
equipment. CTIA's members provide services in all 734 cellular markets
in the United States and personal communications services in all 50
major trading areas, which together cover 95% of the U.S. population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to Rule 4(b)(2) of the Committee Rules, I have submitted a
curriculum vitae together with my testimony. For the record, also
pursuant to Rule 4(b)(2), CTIA has not received any federal grants or
contracts during the current fiscal year or during either of the two
preceding fiscal years.
At the Subcommittee's request, my comments today will begin by
addressing the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999. I
would like to share with you not only our views on the bill, but also
some of what we learned in the course of last year's legislative
efforts to enact a wireless 9-1-1 bill. I will conclude my remarks with
a discussion of the Wireless Privacy Enhancement Act of 1999.
Last year, this committee demonstrated its commitment to public
safety by passing out of the subcommittee and full committee the
Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1998 (H.R. 3844). It
was a bipartisan bill that took into consideration the ranking member's
concerns such as the need for privacy in respect to information
provided through location technology. However, some concerns remain
over whether or not the bill reached into state prerogatives. As a
result, this committee, Republicans and Democrats, as well as the
National Association of Counties (NACo) and the National League of
Cities (NLC) have agreed to a less ambitious plan but one that will
improve wireless emergency communications. I applaud the efforts of the
Committee and staff for their work to put together the Wireless
Communications Public Safety Act of 1999.
There are now nearly 68 million ``safety sentinels'' in the United
States--68 million subscribers who speed the delivery of safety
services by providing rapid reports of car crashes, aggressive and
impaired driving, serious crimes, and other threats to our communities.
There are literally thousands of Americans who credit their wireless
phone with aiding a fellow citizen, preventing a crime or in the
ultimate form of public safety expression, saving a life--it is a
distinction that the wireless industry is proud of and inspired by.
CTIA will continue to work diligently to press for legislation that
improves the safety role of wireless telecommunications.
Over 98,000 wireless emergency calls each day are delivered to
emergency services--more than ten times the number of such daily calls
made just a decade ago. A survey conducted one year ago showed that 35
percent of wireless phone owners had used their phones in an emergency
or life-saving situation. Security was rated the most important reason
for purchasing a wireless phone by 88 percent of people planning to buy
one. The wireless industry is acutely aware of our customers'
conviction that wireless phones provide an invaluable safety link to
emergency medical care, law enforcement, and other public safety
agencies.
In recognition of the enormous role our technology can play in
these situations, CTIA began several years ago to seek out ways in
which wireless could participate constructively in public safety
efforts at all levels for the benefit of our communities and the public
at large. Individual carriers and manufacturers are hard at work using
wireless technology to improve and protect public health and safety.
Service providers and manufacturers donate service and equipment both
to help in sudden emergencies such as ice storms, tornadoes and other
related weather disasters, as well as to help fight crime in
communities nationwide. As part of the ``Communities on Phone Patrol''
(COPP) program, wireless phones and airtime have been donated to more
than 8,000 watch patrols in communities across the country where more
than 150 million Americans live. Through our ClassLink program,
carriers donate wireless phones and airtime to teachers to increase
their efficiency and to enhance their students' safety. And we sponsor
an ongoing multimillion-dollar advertising campaign; recognizable by
the slogan ``Safety Is Your First Call''.
In the last two years, we have expanded our safety efforts
considerably by working with and learning from 9-1-1 directors,
Emergency Medical Services experts, the American Automobile Association
(AAA), the National Emergency Numbers Association (NENA) and the
Associated Public Safety Communications Officials (APCO) on how to
better serve the public. Last year, CTIA joined with state and local
public safety officials, emergency and trauma care physicians,
emergency nurses, other medical professionals, and health care groups
like the Brain Injury Association and the American Burn Association to
form the ComCARE Alliance--which stands for ``Communications for
Coordinated Assistance and Response to Emergencies''--a coalition with
which many of you are familiar. We continue to work with these
organizations to provide a system that reduces response times to
emergencies, lessens the severity of injuries and saves lives.
Mr. Chairman, last June you stated that, ``Although deaths from
vehicle crashes have declined in recent years, death at the scene prior
to emergency medical care have doubled in the past 20 years. They now
exceed 20,000 per year. In forty percent of the crash fatalities today,
response time was twenty minutes or more. In urban areas, the average
EMS response time is 30 minutes, in rural areas it is 50 minutes or
longer.'' It is incumbent on the wireless industry, the Congress, the
Federal Communications Commission and other related agencies to reduce
these numbers in what the medical community refers to as the ``golden
hour'' where ``time is tissue.''
Designation of a Universal 9-1-1 Number
The first requirement in achieving the safety goals of the wireless
industry, and previously mentioned safety advocates, is the designation
of the number 9-1-1 as a uniform and universal telephone number within
the United States for reporting an emergency to and requesting
assistance from appropriate authorities, whether on wireless or
wireline telephones. The same designation also would be required by any
numbering agency or entity to which the FCC has delegated authority
under section 251(e) of the Communications Act of 1934.
The lack of a uniform wireless emergency dialing code creates
unnecessary confusion and impairs the ability of mobile customers to
request emergency assistance quickly and easily. Even along an
interstate highway within one state or even one community, a mobile
customer may be required to know and dial several different numbers to
reach the right emergency response agency. Wireless carriers can
program their switches to route a 9-1-1 call to emergency services, but
too often they are prevented from delivering that call. In suburban
Chicago, for instance, because of liability concerns PSAPs are refusing
to process wireless E 9-1-1 calls, requiring carriers to send E 9-1-1
calls to a third party that answers the call and then routes it to the
appropriate safety agency.
Mr. Chairman, you recall the story of eight-year old David
Duplantis from Louisiana. David was fishing with his uncle and 12-year
old cousin when his uncle noticed the fuel pump on the boat wasn't
working properly. As he began pumping fuel manually, a sudden leak in
the hydraulic steering system caused the boat to veer sharply and crash
into the bank of a canal. The force of the crash smashed the boat and
damaged all the electrical equipment, including the radio. David was
shaken in the crash, and his cousin was thrown to the front of the
boat, where he lay unconscious. Fading in and out of consciousness from
serious injuries sustained during the accident, David's uncle managed
to tell David where his wireless phone was and instructed him to dial
9-1-1. Deeply embedded in a bank of a canal and covered by trees, David
stayed on the phone with emergency operators for 45 minutes as rescue
workers searched for the boat. David finally flagged down a helicopter
and directed it to the boat. The injuries David's uncle sustained kept
him on life support for two weeks and in intensive care for a full
month. Can you imagine if the emergency number had not been 9-1-1?
Picture this heroic eight-year-old frantically trying to track down a
non 9-1-1 number to call for help.
9-1-1 was not the emergency number in Carthage, Missouri in the
fall of 1997 and the consequences were tragic as reported in the St.
Louis Post-Dispatch.
When a Kansas couple noticed a van bobbing and weaving in
traffic south of Carthage, Mo., on Thanksgiving Day, they tried
repeatedly to alert authorities by cellular phone.
But by the time they got through it was too late--the van had
crashed into another vehicle in an accident that claimed three
lives.
The article described how Ms. Luann Bertaux called three different
numbers from her wireless phone, none of which worked. The first number
she dialed was 9-1-1 where she got a recording. Then she dialed
information and asked the number of the police department for an
upcoming town, that didn't work. Finally, she called information again
and asked to be connected to the police department directly. The police
responded--but it was too late, Ms. Bertaux watched as the driver whom
she had been trying to report for15 minutes crashed head-on into a van
killing a two-year old and his mother. In Missouri, the wireless number
to reach the highway patrol is *55, if it had been 9-1-1 there might
have been another Thanksgiving for a two year-old boy and his mother.
As stated by Representative Pat Danner (MO-6th) in a December 8,
1997 editorial to the Kansas City Star, ``If a motorist were to travel
from Kansas City to Washington D.C. on Interstate 70, the traveler
would have to know to dial *55 in Missouri, *999 in Illinois, 9-1-1 in
Indiana, *DUI in Ohio, 9-1-1 in Pennsylvania and *77 in Maryland . . .
Further, in the United States as a whole, there are as many as 15
different cellular assistance numbers. The system should not be so
convoluted.''
Congressional action to designate 9-1-1 as the universal wireline
and wireless emergency number in the U.S. would provide protection to
all Americans against these types of senseless tragedies. A uniform
national primary emergency telephone number is increasingly important
because so many Americans use wirelesses telephones to report
emergencies, and, increasingly these same Americans are using their
wireless phones outside of their local service area (in areas where
they are less likely to know the local primary emergency number if that
number is not 9-1-1.)
Implementation of Statewide Plans
The Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999 requires
statewide coordination of the efforts of local public safety, fire
service and law enforcement officials. The emergency communications
needs of the United States are currently served by 15,000 Public Safety
Answering Points (PSAPs). These PSAPs are generally housed within local
government organizations, such as local police or fire department. Each
of the PSAPs are autonomous units. Some states have adopted uniform
statewide 9-1-1 implementation plans, and designated a single official
in charge of 9-1-1 for the entire state in order to have better
emergency communications services. Other states send 9-1-1 calls to a
state police office, even if it is located miles away from the
emergency. Comprehensive and coordinated state plans are needed so that
calls get routed to the appropriate place in a timely manner.
A significant barrier to implementing location and other wireless
safety advancements in a timely manner is that public safety centers
and PSAPs in many states are coordinated by a variety of local, county,
and state government and regulatory authorities. This creates a
difficult environment for private sector carriers to readily implement
networks when they must work out individual technology and funding
arrangements on a county by county, or worse yet, a city-by-city basis.
A wireless carrier in Virginia is a case study into why statewide
plans are needed. Triton PCS, Inc. has been licensed by the FCC to
provide wireless communications (PCS) service throughout the
Commonwealth of Virginia (other than Northern Virginia). In Virginia,
the State police receive all wireless 9-1-1 calls. If the call is not
one for which the State Police is the appropriate public safety agency,
the call is routed to the local PSAP. In connection with establishing
its service in Virginia, Triton telephoned and wrote to the State
Police, requesting the State Police provide Triton the applicable State
Police 9-1-1 routing numbers. On each occasion, Triton was informed
that the State police would not accept 9-1-1 calls from new wireless
providers in Virginia, and that Triton should contact each PSAP in
Virginia for its routing information.
For months Triton contacted literally dozens of PSAPs in Virginia.
PSAP Administrators repeatedly told Triton that wireless 9-1-1 calls in
Virginia are routed to the State Police. In light of the contrary
information, Triton subsequently sent faxes, and then certified letters
to sixty-six PSAPs, requesting their respective 9-1-1 routing
information. Many of the written responses repeat that the State Police
handle wireless 9-1-1 calls in Virginia and should be contacted instead
of the State Police. Clearly, statewide planning and cooperation needs
to be encouraged.
