[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
WIRELESS E-911 IMPLEMENTATION: PROGRESS AND REMAINING HURDLES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE INTERNET
of the
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 4, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-27
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
87-492PDF
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana, Chairman
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
JOE BARTON, Texas Ranking Member
FRED UPTON, Michigan HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio RALPH M. HALL, Texas
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
CHRISTOPHER COX, California EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
Vice Chairman BART GORDON, Tennessee
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming ANNA G. ESHOO, California
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois BART STUPAK, Michigan
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING, GENE GREEN, Texas
Mississippi KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
VITO FOSSELLA, New York TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
ROY BLUNT, Missouri DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
STEVE BUYER, Indiana LOIS CAPPS, California
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania TOM ALLEN, Maine
MARY BONO, California JIM DAVIS, Florida
GREG WALDEN, Oregon JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
LEE TERRY, Nebraska HILDA L. SOLIS, California
ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky
MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
DARRELL E. ISSA, California
C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho
Dan R. Brouillette, Staff Director
James D. Barnette, General Counsel
Reid P.F. Stuntz, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
______
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet
FRED UPTON, Michigan, Chairman
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JOE BARTON, Texas Ranking Member
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
Vice Chairman KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
CHRISTOPHER COX, California JIM DAVIS, Florida
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming BART GORDON, Tennessee
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico ANNA G. ESHOO, California
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING, BART STUPAK, Michigan
Mississippi ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
VITO FOSSELLA, New York ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire GENE GREEN, Texas
MARY BONO, California JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
GREG WALDEN, Oregon (Ex Officio)
LEE TERRY, Nebraska
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana
(Ex Officio)
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Testimony of:
Amarosa, Michael, Senior Vice President, Public Affairs,
Trueposition, Inc.......................................... 51
Callahan, James, President & Chief Operating Officer, Mobile-
Tel, Inc................................................... 39
Hatfield, Dale N., Adjunct Professor, Department of
Interdisciplinary Telecommunications, University of
Colorado at Boulder Engineering Center..................... 16
Korsmo, Karl, Vice President of External Affairs, AT&T
Wireless Services.......................................... 37
Melcher, John, President, National Emergency Number
Association................................................ 29
Muleta, John B., Bureau Chief, Wireless Communications,
Federal Communications Commission.......................... 21
O'Connor, Michael, Director of Federal Regulatory Policy,
Verizon Communications..................................... 47
(iii)
WIRELESS E-911 IMPLEMENTATION: PROGRESS AND REMAINING HURDLES
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 2003
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and the Internet,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in
room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Fred Upton
(chairman) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Upton, Stearns, Gillmor,
Shimkus, Bass, Walden, Tauzin (ex officio), Markey, Rush,
Boucher, Towns, Eshoo, Engel, Green, and Dingell (ex officio).
Staff present: Will Norwind, policy coordinator; Howard
Waltzman, majority counsel; William Carty, legislative clerk;
Peter Filon, minority counsel; and Voncille Hines, minority
research assistant.
Mr. Upton. Good morning everyone. I will remind my
colleagues that if they choose not to give an opening
statement, they get extra time on the first round of questions.
I will not do so.
Good morning. Today's hearing is entitled Wireless E-911
Implementation, Progress and Remaining Hurdles. Every one of us
will remember where we were on September 11th. I was with
Senator Burns and my good friend and colleague, Congressman
Gene Green at an E-911 press conference over on the Senate
side. The press conference was abruptly interrupted as we
scurried into another Senator's office to watch the terrible
events of that day unfold before our eyes on TV and none of us
will ever forget that day.
And I would say that among the many lessons learned on
September 11th was that wireless E-911 not only is crucial for
normal public safety emergencies, but also homeland security in
the event, God forbid, of future terrorist attacks.
The events that day ushered in a welcome new era of
cooperation and a redoubling of efforts amongst all of the
various stake holders in the wireless E-911 universe. And I
must say that the outlook is much better than it was 2 years
ago when this subcommittee held its last hearing on wireless E-
911. But make no mistake. We still have a ways to go and there
are major hurdles ahead of us which we must clear.
Failure is not an option. No one should rest on their
laurels, and we will continue to hold everyone's feet to the
fire. We need maximum effort and cooperation and all of this is
what brings us together today. There's a lot of talk lately
about road maps in the context of achieving peace in the Middle
East. In the context of wireless E-911, we now have a road map
provided by one of today's distinguished panelists, Professor
Dale Hatfield. Among other things the Hatfield Report--Dale
Hatfield. Among other things, the Hatfield Report observes the
need for greater coordination in all levels of government, a
lack of resources at the local level, and the fact that local
exchange carriers are a critical piece of that puzzle.
Among the Hatfield Report's numerous recommendations, I am
particularly interested in creating a national E-911 Program
Office within the Department of Homeland Security. This will
ensure crucial, unified Federal leadership and coordination
across the country. In addition, we should make a significant
Federal investment through grants to States to assist local
public safety answering points, PSAPs in completing their
wireless E-911 systems.
One of the starkest observations made in the Hatfield
Report is that no matter how well the wireless carriers succeed
in upholding their end of the bargain, if PSAP funding problems
persist, deployment will be thwarted. Hence, Federal
investments are crucial. However, we must stop States from
raiding E-911 funds generated through E-911 surcharges on
consumers' bills. So I propose that only those States which
certify that they do not raid funds, would be eligible for
these new Federal dollars. In addition, we need to further
condition eligibility for such investments on the certification
by States that they have, in fact, an E-911 Statewide
Coordinator. The evidence suggests that those States with such
coordinators have made much greater progress than those
without. And such intrastate coordination should be a must.
Finally, let me say a word about wireless local number
portability. I support wireless LMP as a general proposition.
However, I do have concerns about its implementation at a time
when we are asking wireless carriers to make E-911 their top
priority. E-911 is a greater priority in my book, and we need
to carefully weigh that balance. In closing, I want to
especially commend our colleagues, John Shimkus and Anna Eshoo
for their effort to launch the House E-911 Caucus. Their
leadership in this area is tremendous, and I look forward to
working with each of them. It is my hope that we can craft
bipartisan legislation to help make full wireless E-911
deployment a reality.
As the subcommittee Chair, I am committed to moving such
legislation. Time is of the essence, and I yield now to the
ranking member of the subcommittee, my friend Mr. Markey from
Massachusetts.
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much, and I want
to commend you for calling this hearing this morning on
wireless E-911 implementation. This is an issue that this
subcommittee has been deeply involved in for a number of years,
and today's hearing will provide an important opportunity to
enhance our knowledge of that issue and to ensure that
implementation continues and public safety is advanced.
When the subcommittee first started examining this issue
just a few years back, only 40 million consumers had wireless
phones. Today that number is over 140 million. We know that for
many customers, wireless service has become a fungible
substitute for their traditional wireline phone and is no
longer seen as an ancillary product. Increasingly, many
consumers simply disconnect their wireline phone or they use
their wireless phones almost exclusively, especially for long
distance calls, which is why we are seeing the collapse of the
long distance marketplace. The fact that more and more
consumers see wireless telephones as a necessity, and less as a
discretionary product, means that consumers will increasingly
be relying on this technology. With over 140 million
subscribers that is going to mean that an increasing number of
emergency calls will be placed with wireless phones. Yet, it
also holds out the prospect of dramatically reducing emergency
response time, and as a result, saving many lives.
This subcommittee took action in 1999 and enacted
legislation that designated 911 as the universal emergency
number across the country, and also put in place consumer
privacy protections when wireless carriers utilize wireless
location information. The FCC, for its part, required wireless
carriers to implement E-911, and we are now in Phase II of this
implementation process. Wireless E-911 Phase II rules were
originally due to be implemented by October of 2001, but this
requirement was revised by the commission due to various
alleged technological and economic impediments or difficulties.
This hearing will give the subcommittee an opportunity to gauge
the progress in the E-911 implementation, review problems that
have been identified, as well as recommendations for resolving
the remaining difficulties. This is an issue that has clear
homeland security implications and can literally be a life or
death issue for our citizens. The bottom line is that we need
all the elements of the emergency response system to work
together, including the wireless carrier, the encumbered
wireline telephone company, the public safety answering point,
the State, and local law enforcement municipal authorities and
the FCC. And we need all those parties to work as efficiently
as possible and without needless delay.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing.
Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Markey. Recognize the chairman of
the full committee, Chairman Tauzin.
Chairman Tauzin. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I want
to thank you for this hearing and for the extraordinary way in
which you and Mr. Markey have worked consistently. I think this
is the second hearing since you assumed the Chair of the
Telecommunications Subcommittee on this issue, and I applaud
you for your continuing oversight. It is of extreme importance.
I want to commend our friend Lieutenant Colonel John Shimkus
for his leadership on this issue. As you know, he carried the
bill through the House for this committee and deserves a lot of
credit for it.
We have been involved, as you know, a long time on this
issue. And it basically boils down to the simple equation. Can
we take the search out of search and rescue? The search is the
biggest part of rescue, and in every hearing we have had in
every public safety testimony we have heard about the ability
to save lives on the highways, in accidents and other injuries
that occur on our Nation's highways, the search is the
costliest part of the equation. The time lost in finding the
individual before we can get emergency response help to that
situation is a critical time that lives are lost and limbs are
lost permanently and injuries become permanent injuries instead
of temporary injuries. It is the most critical thing we do in
terms of saving lives on American highways, and additionally,
helping to prevent all sorts of other grievous injuries to
people in our society on the walkways and byways and places
where joggers are assaulted and raped and murdered in many
cases. The bottom line is, we can't wait much longer for the E-
911 to be fully implemented. And I want to commend the
commission for being as tough as it has been on the wireless
carriers to move them along, but we must recognize, as I know
this oversight hearing is designed to do, that a great many of
the promises that were made to us in E-911 technologies, have
not yet been delivered.
And we are waiting for those promises to be kept. Every day
they are not kept, somebody loses a life. The cost of the
search is too expensive and the recovery and the emergency
response comes too late. It gets down to that simple equation.
Someone's loved one is at stake every day that these promises
are not kept.
Finally, I want to say a word about cost recovery. PSAPs
cannot buy E-911 services from local exchange carriers without
proper resources. And I applaud Mr. Hatfield for identifying
the importance of the LEC side of the equation in the E-911
development deployment debate because if the lacks in PSAPs are
not adequately resourced in the deployment of these services,
even the promises of the technology will not answer the
questions that this committee will continue to ask as we
oversee the deployment of E-911 in America. We will not have
the ubiquitous E-911 deployment if PSAPs simply do not have the
resources and the services they need to receive the E-911 data.
Now, PSAPs will be ready if States and localities stop raiding
E-911 cost recovery mechanisms.
Very soon on the House floor, our committee will take up
the spectrum relocation trust fund, which we have worked out,
now, with the Budget Committee and the Appropriations
Committee. We set up a separate trust fund to make sure those
funds are not raided. They are available to relocate spectrum,
when spectrum is necessarily relocated for the benefits of
services like emergency response services. But when we set up
monies and set up resources for something as important as this
to happen and then States and localities raid those funds, and
delay the implementation of this kind of a system for America,
then every decision to raid those funds is directly related to
somebody's loss of life on the highway; to the inability of
somebody to find somebody to get to them fast enough to take
care of a serious problem. And somebody ought to think about
that before they raid these funds. And I want to applaud the
chairman and Mr. Markey and all the members of this committee
for standing shoulder to shoulder to do what we can and make
sure this raiding stops, the system gets deployed, the promises
are kept, lives and limbs are saved again under the plan for
the ubiquitous 911 coverage that we have been promised in this
country.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Upton. Thank you very much. We recognize the gentleman
from----
Chairman Tauzin. Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind, I missed
doing something extremely important. I wanted to welcome James
Callahan of MobileTel in my district in Larose. James, welcome.
Larose is one of those little rural places that is desperately
waiting along with most of America for this kind of a service.
James, thanks for being here today to tell us your story from a
very small little part of the Cajun country that's going to
benefit when this committee gets its work done.
Mr. Upton. He had a little influence of getting here.
Would recognize the gentleman from the great State of
Michigan, Mr. Dingell.
Mr. Dingell. Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Good morning. Mr.
Chairman, I commend you for holding this hearing. This will
give the subcommittee a chance to take a critical look at how
enhanced 911 service, known as E-911, for wireless telephones
is being deployed in the United States. Enabling 911 talkers
and public safety answering points, PSAPs, to determine the
location of wireless 911 calls will not only save lives, but it
will enhance the safety and security of every American.
Deployment, unfortunately, has been delayed. And frankly,
all stakeholders must do better. This subcommittee held a
similar hearing 2 years ago. At that time, not one PSAP was
able to determine the location of a wireless 911 call. Since
then the public safety community and the wireless industry have
made measured progress, but there is a lot left to do.
Today, approximately half the 5,300 primary PSAPs comply
with FCC's Phase I requirements, which means they receive the
telephone number of the wireless phone from which a 911 call is
being made, as well as the nearest cell site. This is critical
information in the event that a call is disconnected
prematurely. Eight States and the District of Columbia,
however, are without a single PSAP that is able to receive
Phase I information. Additionally, roughly 400 PSAPs across the
country can now locate wireless callers as required under Phase
II. But again, 24 States and the District of Columbia are
without a single Phase II compliant PSAP.