Liability Coverage
Another critical issue that adversely impacts the full realization
of wireless's safety potential is the legal liability triggered by
offering safety-enhancing services. The Wireless Communications Public
Safety Act of 1999 resolves this problem by conferring on wireless
carriers precisely the same liability protections that wireline
carriers have long enjoyed, and by conferring on wireless Good
Samaritans the same legal protections that their wireline brethren have
as well.
The fact that traditional wireline 9-1-1 service can occasionally
engender problems or unintended consequences has been long recognized
in telecommunications law. The physics of radio communications prevents
perfection, either in call completion or in location. Wireline carriers
file tariffs that contain a limitation on liability when things don't
work as intended. Because we are a competitive industry policy makers
have determined that wireless carriers do not file tariffs. Moreover,
even if they did, because we are required to deliver 9-1-1 calls from
non-subscribers, no tariff would bind those individuals anyway. There
is no valid public policy reason that wireless carriers in this respect
should suffer legal consequences different in any jurisdiction than
those attaching to wireline carriers in the same jurisdiction.
The threat here is real. Consider, for example, the FCC's E9-1-1
rule that in Phase II requires a 67 percent success expectation. The
rule recognizes that 100 percent accuracy is impossible.
This bill strikes a rational approach to the liability differences
between wireleine and wireless. The proposed bill establishes, among
other things, a principle of parity between wireless and wireline in
protection for: (1) the provision of telephone services, including 9-1-
1 service, and (2) the use of 9-1-1 service. The bill provides for
wireless providers of telephone service to receive at least as much
protection from liability as local exchange companies receive in
providing telephone services (subject for a two-year period to
enactment of State opt-out legislation as to non 9-1-1 services.)
The limitation on liability for wireline carriers encouraged the
widespread adoption of wireline 9-1-1 and E9-1-1 services. The same
encouragement should and must be given to wireless carriers.
Advancement Towards a Seamless, Ubiquitous System
I realize that federal siting has been removed from this year's
bill, but I would be remiss if I did not touch upon it and use an
example of how siting remains a problem. Even with a universal wireless
emergency number, liability protection and statewide plans, all are
useless if a call is placed in an area without coverage. Protecting the
public's health and safety through the use of our telecommunications
infrastructure is not simply a matter of telling everyone to dial 9-1-
1. The call has got to go through. In the absence of government action,
there remain locations where the call cannot be delivered--``dead
zones'' in wireless coverage where it is not possible to complete a
wireless 9-1-1 call. One part of the solution to this problem is to
improve on the use of thousands of Federal buildings and other
structures, as well as millions of acres of Federal land, to help fill
those dead zones.
As this Committee noted in its Report on H.R. 3844 last year,
neither the President's 1995 Memorandum to Federal agencies urging them
to facilitate the placement of wireless antennas on Federal property,
nor section 704(c) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which
directed them to do so, has resulted in a change of attitude on the
part of most Federal agencies with respect to this subject. With a few
welcome and notable exceptions--including the Postal Service, General
Services Administration, Bureau of Land Management, and the Forest
Service--most Federal agencies continue to ignore this imperative
completely, or to erect uneconomic, if not insurmountable, barriers to
siting.
Nearly one year ago, on March 24th, I sat before this Subcommittee
and participated in a dialogue with Ranking Member Markey and the
Deputy Director of the National Park Service about the need for
antennas in Rock Creek Park. It's worth recalling the following
exchange between Representative Markey and the Park Service's witness:
Mr. Markey. . . . Well, let me ask you this, Mr. Galvin: If
they apply within the next week, how long do you think it would
take to get something approved?
Mr. Galvin. Less than 60 days.
Mr. Markey. Less than 60 days. Okay. You've got a--the
starter's gun has gone off . . .
Well, Congressman Markey and Members of the Subcommittee, the
application was filed on April 3rd, 1998. It took the Park Service
until July 10th to find the application complete (requiring copies of
FCC licenses, copies of bank certifications, and other minor
documents). Three months later, once the application was deemed
complete, the Park Service requested $25,000 to begin the study. It is
now approximately nine months later, and you still can't use your
wireless phone in Rock Creek Park. That's because contrary to Mr.
Galvin's promise, the application still has not been approved. In fact,
the Park Service demanded that the carriers pay over three hundred
thousand of dollars for an environmental study designed to show why
antennas should not be permitted on a tennis stadium's existing light
towers and in the Park's maintenance yard.
As you suggested during that hearing last year, Chairman Tauzin, if
you multiply the Rock Creek Park situation over and over again, you
will begin to understand what we face on a regular basis from the Park
Service and other Federal agencies across the country. If together we
are to create the seamless end-to-end public safety communications
system that we all envision, this kind of bureaucratic obstinacy must
cease.
I am pleased to report that in the closing days of the 105th
Congress, we began a very constructive dialogue with Assistant
Secretary of the Interior for Policy, Management, and Budget, John
Berry, aimed at helping the Department better understand the intentions
underlying the legislation and addressing the legitimate concerns and
questions the Department raised. Although those discussions were
suspended when Congress adjourned, we look forward to continuing our
discussions with the Department of Interior in the months ahead.
The discussion with the Interior Department was gratifying in part
because we found that once we were in the same room as people who
thought we were their adversaries, many of their concerns reservations
about the legislation were allayed when they better understood the
bill's purposes. I would like to extend the same hand of friendship to
the representatives of local government, primarily the National League
of Cities (NLC) and the National Association of Counties (NACO), who
objected to the wireless public safety bill as written last year.
This legislation is about saving lives, reducing the severity of
injuries, and extending those benefits to all Americans, no matter
where they live, work, or drive. This is not a matter on which mayors,
city councils, zoning boards, and county governments should be at odds
with us or with doctors, nurses, public safety agencies, and health
care groups.
I would like to address the privacy aspects of the proposed bill.
Protecting location data is of extreme importance to Ranking Member
Markey and I assure the committee it is of equal importance to the
wireless industry. I applaud Mr. Markey's commitment to making sure
that sensitive location data does not fall into the wrong hands or is
not abused by government or commercial entities.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer some comments on the
FCC's role in the safety issues that I have touched upon today. I do
not doubt the Commission's sincerity or interest in improving the
Nation's public safety communications infrastructure. Issuing rules to
expand wireless emergency services by allowing, for example, non-
subscribed phones to access emergency services, simply isn't a coherent
public safety policy. The FCC could and should have acted already on a
universal wireless emergency number, limited liability protection for
wireless, statewide planning of emergency services and mechanisms for
cost recovery. However, I am genuinely encouraged by the new leadership
recently placed in the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. In the past
several weeks, CTIA has participated in productive discussions on a
variety of topics and there appears to be a willingness to resolve
outstanding issues.
Relative to E 9-1-1, the FCC's E9-1-1 rule has been misused as a
revenue-generating device, forcing consumers to pay so-called ``9-1-1
taxes'' while the money is diverted to purposes other than achieving
wireless E9-1-1. We hope that the FCC would act quickly to clarify the
cost recovery rules so that funds intended for safety purposes are not
diverted to other unrelated concerns.
Furthermore, the FCC has indicated that it will not act to preempt
local siting decisions even when they endanger public safety. The FCC
does not want to grant liability protection I raised earlier. And there
are many other issues relating to cost recovery, interface with the
PSAPs' systems, decisions favoring one technology over another, and
reliance on local exchange carriers' switching and routing, to name a
few, that remain to be addressed. We have endeavored to work
cooperatively with the FCC on these matters and, as I mentioned earlier
we will once again work on these issues with the new management at the
FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
We are pleased, Mr. Chairman, that you and the Members of this
Committee and Subcommittee, on a broad and bipartisan basis, have
recognized the importance of this safety agenda. CTIA encourages you
and the Subcommittee to move forward once again to weave the next
generation of wireless technology together with the sophisticated
medical and emergency response capabilities now in place or under
development, in order to create the seamless, ubiquitous, end-to-end
communications infrastructure for public health and safety envisioned
by Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999.
Thank you for your consideration of our views.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you very much, Mr. Wheeler.
And now we turn to Mr. Dempsey. Jim Dempsey, the Senior
Staff Counsel for the Center for Democracy and Technology.
Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Dempsey.
STATEMENT OF JAMES X. DEMPSEY
Mr. Dempsey. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee,
good morning.
The Center for Democracy and Technology is pleased to
appear before the subcommittee today on one of the critical
civil liberties issues of our time, the protection of privacy
in the new communications media. These new technologies which
so greatly enhance our lives, which hold such potential for
promoting democracy and freedom, but, at the same time, which
pose an obvious risk to privacy.
We are an independent, non-profit organization. We work to
protect and advance civil liberties in the new communications
media. We believe that the privacy challenge presented by these
new technologies can best be addressed through a combination of
technology tools, sound industry practices, and enforceable
legal baselines. Today the subcommittee has before it two bills
that advance the protection of privacy in important ways. These
bills also highlight some of the broader privacy issues that
this subcommittee should address as the term progresses.
The essence of our message is that privacy must be
protected from the outset in the design of any
telecommunications or information system and must be a
component of public policy affecting telecommunications and
electronic commerce. We have seen recently examples of what
happens when privacy is not taken into account from the outset.
Recently the Intel Corporation, which Mr. Markey in his opening
statement made reference to, proudly announced the introduction
of its powerful new Pentium III processor, only to face a
firestorm of public opposition because the processor included
an ID number that could be used to track browsing, reading, or
purchasing and other activities on the Internet.
At the same time, while we are worried about the Pentium
III, we are seeing at the Federal Communications Commission, a
proceeding under legislation which this committee and the House
Judiciary Committee passed in 1994, the so-called digital
telephony law, the Communications Assistance to the Law
Enforcement Act, where the Federal Government is trying to
impose design mandates on telecommunications carriers that
really make some of the privacy issues we are talking about
today pale by comparison. And this is something that this
subcommittee will have to take a look at as it moves forward in
this Congress.
Our main focus today is the 911 bill and its crucial
privacy protections. We are seeing 911 really is a perfect
example of the challenge presented by new technology. The
ability to use wireless phones, as has been said several times
already, to contact police and fire and other emergency
services, is a critical attraction of those phones and is a
tremendous benefit brought by this technology. And it is
appropriate for this committee to promote the development of a
ubiquitous 911 system and a nationwide access to that through
wireless phones.
Locating wireless callers is part of such a system, and
appropriately so. Obviously 911 callers want to be found. They
want to be found quickly. Yet the tens of millions of wireless
phone users do not want their phones to become tracking devices
that they do not control. And the key concept here is the
concept of user control. So we need to have a privacy principle
built into the system from the outset.
Last Congress, Mr. Markey and the chairman included such an
amendment and Mr. Shimkus has appropriately included that into
the bill as section 5 that was introduced this year. That is a
critical part of this. It builds on existing legislation, the
so-called CPNI or customer proprietary network rules, which
limit the commercial use of this information, that this cannot
go to direct marketers. The whole question of where you are as
you travel about as this information is generated; this should
not be used for purposes other than those connected with the
provision of the service and, obviously, part of that is the
911 location.
We note, however, that the FCC in its digital telephony
proceeding is right now proposing to impose upon carriers a
separate mandate, in essence, a double mandate, to require
wireless location to be built in for criminal investigative
purposes, a wireless location capability that is not controlled
by the user, that is not fully privacy-protected. And that is
not what Congress intended at the time it passed that
legislation. The purpose of the legislation--Congressman Oxley
was very interested in it at the time and I am sure is still
interested in it--was to preserve law enforcement wiretap
capabilities and that was an appropriate objective. But that
was balanced against the interests of privacy and the question
of cost. And I am afraid this report that the concept of
balance is being lost in the implementation of that law.
The scanner bill represents another important improvement.
It closes some of the ambiguities and gaps in current
legislation that govern scanning devices. There are people out
there who think that it is amusing to eavesdrop on wireless
calls. There are other people out there who do so for criminal
purposes. And tightening the law to prohibit the manufacture of
those scanning devices where they are intended to or have the
ability to intercept the cellular and PCS parts of the spectrum
is an appropriate step. I would urge the committee to make sure
that that law is properly and narrowly defined. There is
obviously a significant scanner community that has a legitimate
function.
I would also note in the bill, in the amendment to section
7.05, you have appropriately eliminated the word ``and.'' The
law for many, many years, since 1934, had said intercept and
divulge and a lot of people said, well we are intercepting it,
but we are not divulging it, therefore not violating the law.
I think there may be a problem with the way it was reported
and enacted last year in terms of the divulge and publish to
make it disjunctive and to make it a crime does get into some
First Amendment questions and I think that the goal there is to
get at the interception and eliminating the ``and'' and making
it a crime to intercept plain and simple, I think, is the way
that that should go. I would urge you to take a look at that.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, we urge you
to make the 106th Congress the privacy Congress. The American
public is more sensitive to privacy than ever before. Just as
you have made in the 911 bill privacy protection a central
component of that to give the consumer confidence, to give the
trust in how this information is being used, which is a
necessary baseline for this technology to be widely accepted as
we want it to be, privacy should be a component of everything
you do this year as you move forward on electronic commerce,
digital signatures, and other legislation. The Center for
Democracy and Technology looks forward to working with you. I
would be happy to answer any of your questions now and to work
with you to support these bills as they move forward.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of James X. Dempsey follows:]
Prepared Statement of James X. Dempsey, Senior Staff Counsel, Center
for Democracy and Technology
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Jim
Dempsey. I am senior staff counsel at the Center for Democracy and
Technology. The Center is pleased to have this opportunity to testify
before the Subcommittee on one of the critical civil liberties issues
of our time: the protection of privacy in the new communications media,
which enhance our lives in so many ways and hold such potential for
promoting freedom, but at the same time pose obvious risks to privacy.
The Center for Democracy and Technology is an independent, non-
profit public interest policy organization in Washington, DC. The
Center's mission is to develop and implement public policies that
protect and advance individual liberty and democratic values in the new
digital media. We believe that the privacy challenges presented by
these new technologies can best be addressed through a combination of
technology tools, sound industry practices, and enforceable legal
baselines.
Today, the Subcommittee has before it two bills that advance the
protection of privacy in modest ways. These bills also highlight some
of the broader privacy issues that the Subcommittee should address as
the term progresses.
The essence of our message is that privacy must be protected from
the outset of the design of any communications or information system
and must be a component of any legislation setting policy for
telecommunications and electronic commerce. Unfortunately, this lesson
has still not been learned. We have recently seen the Intel Corporation
proudly announce its powerful new Pentium III processor only to face a
firestorm of public criticism, including threats of a consumer boycott,
because the processor included an ID number that could be used to track
browsing, reading, purchasing and other activities on the Internet.
Meanwhile, under the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement
Act (``CALEA''), the FBI is seeking to impose on the telecommunications
industry surveillance features, including wireless phone tracking, that
would do for the telephone system what we and others fear the Pentium
III would do for the Internet. So far, in violation of CALEA, the
Federal Communications Commission has tentatively agreed with the
location surveillance demand and others.
As the Subcommittee advances the two bills before it today, it
should also address what is happening at the FCC under CALEA. The tens
of millions of Americans who use wireless phones do not want them
turned into tracking devices that can be turned on and off by the
government. In CALEA, Congress made it clear that wireless phones
should not be turned into location devices for surveillance purposes.
The FCC is ignoring that clear Congressional directive, and is
basically proposing to rewrite CALEA. The objectives of E911 service
can be achieved fully without creating a tracking capability outside
the control of the users.
Mr. Chairman, we urge you to make the 106th Congress the ``Privacy
Congress.'' We believe it has the potential to become just that. The
American public is more sensitive to privacy than ever before. Just as
the Subcommittee last Congress made privacy a component of the E911
bill, privacy should be a component of every e-commerce and
telecommunications bill you take up in the coming months, ranging from
digital signatures to CALEA. The challenge is not an either/or choice
between government regulation versus ``self-regulation,'' but rather to
develop enforceable solutions that combine a spectrum of measures
ranging from privacy-enhancing technologies, to industry codes of
practice, private remedies, government enforcement of baseline
protections that incorporate fair information practices and address
abuses, and a balanced approach to governmental surveillance premised
on a narrowly-focused surveillance capability and strict limits for
governmental access.
i. ongoing developments in telecommunications increase the urgency of
ensuring the privacy and security of wireless communications
Advancements in telecommunications technology have conferred
tremendous benefits on the American public and on individuals
worldwide. The number of subscribers of wireless services continues to
rise, as wireless technologies have become woven into peoples' lives.
At the same time, the American public is deeply concerned that such
advancements threaten to overwhelm the cherished right of privacy. The
threats arise from both governmental and private surveillance.
For the past thirty years, Congress has recognized that it must
ensure that the laws protecting privacy keep pace with the changing
uses of technology. From 1968, when it first enacted the wiretap law
known as Title III, through enactment of the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act (``ECPA'') in 1986, to the Communications Assistance for
Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (``CALEA''), Congress has sought to balance
three goals: (1) to provide strong legal protections for electronic
communications, (2) to afford law enforcement a narrowly-focused and
carefully limited authority to carry out electronic surveillance in
serious cases, and (3) to encourage the development and widespread
availability of new technologies.
ECPA was based on the principle that privacy is good for both
consumers and business. People will not use communications technologies
they do not trust. By extending clear privacy protections to e-mail and
cellular telephone conversations, ECPA boosted user confidence in those
communications technologies when they were in their infancy,
contributing to the dramatic success they have both experienced.
When it enacted ECPA in 1986, Congress knew that it would have to
return to the law of communications privacy periodically, as technology
continued changing. Some small privacy enhancements were made in CALEA
in 1994. Now, given ongoing developments in the realm of wireless
communications and the Internet, we are at another juncture that
requires another careful examination of the adequacy of privacy
protection legislation: Cellular and other wireless telephones have
become commonplace and are now widely used by ordinary citizens.
Moreover, wireless transmission is no longer important only for voice
communications. Wireless modems, wireless faxes, and wireless local
area networks are linking computers and transferring data of a highly
sensitive nature, including proprietary information, medical records,
and financial data. Wireless links are becoming more and more important
as gateways to the global information network. The Internet itself has
blossomed since 1986 in ways that the drafters of ECPA never imagined.
The ongoing development of telecommunications networks that are
increasingly integrated, global, decentralized and wireless heightens
the urgency of ensuring the privacy and security of wireless
communications. Some of the needed changes fall outside the
jurisdiction of this Committee, but we would like to mention them
briefly to give a sense of the context. First, ECPA should be clarified
to make it clear that wireless transfers of data are protected to the
same extent as wireless voice communications. Second, the legal scheme
of the wiretap laws, as amended by ECPA, should be expanded so that the
US government has to obtain a court order when engaging abroad in
surveillance of US citizens for criminal investigative purposes.
Currently, the protections of the US Constitution offer little privacy
assurance to US citizens whose communications cross international
borders, and the protections of the wiretapping laws do not apply to
eavesdropping from points abroad. Third, as networking expands and more
and more records are kept outside the home, the protections rooted in
the Fourth Amendment need to be extended so that records stored on
networks receive the same protection as records held inside the home or
office. Fourth, and this is a matter within this Committee's
jurisdiction, individuals must be assured control over their personal
data, through a combination of technology tools, industry best
practices and enforceable legal standards incorporating fair
information practices.
ii. wireless communications and public safety enhancement act: location
information requires privacy protection
As a result of the new technology, more and more sensitive personal
information is being transmitted over the airways and online. At the
same time, the new technology generates an increasingly rich store of
transactional data. Each time you log onto the Internet, each time you
use the telephone, you leave behind digital fingerprints--the
transactional records which, in real-time or stored and aggregated,
provide a profile of your whereabouts, your activities, your interests,
and your associations. Consumers and other users of the new
communications technologies want control over this information. Limits
on its use are essential if consumers are to have confidence in
electronic commerce and digital communications. A central principle of
fair information practices is that information generated in the course
of one transaction should not be used for other purposes without the
clear consent of the person to whom the information pertains.
E911 is a perfect example. The ability to use wireless phones to
contact police, fire or ambulance services in the case of an emergency
is an obvious attraction of wireless phones, and it is appropriate for
the Congress and the FCC to promote development of a nationwide
wireless 911 system. Locating wireless phone users calling in emergency
cases is appropriately part of such a system. Obviously, 911 callers
want to be found by the emergency services, and quickly. Yet the tens
of millions of wireless phone users do not want their phones to become
tracking devices that they do not control. People carry these phones
with them as they go about their daily lives. More than the wireline
phone, the wireless phone tends to be directly associated with one
individual. When a call is made on a wireline phone, it means that
somebody is at the location, but it is not apparent who. When a call is
made on a wireless phone, it is almost always the individual
subscriber. In this way, wireless phone location information is far
more revealing than the fact that a street address is associated with a
wireline phone number. So we need to have strict rules governing use of
this information.
Wisely, Mr. Markey and the Chairman have included privacy
protection in the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Enhancement
Act (H.R. 3844 in the 105th Congress). The provision builds on the CPNI
(Customer Proprietary Network Information) protections of section 222
of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 222, which are strong and
consistent with fair information practices. Any effort to move forward
with E911 should have these privacy standards built in. Strict coverage
of location information is essential to public confidence in the
wireless 911 system.
We note that this bill does not address the question of
governmental access for investigative purposes. The standard for law
enforcement access has to be strict as well. Because location
information is so sensitive, and because people carry their wireless
phones with them as they go abut their daily lives and go places where
they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, we believe the standard
should be a full probable cause standard of the Fourth Amendment. This
is probably not an issue within the jurisdiction of this Committee, but
it would be a missed opportunity to let this bill get enacted without
addressing the question of government access. (We note that Senator
Leahy has proposed legislation making law enforcement access to
wireless location data subject to a full probable cause standard.)