These figures are troubling. Many of the 135 million
wireless phone users who have purchased wireless phones did so
for safety reasons. Moreover, a growing number of wireless
users are canceling wireline service to their homes and
switching to wireless service. When most consumers dial 911
from a wireless phone, they expect that the emergency
responders will automatically locate them, just as if they had
made the call from a wireline phone.
There has been no shortage of excuses for delays in
wireless E-911 deployment. In an effort to obtain an
independent analysis of the true problems involved in the E-911
deployment, the FCC commissioned Mr. Dale Hatfield, the former
Chief of the Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology,
to conduct a thorough analysis of this complex issue. We are
fortunate to have Mr. Hatfield at the witness table today, as
well as Mr. John Muleta Chief of the Commission's Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau.
Welcome gentlemen. Thank you. These witnesses will provide
this committee with an update on the progress that has been
made since the Hatfield Report was released last October. It is
encouraging to see that there are other stakeholders here
today. Everyone should know that this subcommittee is
monitoring this issue to ensure that the difficulties
encountered with the deployment of this life saving service
will soon be resolved. I want to commend Representatives Eshoo
and Shimkus for their fine work in establishing the
Congressional E-911 Caucus. Their efforts have received and
have raised the awareness of the significant number of issues
involved in implementing E-911 and will help focus the
attention of Congress on overcoming the challenges that have
slowed the implementation of both wireless and wireline E-911
across the United States.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I
look forward to the testimony from each of the witnesses.
Mr. Upton. Thank you. Mr. Shimkus.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would
like to ask that--I would like to submit this letter from NENA
that was sent to the E-911 Caucus for the record.
Mr. Upton. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
National Emergency Number Association
Columbus, Ohio 43230
March 27, 2003
The Honorable Conrad Burns
United States Senate
187 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-2603
The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton
United States Senate
476 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-3203
The Honorable Anna Eshoo
United States House of Representatives
205 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-0514
The Honorable John Shimkus
United States House of Representatives
513 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-1319
Dear Congressional E9-1-1 Caucus Co-Chairs: Those of us in the
public safety community have long believed that development of a robust
nationwide E9-1-1 system for wireless telephone calls is one of the
most important components of a nationwide plan to promote national
security and public safety. The accomplishment of this goal will
require close coordination among public safety officials, the wireline
and wireless telephone carriers, and relevant government officials.
While there is much to applaud in the many ongoing efforts to
implement E9-1-1, the goal of E9-1-1 ``anywhere and everywhere''
remains elusive. For this reason, we applaud your leadership and
initiative in launching the Congressional E9-1-1 Caucus, to educate
members of Congress and advance the deployment of ubiquitous E9-1-1
service in our nation. For this same reason, we strongly encourage and
support the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in its efforts to
provide resources and leadership to ensure a fully functional E9-1-1
system.
We believe that in supporting new telecommunications services and
regulations, ubiquitous E9-1-1 deployment should always be our number
one priority.
In the current reality of heightened emergency risks and alertness,
it is critical that we avoid imposing any non-safety regulations and
requirements that might hinder the development and deployment of E9-1-1
service. From the inception of new technology, to the detail and
complexity of public policy, the safety and security of the public must
be of paramount importance.
As a nation, we have long demonstrated this priority. An example
from the recent past was the deployment of resources and services to
achieve a safe, smooth ``Y2K'' transition. Governments and industry
were presented a monumental challenge with a hard deadline, but through
the collaboration and hard work, we as a nation were able to ensure the
safety and security of critical infrastructure and systems. Given that
lives, property and our safety are at stake, E9-1-1 should be given the
same level of priority.
We do not oppose regulations or policies that are designed to
enhance the convenience and service options available to consumers,
private industry and others. But we are far more concerned about the
safety of millions of Americans who may someday use their wireless
phones in emergency situations.
We urge the Congress to take steps to ensure that wireless E9-1-1
is our number one priority before moving forward with non-public safety
and homeland security telecommunications rules and regulations.
Sincerely,
John Melcher
NENA, President
cc: The Honorable John McCain
The Honorable Ernest Hollings
The Honorable W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin
The Honorable John Dingell
Association of Public Safety Communications Officials International
National State Nine One One Administrators
Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association
United States Telecom Association
Mr. Shimkus. And second, I would like to thank you for the
hearing and its--we are obviously moving forward and that's
what we need to do. We did form an E-911 Caucus, along with
obviously my colleague Anna Eshoo and Senator Burns and Senator
Clinton, which we rolled out earlier this year with great
fanfare, and now it is time to get down to work.
I also want to make sure that all members of this committee
really look at joining the Caucus because that will continue to
bring us strength. I know not all members are here, but many
staffers are here, so they can get the word back to their
member that Anna and I will be on the prowl trying to get more
members to join the Caucus.
I want to, really, also recognize Mr. Hatfield. And I
talked to him before the hearing began. Had it not been for his
report, I guess we would have moved forward but it was really
one of those great opportunities for a report to really create
some excitement, identify problems. And I think Mr. Chairman,
as you mentioned in your opening statement, as we move
legislation, a lot of it will be based upon what Mr. Hatfield
did in his report. And I want to make sure I publicly commend
him for that.
We also have Steve Seitz here from NENA, who is not only
doing the work up here, but he is actually working with the
stakeholders throughout the country from the cellular
companies, to the local exchanges, to the PSAPs and he has got
some great success stories, and I look forward to this hearing.
I will just end by saying I am concerned, as many people would
know, about the local number portability issue, taking away
capital for the role out of Enhanced-911. I mentioned it to the
chairman. He said he would help me look at the issue and,
hopefully, we can move on prioritizing our needs, and I think
some of the comments will be raised on that issue.
I am glad Mr. Callahan is here. I have a small rural
company called First Cellular, Terry Addington is the
President. The problem in rural America is that, first of all,
we don't have full coverage in a lot of areas. I know I don't
have in the deep part of southern Illinois, so as we try to get
full ubiquitous coverage and then overlay location
identification information, that's a great capital expense. We
don't really always have the population to sustain that. So the
question is funding and financing, and I hope we will get some
ideas after this hearing.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for joining with us to work
diligently on this issue. It is a winner. It saves lives and it
is an exciting time, and I look forward to moving legislation
rapidly, and I yield back my time.
Mr. Upton. Thank you. I would recognize Mr. Boucher.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
commend you for scheduling today's hearing on a very important
public safety matter. Since the last hearing that our
subcommittee held 2 years ago, there has been notable
cooperation between the public safety authorities and the
wireless carriers in both the Phase I and the Phase II
development of E-911 services. And one thing that I think we
can do today is congratulate these entities on the successes
that they have achieved so far.
Despite this progress, however, I have two concerns
regarding the deployment that I would like to ask the members
to consider, and I was pleased that the chairman of the
subcommittee raised both of these matters during the course of
his statement.
First, I am concerned that public safety answering points
are not receiving the funding that is necessary to carry out
their work. Today there are many areas where E-911 has yet to
be implemented, not because the wireless carriers are incapable
of providing the information, but because the PSAPs are
technically limited in their ability to receive the
information. The PSAP community needs funding to upgrade
systems to receive the precise location information from
wireless calls. In some States, that funding has been made
available. In too many States, the funding has been diverted to
other projects or diverted for the purpose of balancing
budgets. In order to assure that Phase II deployment continues
in a timely way, Congress must ensure that the funding that is
required is made available to the answering point entities.
My second concern relates to the effect that implementation
of wireless number portability may have on the ability of
wireless carriers to deploy E-911 in a timely way. Frankly, I
question the need for costly number portability mandates for
wireless which is already a fully competitive
telecommunications sector. No doubt, portability is a consumer
convenience, but it is not required to promote the higher value
of achieving competition in this industry as, perhaps arguably,
it is for the wireline industry. And I have no doubt that a
regulatory insistence on number portability will detract from
the more urgent need to deploy E-911 services.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply note these two concerns for
the benefit of the subcommittee members. I hope that our
witnesses perhaps will comment on these two matters during the
course of their testimony today. And I want to thank you,
again, for scheduling the hearing on a very timely subject.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Upton. Thank you. Ms. Eshoo.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to you
and to all of my colleagues here today and to all of the
witnesses. Thank you for being here.
Mr. Chairman, I think that it is very important that you
are holding this hearing, and I thank you for your leadership
on it, and of course, to my cochair colleague of the E-911
Caucus, John Shimkus. I want to salute him because he has been
a terrific partner. And I think that it is important to state
that he has been a long time partner on this, not just a recent
E-911 person convert. But there is room for that as well on the
committee and in the Congress.
I have been working on this issue since 1996, and that is
now some time ago. I introduced legislation then to ensure that
public safety entities would have the same ability to locate a
wireless call as they did a wireline call. And I would like to
draw, and I think that others have as well, draw specific
attention to that time line. It has been 7 years, 7 years since
we first directed the attention of the Federal Government to
this issue, so of course it is disappointing, it is
understandable in some areas, but it is still overall
disappointing that so much time has passed, and we still don't
have widespread deployment of E-911. We know that there are
consequences and the consequences are lives unnecessarily lost.
In 1998, the committee held a hearing on E-911, and one of
the things emphasized was the need for PSAPs to upgrade their
equipment. That was 5 years ago. And PSAP readiness is still
demanding our attention. So I think that even though we have
talked about this for a long time, and there has been some
attention that's been drawn to it, we have to really get into
the kind of the messy mundane details of all of this so that we
can launch legislation that will be fair to everyone but that
there will, in fact, be deployment of this. Many, if not most,
users of cell phones, especially I think women, buy phones for
added security. So when they make a 911 call, it will bring
help quickly. We all know this. And all we have to do is look
to our own families and we understand it. There are over
140,000 wireless 911 calls made each day in our country. That's
a lot of telephone calls, 140,000 wireless 911 calls each day,
representing over half of all 911 calls. Each one of them, I
think, could be determined to be one of the most important
calls that someone would make.
So I think to summarize where we are right now, yes, we
have an E-911 Caucus. Now, we know as members that there are
lots of caucuses in the House. Many of them never meet. They
may send out messages, there are a few that stand out that have
really, and I am looking at my colleague, Rick Boucher and the
Internet Caucus. I am not running down any other caucus, but we
have really taken ahold of this issue and have had hearings,
made sure that there is a counterpart in the Senate and there
is a great deal of interest in this.
So I think that that is important in terms of the interest
of the Congress within our own organization, so to speak. We
are looking at writing legislation that will authorize funding
to enhance the public communication entities. Right now, the
dollars that are collected on the bills that people pay, those
dollars are really being siphoned off by many States. It is not
the case in New York, where they have had corrective
legislation, but I am sorry to say it is the case in my own
State, in California. Now, if the infrastructure as it were, is
not built and supported by a constant flow of dollars, then,
most frankly, the system is not going to work. So Mr. Chairman,
you have offered some ideas today. We want to work with you and
all of our colleagues. We want you all to join the Caucus. No.
1, we want you to be stepped up partners to legislation that is
really going to put in place not only a homeland security
system, but a hometown security system for our people. So I
look forward to working with you on that, and I want to thank
most especially Dale Hatfield for the extraordinary work that
he has done out of his writings and his research and
investigations. Both Chairman Shimkus and myself and others in
the Caucus have taken his recommendations and built them into
the legislation that we are offering.
So thank you, again, for the hearing, and let's go. We
don't want to go into the 8th year, the 9th year, the 10th
year, the 11th year of this issue. I think that we have the
capacity to get this done. Thank you.
Mr. Upton. The gentlelady's time has expired. The gentleman
from Florida, Vice Chairman, Mr. Stearns.
Mr. Stearns. Good morning. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Since our last hearing on this subject in June of 2001, we
have witnessed dramatic events to say the least, that have
highlighted the critical importance of Enhanced-911 services
for local communities, States and our national security.
We have seen significant progress in the roll out of E-911,
but as we will hear from our witnesses today, numerous hurdles
remain as we progress from Phase I to Phase II implementation
of wireless E-911. Professor Hatfield, appearing before us
today completed an exhaustive report on the various issues
affecting the roll out of E-911. In particular, one of the
problems he noted was a lack of State coordination. He notes
that, ``A number of States have failed to establish a statewide
coordination body and or appropriate cost recovery
mechanisms.'' I believe this to be one of the greater hurdles
facing E-911 for the most part. That particular issue is being
addressed in my home State, however, of Florida. Florida is the
largest State recently recognized by the public safety wireless
network for the improvements in State interoperability in the
past 2 years. Furthermore, despite budget constraints, Governor
Bush appointed a statewide E-911 Coordinator and cost recovery
mechanisms to distribute funds to local governments to upgrade
their infrastructure.
So far, all wireless carriers in 19 Florida counties have
implemented Phase I, and six counties are underway with Phase
II, the costliest phase. Though Florida is not the only
proactive State in coordinating E-911 implementation, I believe
it is a good example, Mr. Chairman of the need to establish
wireless priorities and move in a pragmatic manner to ensure
that the time needed to respond to a 911 emergency is not
hindered due to technological or cost limitations, especially
with the number of wireless 911 calls increasing among all
emergency calls placed.
Mr. Chairman, we are making progress and rolling out E-911
and the hard work of the States and wireless companies, local
exchange carriers and the Federal Government is beginning to
show. I look forward to our testimony from our witnesses and
their insight into how we can improve upon the on going efforts
to ensure 911 responders are given the technological tools
needed for public safety.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Green.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for calling this hearing
to push for progress on this critical public safety issue. I
would like to sincerely thank all our panelists today, but
particularly my friend John Melcher from Houston, President of
the National Emergency Number Association. John and I have
worked on 911 since, well since the early 1980's, I guess.