With grave concern, we urge the Committee to take note that the FCC
in its CALEA proceeding has tentatively concluded, incorrectly, that
wireless location information is a CALEA mandate, in essence placing on
carriers a double mandate and in the process probably unfairly tilting
towards a network solution to the 911 location requirements. Wireless
location under CALEA should be treated completely separately from
location information for E911 purposes. Congress made it clear in CALEA
that it did not intend to require location information for surveillance
purposes. The Commission's tentative decision in the CALEA proceeding
to require location information be built into wireless systems for
surveillance purposes, not subject to user control, finds no support in
the plain meaning of CALEA and is flatly contrary to the legislative
history. In this and other ways, the Commission has tentatively sided
with the FBI's expansive reading of the CALEA mandates, jeopardizing
the privacy balance that Congress intended to achieve in that Act and
imposing unnecessary costs on the carriers and ultimately on the public
who will pay the bill, either as taxpayers or as ratepayers. This is
something the Subcommittee should address as the 911 bill moves
forward, or on another vehicle that addresses CALEA questions. It may
require an amendment to CALEA to reemphasize Congress' intent that
location information for surveillance purposes is not a CALEA mandate.
iii. the wireless privacy enhancement act--the privacy of wireless
communications is entitled to strong legal protection
In the current environment of global communications networks
increasingly dependent on wireless links, it is a serious invasion of
privacy to eavesdrop on cellular and other wireless telephone
conversations. Cellular eavesdroppers are invading the privacy not only
of the person who is using a cellular phone, but also of anybody else
who is on the conversation using an ordinary landline telephone.
Given the growth of wireless services, it is clear that Congress
made the right decision in 1986 when it determined that intentionally
intercepting cellular phone conversations should be a federal crime.
Congress clearly has the authority to protect communications
transmitted over the airwaves, and it did so with respect to cellular
telephone conversations in ECPA, extending to the then-fledgling
cellular telephone industry the same privacy protections that had
applied to traditional wireline services.
However, ever since wireless phones first appeared, there has been
an electronic cat and mouse game between wireless phone users and those
who find it amusing to eavesdrop, or find criminal opportunity in
eavesdropping, on wireless phone conversations. ECPA made it a crime to
manufacture, sell, assemble, possess or advertise any device that is
``primarily useful'' for the interception of wireless telephone
conversations, 18 U.S.C. 2512, and Section 302 of the Communications
Act prohibited the manufacture, sale or use of nonconforming scanning
devices, 47 U.S.C. 302a. Nonetheless, manufacturers, retailers and
individuals have taken a very narrow view of this law, and consequently
scanners are widely available still that intercept cellular telephones.
The PCS spectrum isn't even covered by Section 302(d) of the
Communications Act. For these reason, we believe that Congress should
close the ambiguities and gaps in the scanner law.
The Wireless Privacy Enhancement Act (H.R. 2369 in the 105th
Congress), was passed by the House last Congress, and deserves to be
reenacted this year. We believe that the main purpose of the bill is to
clarify and further restrict the ability of private citizens to obtain
equipment that can be used for eavesdropping on wireless phones. We
urge the Subcommittee to ensure that the language is appropriately
narrow, and does not cover legitimate equipment and conduct. On one
specific point, it is not clear that the language concerning
``divulgence, publication, or utilization'' is necessary in the
amendment to Section 705(e)(3) and (4) of the Communications Act. We
also hope that the Judiciary Committee eliminates the ``primarily
useful'' ambiguity from 18 U.S.C. 2512.
iv. while legal protections are important, they are not enough to
ensure privacy--privacy and security must be ensured through technical
means
The criminal law, however, is a limited remedy. Practically
speaking, law enforcement agencies will never devote substantial
resources to the investigation of eavesdropping cases. Even with H.R.
2369 on the books, there will still be people who obtain or manufacture
devices to eavesdrop on wireless phones. Therefore, the focus needs to
be on manufacture and design of equipment to be less readily subject to
being intercepted. This is, of course, mainly not a matter for
legislation. The onus falls on industry to deploy strong encryption
throughout the networks. I would note that in 1997, after the
Subcommittee's last hearing on this issue, independent cryptographers
broke the proprietary encryption technology used in millions of GSM
(Global System for Mobile communications) phones nationwide,
illustrating the dangers of insufficiently robust, proprietary
encryption.
The integrated, global, decentralized communications network is
vulnerable to threats that infringe on individual privacy and also
threaten the critical infrastructures that are dependent on
communications. The vulnerabilities of encrypted computer files and
electronic communications are well-documented. Unencrypted
communications are open to criminal exploitation, and the losses to
date from inadequate system security are enormous. The National
Research Council concluded several years ago: ``Of all the information
vulnerabilities facing US companies internationally, electronic
vulnerabilities appear to be the most significant.''
Wireless communications should not be--and need not be--the weak
link in the integrated communications infrastructure. Strong encryption
offers opportunities for enhanced security in the digital age.
Widespread use of encryption to protect communications will prevent
fraud and other extremely dangerous forms of crime. At the same time,
encryption poses challenges to law enforcement agencies.
Unfortunately, the policies of the US government have served to
inhibit the deployment of robust encryption. The Subcommittee and the
Congress will have to revisit the encryption issue this year. It has
become clear that the current Administration policy is not viable, from
either a privacy perspective or a law enforcement/national security
perspective. As a recent study issued by the Center for Strategic and
International Studies concluded, ``Continued reliance on limited
availability of strong encryption without the development of
alternative sources and means will seriously harm law enforcement and
national security.'' It has become clear that there is no answer to the
encryption issue that will guarantee the government access in all
cases. The current policy of government controls on encryption will not
work in the decentralized, competitive, global environment where
criminals will always be able to obtain strong encryption to shield
their communications. The sooner strong encryption is widely deployed
in wireless systems for the rest of the population, the sooner privacy
will be protected and fraudulent theft of services will be curtailed.
v. congress should hold the fcc to the fulfillment of its
responsibilities to protect network security and privacy
It would accomplish little to outlaw handheld scanners if the
wireless (and wireline) switches themselves were vulnerable to hacking
and unauthorized interception. Therefore, Congress should make sure
that network security is properly addressed. There is in fact a pending
proceeding at the FCC on network security, under CALEA. CALEA requires
carriers to design their systems to be readily tappable by law
enforcement. However, the same backdoors that give law enforcement
access create new vulnerabilities for hackers to exploit. Congress was
concerned to ensure that the changes made to accommodate law
enforcement interception in compliance with CALEA did not increase
system vulnerability. Therefore, CALEA included several important
security provisions. One is section 105, entitled ``Systems Security
and Integrity.'' In this provision, for the first time ever, Congress
mandated that telecommunications companies ``shall ensure'' that
interceptions within their switching systems can occur only upon the
affirmative intervention of an individual officer of or employee of the
carrier. Section 301 of CALEA requires the Federal Communications
Commission to issue regulations governing system security.
Unfortunately, the FBI has used the proceeding under Section 301 to
urge the Commission to establish rules for non-technological aspects of
surveillance operations, ranging from the personnel practices of
carriers to their processing of surveillance orders. Meanwhile, the
security concerns about the vulnerability of computerized surveillance
functions that prompted Congress to enact Section 105 of CALEA are not
receiving adequate attention.
Concerns with network security go beyond CALEA. The FCC has both
the authority and the responsibility under section 1 of the
Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 151, to ensure the security and
reliability of the nation's communications networks. In the past, this
Subcommittee has paid particular attention to reliability concerns in
the public switched telephone network. In an increasingly decentralized
and complex system, full attention to network security issues requires
a broad look at the network security features available to users,
including flexible and robust encryption. We urge the Subcommittee to
work with the Commission on this pressing concern.
conclusion
Congress should assure that current laws adequately protect privacy
in light of ongoing developments in telecommunications technology. The
two bills before the Subcommittee are modest steps towards that goal.
The privacy protections in the Wireless Communications and Public
Safety Act are critical to user confidence. In addition, we urge an
amendment at an appropriate time to that bill to make it clear that
government agencies can access location information for investigative
purposes only pursuant to a probable cause court order. We also urge
the Committee to address the question of the design mandates that are
being imposed by the Commission on carriers under CALEA, especially the
mandate to turn wireless phones into location devices controlled by the
government. Finally, we note the failure of the FCC so far to address
the network security and privacy implications of the surveillance
features that are being designed into switches to comply with CALEA,
and urge the Subcommittee to hold the Commission to its
responsibilities.
Thank you again for the invitation to testify today. We would be
happy to answer any questions, and we look forward to working with the
Subcommittee to realize across the board the privacy principles
reflected in these bills.
Mr. Tauzin. Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Dempsey.
The chairman would like to remind members at this time that
there is a very important demonstration today on Capitol Hill
in room B-339 of the Rayburn building in the basement. The
Business Software Alliance is putting on a demonstration
entitled, ``Talking Technologies.'' It is a Members-only
personal demonstration of cutting-edge software and Internet
technologies related to, indeed, these very issues. So you may
want to drop in to B-339 and catch up on some of the latest
software technologies in this area, because these privacy
issues are going to arise. And I know Mr. Oxley and other
subcommittees of our committee will be working on e-commerce
issues and will have a great deal of interest in these areas.
It starts at 12:30 today. 12:30 until 1:30. So please stop by.
I thank you again, Mr. Dempsey.
And one final witness, Mr. Amarosa, the Vice President of
Public Affairs of TruePosition, Incorporated.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL AMAROSA
Mr. Amarosa. Good morning. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Good
morning, members of the committee. My name is Michael Amarosa,
and I am the Vice President for Public Affairs of TruePosition,
which is a leading provider of wireless-enhanced location
technology. I would like to summarize my testimony and ask your
permission to submit the entire statement into the committee
record.
Mr. Tauzin. It is so ordered.
Mr. Amarosa. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend you and
other members of the subcommittee for your support of the
Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act, which was
unanimously approved by the committee last year. TruePosition
supports the passage of this important legislation because of
its critical nature to the safety and welfare of the millions
of wireless subscribers.
I would like to talk about two issues this morning. First,
the designation of 911 as a nationwide, universal emergency
number. And, second, the need for liability parity for
cellular, PCS, and other commercial mobile radio service
carriers that provide enhanced 911 services. By this I mean
wireless parity with wireline.
E-911 refers to the ability of a wireless carrier to
determine the actual location of a caller within a carrier's
system. The caller's location and the call itself
simultaneously are routed to the appropriate public safety
answering point, the so-called PSAP. TruePosition and several
other location technology companies have worked diligently to
develop a workable technology to achieve this important goal.
Our system is a network-based solution that is placed on the
existing cellular and PCS networks. Thus it can easily be
deployed, integrated, and managed with existing wireless 911
networks and can be used by the 68 million wireless handsets in
use today.
Let me emphasize: This is not tomorrow's technology. This
is today's technology. TruePosition is installing such a system
in Greater Harris County in Houston, Texas, following
successful tests in many cities, including a 350-square-mile
test in southern New Jersey. Wireless location technology is
commercially available today and can be quickly extended to
every single wireless subscriber in the United States without
any modification to the existing phones.