First our local service in Houston, Harris County, then State
coverage and now E-911. Having been involved in the creation of
911 services for the greater Houston area from the beginning, I
know that public attention to this issue has saved countless
lives. With the explosion of wireless communications, Enhanced-
911 is a natural critical next step. My hometown of Houston is
part of the greater Harris County 911 Emergency Network, a
special emergency communication district encompassing 47
cities, including Houston and our unincorporated areas also. As
of February this year, Houston has the proud distinction, in
large part to Mr. Melcher's efforts, to be the only major
metropolitan area to have all six major wireless carriers
providing location technology for wireless 911 calls. In Harris
and Fort Bend counties, Phase II is completed. And again,
knowing John for all of these years, it wasn't always an easy
route to go. AT&T wireless, Cingular Wireless, Verizon, Nextel,
Sprint and T-Mobile, along with our local exchange carrier,
SBC, deserve credit for achieving this goal at a time of poor
general economic performance and competing regulatory demands
on their service.
When the FCC considers additional requirements for wireless
carriers, I hope they will keep their focus on E-911. Everyone
should be able to agree that the primary focus should be the
saving of lives. Wireless 911 does save lives. Mr. Dale
Hatfield, a witness here today, in his report reveals that
wireless 911 calls account for one third of the total, and
callers often cannot provide their location. And as Chairman
Upton said, on September 11, 2001, I was at that E-911 event
with Senator Burns and after that terrible day, the need and
Federal interest for E-911 for terrorist response has
increased. Progress must be made.
In our June 2001 hearing, we heard that 2005 was a good
target for widespread implementation, at least in the urban and
suburban areas. I look forward to learning whether we are on
track nationwide, and what we can do to get it done faster. I
would like to point out two conclusions and recommendations in
the Hatfield Report that I think deserve extra attention today.
The first is the conclusion that E-911 needs a Federal
champion and the recommended solution of an office in the
Department of Homeland Security. I completely agree that a more
robust Federal coordinating effort is needed, but I am
concerned that the Homeland Security office may be over
burdened. In an agency that size, this office could easily be
lost, and there are congressional oversight issues. Our
Homeland Security Committee may already have a full plate.
The second conclusion is that the wireless infrastructure
that conventional and wireless networks rely on is antiquated
in large parts of the country and may not withstand increasing
volumes for many years. On this, I fully support Mr. Hatfield's
recommendation that local exchange carriers be brought closer
to the E-911 process in efforts to be made to address their
recovery.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing the panelists
today, and again, thank you for having the hearing.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Walden.
Mr. Walden. Mr. Chairman, I am going to forgo an opening
statement.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Rush.
Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I want to
commend you for holding this timely hearing on the progress and
remaining hurdles of E-911. And I would also like to commend
the FCC, the public safety community, the Congressional E-911
Caucus and the wireless carriers for their leadership in making
E-911 a reality.
As you know, the wireless carriers are required under the
commissions rules to deploy E-911 technology in accordance with
set implementation deadlines. I am pleased to see that many
carriers are well on their way in implementing Phase I and
Phase II of the imposed deadline. However, it is quite clear
that implementation of E-911 is not yet complete, due in large
part to the readiness of PSAP equipment, ILEC capability, and
the type of location technology being used.
I believe that States can play an important role in the
deployment of E-911 by making it a part of their statewide
plans for deployment. In my State alone, the State of Illinois,
we have made significant progress in both Phase I and Phase II
because our State leaders made E-911 a priority. However, aside
from this being a priority, there are still 21 counties in the
State of Illinois that do not have basic E-911 services. So as
you can see, we have much to do to make E-911 a reality. We
must provide State and localities with the necessary funding to
upgrade their PSAP. There still remains many challenges to the
E-911 program, but we must not lose sight that E-911 saves
lives. It is well documented that more than 30 to 50 percent of
emergency calls are made from wireless phones, and it is not
unreasonable to estimate that this percentage will only
increase, thus it is imperative that we do all that we can to
get this program implemented so that first responders are able
to locate these 911 emergency callers.
I look forward, Mr. Chairman, to hearing the views of our
distinguished panelists, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Upton. Thank you. Mr. Elliott. It is Mr. Engel. Elliott
is recognized.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You can call me
whatever you like since we are friends. And I appreciate having
the opportunity to give an opening statement.
You know, I have just gotten back from North Korea, 13-hour
time difference. In North Korea, an oppressive regime rules
with an iron fist, so it feels really good to be back. I want
to note this on the record because for the days that I was in
North and South Korea, my cell phone didn't work because the
Koreans use a different technology than we do, and I don't have
a multisystem phone yet. But I hope to get one in the future.
Mr. Upton. Did your Blackberry work?
Mr. Engel. I left it home. Talk about a fish out of water.
This hearing is about implementing a vital technology within
the United States wireless phone industry. The Cellular
Telephone Industry Association has done, in my opinion, an
admirable job highlighting people across the country who have
used their cell phones to call for help. As E-911 is
implemented, it will enable emergency personnel to quickly and
reliably respond. But this is a joint public-private effort.
Recently, New York lost four young men who were adrift off
City Island in the Bronx, where I am from. They were able to
use the cell phone to call for help, but couldn't identify
where they were. The locating technology was not available,
and, sadly, four young lives were lost. They called and quickly
were cutoff, and we believe if the technology had been in
place, we think that their lives could have been saved. The
emergency operator and supervisor of the center chose not to
send help, and this was a terrible tragedy. A greater tragedy,
of course, is that it could easily happen again.
The National Emergency Number Association was kind enough
to drop off a huge binder in my office. I have it here,
detailing county by county, in New York, E-911 rollout in the
entire State. Since my district encompasses three counties, I
found that information very useful, but I also found it very
disturbing. According to their data, six of the seven wireless
carriers have Phase I service ready to go but--and it is a big
but--there is not one PSAP in all of the Bronx that is E-911
ready.
My own State has collected hundreds of millions of dollars
in taxes on cell phones. This money was supposed to be used for
upgrading the public safety answering points with new cell
phone technology. Instead, it was misappropriated and used for
anything but. I request unanimous consent to enter into the
record an audit by the New York State Controller of New York's
E-911 funding.
Mr. Upton. Without objection.
[The audit report is available at http://
www.osc.state.ny.us]
Mr. Engel. Thank you. So now it is appropriate that that
the subcommittee is holding an oversight hearing, and I commend
you for doing so, Mr. Chairman. We have been tough on the
wireless industry on rolling out this technology and be sure,
we will continue to do so. However, we must also be tough on
the States and localities to do their part as well. This is no
longer just a convenience issue. It is not just a life safety
issue. This is a vital part of our efforts to secure our
country. And I thank you very much, and I look forward to the
testimony.
Mr. Upton. Thank you Mr. Engel. At this point opening
statements from the members are over. I will make a unanimous
consent request that all members of the subcommittee will be
able to put their opening statement into the record.
Mr. Bass do you have an opening statement?
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul E. Gillmor, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Ohio
I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to address this important
issue.
The number of cell phone users continues to grow, currently
standing at more than 140 million with an increasing amount of
households replacing their wireline with wireless service. More
importantly, a \1/3\ of 911 calls, representing up to 170,000 each day,
come from a cell phone.
Delays in implementing E911 capabilities persist emergency after
accident across the country, even after many states have collected
varying taxes to pay for such a service. We have all heard reports with
regard to often unfortunate results when a local dispatcher is unable
locate a cell phone user calling 911.
Van Wert County in my rural Ohio district is currently implementing
Phase I of E911, essentially providing a nearby dispatcher the caller's
cell phone number and nearest cell tower, narrowing the person's
location to a couple blocks in a city, or in my district, within a few
square miles. Less than 3% of counties in Ohio have implemented Phase
II deployments. While requiring extensive upgrades by wireless
carriers, dispatchers, and local phone companies, with Phase II E911 a
caller could be pinpointed within 160 to 330 feet.
As there has been progress of late, I look forward to hearing more
about the efforts of wireless carriers, local phone companies,
dispatchers, and the FCC to further deploy these vital technologies.
Again, I thank the Chairman and yield back the remainder of my
time.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Barbara Cubin, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Wyoming
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank you for holding this hearing to assess where
we are in the implementation of a fully-functioning wireless Enhanced
911 system. With over 140 million Americans owning wireless phones
today, there is no question that the deployment of wireless E-911 is a
pressing priority and part of the foundation of homeland security.
Additionally, with an increasing number of folks disconnecting their
landline telephones, and being fully untethered, the benefits of
America's mature wireline E-911 are available to fewer and fewer
households each day.
That's why I am looking forward to the testimony from our broad-
based panel about the hurdles that have impeded the rollout of
ubiquitous E-911 coverage and how we can smooth the path going forward.
I understand that the marketplace does not always meet a federal
agency's timetable, especially when it involves technological
innovation. But the availability of proven, reliable technology does
not appear to be the only impediment to full rollout, but one of
several that I've been told about from wireless companies in Wyoming
and nationwide. The diversion of funds earmarked for E-911 to other
state spending programs, the broad and affordable availability of the
technological solutions to meet the programmatic deadlines, and the
unique challenges that rural providers face are concerns to me as well.
I am particularly pleased to be hearing from a Wyoming neighbor,
Mr. Hatfield from the University of Colorado, who will present
testimony on his findings and recommendations as the leader of an
independent inquiry into the implementation of E-911. I am interested
in hearing your comments on how rural America is proceeding in meeting
these deadlines and how small, rural providers are faring in efforts to
comply with FCC mandates.
As a result of this hearing, I want to know what we can do now, in
the 108th Congress, that can help companies run the last mile of this
marathon and give wireless consumers the safety and peace of mind that
wireless E-911 promises. I also want to ensure that there is not an
antagonistic relationship between wireless carriers and the FCC.
Instead, there needs to be cooperation among all of the stakeholders
and the Commission to ensure the proper final implementation of
wireless E-911 while preserving the rich variety of competitors
providing wireless services across the nation.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bart Gordon, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Tennessee
Mr. Chairman, I commend your leadership and foresight in scheduling
this very important hearing today on E-911.
Every day, our nation's 911 operational centers and professionals
save countless lives and improve long-term quality of life following
emergencies through the work they do. The availability of wireless E-
911 has moved emergency response to a new level.
Nationwide, more and more people are using wireless E-911 to help
save a life or report a crime. Almost 50% of our nation's 911 calls now
come from wireless phones. In my home state of Tennessee, more than 50%
of 911 calls now originate from wireless phones. This calls attention
to importance of ensuring that wireless E-911 is available to all
wireless consumers, particularly those living in rural areas.
I am very proud that Tennessee continues to be recognized as a
national leader in E-911 deployment. Tennessee was one of the first
states to have more than 90% of its counties ready to receive E-911
Phase I data. As of today, 71 of 95 counties in my state are ready to
receive and utilize E-911 Phase II data from wireless carriers. At
least one wireless carrier is providing live Phase II data in 68
counties. Our state 911 leadership expects to have near 100% of our
counties E-911 ready by the end of this year. The impressive
accomplishments of my state's 911 leaders are largely due to one single
factor--commitment.
Our state is vastly rural and its terrain very diverse. This poses
great challenges in providing reliable wireless E-911 service.
Notwithstanding these challenges, our state's 911 leadership conducted
a trial in part of my district with multiple wireless companies using
network and GPS E-911 solutions. The trial was a success--often
surpassing the FCC location standard to within a few feet. The
importance of this trial is that it was conducted in the Cumberland
Plateau region, some of the most challenging terrain for receiving
terrestrial and satellite-based signals east of the Mississippi River.
Although we enjoy these successes in Tennessee, we still have work
to do. Our state's 911 leadership will not rest until the job is done.
New issues and challenges emerge every day. Some of those fall within
the purview of the FCC and Congress. I look forward to working with our
state's 911 leadership on these and other issues. I hope that our
accomplishments may serve as some guidance or encouragement to other
states and localities to commit to getting the job done.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Albert Wynn, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Maryland
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing.
Enhanced 911 service, or E-911, is an emergency telephone service
equipped with new features. The addition of Automatic Number
Identification and Automatic Location Identification will allow
emergency service personnel to respond more efficiently and more
rapidly. As consumers move away from wire line phones due to high cost
and lack of flexibility, these services become more vital to our way of
life.
My primary concern regarding E-911 is that it appears that many
states are not making Phase II implementation a priority and are
raiding their E-911 accounts. These funds, intended to prepare Public
Safety Answering Points, or PSAPs, to utilize new location technology,
are raised through wireless phone taxes. Unfortunately in the absence
of significant federal aid, some states have used these accounts to
supplement budgets and rainy day funds.
The gap between the progress of E-911 technology and the PSAP site
technology is preventing states from adequately investing in the
system. Most wireless carriers are ready to bring wireless E-911
technology online, but are unable to do so because the PSAPs do not
have the tools to support available technology. This is distressing
because the wireless industry has provided millions of dollars to
purchase and install the technology.
Public safety and saving lives must always be our first priority.
E-911 technology can enable us to move into a new era for emergency
search and rescue.
It is time for state and local entities to provide sufficient
resources to realize this essential service that will better equip us
to more efficiently save lives.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses to learn more about
the steps that are being taken to bring E-911 online sooner.
Mr. Upton. We will now begin with our panel. And we have a
very good number of folks that are here today, and we look
forward--first of all, we appreciate you submitting your
testimony on time so we were able to read it in advance. Your
statements are made part of the record in their entirety, and
we will limit your remarks, opening remarks, to 5 minutes and
then we will begin with members here. We are joined by Mr.--
first by Mr. Dale Hatfield, Professor Department of
Interdisciplinary Telecommunications at the University of
Colorado at Boulder; Mr. John Muleta, Bureau Chief Wireless
Telecommunications of the FCC; Mr. John Melcher, President of
the National Emergency Number Association; Mr. Karl Korsmo,
Vice President of External Affairs for AT&T Wireless; Mr. James
Callahan, President and Chief Operating Officer of Mobile-Tel
from Louisiana; Mr. Michael O'Connor, Director of Federal
Regulatory Policy from Verizon; and Mr. Michael Amarosa, Senior
Vice President for True Position.
Mr. Hatfield, we will begin with you. Thank you for making
the time to come out this way.
STATEMENTS OF DALE N. HATFIELD, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT
OF INTERDISCIPLINARY TELECOMMUNICATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO
AT BOULDER ENGINEERING CENTER; JOHN B. MULETA, BUREAU CHIEF,
WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION;
JOHN MELCHER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL EMERGENCY NUMBER ASSOCIATION;
KARL KORSMO, VICE PRESIDENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, AT&T WIRELESS
SERVICES; JAMES CALLAHAN, PRESIDENT & CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER,
MOBILE-TEL, INC.; MICHAEL O'CONNOR, DIRECTOR OF FEDERAL
REGULATORY POLICY, VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS; AND MICHAEL AMAROSA,
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, PUBLIC AFFAIRS, TRUEPOSITION, INC.
Mr. Hatfield. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman and members
of the committee, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to
appear before you today to discuss issues relating to the
rollout of wireless E-911 service in the United States.
As you suggested, Mr. Chairman, I have submitted my full
written statements for the record, and I will merely summarize
that testimony now. Before I turn to the substance of my
testimony, however, I want to emphasize that I am testifying
here today solely on my own accord, as a private citizen, and
that, consequently, the views I express, are strictly my own.
As has been noted in early 2002, the Federal Communications
Commission retained me to conduct an independent inquiry and to
produce an accompanying report to the agency on the technical
and operational rules issues impacting on the provision of
wireless E-911. My report was submitted to the Commission in
October of last year, and is available, along with public
comments on its substance, on the agency's Website. In addition
to certain background material, the report I prepared for the
Commission consists of a set of findings and recommendations.
In my written testimony, I present an overview and commentary
on my original report, and then offer some concluding
recommendations for your consideration.
I will use the balance of my time here this morning to
summarize those latter recommendations. In the findings section
of the original report, I noticed a strong Federal interest in
the nationwide availability of 911. The events of the recent
past have clearly demonstrated that E-911 is not just an issue
of safety of life and property on a local level, but one of
critical importance to homeland security as well.
As has been stated here several times this morning, given
the ever increasing proportion of calls originating from
wireless devices and the growing substitution of wireless
phones for wireline phones, the need for rapid deployment of
wireless E-911 becomes more obvious every day. Thus one of the
key recommendations of my report was that the Commission work
with the administration and the then nascent Department of
Homeland Security to establish what I referred to as a National
E-911 Program Office. My thought was that the proposed office
within DHS would be a focus of E-911 activity in the executive
branch and serve as a key resource and advocate for the
Nation's first responders on issues related to E-911
deployment. I am now even more convinced of the need for such
an office. I should note that it was reported in the press that
Chairman Powell has raised this issue of Secretary Ridge.
However, in all candor, I have not had the opportunity to
follow all of the subsequent developments in this area, nor to
determine whether other institutional arrangements might be
more appropriate. Congressman Green, in response to your
comment, I think the key thing is the need for strong Federal
leadership in this, and where the executive branch
organizational set-up probably is less important than to make
sure that it gets the attention it deserves.
Second, on a related topic, in passing the E-911 Act, the
Congress directed the Commission, ``to encourage each State to
develop and implement coordinated statewide deployment plans
through an entity designated by the Governor for the roll out
of comprehensive end-to-end emergency communications
infrastructure and programs.'' There is now evidence that
suggests that such a statewide or regional coordinating entity
is a key indicator of the success in the early deployment of
wireless E-911.
Despite the clear congressional direction and despite this
increasing body of evidence, some States have still not created
a statewide E-911 Coordinator or its equivalent. While I am not
a lawyer, it seems to me that the Commission itself has limited
ability to require States to create such an entity. And hence I
would suggest this subcommittee revisit this issue, given the
very clear congressional intent and the benefits that
apparently are achieved when such an entity exists.
Third, another of my key recommendations was that the
Commission establish, or cause to have established, an advisory
committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act that would
address the overall technical framework for the further
development of an evolution of wireless E-911 systems. This
recommendation was a reflection of, one, my finding that the
responsibility for making critical decisions relating to
network architecture were spread over a large number of
stakeholders and multiple jurisdictions, and two, my concerns
about the limitations of the current E-911 platform to evolve
in response to new requirements and handle the growing volume
of traffic.
While I am well aware of, and in my prepared testimony I
call explicit attention to other private and public sector
coordination activities that address aspects of these larger,
longer-time network architecture issues, I still have serious
concerns in this area. For example, since the submission of my
report, I have gained an even greater appreciation of the
relationship of wireless E-911 to not only homeland security,
but to the reliable and seamless delivery of other information
involving vehicular and personal emergencies relaying that
information to first responders. This information includes: A,
hazardous material or HazMat truck incidents; B, auto
emergencies including for example, information from automatic
crash identification systems; C, severe weather events such as
tornadoes and flash flooding. The proliferation of personal
wireless devices and services including text messaging and PDAs
with communications adds to the milieu. As another example, a
product was recently described to me that will produce
automatic notices of cardiac events with a latitude and
longitude attached so that emergency personnel can be
dispatched without delay. Similar devices can be used to find
missing children or help prevent them from being lost in the
first place.
Subsequent to the publication of the report, I have sensed
some reluctance on the part of stakeholders to embrace the
notion of the formal advisory committee to address these
longer-term overriding issues. I believe this reluctance stems
from timing--more from timing and support and other logistical
issues associated with the formation of a formal advisory
committee, rather than the goal that I articulated in the
report.
However, my real concern is not the exact form of the
institutional arrangements, as long as the decisionmaking takes
place in a transparent process open to all stakeholders. In any
event, I would urge the subcommittee to satisfy itself that the
necessary institutional arrangements and resources are in place
to address these longer-term issues.
That, Mr. Chairman, completes my testimony, and I would be
happy to answer any questions of you at the appropriate time.
Mr. Upton. Again, we appreciate your appearance here, and,
certainly, every member truly appreciates your hard work and
the completion of the report. Very, very good.
[The prepared statement of Dale N. Hatfield follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dale N. Hatfield, Adjunct Professor, University
of Colorado at Boulder
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: thank you very much
for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss issues
relating to the rollout of wireless E911 service in the United States.
As you may be aware, the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or
``the Commission'') in early 2002 retained me to conduct an independent
inquiry and to produce an accompanying report to the agency on the
technical and operational issues impacting on the provisioning of
wireless E911. In my testimony here today, I will summarize that report
and provide some additional comments based upon developments that have
occurred subsequent to its being released in October of last year.
Before I turn to the substance of my testimony, however, I want to
emphasize that I am testifying today solely as a private citizen and
that, consequently, the views that I express are strictly my own.
The focus of the inquiry that I undertook for the Commission was on
the future of wireless E911 deployment, including any obstacles to
deployment and the steps that might be taken to overcome or minimize
them. My inquiry began in the spring of last year with a large meeting
of stakeholders, including service providers, technology manufacturers,
and members of the public safety community. Over the succeeding months,
I participated in scores of meetings and met with several hundred
stakeholders that are working very hard to increase the safety of the
American public through the further development and deployment of
wireless E911.
As I mentioned a moment ago, my report was submitted to the
Commission in October of last year and I have been deeply gratified
with the generally positive response it has generated. The report--
along with public comments on its substance--is available on the
Commission's website (www.fcc.gov).1 Since the report has
been available for some months and in the interests of time, I will not
go into detail on my findings and recommendations. Rather, I will first
present a brief overview and commentaries on what I feel are the most
important points and then offer some concluding remarks based upon more
recent developments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The direct link to the report is: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/
prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native__
or__pdf=pdf&id__document=6513296239.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the findings section of the report, I noted the strong federal
interest in the nationwide availability of E911 and, on that basis,
recommended that there be increased coordination between and among the
relevant federal agencies. The events of the recent past have clearly
demonstrated that E911 is not just an issue of the safety of life and
property on a local basis but one of critical importance to homeland
security as well. Given the ever increasing proportion of calls
originating from wireless devices and the growing substitution of
wireless phones for wireline phones, the need for a rapid deployment of
wireless E911 becomes more obvious every day.
In the findings, I also raised concerns about the technical
limitations associated with the existing wireline E911 infrastructure
and--especially--with its ability to evolve smoothly and efficiently to
address emerging requirements. Rather than delve into these limitations
today, I would merely stress the need for a modern infrastructure that
is not only capable of efficiently and effectively handling traditional
wireline and wireless E911 calls, but one who's overall architecture
facilitates the exchange of evolving types of emergency communications
information between and among federal, state, and local agencies and
the public that they serve. And, an architecture I might also stress
that remains true to other public policy values such as competitive and
technical neutrality and reliance on the competitive marketplace where
possible.
This last commentary leads me to another major finding of the
report. When I undertook the independent inquiry on behalf of the
Commission, I was generally aware--from my earlier tenure at the
agency--of what was involved in rolling out wireless E911. As I dug
into it deeper under my new assignment, what really struck me was the
overall complexity of the undertaking. As I pointed out a moment ago, a
variety of critical technical and operational choices--including
critical decisions relating to network architectures--must be made to
ensure the reliable and seamless E911 system contemplated by Congress
when it passed the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of
1999 (``E911 Act'').
The complexity is exacerbated by the fact that there is no single
decision-maker--no master architect--for emergency communications
systems. Instead, decision-making of this type is spread over a large
number of stakeholders and multiple jurisdictions. Because of the total
number of stakeholders involved, the complexity of the inter-
relationships among the stakeholders, and the incentives and
constraints on those stakeholders, I concluded--not surprising
perhaps--that an unusually high degree of coordination and cooperation
among public and private entities will be required if this nation is
going to have the type of modern infrastructure I described and that I
believe the Congress envisioned in passing the 911 Act. In the report,
I pointed specifically to the need for coordination and collaboration
among all stakeholders, public and private, in such areas as overall
system engineering, project management, and the development and
adoption of standards.
In another of the findings, I expressed concern that the rollout of
wireless E911 service was being hampered by the lack of funding and
other resources for Public Safety Access Providers--PSAPs--in many
jurisdictions around the country. I pointed specifically to the lack of
cost recovery mechanisms in some states, the lack of a ``champion''
within the Federal government, and residual awareness and readiness
issues within the PSAP community. Unfortunately, perhaps, in the
report, I used the term ``PSAP fatigue'' in referring to some of these
issues and this was seen by some as a criticism of PSAP efforts.
Exactly the opposite was true. It was meant to point out they needed
more support in shouldering an enormous burden.
Another of the findings in the report related to the role of
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs) in the provision of E911
services. I found that, despite the central role that these carriers
play in some implementations of wireless E911 services, their
responsibilities had not been adequately defined both in terms of their
technical requirements and in terms of cost recovery. As an aside, I am
pleased to note that in the past year the Commission has acknowledged
these concerns and has taken steps to rectify them.
Lastly, I found that there appeared to be a lack of well-accepted,
standardized tests for determining compliance with the Commission's
location accuracy requirements, including issues regarding geographic
averaging. I went on to express the concern that this uncertainty could
ultimately prove to be an impediment to the more rapid deployment of
wireless E911 systems.
In light of my findings, I made several recommendations to the
Commission and I will mention them briefly here.
First, recognizing both the strong Federal interest in the
nationwide availability of E911 and the somewhat limited scope of the
Commission's jurisdiction, I recommended that the Commission work more
closely with other Federal agencies to encourage a coordinated approach
in dealing with issues associated with the deployment of wireless E911
systems. More specifically, I recommended that it work with the
Administration and, in particular, the then nascent Department of
Homeland security to establish what I referred to as a ``National E911
Program Office.'' As I envisioned it, the office within DHS would serve
as a resource and advocate--or champion--for the Nation's first
responders on the issue of E911 deployment.
Second, I recommended that the Commission increase its own
oversight efforts of E911 during this critical phase of deployment. To
that end, I recommended that the Commission establish a formal advisory
Committee that would address the technical framework and longer term
network architecture issues associated with further E911 development
and deployment.
Third, noting that my findings suggested that, in at least some
situations, deployment of wireless E911 may be hampered by a lack of
coordination and dialog among the stakeholder groups, I recommended
that the Commission establish an ``information clearinghouse''--for the
lack of a better term--that would collect and disseminate information
critical to deployment so that the stakeholders could better coordinate
with one another. I also recommended that the Commission work with, and
appropriately support, the efforts of public, private, and joint
efforts aimed at speeding the rollout.
In March of this year, the Commission acknowledged this
recommendation and announced its E911 Coordination Initiative to bring
together relevant stakeholders to share experiences and devise
strategies for expediting E911 deployment. On April 29--about a month
ago--I was pleased to participate in the first public meeting
associated with that initiative. I was particularly interested in an
announcement made by the Commission at the meeting regarding E911
Tracking and Coordination Management. Since this effort is likely to be
described in other testimony here today, I will simply say that it
exemplifies the enhanced ``information clearinghouse'' role that I
envisioned in my report.