To achieve our mutual goal, designating 911 as the
universal number is critical. Studies have indicated that the
number of wireless users is increasing at a rate of 10 million
per year, and by the year 2001, there will be more than 100
million wireless users in the United States alone. Contrary to
what most Americans believe, 911 is not the universally used
number across the country for calling emergency law
enforcement, fire, and medical personnel. For example, various
jurisdictions using phone numbers such as *77, *MSP, *99, *55
just to name a few. Americans who are accustomed to dialing 911
as the universal may be less than able to elicit timely
emergency responses when traveling in these jurisdictions.
As you know, wireless users are inherently transient. They
routinely travel into different service areas, including other
States. These users are not only less likely to know or be able
to identify their location, they are even less likely to know
the designated emergency number in that particular area. The
universal number will enable the dispatchers to communicate and
to locate the wireless phone subscribers in an emergency
situations that are far beyond the reach of a wireline phone.
My second point, Mr. Chairman: Last year the FCC required
wireless carriers to identify the location of emergency
wireless callers using automatic location technology. It is not
enough, however, to create potential for this remarkable
lifesaving tool without also protecting those who use it and
implement it. Unfortunately, this is a situation we face today.
Wireless carriers do not have the same liability protections as
traditional wireline carriers. This results in unnecessary and
unfair exposure to tort liability for the wireless carriers.
TruePosition believes one of the primary obstacles to the
deployment of location technology services is the carrier's
potential exposure to lawsuits. This is an issue to be
addressed by the Congress and we commend you for your efforts
to do so.
Mr. Chairman, let me share one startling fact with you. One
out of every two phones, wireless phones, will call 911
sometime this year. And the emergency dispatcher may not know
where they are to be located. It is important to remember that
E911 is about ordinary citizens who purchase wireless phones
for personal safety and for emergency use. Policymakers need to
make E911 a reality and to ensure that the emergency caller can
be found.
I thank you very much for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Michael Amarosa follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael Amarosa, Vice President for Public
Affairs, TruePosition, Inc.
i. introduction
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this Subcommittee, my
name is Michael Amarosa and I am the Vice President for Public Affairs
of TruePosition, Inc., a leading provider of cellular telephone-based
Enhanced 9-1-1 location technology based in Vienna, Virginia. Thank you
for providing me with the opportunity to testify before you today on
behalf of TruePosition.
We would like to take this opportunity to talk briefly about two
important and timely issues. First, we support the Wireless
Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999 introduced by Rep. Tauzin.
This bill proposes to designate ``9-1-1'' as a nationwide universal
emergency number. We support the passage of this bill because it is
critical to the safety and welfare of millions of wireless subscribers.
Second, we would like to discuss briefly the need for legislation that
limits liability for cellular, PCS, and other commercial mobile radio
service (``CMRS'') carriers that provide Enhanced 9-1-1 services.
Enhanced 9-1-1 (``E9-1-1'') refers to the ability of a CMRS carrier to
determine the actual location of a caller within the carrier's system
and relaying that location to the appropriate public safety answering
point (``PSAP'') along with the emergency call itself. Without such
legislation, CMRS carriers will be exposed to unlimited and unintended
tort liability from mobile wireless users. This will permit parity with
wireline E9-1-1 on the liability issue.
TruePosition, like several other companies, has worked diligently
to develop a workable technology that enables emergency rescue
personnel to reach and treat trauma victims. The TruePosition Wireless
Location system is an overlay that is placed on top of existing
cellular/PCS phone networks. Thus, it can be easily deployed,
integrated and managed with existing CMRS and 9-1-1 networks.
TruePosition's system can pinpoint an emergency wireless caller's
location and immediately forward that information to a PSAP closest to
the caller. The Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'') refers to
this as Automatic Location Identification (``ALI'') technology. ALI
enables emergency rescue personnel to reach and administer care to
crash and other trauma victims during the crucial ``golden hour''
immediately following an accident, even if the victim is unable to
indicate her or his location. Moreover, TruePosition's ALI technology
is now capable of performing ALI for all existing types of analog and
digital CMRS networks. In fact, TruePosition is installing such a
system in Houston today, and has already concluded successful tests in
New Jersey. In short, ALI technology is workable and available now, and
can quickly be extended to each of the more than 60 million current
CMRS subscribers.
I should emphasize that the inability to indicate one's location is
not uncommon. This is also still the case in some areas for wireline
E9-1-1. For instance, with emergency calls made from traditional
landline phones the signaling information associated with the call
passes the caller's phone number on to the phone company and then to
the PSAP. The phone number of course denotes the caller's exact
address, including one's apartment number if applicable, or even the
specific location of a payphone. Thus, the little boy or girl who knows
enough--and perhaps only enough--to call 9-1-1, or the sick or injured
adult that is not sufficiently coherent or otherwise hangs up in
distress or is disconnected before providing her or his actual address,
can still have emergency care immediately sent their way. The emergency
operator, examples of which we have all seen on television news shows
and docu-dramas, already knows exactly where the caller is.
This is not the case, however, with emergency calls made from
cellular, PCS, and other CMRS phones. CMRS carriers have not yet
deployed equipment to enable themselves to locate users who dial 9-1-1
or other emergency numbers, even though such equipment has been readily
available from TruePosition and others. Ironically, a recent poll
indicates that two out of every three CMRS users believe that their
phones are ALI-capable. In other words, most CMRS users are currently
under a false sense of security because of their belief that, if they
dial 9-1-1, the PSAP will automatically know the user's exact location.
This poll also clearly shows that people want the added security that
E9-1-1 provides and are willing to pay for protection. Thus, the issue
is not consumer demand, but rather availability and carrier
implementation. Recently initiated FCC proceedings, however, could
invite delays of ALI deployment. Any FCC waiver of its rules or other
action that relinquishes a carrier's responsibility to locate all users
in a market by 2001 will have dramatic consequences . . . lives lost or
seriously impaired.
First, depending on the technology used by the particular CMRS
carrier the phone number is not always passed on to the PSAP. Second,
even if it is that phone number does nothing to indicate where the
caller is located; the caller can be anywhere within the PSAP's
jurisdiction (or even outside that jurisdiction), and ANY delay in
locating the caller can very well be the difference between life and
death.
Indeed, in my 24 years in the public safety , I have learned that
reduction in response times to emergency callers is the most crucial
factor in saving lives in emergency situations. Further, I have worked
closely with both public safety officials and emergency dispatchers and
each have expressed increasing concerns about the need for technology
and information systems to locate wireless emergency calls. In essence,
although medical technology and procedures have advanced light years,
the ability to locate citizens in need of those technologies and
procedures on the nation's roadways has not. Unfortunately, despite the
FCC's remarkable efforts to facilitate the development of technology to
ensure the safety of wireless users, its recent regulations regarding
wireless E9-1-1 leave unintended holes in the process and essentially
do not adequately address the two very compelling issues I highlighted
earlier. Fortunately, your proposed legislation can. The overall
effectiveness of E9-1-1 technology would be forestalled without the
adoption of a universal emergency number and the balanced resolution of
wireless carrier liability.
Mr. Chairman, we commend you and your co-sponsors for introducing
the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999. We hope that
this legislation will address these concerns and it is our hope that it
will help overcome the major roadblocks preventing the effective and
immediate implementation of wireless E9-1-1.
ii. support universal e9-1-1 legislation
The universal E9-1-1 legislation is particularly crucial for
wireless users for several reasons. First, studies indicate that the
number of CMRS users is increasing at a rate of 10 million per year and
that by the end of 2001 there will be over 100 million CMRS users in
the United States. Contrary to what most Americans perceive, 9-1-1 is
not universally used across the country for direct access to emergency
law enforcement and medical personnel. For example, throughout the
country jurisdictions utilize phone numbers such as *77,*MSP, and*99 in
lieu of 9-1-1. Thus, Americans trained on the use of 9-1-1 as the
universal emergency beacon may be left unable to elicit timely
emergency care when traveling in these jurisdictions.
Second, wireless users are inherently transient. In fact, wireless
users routinely ``roam'' into other service areas, including areas in
distant states. As such they are not only less likely to know or to be
able to identify their location in an emergency, they are even less
likely to know the designated ``emergency'' number in a particular area
if it is not 9-1-1. A universal emergency number will enable emergency
dispatchers to communicate with and locate these CMRS phone users--whom
the industry refers to as ``roamers''--in emergency situations that are
far beyond the reach of a wireline phone.
I should emphasize that it is not our goal to preempt a state's
right to designate an emergency number for use by its residents. Our
goal simply is to promote safety. And we can demonstrate that a
nationwide emergency number will promote safety and save lives. And
that is and should be a principle goal of every legislature--state and
federal. This goal is challenged, however, each year as the popularity
and convenience of wireless phones increases. In 1998 alone,
approximately 98,000 daily calls to emergency numbers were made
nationwide, and at least 30 percent of those emergency calls were made
by wireless users. That translates into more than 36 million calls for
CMRS subscribers alone in 1998, and that number will increase
exponentially as the number of wireless phones increases. In fact,
studies show that a high percentage of consumers that subscribe to CMRS
service at least in part for safety reasons is such that 9-1-1 has
become synonymous with emergency assistance. It is, to the majority of
telephone users, a lifeline to emergency services. Young children
recognize it as such and the number has been and continues to be a
vital lifeline to expedient and essential emergency care services to
wireline users. Wireless users warrant and require the same provision
of care nationwide.
iii. liability limitation for cmrs carriers
In 1998, the FCC released the second in a series of orders
establishing key components to the rapid and efficient deployment of
emergency wireless telecommunications services. As you know the 1998
Order required CMRS carriers to identify the location of emergency
wireless callers via Automatic Location Identification technology. ALI
technology is the most effective resource that public safety
organizations have to access trauma victims and reduce the loss and
impairment of human life in connection with 9-1-1 calls made from CMRS
phones. TruePosition and other E9-1-1 providers commend Congress and
the FCC for their unflagging efforts to work with the CMRS and public
safety industries to ensure the safety and welfare of wireless
communications users. It is not enough, however, to create the
potential for such a remarkable lifesaving tool without also protecting
those who are required to implement it. Unfortunately, that is exactly
what the FCC has done.
CMRS carriers do not have the same liability protections as
traditional landline carriers. Existing state tariffs allows landline
carriers to insulate themselves from tort liability in connection with
the provision of 9-1-1 service, including the relaying of number and
address information of the caller. In contrast, pursuant to Section 332
of the Communications Act and orders of the FCC, CMRS carriers are not
subject to filing tariffs relating to the services they offer, thus
they cannot receive comparable liability protection at the state level.