While I am on this topic, let me digress briefly to say that, since
the publication of the report, I have been gratified to see what I
perceive as an overall increase in such coordination and communication
among stakeholders and an associated general increase in the level of
priority and awareness of the importance of E911 among policy makers,
industry and the general public. In addition to the Commission's own
Wireless E911 Coordination Initiative which I just mentioned, other
activities, which I believe you will also hear more about today,
include the Department of Transportation's Wireless E911 Steering
Council, the Emergency Services Interconnection Forum jointly sponsored
by the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions --ATIS--and
the National Emergency Number Association--NENA, the Association of
Public Safety Communications Officers'--APCO's--Project Locate, and
NENA's Strategic Wireless Action Team--SWAT--Initiative. The latter,
for example, provides a forum for communications among public safety
organizations, wireless carriers, wireline carriers, state
representatives and other participants. As I understand it, the course
of action that they are following is intended to build on the input of
the various stakeholders and to develop consensus recommendations among
the various parties. Significantly, in my mind, it includes the
resources to conduct supporting analyses to inform and shape the
process. While I cannot--and should not--endorse any of the results
that they are obtaining, I do believe that it represents the sort of
collaborative process which is required for sustainable progress in
E911 deployment to occur in an extremely complex environment.
Returning to my recommendations, my fourth suggestion was for the
development of industry wide procedures for testing and certification
of wireless E911 systems to ensure that they meet the Commission's
accuracy requirements. I also recommended that the Commission undertake
to more clearly define those requirements to eliminate any remaining
uncertainty as to what constitutes compliance.
I would like to close my testimony by making a few specific
recommendations based upon the current situation in wireless E911
deployment. These concluding recommendations are not intended to be
comprehensive; rather, they reflect some areas that I believe--based
upon my inquiry and subsequent events--would benefit from the
Subcommittee's attention.
First, as I noted earlier, one of the key recommendations of my
report was that the Commission work with the Administration, and the
then nascent Department of Homeland Security, to establish what I
referred to as a ``National E911 Program Office.'' My thought was that
the proposed office within DHS would be a focus of E911 activity in the
Executive Branch and serve as a key resource and advocate for the
Nation's first responders on issues related to E911 deployment. I am
now even more convinced of the need for such an office. I should note
that it was reported in the press that Chairman Powell has raised this
issue with Secretary Ridge. However, in all candor, I have not had the
opportunity to follow all of the subsequent developments in this area
nor to determine whether other institutional arrangements might
suffice. Because of its importance, I would further urge this
Subcommittee in its oversight and legislative role to ensure that the
needs I identified in my inquiry are being met within the Federal
government.
Second, on a related topic, in passing the E911 Act, the Congress
directed the Commission to ``. . . encourage each state to develop and
implement coordinated statewide deployment plans through an entity
designated by the governor . . .'' for the rollout of ``. . .
comprehensive end-to-end emergency communications infrastructure and
programs . . .'' There is now evidence that suggests that such a
statewide and/or regional coordinating entity is a key indicator of
success in the early deployments of wireless E911. Despite the clear
Congressional admonition and despite this increasing body of evidence,
some states still have not created a statewide E911 coordinator or its
equivalent. While I am not a lawyer, it seems clear that the Commission
itself has limited ability to require states to create such an entity
and, hence, I would urge this Subcommittee to revisit this issue given
the clear Congressional intent and the benefits that apparently are
achieved where such an entity exists. To my dismay, there have also
been widely reported instances where state E911 cost recovery funds
have been diverted to other, unrelated purposes. This is apparently
true even though customers paying the itemized charge are likely to
believe that the service is available to them. Again, I am unclear as
to what jurisdiction, if any, the Commission has to deal with these
instances but clearly it is an area that the Subcommittee may want to
address.
Third, another of my key recommendations was that the Commission
establish, or cause to have established, an advisory committee (under
the Federal Advisory Committee Act) that would address the overall
technical framework for the further development and evolution of
wireless E911 systems. This recommendation was a reflection of my
finding that the responsibilities for making critical decisions
relating to network architectures were spread over a large number of
stakeholders and multiple jurisdictions. While I am well aware of--and
earlier in this testimony explicitly called attention to--other private
and public sector coordination activities that address aspects of these
larger, longer term network architecture issues, I still have serious
concerns in this area.
For example, since the submission of the report, I have gained an
even greater appreciation of the relationship of wireless E911 to not
only homeland security but to the reliable and seamless delivery of
other information relating to vehicular and personal emergencies to
first responders--a point I alluded to earlier. This includes
information involving (a) hazardous material (hazmat) truck incidents,
(b) automobile emergencies including, for example, information from
automatic crash notification systems, and (c) severe weather events
such as tornadoes and flash flooding. The proliferation of personal
wireless devices and services, including text messaging and personal
digital assistants (``PDAs'') with communications capabilities, adds to
the milieu. As another example, a product was recently described to me
that will produce automatic notices of cardiac incidents--with latitude
and longitude attached. Similar devices that can be used to find
missing children--or to help prevent them from becoming missing in the
first place--are envisioned.
Subsequent to the publication of the report, I have sensed some
reluctance on the part of stakeholders to embrace the notion of a
formal advisory committee to address these longer term, over-arching
issues. I believe this reluctance stems more from timing, support, and
other logistical issues associated with a formal advisory committee
rather than on the goal that I advocated. However, my real concern is
not the exact form of the institutional arrangements as long as the
decision-making takes place in an open and transparent process
available to all stakeholders. In any event, I would urge the
Subcommittee to satisfy itself that the necessary institutional
arrangements and resources are in place to address these longer term
issues.
That, Mr. Chairman, completes my testimony and I would be happy to
answer any questions at the appropriate time.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Muleta, welcome back.
STATEMENT OF JOHN B. MULETA
Mr. Muleta. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and
members of the subcommittee. I appreciate this opportunity to
appear before you on behalf of the FCC to discuss our work in
support of deployment of wireless E-911.
This hearing is an important opportunity to encourage
progress in this critical public safety matter, and I commend,
in particular, Representatives Shimkus and Eshoo and other
members of the E-911 Caucus for their leadership in this area.
Whether calling from a regular wireline phone or a mobile
phone, Americans today demand assurances from public officials
that 911 calls will result in immediate assistance. This fact
makes all too clear the importance of a speedy deployment of
technology to insure automatic location identification. It is a
crucial element in responding to the emergency situations
described earlier.
Although few Americans even owned mobile phones prior to
the last decade, public safety answering points, the PSAPs, now
report that they receive 30 to 50 percent of emergency calls
from wireless phones. Some PSAPs even reportedly receive up to
60 or 70 percent of their calls from wireless phones. Unlike
wireline phones, where the callers location is identified
through the address associated with telephone number, wireless
phones, which are mobile, present additional technological
challenges with respect to automatic location identification. I
am here today to report on the Commission's progress in
ensuring rapid wireless E-911 deployment, and to convey the
fact that the chairman, the commissioners, and I all have E-911
implementation as one of our foremost priorities.
In the past few months, additional strides toward wireless
E-911 deployment have been made. The deployment of wireless E-
911 has never been intended to be a flash cut process, but a
gradual phase-in over several years. Wireless E-911 is a very
complex undertaking that presents new and unique technical
challenges and requires a great deal of coordination among a
very disparate group of governmental and commercial entities.
Despite these challenges, wireless E-911 is now becoming a
useful reality. Deployment of Phase I service is very well
underway. Of the Phase I requests received from PSAPs, the six
nationwide carriers have on average today fulfilled
approximately 75 percent of these requests. This is information
coming from the latest quarterly reports as of the end of April
of this year. In terms of the Phase II, the rollout of Phase II
of the E-911 service, that depends in large part on when this
PSAP makes a request to the wireless carrier for Phase II
service. PSAPs must have the ability to upgrade their systems
to receive the location information and to also have cost
recovery mechanisms in place before a wireless carrier must
implement Phase II pursuant to the PSAP's request.
Unfortunately, as has been noted this morning, many
jurisdictions do not appear to have the funding required to
upgrade their PSAP infrastructure so that they are
technologically ready to support Phase II implementation.
According to the reports submitted to the FCC by the nationwide
wireless carriers, Phase II was deployed in 25 States as of the
quarter ending this April. The six nationwide carriers have
also implemented Phase II E-911 in approximately 400 markets
covering approximately 800 unique PSAPs.
Although this is a great development this represents only a
fraction of the PSAPs that operate in the country. Multiple
wireless carriers are also providing Phase II service to their
customers in Metropolitan areas such as Houston, Dallas/Fort
Worth, Chicago, East St. Louis, as well as Rhode Island. At
least one wireless carrier has deployed Phase II service in
cities such as Kansas City, Miami, Richmond, San Antonio, and
Indianapolis. Mid-sized carriers have also begun deploying
Phase II. These carriers have deployed in smaller cities such
as Charlotte, North Carolina; Amarillo, Texas; and Bristol,
Tennessee, as well as in rural areas of Arkansas, Alabama,
Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.
Additionally, with respect to location-capable handsets,
another part of the technology that needs to be in place, every
nationwide carrier using a handset-based approach is offering
at least one location-capable handset model in accordance with
applicable benchmarks. Last month, for example, Verizon
Wireless reported that it is offering its customers ten
different GPS-enabled handset models. Sprint PCS is offering 15
location-capable handset models. Sprint also reported that it
sold over 8.8 million handsets, GPS-enabled handsets, into the
marketplace. Midsize carriers are also offering these location-
capable handsets. AllTel, in one case, is currently selling
eight models while United States Cellular has five GPS-enabled
handsets for sale.
The FCC's role in promoting successful implementation
deployment of nationwide wireless E-911 is focused on four
distinct areas. First implementation, second enforcement, third
investigation of technical and operational challenges, and
fourth outreach and coordination. Although we are focused on
all four parts, in recent months it has become more apparent
that the technical issues no longer represent a major barrier
to wireless E-911 implementation. Instead it has become more
important that we focus on greater coordination and for
establishing greater funding certainty in the implementation of
E-911. As a result, the Chairman and the Bureau's focus has
increasingly turned to coordination and outreach efforts as
essential components as part of FCC's efforts to facilitate E-
911 implementation.
Most recently, the Commission embarked on the kick-off
meeting of its E-911 Coordination Initiative held on April 29th
at the Commission. This widely attended meeting provided us all
a foundation for a new era of cooperation among all the
entities. It did bring together all parties, including Federal,
State, public safety community, and wireless carriers and ILECs
to the table. We identified a number of issues that can be
addressed on an ongoing coordination. We hope to have another
coordination initiative meeting in the fall.
We are also working closely with folks and all the
technical scientific groups that are working to get all the
hurdles out of the way.
As a final matter, I would like to just emphasize that this
E-911 implementation is a very important project for the
Commission, and we are focussed on it, and we look to help the
subcommittee and its members in any way we can to advance this
interest.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of John B. Muleta follows:]
Prepared Statement of John B. Muleta, Chief, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I
appreciate this opportunity to appear before you on behalf of the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to discuss our work in support
of the deployment of Enhanced 911 (E911) wireless services throughout
the United States. This hearing is an important opportunity to
encourage progress in this critical public safety matter, and I commend
in particular Representatives Shimkus and Eshoo and the other members
of the Congressional E911 Caucus for their leadership in this area.
i. introduction
In recent years, we have seen a heightened sensitivity to the
importance of crisis management and an emphasis on improving emergency
response systems. The effectiveness of these systems is tied in part to
the ability of the public to reach first responders in times of crisis.
Whether calling from a regular wireline phone or a mobile phone,
Americans today demand assurances from public officials that 911 calls
will result in immediate assistance.
Most Americans have long taken it for granted that their 911 phone
calls automatically identify their location to emergency call takers.
We know all too well that this is not the case in today's world,
especially with wireless phones. This mistaken belief of the
infallibility of 911 reception and location pinpointing highlights the
importance of the speedy deployment of technology to ensure automatic
location identification.
Although few Americans even owned mobile phones prior to the last
decade, Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) now report that they
receive 30 to 50 percent of emergency calls from wireless phones. Some
PSAPs reportedly receive upwards of 60 or 70 percent of their 911 calls
from wireless phones. Unlike wireline phones, where the caller's
location is identified through the address associated with the
telephone number, mobile phones, present additional technological
challenges with respect to automatic location identification.
Ensuring that each American using a wireless phone has enhanced 911
capabilities has been an important goal of the FCC's for at least the
past seven years. The Commission developed wireless E911 rules to
mandate the development and deployment of wireless 911 automatic
location identification technology prior to commercial demand for that
product. The FCC's initial decision in 1996 to impose an E911
requirement on mobile wireless carriers was not based on any statutory
mandate, nor was it based on any tangible technological showing.
Nonetheless the Commission believed such a requirement served the
public interest.
Congress confirmed that assessment and added momentum to the
Commission's activities with the passage of S. 800, the Wireless
Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999. This legislation mandated
911 as the universal number for emergency calls and aided E911
implementation by addressing key issues such as privacy and carrier
liability. It also required the FCC to continue coordination efforts in
this area, which we have done most recently through the E911
Coordination Initiative.