Although the CMRS industry has petitioned for the authority to resolve
carrier liability issues by filing federal tariffs, the FCC has
declined to provide wireless carriers with such authority. Accordingly,
CMRS carriers willing to provide E9-1-1 services that necessitate
significant modifications to their wireless networks lack the
opportunity to attain the same protections as landline telephone
carriers that provide 9-1-1 service without having to modify their
networks. The FCC's reticence not only unnecessarily exposes CMRS
carriers to unlimited tort liability from CMRS users, it undermines its
statutory goals and contravenes its policy on regulatory parity for
like services.
This is too harsh a consequence to impose on carriers, especially
after they will have invested both time and money to locate wireless
callers more quickly. More important, however, it is delaying the
implementation of E9-1-1 for tens of millions of CMRS users. The FCC's
rules do not require CMRS carriers to fully implement E9-1-1 ALI
technologies until October 2001, and even then only if certain pre-
conditions are met. TruePosition believes that one of the primary
impediments for CMRS carriers to implement ALI capability immediately
is their exposure to liability--including the defense of a potentially
never-ending stream of unwarranted lawsuits--that could result from
their provision of ALI services. In short, the FCC's reluctance to
authorize CMRS carriers to file federal tariffs or otherwise provide
immunity for the offering of wireless E9-1-1 service that parallels
that enjoyed by landline 9-1-1 service providers is delaying CMRS
carriers' provision of this life-saving service. The FCC's failure to
perceive this cause and effect impedes public safety.
In addition, the FCC's over dependence on state regulation of
carrier liability contravenes stated national E9-1-1 goals and
minimizes the central role that liability protection has played in the
effective administration of wireline E9-1-1. Since 9-1-1's inception in
1968, wireline carriers have been afforded the protections of state
tariffs. Thus, the FCC's claim that a carrier exemption from liability
``is not necessary to the inauguration of E9-1-1 service'' is contrary
to the uniform practice by all carriers in all states.
Safety and emergency services are an imperative concern for the
men, women, and children of this country. In fact, studies indicate
that a large percentage of all wireless users purchase their phones, in
part, to protect their safety. Yet, the FCC's most recent regulations
have the unintended effect of hindering the rapid and efficient
deployment of advanced emergency telecommunications services.
Notwithstanding, TruePosition commends Congress for taking steps to
bring about the legislative reform that will ultimately guarantee the
prompt deployment throughout the United States of a seamless,
ubiquitous, and reliable end-to-end infrastructure for wireless E9-1-1
communications. Any delays in the implementation of Wireless E-9-1-1
location technology will result in serious consequences for our
citizens and thwart the efforts to provide more effective and efficient
public safety services.
iv. conclusion
I look forward to the successful passage of in its present form,
offer any further help TruePosition can provide the Subcommittee in its
deliberations, and would like to thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for
giving me this opportunity to testify before you. I would be delighted
to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, Mr. Amarosa.
The Chair now recognizes himself and other members for 5
minutes for questioning. And I will begin.
First of all, Mr. Wheeler, I want to get to the issue of
siting. The ranking member, Mr. Markey, pointed out that this
year's bill does not contain the language of last year's effort
dealing with siting on Federal properties. And, obviously, we
are going to get to that issue in Rock Creek Park.
There are three elements to this problem. One is having
enough cells out there so that people can use their mobile
phones or equipment in an emergency. The second is having a
common number. And the third is having a locatable capability
so that, in fact, we can take the search out of search and
rescue. All three are critical to saving lives. And the bill
contains, indeed as you all outlined and as Mr. Shimkus has
filed, excellent provisions on the last two, on the common
calling number and provisions for liability protection, privacy
protections, and yet, at the same time, locatable technology so
that when someone calls on a wireless phone Mr. Hanna, your
office can know where he is just as readily as you can when he
calls or she calls on a wired phone. Critical elements.
But let us turn to the first element. Now I am told that
much of the problems of 600 communities or 500 communities
having ``just say no'' policies to new siting have been, in
some ways, ameliorated over the last year. That there has been
much more cooperation and cell sites are now much more
available, although there are still problems and holes in the
safety net. Would you give us an update on the cell siting
issues and the problems for this country?
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that you have
probably characterized it correctly. It is the old 80-20 rule.
You know, I am not worried about the 80 percent that are really
out there promoting safety for their citizens, but what about
the 20 percent?
Mr. Tauzin. Yes.
Mr. Wheeler. You know, I tried to suggest in my comments
that maybe there is a role for the FCC in this, different from
the role, perhaps, we have asked them to do before. And perhaps
there is a role for this committee and the Congress in helping
the FCC get there because obviously, if I were sitting in Tom
Sugrue's shoes, I hear differing reports from Members of
Congress too. Some say do it; some say don't. And maybe there
is a way we can work our way through it.
For instance, let me just suggest that a policy statement
from the FCC intended for the use of local zoning authorities,
for judges that have to review those decisions of the law
saying, hey, this is different. This is not siting a
McDonald's. This is talking about public safety. This is
talking also about building a competitive national pathway. And
some kind of a serious message, not some ``on one hand and on
the other'' kind of comment, but a serious message saying, Mr.
County Commissioner, look at this differently. There are
serious issues here that you need to look at.
Mr. Tauzin. What you are saying is to the communities that
makes zoning laws, a strong message that, look, we don't want
to interfere with your zoning laws. You have a right to make
those decisions. But, for heaven's sake, look at this; take
this seriously. Look at it as a different application than the
siting of a McDonald's or some other zoning issue you might
have.
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tauzin. What about public agencies? Because we are
going to turn to Ms. Finnerty in a second and the Park Service.
What is the message here? We have left out the provision in the
bill again, spelling out the leasing policy for the Federal
Government, so that we would get more Federal sites available
for tower siting, so that Rock Creek does not have to wait,
even I think it is 75 days, if I might make a point, Ms.
Finnerty, my understanding is that by March 3, 30 days have run
on the assessment, public comment completed April 3, then by
April 16, 2 weeks, final decision will be made on Rock Creek.
That is 75 days. Is that correct?
Ms. Finnerty. That is correct.
Mr. Tauzin. I am told that is correct. So we are talking
about another 75 days after a year of bureaucratic and company
discussions and applications and back-and-forth. What is the
message to public agencies like the Park Service? Is this
process too slow? Is this Rock Creek Park, and the problems of
people having access to cellular emergency services in that
area, is that a problem still endemic around the country? What
is the message to public agencies here? If you want to give
that message to localities.
Mr. Wheeler. The answer, Mr. Chairman, is it depends on the
agency. The Bureau of Land Management has done a superb job.
Mr. Tauzin. Okay.
Mr. Wheeler. They have got an expedited process. They have
got a good fee schedule. It works. For some reason, the Park
Service hasn't ever--it was June 1994, by the way, 1994 that
Bell Atlantic first approached the Park Service.
Mr. Tauzin. We have some charts. I want to take you through
this. I want to show what you are talking about and I want to
ask Ms. Finnerty why it is so hard to get this approved.
Here is a physical look at the current light poles at the
tennis center which would be used to put up the cellular
service. On that same tower, is my understanding.
Show us a view next of what the tower would look like when
you add the cellular antenna. Have them next door to each
other. Hold them up where we can see.
It is very little difference, as I can see. Is that
correct?
Let us look at the next pictures, which are the pictures of
the current building configuration at the tennis center and
what would be added in order to have the equipment building to
service that tower site.
No, that is the last one. That is the maintenance yard. But
in the maintenance yard, we are talking about the addition of a
small building and a pole, right? That is the only difference.
And if you go back to the two center pictures, if you have them
there, it is simply the addition of a small add-on to the
building as I am looking at it here. If you don't have them I
have them here.
Yes. The before and after, the before is here and after is
here. A very small addition to the building.
Why on earth, Ms. Finnerty, does it take us from 1994 until
today, where we finally got an agreement coincidentally the
night before this hearing again to complete it in 75 days?
Why does it take so long when there is a clear public need
and those changes are so minor to the look, the feel, the taste
of Rock Creek Park?
Ms. Finnerty. Yes, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I
have an expert here with me who can answer questions.
Mr. Tauzin. Well, you surely can have my permission. And my
time is up, but I want someone to respond before I finish. So
if you will introduce and have someone respond.
Ms. Finnerty. All right. I will introduce John Parsons who
is the associate regional director in the national capital
region.
Mr. Tauzin. All right. The question specifically is:
Recognizing that those are the only changes that I am aware of
that require physical alterations to the park--a piece of
equipment on a light pole, the addition of a small building and
a pole, and the addition of an add-on to the current building
at the tennis center--if that is all it takes for us to give
some modicum of safety and coverage to all the folks who use
that wonderful park and who put their lives at risk sometimes
because they don't have emergency access to wireless services
there, why does it take so long for our government to say,
okay, do it?
Mr. Parsons. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to go
through what we have gone through.
Mr. Tauzin. Yes. Well, do it quickly because my time has
expired and I have other members and I want to let them ask
questions. If you will just give me a quick answer, why did it
take so long?
Mr. Parsons. We received the application last May. Mr.
Galvin's commitment to this committee was that we would come to
the point in 60 days as to whether we would say yes, no, or
maybe.
Mr. Tauzin. You said maybe.
Mr. Parsons. We said maybe. We said maybe. What we learned,
which was no surprise to us, is managing parks in this city is
like managing in a fishbowl. We had plenty of advice on both
sides of this issue. And it became, very quickly,
controversial. And the reason it did is people presumed that we
would not be able to serve the entire park with these one or
two antennas. And they were right. We were able to serve only
30 percent of the park with these two antennas, as submitted to
us by the applicant.
So we decided, and we erred, that we would hire a
consultant to help us with this issue. Because, as we have
heard here this morning----
Mr. Tauzin. You don't have enough people at the Park
Service to do it, you have to hire consultants?
Mr. Parsons. This is a total new industry to us. What we
were trying to do was to assure ourselves and the citizens who
use the park that they indeed would be safe in the park and
they wouldn't be dropping 70 percent of the calls.
So we hired a consultant who had expertise in this matter
to assist us in determining how many antennas we would need to
guarantee the public their safety. Unfortunately, the cost of
that reached $300,000. And when we submitted the proposed bill
to the applicant, they had concern, which I presume has been
brought to your attention.
We have now concluded that we are not going to do that. We
are going to do an environmental assessment on the matter that
you just showed on those two exhibits. We are not going to deal
with the cumulative impacts of antennas in our park. We are not
going to deal with how we will serve the rest of the visitors
in the park. We are going to deal with these two applications.
It is a much more simple process, one we can certainly complete
in 75 days.
Mr. Tauzin. And which could have been completed in 75 days
last year.
Mr. Parsons. Yes, it could have if we did not try to
respond to the public concern that was expressed about the
potential for many, many antennas in this park.
Mr. Tauzin. I promise all of you this is the last question.
Thank you. But here is the frustrating thing: I mean, here is a
company that wants to start the process. You say it covers 10
percent, 20 percent, 30 percent. They want to start the process
of providing protection. And you hold it up for a year with
arguments over whether or not you wanted to put up more towers
and cover more areas.
That is not the message I got. The message I got was that
it was constantly being held up over environmentalist
assessment reports and records and reviews and the agency was
slow to approve this request which would serve a large portion
of the park, if not all of it. And I just want you to know the
frustration Mr. Markey and I felt with this when we thought we
had an agreement that, in fact, in 60 days the application
pending would be addressed and approved on its merits, yes or
no. And, instead, we are now a year later--well, almost. It was
1994 when the Park Service was first approached. And now you
tell us, yes, we could have done it in 60 days last year had we
agreed simply to look at this application and approve it or
dismiss it.
Just know how frustrating that is. Know how frustrated our
entire committee is, that all of us are watching, as Mr.
Wheeler said, these safety net holes and people dying and
people not getting emergency services and how many people who
are walking around with serious debilitations that could have
been addressed properly had someone gotten to them in time?
This new assessment is going to cost $40,000. That's going
to be added to somebody's phone bill, I suppose, people using
the park, to approve those changes that could have been
approved last year. When this is all said and done, my
committee, we are going to look at the total cost of this
delay, not just in dollars, but in incidents in that park. And
we will all be ashamed that we didn't do a better job, all of
us, that we didn't get it done sooner. And I am finished.
I just want to lay it heavily upon all of us that we can't
waste another day while people out there dying and not getting
help and not getting assistance because we foolishly put up all
these bureaucratic barriers to getting assistance out there for
them. Americans would be ashamed of us to know that it took a
year for us to get approved something that could have been
approved in 60 days. You have to do better. The Chair yields
now to the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Gordon, for
questioning.
Mr. Gordon. Ms. Finnerty, you don't need me pounding on you
right now, but let me just make a quick statement. I recognize
that you are going through reorganization. I recognize that the
Park Service doesn't have adequate funds to meet the needs that
you have. And I also recognize that you have a special charge
of maintaining our national heritage in so many ways and that
you don't just cavalierly make changes, because, once you do,
you can't get many of these things back.
I have had similar situations where the Park Service--not
only on this Rock Creek matter, but just on trying to get
through the bureaucracy, trying to get something done, and I
hope that maybe whatever comes from here can be an exercise
that might be learned in other areas too. The Park Service has
an important charge in our country but, goodness, you have got
to be able to do a better job and be able to get answers and be
responsive or you are going to lose--well, I won't go in to
this now--but you are lose credibility and when you lose
credibility it is going to make it harder for us to get your
funds to get things to help this very important job that you
do.
Mr. Wheeler, in your testimony, I think the thrust of it
was that wireless saves lives. And with that in mind, I
understand that many or some of your members anyway or
companies are applying to the FCC for waivers to postpone the
implementation of phase two of the emergency 911 rule so that
that they can explore the possibility of using handset-based
technology which may not be available in time. And we have
heard this morning that in phase two the rules require the
automatic location information to be available the beginning of
October 2001.
And my question would be--the start of my question is: How
long of a delay do you think would be required? And you gave a
statement earlier today about the 41,000 calls that were being
made earlier, how many lives will be lost or threatened during
this delay?
Mr. Wheeler. Let us start with the E911 rule. The E911
rules were rules that we at public safety developed so let us
start with the fact that those rules were ones that we
literally went to the FCC and said, will you please impose
these. Because I don't think there's any question as to where
we are on the implementation of location capabilities.
What we found, however, is that it is one thing to say
there should be location and then there is something else to
implement it. One of the implementational problems that I
reference in my testimony is the fact that you have got so many
different agencies out there that you have to deal with at the
local level to develop the relationship so that the E911 call
goes through. And each of them--it is the old 80-20 rule again.
There are 20 percent of those who say, look, now we are going
to do it different in my little corner of Tennessee or
whatever.
Mr. Gordon. I don't mean to cut you short, but I have a
limited amount of time here. What, approximately, percent of
your members are going to ask for delays?
Mr. Wheeler. I don't know the answer to that.
Mr. Gordon. What would you guess?
Mr. Wheeler. I really don't know to be honest.
Mr. Gordon. Would it be less than half?
Mr. Wheeler. I am not trying to avoid your question, but
what I am trying to point is that the determination of where
are you on implementation is first a determination of where are
you with the localities who can use the information once it is
given to them. They are not ready for it. We have to have that
relationship before we can build it.
Mr. Gordon. I don't mean to be discourteous. I just have a
limited amount of time.
Mr. Wheeler. I am sorry.
Mr. Gordon. When do you think you could get to us that
information?
Mr. Wheeler. I will try to do it with all dispatch, Mr.
Gordon.
Mr. Gordon. Okay. And let me go to the FCC here. I assume
that, as these waivers come to you, are you going to provide
some--what is going to be your criteria? Are you going to do
some kind of cost-benefit analysis? What do you see happening?
Mr. Sugrue. Absolutely, in the public interest. As I
understand this, rather than characterize this as necessarily
postponing the deadline, it is to shape the implementation
requirements so that a different technology isn't sort of ruled
out just because the rules were written with one particular
type of technological solution in mind.
When the Commission wrote these rules, it assumed that the
only approach to provide this service was a network-based
solution. You build it into the cell sites around the network.
Since then, some folks have proposed what they call a handset-
based solution that would work in conjunction with the global
positioning system, the satellite system that provides very
precise location information. If our rules were applied
literally, no one, no carrier, no system using a handset-based
approach could satisfy our requirements. Not because we wanted
to rule it out, because we wrote the rules in a way without
that in mind.
I think it is sort of that the various reasons why,
procedurally, this is being styled as a waiver. I would almost
prefer to think of it as a rule modification or update so we
have an approach that doesn't inadvertently rule out one
technology that may be very promising. So we are going to look
at things like if you do the handset-based approach, which
would involve a ramp-up, you might be required to start earlier
so that the deadline may, in some sense, be stricter.
Mr. Gordon. Will you looking at, I mean, maybe the
difference in accuracy? I mean, whether it is a, you know,
minimal amount or--and also cost?
Mr. Sugrue. One of the tradeoffs will be whether the
current rule provides for location information with 125 meters
on a measured average basis. Now that's about 400 feet. One
thing we are going to ask is if you are going to ask for a
waiver, will you be able to do better then that if you get the
waiver? So can you get inside 125 meters as a standard? And one
of the things we might do is say you get the waiver if you
commit to high accuracy levels.
Mr. Gordon. So are you going to present to us some type of
what these criterion are going to be? Are you going to be more
specific about it?
Mr. Sugrue. Sure. We could present that. Yes.
Mr. Gordon. Thank you.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, Mr. Gordon. Mr. Oxley for a round of
questions.
Mr. Oxley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sugrue, welcome back.
Mr. Sugrue. Thank you.
Mr. Oxley. Phase I, as you know, was for carriers to
provide cell site and sector and call-back numbers. That was to
be implemented last April. As I understand it, it is only about
two, 3 percent of the country that has complied with Phase I
today. Is that about correct?
Mr. Sugrue. The last figure I saw was 7 percent, but small,
yes.
Mr. Oxley. Okay. And, as you know, with Phase II is
relocation and the end date is October 1, 2001. What has the
FCC proposed in terms of the implementation of Phase II and is
there any reason to think it would be analogous to Phase I or
is there some hope that it might accelerate?
Mr. Sugrue. Well, NENA did a survey as to what were the
problems with Phase I. By far the largest problem--among PSAPs,
public safety answering points, by far the largest problem
identified was lack of funding. Those funding issues are being
addressed at the localities with the industry. I personally
consider it unfortunate that the provision in the last year's
legislation that would have assisted that process was taken
out. I understand why. But I would urge the subcommittee there
is a way to sort of address that issue, because that has been
sort of the major problem.
The hope is over the next couple of years that those
funding issues one way or another get addressed because we can
require the carriers to implement all we want if on the public
safety side, there isn't the wherewithal to make those
investments and the network upgrades. It won't work.
Mr. Oxley. Well, it is pretty obvious that the
technological obstacles have pretty much been overcome, so now
all of a sudden--well, not all of a sudden, but essentially the
barriers now are financial, political, and legal. Is that a
safe assumption?
Mr. Sugrue. I would say those are major barriers, yes. I
wouldn't quite rule out all the technological things, but there
has been more progress on the technology than on all those
other fronts, yes.
Mr. Oxley. I was struck by the discussion about Rock Creek
Park and my experience in my home when I am here as to how
quickly Bell Atlantic was able to get a monopole erected in our
neighborhood, working hand-in-glove with VDOT. And, I mean,
that thing came out of the ground so fast it would make your
head swim. And it brought to mind and it brought home very
starkly how quickly these folks can act if they really have a
desire to do that.
Now, admittedly, we are near the Beltway and that has a
major component to it. But there is, obviously, a difference in
the agencies and how they cooperate in this area. It is most
interesting. Of the three, in your experience--that is,
financial, political, and legal--what is going to be the major
obstacle? Is there one of the three that is more important or
more of an obstacle than the others?
Mr. Sugrue. Well, since my hands-on experience has been
literally 2 weeks, I would have to say all three, in the course
of that experience. The tower siting issue is absolutely
critical and we have talked about why. It is not just quality
of service. It is safety. It is competition so that new
competitors can get out there. I would like to work with Tom
Wheeler and CTIA to address that. However, the law seems pretty
clear that the folks who have the lead are the State and local
governments and so we will have to work cooperatively and maybe
providing guidance but I don't see a lot of way clear to do
some of the preemptive things CTIA would like us to do
sometime.
If Congress would have provided us with more authority, at
least on behalf of the wireless bureau, we wouldn't hesitate to
exercise it. But Congress in its wisdom has drawn the line
differently, as far as I see it, on that issue.
Mr. Oxley. Well, and as you know, it was a balancing act
that we were attempting, you know--understanding the real needs
of local communities----
Mr. Sugrue. Absolutely.
Mr. Oxley. [continuing] and local leaders. I wouldn't say
it was necessarily a bad experience that I went through, but
clearly there were folks in our neighborhood that would not
share that view. I had an experience in my district of erecting
a monopole in a neighborhood, right smack-dab in the middle of
a residential neighborhood. So I think we do have to be
sensitive to local concerns and local zoning and local leaders
and, obviously, that is what the law tried to reconcile, and it
is obviously not all black and white.
Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Oxley, I think the point that you just
made, the point that Tom Sugrue just made are right on target.
We understand what this committee has said. We understand what
the Commission has said, in terms of no, we will not preempt.
And I guess what I was suggesting earlier and hoping that maybe
we can open a new course. There is enough brain power here that
we ought to be able to solve this.
Mr. Oxley. Well, if I could just add this: We had a
situation in our neighborhood where there was an offer to move
that site to the other side of the Beltway on a commercial
piece of property. And because of, in my estimation, the rush
to get this thing done, it was essentially ignored. And we
were, frankly, never given any real reason why the other
location would have not made more sense. And I was never
totally satisfied that it wasn't other than this rush to get
this thing done under enormous pressure. And, to that extent, I
think some of the local concerns were ignored.