The Commission launched its E911 Coordination Initiative in
response to the need for greater coordination among all stakeholders,
including the FCC, wireless carriers, PSAPs, location technology
vendors, incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs), local and state
governments, equipment manufacturers, and 911 service providers. The
purpose of the Coordination Initiative is to complement current efforts
by those parties to speed and rationalize the E911 deployment process,
and to ensure that all parties and the public have clear expectations
about the roles of the respective parties and their deployment plans.
Implementation is an extremely complex process, and the Commission has
taken firm steps to require that wireless carriers assume their
responsibility in ensuring that the deployment of wireless E911 is not
unnecessarily delayed.
It is important to note that not all aspects of E911 deployment are
within the Commission's control. For example, financial support and
assistance from state and local authorities to provide funding to the
PSAPs for their part in this important initiative is also imperative.
We know that members of Congress and particularly members of this
Subcommittee share the Commission's goal that the entire Nation should
have access to wireless E911 services as soon as practicable. We intend
to work actively to facilitate E911 deployment as quickly and
efficiently as possible.
ii. wireless e911 deployment
The deployment of E911, because of technological and other
challenges, was never intended to be a flash-cut process, but a gradual
phase-in over several years. The Commission's initial E911 decision in
1996 was based in large part on a consensus agreement developed by the
wireless carrier and public safety communities and established two
phases of E911 deployment. Phase I requires carriers to deploy a
service that provides the telephone number of the 911 caller and the
location of the cell site or base station receiving the 911 call. Phase
II service requires wireless carriers to provide precise location
information for wireless E911, within certain accuracy parameters.
Despite the challenges inherent in effectuating rollout for between
5,000 and 7,000 diverse PSAPs nationwide, wireless E911 is becoming a
reality. Deployment of Phase I service is well under way. Of the Phase
I requests received from PSAPs, the six nationwide carriers have, on
average, fulfilled approximately 75 percent of these requests. Phase II
has required special attention. Because of technological challenges
associated with Phase II deployment, the FCC has allowed nationwide
wireless carriers to commit to individual compliance plans. Where
wireless carriers have violated the terms of their compliance plans,
these violations have led to enforcement actions.
The precise rollout of Phase II service, like that of Phase I,
depends in large part on when the PSAP makes a request to the wireless
carrier for Phase II service. PSAPs must have the ability to upgrade
their systems to receive location information and have cost-recovery
mechanisms in place before a wireless carrier must implement Phase II
pursuant to a PSAP request. Unfortunately, many jurisdictions appear
not to have the required funding to upgrade their PSAPs so that they
are technologically ready to support Phase II implementation.
Phase II implementation requires wireless carriers to select either
a handset-based or network-based solution. Wireless carriers that use
network-based solutions must deploy Phase II capability to 50 percent
of the PSAP's coverage area or population within six months of a valid
request, and to 100 percent of the PSAP's coverage area or population
within 18 months of a PSAP request, unless the parties agree upon a
different schedule. Wireless carriers choosing a handset-based solution
must complete any necessary upgrades to their systems within six months
of a PSAP request. Additionally, the rules provide for specific
benchmark dates by which these carriers must begin to sell and activate
a certain percentage of handsets that provide location information. By
December 31, 2005, these carriers must ensure that 95 percent of their
customers' handsets are location-capable.
The 2005 date is popularly referred to as the final implementation
date of Phase II wireless E911. It is worth noting, however, that the
December 31, 2005 date requires only that carriers choosing a handset-
based Phase II solution ensure that at least 95 percent of their
subscribers have location-capable handsets. By that date, the FCC also
anticipates that carriers using network-based solutions will have
deployed Phase II at many more PSAPs, but precisely when each PSAP
becomes Phase II capable is dependent on the timing of the PSAP request
and the PSAP's readiness. As the Commission does not have jurisdiction
over PSAPs, there is no corresponding requirement that PSAPs actually
be able to receive Phase II data at that time.
According to reports submitted to the FCC by the nationwide
wireless carriers, Phase II has been deployed in 25 states, to
approximately 400 localities across the country, and more than 800
PSAPs. Multiple wireless carriers are providing Phase II service to
their customers in metropolitan areas such as Houston, Dallas/Fort
Worth, Chicago, East St. Louis, as well as Rhode Island. At least one
wireless carrier has deployed Phase II service in cities such as Kansas
City, Miami, Richmond, San Antonio, and Indianapolis. Mid-sized
carriers have also begun deploying Phase II. These carriers have
deployed in smaller cities such as Charlotte, North Carolina, Amarillo,
Texas, and Bristol, Tennessee, and in rural areas of Arkansas, Alabama,
Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee, and Texas.
Additionally, with respect to location-capable handsets, every
nationwide carrier using a handset-based approach is offering at least
one location-capable handset model, in accordance with applicable
benchmarks. Last month, Verizon Wireless reported that it is offering
its customers ten different GPS-enabled handset models, and Sprint PCS
is offering fifteen location-capable handset models. Sprint reported
that it has sold over 8.8 million GPS-enabled handsets.
iii. fcc actions promoting continued e911 deployment
To further promote the successful implementation and deployment of
nationwide E911, the FCC has engaged in four major areas of activity:
(1) enforcement, (2) implementation, (3) investigation of technical and
operational challenges, and (4) outreach and coordination. As discussed
below, all four areas are essential to ensure that E911 deployment
moves forward as swiftly and effectively as possible.
A. Enforcing FCC Directives
The FCC has not hesitated to use its enforcement power when
wireless carriers are not justified in failing to meet the FCC's
requirements. When the FCC reported to the House Telecommunications
Subcommittee on the status of E911 in 2001, we indicated that
individual compliance plans for the nationwide carriers were in place.
Since that time, the Commission has taken the following actions where
carriers have failed to comply with these plans:
Entered into consent decrees with AT&T Wireless (June 2002)
and Cingular Wireless (May 2002) regarding deployment of E911
over their Time-Division Multiple Access (TDMA) Networks,
notwithstanding the fact that both carriers plan to phase out
much of their TDMA networks as they transition to the Global
System for Mobile Communications (GSM) standard. These consent
decrees require AT&T Wireless and Cingular Wireless each to
make a $100,000 voluntary contribution to the U.S. Treasury, to
deploy E911 Phase II technology at their TDMA cell sites, and
to provide Phase II service in response to PSAP requests by
specified benchmark dates. The consent decrees also require the
carriers to make automatic penalty payments for failure to
comply with deployment benchmarks and to submit periodic
reports on the status of their compliance efforts. Both
carriers have met their benchmarks to date: AT&T Wireless has
deployed Phase II technology to over 2,000 cell sites, with
nearly 1,200 of those sites currently providing Phase II
service, and Cingular has deployed Phase II technology at over
2,400 cell sites, with Phase II operational in nearly 1,700 of
those sites.
After issuing a Notice of Apparent Liability against AT&T
Wireless for apparent E911 violations concerning its GSM
network, the Commission and AT&T Wireless entered into a
consent decree in October 2002 to address these apparent
violations. This decree requires AT&T Wireless to make a $2
million voluntary contribution to the U.S. Treasury, to deploy
E911 Phase II technology at its GSM cell sites and provide
Phase II service in response to PSAP requests by specified
benchmark dates. The consent decree also requires AT&T to make
automatic penalty payments for failure to comply with
deployment benchmarks and to submit periodic reports on the
status of its compliance efforts. AT&T Wireless has met its
benchmarks to date, reporting that it has deployed Phase II
technology to 2,000 cell sites on its GSM network.
In March, the FCC issued a Notice of Apparent Liability
against T-Mobile for apparent E911 violations relating to its
Phase I deployment, finding T-Mobile apparently liable for a
forfeiture in the amount of $1,250,000.
Recently, the Enforcement Bureau initiated an investigation
into Cingular Wireless's and T-Mobile's deployment of E911
Phase II with respect to their GSM networks and will make a
recommendation to the FCC shortly on how to proceed. We hope to
have compliance plans and schedules in place soon.
The Commission continues to monitor each carrier's progress in
deploying Phase I and Phase II E911 and to investigate alleged failures
to meet FCC-mandated benchmarks. Where warranted, the FCC will continue
to take quick action to ensure that wireless carriers comply with the
FCC's E911 rules and regulations. In other cases where the public
interest warrants, we have provided additional flexibility in
situations where delayed compliance is beyond the wireless carrier's
control. Such cases are carefully scrutinized and reviewed.
It is worth noting that the three wireless carriers deploying GSM
networks have experienced difficulties in meeting their benchmarks due
to technology problems. The Commission has met repeatedly with these
carriers to emphasize the seriousness of the existing benchmarks.
Further, these carriers were referred to the FCC's Enforcement Bureau.
Within the past several months, all three carriers have announced their
decision to switch location technologies to ensure more rapid
deployment and improved performance of their E911 systems.
B. Moving Towards Full Implementation
Although significant progress is being made, we still have a long
way to go before wireless E911 is deployed across the Nation. In
addition to actively enforcing the existing rules, the FCC is also
looking at new ways to help speed and smooth E911 implementation. To
this end, over the past year, the FCC has made a number of E911-related
rulings, including:
Setting a deployment schedule for smaller, including many
rural, non-nationwide carriers to begin to provide E911
service. Under this schedule, mid-sized carriers were required
to begin deployment by March 1, 2003 and small carriers are
scheduled to begin deployment this fall. Like the nationwide
carriers, mid-sized carriers must report regularly on their
E911 deployment progress, and smaller carriers must provide a
report outlining their plans for E911 deployment later this
summer.
Clarifying PSAP readiness issues and providing for a
certification process for wireless carriers where wireless
carriers have completed all necessary steps toward E911
implementation that are not dependent on PSAP readiness.
Providing guidance on cost recovery issues regarding the
demarcation point between PSAPs and carriers.
Issuing a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking public
comment on whether and how the 911 and E911 rules should apply
to technologies not currently covered by the rules, such as
Mobile Satellite Service, telematics services, and emerging
voice services and devices; and seeking updated information on
issues involved with the delivery of callback and location
information on 911 calls from stations served by Multi-Line
Telephone Systems, such as PBXs. This item provides an early
forum for the possible extension of our 911 and E911 rules.
In other instances, the Commission directly responded to concerns
raised by several of the national public safety organizations regarding
the unnecessary diversion of PSAP resources to respond to unintentional
or harassing 911 calls from wireless phones. In October 2002 and
pursuant to a specific public safety request, the Commission issued a
public notice clarifying that its 911 call-forwarding rule does not
preclude wireless carriers from blocking fraudulent 911 calls from non-
service initialized (NSI) phones pursuant to state and local laws. The
public notice highlighted the waste of public safety resources that
results from fraudulent 911 calls made from NSI handsets, which lack a
call back number. The Commission continues to look at the issue of NSI
wireless phones through an ongoing proceeding.
In December 2002, the Commission released a Staff Report on
unintentional wireless 911 calls, which occur when a consumer
accidentally dials 911, often through use of a pre-programmed auto-dial
key. The report confirmed that unintentional wireless 911 calls pose a
significant problem for PSAPs, and outlined steps that industry
participants can and should take to address the problem. For example,
the major wireless carriers have requested that their vendors cease
shipping phones with an active, auto-dial 911 feature. In nearly all
cases, wireless phones distributed by these carriers have not had an
auto-dial 911 feature since at least February of 2002. In addition, the
Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA) has
modified its handset certification program such that certified handsets
may not be pre-programmed with an auto-dial 911 feature.
The FCC has also received a commissioned report of an independent
expert, Dale Hatfield, which examined the technical and operational
issues affecting wireless E911 implementation. Mr. Hatfield, a widely
respected telecommunications expert with nearly four decades of
experience, met with interested parties to elicit more detailed
information regarding E911 deployment issues. In October 2002, he
released a report to the Commission containing his findings and
recommendations. The Commission sought public comment on the Hatfield
Report late last year.
In his report, Mr. Hatfield made a number of findings identifying
obstacles to E911 deployment, which include:
Wireless carrier implementation issues
ILEC cost recovery and technical issues
Cost recovery and PSAP funding issues
Ongoing need for PSAP education, assistance, and outreach
Lack of comprehensive stakeholder coordination
While the FCC had already become aware of many of the issues raised
in the Hatfield Report and was working on potential solutions, the
Hatfield Report suggested many novel approaches, which the FCC is
actively studying and, in some cases, implementing. For instance, the
Commission is taking a greater role in formal coordination through the
FCC's E911 Coordination Initiative.
C. Overcoming Technical and Operational Challenges
The Hatfield Report confirmed that ILECs play a critical role in
the deployment of wireless E911 service. ILECs generally serve as 911
system operators, providing trunks, facilities, and services necessary
to connect wireless carriers and PSAPs. For Phase II, they also provide
the Automatic Location Identification (ALI) databases that are used for
wireline 911 and must be upgraded to accommodate wireless ALI data. The
FCC has sought cooperation from the ILECs to fulfill their E911
implementation role. In response to concerns from both the PSAP and
wireless communities, late last summer, the FCC requested additional
information from the six major ILECs regarding their role in E911
deployment, including specific information on technical issues and cost
recovery plans.
Additionally, Commission staff has been working with state
commissions, wireless carriers, PSAPs, and ILECs regarding specific
cost issues that have been brought to our attention. In one instance,
the Commission staff issued a letter regarding a dispute over
responsibility for the costs to upgrade ALI databases for purposes of
deploying wireless E911 Phase II service. We fully intend to take
action where appropriate to ensure that actual wireless E911 deployment
is not delayed because of perceived regulatory disputes. In an Order
released last fall, the Commission similarly expressed concern over the
potential for delay due to a lack of cooperation by the ILECs and noted
that it would consider enforcement actions or additional regulatory
obligations, if necessary.