Mr. Wheeler. I hope you get to the point where there is
some kind of a statement that says to localities, as I said,
this isn't the McDonald's. This isn't your average thing. This
is about safety. Let us see how we can respect that while
respecting local rights.
Mr. Oxley. Thank you.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, Mr. Oxley. Then for the final
questions, then we will break for this vote, and I think we
will wrap up. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Engel.
Mr. Engel. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will
try to hurry it up.
Essentially, we were frustrated in that we want to see this
implemented by 2001 and frustrated at the waivers because
everything seems to be delay and delay.
I want to ask Mr. Amarosa, since I am from New York and so
is he, and I want to hear his accent.
I would like you, if you could explain, now I understand
the network technology is there now. And going to the headset
technology supposedly makes it more accurate. If we are talking
about the difference between 100 feet and 400 feet, then what
is the big deal? Why should we delay for accuracy that, to me,
is inconsequential if we can implement this now onto the
network solution? So could you comment on that?
Mr. Amarosa. Sure, and I would happy to expose my accent to
you as well, sir. I am from the Bronx.
Mr. Engel. I know where you are from, sir. We sound alike.
Mr. Amarosa. I don't think we can hide that. I think what
you have to look at, though, is two things. No. 1, I think that
the network technology that is available today is in compliance
with the FCC rules. And I think what you have seen through many
of the companies that have utilized that network technology is
that it is there. It is working. And it can come within the 410
feet at this given point in time. And I think that accuracy
will be improved as time goes on.
The proposals on the other types of solutions that exist
have not been fully proven in commercial applications or in
field tests to date. Right now it is a hypothesis that it can
do better and it will do better is what the intention is. And
that we haven't seen. So that when you are dealing with the
level of accuracy issue, I think you have to look at as well
what can be done now and how well it can be done today.
Tomorrow or the next day, a year from now, if there is
something better that comes along I think that is part of the
competition issue and the marketplace issue as to what can
better improve that accuracy at that given point once that is
proven.
Mr. Engel. Yes, Mr. Sugrue, why wait? Why impose all these
other costs to consumers that may need to have to buy new
phones as a result? I just don't understand why the delay?
Everything is a tradeoff. And it seems to me if we are going to
push it back, further back to 2001, is it really worth the
delay to do all these waivers just to go from network to
headset? I am not convinced. I can be convinced, but I am not
convinced yet.
Mr. Sugrue. Okay. I have just got to admit that I am from
Queens. I may have lost my accent, but----
Mr. Engel. Okay.
Mr. Sugrue. But I went to----
Mr. Engel. Shame on you.
Mr. Sugrue. But I went to high school in the Bronx.
Mr. Tauzin. You all sound kind of funny to me.
Mr. Sugrue. We established this deadline of October 2001.
We are not backing off that. What we are looking at is whether
the way one measures compliance needs to be modified in light
of competing technology that has emerged on the scene. That is
pretty much it. We want that out there as soon as possible.
The carrier community has asked us to look at this issue
and I am not in the position--I don't want to--I am not the
technology proponent and they are not here to debate which one
is better. We are going to be gathering comments on that. It
seemed a legitimate request to come in because, again, at least
as I understand it, just the way the measurements were defined
preclude this other technology from satisfying this
requirement.
Mr. Tauzin. We thank you.
Mr. Sugrue. Yes.
Mr. Tauzin. Mr. Sugrue, we have to go make this vote. The
Chair thanks you all for your attendance and your cooperation
and your help. These bills will move fast, maybe as early as
next week, if we have time pending the coming retreat. So if
you have any additional comments or additional suggestions, get
them to us quick. We thank you very much and we look forward to
seeing you as we move these bills along.
The committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jackie N. Dukes, President, Rural Cellular
Association
On behalf of the members of the Rural Cellular Association (RCA), I
want to take this opportunity to thank the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection for this opportunity
to submit comments on pending legislation: the Wireless Communications
and Public Safety Enhancement Act of 1999 and the Wireless Privacy
Enhancement Act of 1999. We applaud the subcommittee for moving
expeditiously to consider these bills in the 106th Congress.
RCA is an association representing the interests of small and rural
wireless companies providing commercial services to subscribers
throughout the nation. RCA member companies provide wireless services
to predominantly rural areas that have an aggregate population of more
than six million people. Among our members' subscribers are entities
and individuals who are involved in a range of community activities,
including community and regional health care and safety operations.
Many RCA members serve military installations. The association was
formed in 1993 as a way to begin to address the very distinctive needs
of rural cellular providers. RCA is a gathering place for companies to
share problems and solutions covering a wide spectrum of industry
concerns, such as marketing, roaming, fraud, billing, operations,
customer service, and legislative and regulatory issues. We also serve
as a clearinghouse to help rural carriers stay current with issues and
actions impacting the industry.
More importantly, RCA member companies are distinguished not only
by the size of their markets and customer base, but also by the
relationship that we have with our customers. By virtue of our size and
our valued role within the community, our customers are our neighbors
and our friends. In some cases, RCA member companies that operate as
cooperatives are owned by their customers. RCA members are integral
parts of the communities in which we operate. We also are a critical
part of the local economy, and we help to fund a variety of charitable
interests within our community. RCA is more than another trade
association; we represent the needs of rural America.
Precisely because issues covered in the two pieces of legislation
before the subcommittee today have generated significant discussion and
debate in recent years, RCA will confine its comments at this time to
liability issues associated with the proposed Wireless Communications
and Public Safety Enhancement Act of 1999.
RCA member companies have a great deal of information about the
unique circumstances in which small and rural carriers now find
themselves, and we stand willing to share this information on an
ongoing basis with this subcommittee. We also are prepared to help our
member companies understand how decisions made by this Congress and the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) impact service delivery and how
our member companies can best implement the policy decisions made by
this body and its regulatory arm.
As this Congress knows, the current state of the telecommunications
marketplace is in flux as the legislative and regulatory branches of
government and the industry work to make the transition to a more
competitive marketplace. Together, we are exploring this grand
experiment that has its roots in the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Many in Congress, many industry observers, and many of us in the
industry recognize that the time is nearing for a reexamination of how
the Act is being implemented, including an assessment of whether we are
making progress in realizing Congress' legislative goal to make the
industry more competitive. As small and rural carriers, we will be able
to bring a very unique perspective to this issue by virtue of our size,
customer base, and the nature of the communities that we serve.
By enacting the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the U.S. Congress
committed the nation to a telecommunications policy intended to foster
competition in the marketplace to improve consumer service. As small
and rural wireless companies, we, too, are strongly committed to
working with the Congress and the FCC to ensure a truly competitive
marketplace. We take very seriously Congress' intent in the passage of
the 1996 law that competition will ensure quality service delivery. As
small and rural operators, we stand strongly on the side of delivering
quality services to our customers. Over the long run, the survival of
our companies and the well-being of our communities depend on a
marketplace that enables us to compete effectively through the delivery
of quality services. From a service delivery and marketing perspective,
that is our competitive advantage! Ultimately, the consumer will be the
beneficiary; but, first and foremost, we must be able to compete.
Our primary interest at this point is to ensure that the FCC does
not misinterpret the will of the Congress and so overburden small and
rural companies with unnecessary regulations as to make it more
difficult, if not impossible, for us to compete effectively. Any
governmental action that makes it more difficult for us to meet our
customers' needs or unfairly tips the fragile scales of the competitive
marketplace makes it more difficult for us to do business in the way
our customers want and demand.
Like many in this nation, we are very supportive of actions taken
by government at all levels to improve the ability of the nation's
infrastructure to meet the needs of all Americans, especially at times
in which people require emergency services. The Wireless Communications
and Public Safety Act of 1999 would designate 911 as the universal
emergency telephone number within the United States for reporting an
emergency to appropriate authorities and to request assistance.
Although this legislation applies both to wireline and wireless
telephone service, the membership of RCA recognizes that the goal of
the legislation poses some challenges for consumers in small and rural
areas.
As companies serving small and rural areas, we know from experience
that 911 services save lives in rural America. Yet, we must recognize
other fundamental realities as well. First, it is critical that
legislation enacted in this Congress to designate 911 as the universal
emergency telephone number for both wireline and wireless telephone
service includes a provision to provide immunity from liability for
providers of wireless 911 service to the same extent as provided to
local telephone exchange companies. And second, this immunity from
liability should be a uniform standard provided by the federal
government.
The need for immunity from liability has been stated many times and
on many occasions before the subcommittee. Local telephone exchange
companies already enjoy this immunity; so, too, should wireless
carriers. This Congress has demonstrated time and again a sensitivity
to the fact that we live in a highly litigious society. Moreover, as
much as we would like to acknowledge and recognize the sophistication
of current day technology, the practical reality is that technology--
through no fault of the carrier--has not always kept pace with the
public's ever burgeoning expectations in the telecommunications arena,
especially as it relates to emergency services. Newspapers nationwide
often carry stories about people unable to access 911 emergency
services. In fact, just this past week, newspapers were filled with
stories about the failure of 911 services in New York City, one of the
largest population centers in the world. For those of us providing
services in rural areas, we can provide anecdotal information about
incidents in which emergency services--again, through no fault of the
carrier--might not have functioned optimally.
Ultimately, it is important for the national public interest that
universal 911 services are available. But, it is equally important to
recognize that this means we will be providing 911 services for those
who are not subscribers to our systems or, perhaps, to any wireless
system. Without some protection, there is no universal methodology to
limit a carrier's liability for this activity. Since small and rural
carriers will be required by the federal government to provide this
service, it is important that we have immunity from liability for
events, circumstances, and technologies that are beyond our control.
Rational risk management is crucial for small and rural carriers. We
are asking Congress, also, to take a rational approach to this issue by
providing the same type of immunity from liability as provided to local
telephone exchange companies.
RCA recognizes that it is most appropriate for the federal
government to take responsibility for providing this immunity from
liability. We believe this immunity should be uniform throughout the
country. Although it would make sense for carriers operating in states
that have such immunity to fall under state statutes, it would not be
prudent to penalize the majority of small and rural carriers who
operate in states without this immunity from liability. Additionally,
the burden for securing legislation at the state level should not fall
on small and rural carriers (or any carriers), since it is the federal
government that is seeking the universal 911 service. This
responsibility should not be shifted to our shoulders. Nor should small
and rural carriers be required to divert even more resources which
would only exacerbate the cumulative impact of complying with overly
burdensome regulations. We ask only for a universal federal standard
for immunity from liability.
In conclusion, we support the establishment of universal 911
emergency services. We believe the most effective approach for Congress
to realize this objective in a way that is consistent with the goals of
the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is to provide immunity from
liability for wireless carriers. This is especially critical for small
and rural wireless carriers. This type of effective and common sense
approach to legislation will ensure that public safety requirements are
met without unnecessarily draining the limited resources of small and
rural carriers. This also will help to ensure that small and rural
carriers can continue to provide the quality of service that our
communities demand.