The Hatfield Report also confirmed that there continue to be E911
implementation issues beyond the Commission's purview. Specifically, we
note that PSAP funding continues to be a significant barrier to
deployment. Although cost recovery mechanisms are in place in a number
of states, these funds have on occasion been diverted for other uses
unrelated to E911. If PSAPs do not have funds in place to upgrade their
systems, Phase II service will not be implemented in those areas. We
know that this issue already has been raised by the Congressional E911
Caucus, and we applaud its efforts to resolve this critical issue. This
issue was one of the numerous issues addressed at the E911 Coordination
Initiative's April 29 meeting.
Other issues that have been raised with the FCC include E911
compliance following the implementation of Local Number Portability and
how to overcome related technical difficulties, and E911 accuracy
concerns associated with rural carriers, particularly those with TDMA
networks. We are currently evaluating these issues, and hope to have
further guidance on these issues later this year.
D. Coordination and Outreach
Wireless E911 implementation is a highly complex process that
requires an enormous amount of coordination. Both coordination and
outreach are essential components in the Commission's ongoing effort to
facilitate E911 implementation. Most recently, the Commission kicked-
off of the E911 Coordination Initiative on April 29, 2003.
This widely attended meeting brought together representatives from
the federal government, the public safety community, wireless carriers,
ILECs, and other interested stakeholders to share experiences and
devise strategies for expediting E911 deployment. All of the
Commissioners participated in the event, as did Dale Hatfield, who gave
a brief oral report.
The meeting addressed ongoing implementation issues such as PSAP
funding, wireless carrier implementation and prioritization, issues
relating to LECs, and challenges faced by rural carriers. Panelists
shared their success stories on the various topics, in order to inform
other similarly situated stakeholders how to overcome deployment
obstacles. The stakeholders addressed a number of themes, including:
Strong leadership and vision is essential to ensure swift E911
deployment
State or regional E911 points of contact are critical for
carriers to ensure swift deployment
For PSAP readiness, cost recovery and proper management and
distribution of funds are key steps toward ensuring wireless
E911 rollout
This meeting was the first in a series of more formal coordination
efforts to allow the Commission to facilitate E911 deployment. The next
meeting of the E911 Coordination Initiative will take place in the
fall.
In addition to the Coordination Initiative, both my Bureau and the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB) have provided ongoing
outreach to consumers, public safety, tribal governments and state
legislators on E911 issues. CGB staff will be meeting with the National
Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, the National Congress
of American Indians and the National Conference of State Legislators
this summer to discuss the FCC's E911 Coordination Initiative and to
discuss ways we can work together to speed E911 implementation. To
educate the public, CGB recently established a Consumer Alert on
unintentional 911 calls and WTB has established a web page focused
solely on 911 and E911 issues.
The FCC has also established points of contact designated by the
Governors in all 50 states and three of the U.S. territories to work
jointly to identify E911 funding and deployment solutions. The FCC
expects to hold an E911 roundtable later this year with the Governors'
designees as part of an ongoing dialogue to discuss E911 options and
identify solutions. Additionally, the FCC intends to engage its Local
and State Government Advisory Committee to work on the development of a
state-by-state funding and implementation survey. The Commission also
will continue working with tribal governments to facilitate the
deployment of E911 on tribal lands. Through these cooperative efforts,
the FCC seeks to facilitate the expeditious deployment of E911.
We also have been monitoring the E911 coordination efforts of other
organizations to enhance stakeholder coordination and applaud the joint
efforts of industry and public safety. For example, public safety
outreach efforts such as the National Emergency Numbering Association's
Strategic Wireless Action Teams Initiative and the Association of
Public-Safety Communications Officials' Project Locate have been
instrumental in ensuring that local PSAPs are aware of their
responsibilities and assisting with on-the-ground implementation
efforts. Additionally, the joint industry and public safety group,
Emergency Services Interconnection Forum (ESIF), an arm of the Alliance
for Telecommunications Industry Solutions, has worked to develop and
refine technical and operational interconnection issues to ensure
wireless 911 will be available to everyone.
Earlier this year, ESIF submitted to the Commission a PSAP
Readiness Package, which was developed through the joint efforts of
wireless carriers, 911 service system providers, and public safety
organizations. This serves as a useful tool for PSAPs that are
unfamiliar with the E911 request process. The Department of
Transportation (DOT) has also established a Wireless E-911 Initiative,
which includes efforts to bring national leadership and attention to
the E911 issue, to provide technical assistance and guidance and
training to accelerate PSAP readiness, and to engage the Nation's
leading information technology experts in a reexamination of the
technological approach to E911. FCC and DOT staffs have been actively
involved in coordination; FCC staff has attended DOT's Wireless E-911
Initiative Steering Council meetings and DOT in turn participated in
the FCC's Coordination Initiative meeting. Most recently, DOT issued a
Wireless E911 Initiative Priority Action Plan outlining six urgent
priorities to E911 deployment, and I commend the DOT for its efforts.
iv. conclusion
Wireless communications have become increasingly important to our
national communications infrastructure and in our everyday lives. The
United States is the only nation in the world that has required that
all wireless calls have E911 capability to assist the public safety
community in performing their vital work. All the stakeholders who have
worked on this process--Congress, the public safety community, wireless
carriers, ILECs, state and local governments, equipment vendors,
technology vendors, and the Commission--should be proud of this
accomplishment. These very same stakeholders must continue to be
diligent in completing the availability of Nationwide E911 in the near
future.
For its part, the Commission continues to make wireless E911
deployment one of its highest priorities. We have come a long way, and
through some difficult times, but we are optimistic about the future of
wireless E911. We appreciate Congress's efforts, and in particular, the
efforts of members of this Subcommittee, to keep this issue in the
forefront. We plan to continue our efforts on various fronts, but
especially, the E911 Coordination Initiative, to ensure that E911
deployment continues apace.
I would like to thank the Subcommittee for this opportunity to
provide information on wireless E911. I look forward to hearing your
views and answering any questions you may have.
Mr. Upton. Thank you again for your leadership on that
issue.
Mr. Melcher.
STATEMENT OF JOHN MELCHER
Mr. Melcher. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
join my colleagues on the panel in applauding your efforts and
especially in holding this hearing, but even more so for your
leadership and getting involved in what traditionally and
historically has been a local effort which brings us to why we
are here today. Because of the local nature of 911 as it grew
up, there has been such a disparity in the way 911 systems are
built and in place around the country today. And 911 is no
longer a local phenomena. It is now a global phenomena, and
that is why this kind of hearing is very, very important that
we bring the educational aspects of what the intricacies are to
light. On September 11th, as you well remember, that fateful
morning when we were holding the Report Card to the Nation
Press Conference that NENA was hosting, and as I was
introducing all of you to give comments and make remarks about
the data that we had uncovered, and that our lives changed
significantly and forever, I am particularly struck by some of
the same faces that have been involved for so many years on
this issue, and I think the incredible amount of success that
we have had so far is worthy of applause, but we also have so
many challenges. I would like to speak to a few of those.
Our 911 systems are truly the Nation's first responders'
first responder, if you will, and they have to be robust enough
to face the challenge. NENA recently signed a memorandum of
understanding with NORAD because it occurred to them that not
all threats may appear on their radar screens. The airborne
threat may actually be reported by a citizen who sees the
cruise missile coming across the beach and would whip out their
cell phone and dial 911 because that's the number they know in
times of crisis. So our scope has changed significantly.
It is not just that our job has gotten more difficult. It
is also a little bit more complex, but the team that you see in
front of you, and I think this is an incredibly well-put-
together panel because it represents the true stakeholders that
are involved in making wireless E-911 and future technologies
in 911 a reality.
The PSAP readiness issue has been brought up so many times,
and the funding has been talked about and spoken to by almost
every member this morning. Some of the panel members will speak
to that, but you should know that PSAP readiness has been a
little bit of a situation that has morphed and changed over the
last few years. Many States have been putting aside money to
pay for wireless Phase II and building up that savings account
and only recently, and I mean NENA in the last few months, have
all of the incumbent local exchange carriers gotten their
tariffs actually out and settled in some capacity so that local
PSAPs could start buying the services.
So as the funds were being built up, there were truly
things that were happening to make this a reality.
Unfortunately, due to economic times a large balance sitting
there in some States was just too much temptation for the local
legislators, State legislators, and those funds have now
disappeared. So now that the tariffs are in place, technologies
in place, everything's ready to go, now the money is gone, and
so that is a huge problem, and it gets a lot into States'
rights. So I think it shows a lot of courage on your part to
try to address these very sensitive issues.
I think what is important, from a NENA perspective, in
public safety is to let you know what we are doing about it.
NENA formed the strategic wireless action team, the SWAT team
that you heard referenced here this morning, to bring all of
the stakeholders together in probably the most comprehensive
effort to date. We applaud CTIA for doing this back in 1995 and
1996, and we have found need to get back together again. We
have got all the wireless carriers, major carriers and some of
the rural carriers involved. We have all the major local
exchange carriers, incumbents. Obviously the FCC is a
stakeholder in this, as well as the public safety folks and the
State legislative groups, and Governors' association and all
kinds of people that have gotten together on this, but it is
about telecommunications and public safety. This is as much as
a Homeland Security cast can be compared to this. It is really
a telecom/public safety issue.
So we had to come together to figure out what we could do
about it and what answers we could bring back. There are some
things we can do on our own with outside assistance not
necessary. There are some things we are going to require
outside assistance. And that report, that consensus document
that we are working so hard to obtain closure on, will be back
in front of you folks in the fall of this year. We are shooting
for an October timeframe to present it back to you after the
recess. So that is going to give some recommendations, tell you
what we can do without help. But we are also going to are
require some help, and I think funding is going to be part of
the Federal Government's role.
Mr. Hatfield talked about the technology and the
infrastructure. We are in an antiquated infrastructure
environment. I will draw just a minor contrast. AT&T Long
Distance Network today, that processes long distance calls, we
are told does so with about 85 to 90 switches. They are called
long distance tandems.
In the 911 world, we have tandems as well. They are called
selective routing tandems. Throughout the Nation there are
almost 800 of these selective routing tandems. That number is
growing. It shouldn't be growing. It should be reduced. The
contrast is that each and every one of those 800 some switches
don't talk to each other. Where in the AT&T long distance
environment, they all talk to each other, and if one fails,
they all back each other up. Ours are sitting out there as
isolated entities that do not have redundancy, robustness and
true integration. There are some mated tandems, but that is not
true interoperability, and that is 800 units of cost to the
local exchange carriers, which is passed on to the local public
safety folks that could be reduced significantly. So we are
very concerned about that.
I do have two pieces of survey data that I wanted to share
with you this morning and you see the posters up there now.
With our engagement of the monitor group and the SWAT
initiative, we did a poll, and we found that nearly 60 percent
of the Americans, if you notice the one in red on top, feel
that the focus on homeland security has increased the
importance of 911 emergency number services, especially
wireless. And if you will notice all respondents, and we break
them down to wireless subscribers and those who previously
called 911, the statistical difference is negligible and
everybody is feeling that this is a priority.
The second piece of information we thought was incredibly
significant that you really needed to see this morning was upon
hearing a description of how wireless 911, and remember we had
to describe this to a lot of people because William Shatner had
them convinced when you dial the magic three digits things
happen automatically, but once they understood, the respondents
indicated that they believed improving the technology was very,
very important and of great importance, and if you will notice,
the majority of them thought it was of great importance with
the remainder of them, almost a 100 percent, thinking it was at
least fairly important. So I think your efforts this morning
are truly reflected in the community's view and our Nation's
view as to how important this stuff really is.
We have got to address things like staffing and training.
That's very important. We have got to address future proofing
and make sure that we are not going to have the next
technologies that Mr. Hatfield talk about, the personal safety
devices, the automatic crash notification--we have got that up
and running in Houston. Those types of technologies have got to
be addressed aforethought and not as an after thought. We don't
want to go back here in front of you 2 years from now trying to
address a different question as to why telematics or some other
device wasn't integrated into the system.
And last, it is working through our constituents and our
colleagues. The U.S. Department of Transportation and their
Safety Initiative, the Secretary has been very active in 911
issues. There are appropriations bills coming up that are going
to be potential sources of funding we hope that you will look
at. But the final thought that I would like to leave you with
is that the teamwork involved is the most important thing. The
people that you see represented in front of you and some others
are the ones that are going to make it happen. We are the ones
that do this for a living, and it has got to be a true team
effort. It takes everybody involved, and it has got to be about
what they can do, not what they can't do.
[The prepared statement of John Melcher follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Melcher, President, National Emergency
Number Association
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, Congressman Upton, thank
you very much for providing me with this opportunity to appear before
you today. My name is John Melcher, and I serve as the President of the
National Emergency Number Association (NENA) and Deputy Executive
Director of the Greater Harris County, Texas 9-1-1 District.
It gives me great pleasure to appear before the Subcommittee today.
Three months ago I had the honor of testifying before the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Subcommittee on
Communications. That day, like today, was an opportunity for those of
us on the frontlines of 9-1-1 to update the Congress on our progress
and activity to deploy wireless E9-1-1. We appreciate your keen
interest and great willingness to help make America and its residents
and visitors safer.
In that spirit Mr. Chairman, I would like to acknowledge and thank
you and a few of your colleagues for their dedicated leadership to
improve our nation's 9-1-1 systems.
First, Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize two of the founding
Members of the Congressional E9-1-1 Caucus, Congressman John Shimkus
and Congresswoman, Ann Eshoo. Both have demonstrated a strong
commitment to advancing the goals of public safety and the importance
of 9-1-1 in every device, everywhere. I thank them for their leadership
and tireless advocacy.
I would also like to acknowledge Congressman Gene Green, a great
Texan and strong advocate on these issues before your Committee.
Congressman's Green dedication goes beyond Washington, as he has been a
great friend to the Greater Harris County 9-1-1 District for many
years. I would add that many of our advancements in Greater Harris
County would not be possible without the likes of Gene Green.
And finally, Mr. Chairman I would like to acknowledge you and your
staff for the work all of you do each and everyday to better understand
and advance these issues. Just a couple of weeks ago, I found myself in
your home state, at the Michigan National Emergency Number Association
state chapter conference. The conference, which is similar to
conferences that occur in almost every state in the Union, brings
together local and state 9-1-1 officials to learn, listen and interact
with national experts. I was delighted to see that one such expert, Mr.
Will Norwind, came from your staff. Upon further inquiry, I found out
that you had attended the conference the year before, visiting a local
PSAP, riding along on an emergency call and seeing first hand the
challenges we face in wireless and wireline 9-1-1.
I applaud your leadership and commitment to further educate your
staff and yourself about the issues E9-1-1 presents us all. In these
many efforts, you have been a passionate supporter of technology,
communications, first responders and 9-1-1. I extend my personal
gratitude and the thanks of the 9-1-1 industry and nation for your work
and dedication.
We encourage your colleagues in the Committee to follow your lead
and work closely with the 9-1-1 community, scheduling visits to local
PSAPs and your state NENA chapters to keep current on the issues facing
us all, and the many opportunities to improve our citizen-activated
emergency response capabilities.
progress
We are delighted to see the participation of Mr. Dale Hatfield at
today's hearing. As an independent expert, Mr. Hatfield was able to
identify some of the myriad of technical and operational challenges
impeding progress. His evaluation, submitted to the FCC last fall and
commonly referred to as the ``Hatfield Report,'' has proven to be an
important roadmap to progress in wireless E9-1-1 and a prescription for
improving the dialogue among all parties.
The FCC's E9-1-1 Coordination Initiative, on April 29, provided
additional illustration of the need for all of us to come together to
better understand what can be achieved in E9-1-1 implementation.
This activity is both consistent and vital to serving the goals and
objectives of the Wireless Communications Public Safety Communications
Act of 1999, an important foundation for improving emergency
communications, and specifically for deploying wireless E9-1-1.
In the short time between the Senate and House hearing, our nation
has defeated a tyrannical dictator, raised Homeland Security threat
levels several times, and unfortunately experienced several 9-1-1
failure-related tragedies, demonstrating further the need for a
dependable E9-1-1 phone system.
Three months ago, in my testimony before the Senate, I stated my
organization's focus on solutions, progress and implementation. I added
that, to the extent that barriers exist, we must work together in a
committed and coordinated way to overcome them. I brought forward
NENA's most recent effort to keep all the parties at the table, to
address specific institutional barriers, challenges in technology, PSAP
readiness and the funding of our nation's 9-1-1 system. At that time, I
shared the first ``chapter'' of the NENA Strategic Wireless Action Team
(SWAT) process, to examine and address the global and systemic
challenges affecting E9-1-1 implementation.
Understanding that we as a nation and community are still at a
crossroads of implementation, NENA has convened national leaders and
technical and operational experts to identify priorities, and determine
the systemic changes needed to improve our nation's 9-1-1 system.
Specifically, we are bringing together all the relevant constituents--
wireless and wireline telecommunications companies, state and local
organizations, and the nations leading Public Safety groups: NENA, APCO
and NASNA--in a cooperative effort to address--and resolve--the
critical barriers to ubiquitous E9-1-1 implementation.
Focused on solutions and results-based outcomes, SWAT is
interjecting new dialogue, energy, and resources where others have
become exhausted. Moreover, SWAT is recognizing the necessity for a
comprehensive public/private cooperative effort to address the many
issues that are affecting the 9-1-1 system--one dealing with solutions,
not barriers and contention.
While the nation's 9-1-1 service providers struggle with deploying
location technology for wireless telephone sets, nearly 400 counties do
not even have basic 9-1-1. SWAT recognizes the disparity and diversity
our nation's emergency response capabilities and is working with
individuals as well as communities to address the most basic to the
most complex requests.
As segments of our nation rely more on two-way messaging devices,
automatic crash notification services, etc., NENA SWAT recognizes that
the 9-1-1 system must be modernized to accommodate emerging
technologies and interconnected to accommodate the transfer of digital
information across the country. More than anything, SWAT is an approach
to resolve the coordination and funding issues systemically by
increasing the alignment of all critical stakeholders involved in
deploying E9-1-1.
SWAT is our opportunity to do it right. (1) Organize leaders on a
national level, (2) get the right experts in a room apply appropriate
resources and guidance and (3) identify technologies, tools, and
expertise needed to assure the consistent delivery of 911 systems
throughout the U.S. SWAT is designed to look at the components of
wireless E9-1-1, along with the environment in which it operates, and
identify and deploy the kind of focused resources necessary to truly
foster wireless deployment. It's about getting the right people, the
right information to solve wireless E9-1-1 problems.
stakeholders initiative
Building from the findings of Dale Hatfield in his FCC-commissioned
report on E9-1-1, NENA SWAT recognized a need to bring all parties
together in a special undertaking to examine the possibility for a new
consensus, the E9-1-1 Stakeholders' Initiative. This initiative joins
all the relevant stakeholders--including the front-line companies in
the wireless and wireline telecommunications industry, and the relevant
state and local bodies and organizations--in a cooperative effort to
address and resolve the critical issues facing E9-1-1 deployment. In
the interest of third party objectivity, this effort is being organized
and facilitated with support from the Monitor Group, a preeminent
management consultant firm, and the PSAP Readiness Fund.
Next week, on June 12th here in Washington, public safety advocates
and leaders will join with representatives of wireline E9-1-1 system
service providers and wireless companies in a ``Call to Action,'' a
press briefing affirming the need for this collaborative process, to
keep all parties at the table, in an open dialogue, and to truly make
our nation's 9-1-1 system a top public policy priority.
A key area of progress thus far, is the establishment of a platform
for exploring consensus. Through ongoing dialogue, countless interviews
and serious debate we have identified a wide range of potential options
and solutions to improve deployment. In March 2003 and again in May
2003, we held ``Constituent Roundtables''--meetings of the executive
leadership of the SWAT Stakeholders Initiative constituents--to discuss
the most contentious and complex issues involved with potential
solutions. At these Roundtables, several important areas of consensus
have begun to emerge, allowing us to focus on several key areas of
ongoing debate.
The first complex challenge is the lack of coordinated resources,
funding and incentives shared among all the fragmented stakeholders in
the E9-1-1 equation. The second challenge is pure diversity. Our
nation's 5,300 PSAPs are highly decentralized, while our nation's
telecommunications providers are increasingly national. This makes cost
models difficult to construct. Consistent follow-though between parties
has become a challenge in itself. Third, but not least, it comes down
to pure political will. In communities where there is strong political
will around E9-1-1 issues and the deployment of location based services
we see more favorable results.
In fact, some of the survey results from the Stakeholders
Initiative suggest that the people may be ahead of their local and
state elected and appointed officials in recognizing the importance of
identifying and locating emergency callers. For example, nearly 60
percent of Americans feel that the focus on homeland security has
increased the importance of 9-1-1. Upon hearing a description of
enhanced 9-1-1 for wireless callers, 99 percent said it was important
that this technology be provided as rapidly as possible. In other
words, that's unanimous public support for this vital public safety and
anti-terrorism measure. The majority of survey respondents (59%) rate
9-1-1 as ``Much or somewhat more important'' than other public safety
priorities such as ``more police and fire patrols,'' or more ``training
for police'' or more ``police and fire equipment.'' The American public
also views 9-1-1 issues as at least as important as a number of other
policy issues, including education (59% say 9-1-1 is more important),
universal health insurance (65%), highway maintenance (75%), and
homeland security (75%). And the vast majority of the surveyed public
is willing to pay for it, quoting acceptable consumer user costs for
improving their ability to call for help, and improve the safety and
security of all Americans.
remaining hurdles
Making 9-1-1 one of our nation's top public policy priorities is
responsible policy for today and tomorrow.
While there is increased public and government awareness for the
need to accelerate the deployment of E9-1-1, ubiquitous E9-1-1 service
unfortunately remains elusive. Large hurdles need to be overcome in
addressing ``PSAP readiness,'' funding and resources of our nation's
E9-1-1 system, and the ability to plan for the future.
One of the hurdles most often cited by wireless carriers is the
issue of ``PSAP readiness'' and the FCC-mandated implementation
deadlines that affect the timing and pace of deployment. In fact, some
of my colleagues in the wireless industry have made comments and
observations that their industry will be ready to deliver E9-1-1 well
before the entire public safety community will be ready to receive this
information.
While it's true that there are PSAPs that are not ``ready,'' and
some may take a long time to become ``ready,'' there are a growing
number that are prepared. It should also be emphasized that PSAP
readiness is not just a direct PSAP concern. E9-1-1 implementation
depends upon the timely and coordinated production and availability of
Phase II capable handsets, other location technology, appropriate
network infrastructure upgrades, PSAP support technologies and other
technical enhancements.
Product development and infrastructure upgrades presumably depend
upon timely orders from customers, as well as the willingness and
understanding of the supplier of what is expected and what is needed in
project management expertise. In the interest of emergency services for
wireless customers and the public in general, best efforts by all
parties should always be the expectation. Sadly this is often not the
case, and in some instances we are confronted with a conspicuous
absence of engagement.
Ultimately wireless 9-1-1 calls must be routed to a PSAP on the
network infrastructure of a landline telephone company. This ``9-1-1
System Service Provider'' is usually an incumbent local exchange
telephone company (ILEC). A critical stakeholder in the process, ILEC's
have been for the most part absent from both the original planning and
FCC rule making on this subject. Subsequent regulatory actions have
considered the ILEC simply a vendor to the PSAP, in spite of their
central position in the interconnection/interface complexities uniquely
generated in wireless E9-1-1. This is untenable for the public safety
community. That is why our Stakeholder Dialogue and the NENA SWAT
project have given ILECs an important seat at the table.
In this environment, PSAP readiness is more of an issue of
leadership with equal recognition of diversity of PSAPs. It requires
productive, timely and efficient relationships between the wireless
carrier, ILEC and PSAP, along with other vendors and decision makers.
Constant communication among the parties, project management, and
forecasting of needs are critical. Landline trunking must be ordered
and provisioned, technical interface issues addressed, and overlapping
database functions coordinated. Much of this must occur within a
diverse and complicated regulatory environment at the federal and state
levels. And it needs to be paid for. If all of this doesn't work well,
the pace of deployment can be materially impacted.
Without a doubt, it's easy to point fingers and lay blame, but all
parties can and should agree that PSAP readiness is an issue that
reaches beyond the bricks and mortar of the PSAP. It's a systemic issue
for all parties to address in a sense of common purpose, the public
interest, frequent communications and cooperative spirit.
PSAP readiness is about keeping all the parties at the table,
communicating on a regular basis, so that we can better address and
prepare for challenges as they arise, not as they pass us by.
resources and funding
Closely linked to the issues of technology and PSAP readiness is
the availability of sustained resources and funding to deploy wireless
E9-1-1.
FCC Docket 94-102, requires that wireless carriers provide location
information from wireless phones by December 31, 2005 in any case where
a valid PSAP request has been received. In order to do such, many PSAPs
require sustained resources to be able to first accept, and then
process Automatic Number Identification and Automatic Location
Information (ANI/ALI) from wireless phones, through upgrades of
technology and recovery of basic costs. Unfortunately, in far too many
of our nation's communities, these E9-1-1 needs are not being met
simply because 9-1-1 funds and resources are not being allocated for 9-
1-1 use.
The costs of maintaining and operating a 9-1-1 system are
significant and necessary. Technical, operational and financial
resources are required from both the public and private sector.
Reliability, redundancy, innovations and challenges in modern
communications are constantly re-defining 9-1-1 costs and economies of
scale.
Training of dispatchers and turnover of highly skilled employees
remains a challenge and obstacle for most PSAPs. Tight budgets and
scarce resources makes it that much more difficult to retain highly
skilled employees. New technologies require more focus on education and
training, while simultaneously creating a more skilled work force that
requires additional resources for wages, training and employee
retention. Dispatchers and call takers are dedicated public servants,
but they need resources and skills to appropriately answer the call for
help. .
In the days of the Bell monopoly many of these costs were included
in a consumer's basic service. Early 9-1-1 cost recovery mechanisms
relied on costs being passed directly to the consumer in the form of
surcharges and fees on phone bills. Understanding that 9-1-1 is a
benefit to the public as a whole, these fees and surcharges were to be
used for direct 9-1-1 expenditures for both the public and private
sector. As new communications technologies emerged, such as mobile
telephony, similar surcharges were adopted for wireless phone bills.
However, these new surcharges, implemented for wireless E9-1-1, haven't
always stayed with 9-1-1.
Boosting revenues for strained government budgets and programs, 9-
1-1 funding has become an easy target. Subsequently, without
appropriate funding and resources our 9-1-1 systems become antiquated,
obsolete and unable to handle new communications technologies being
used by the public. This results in missed deadlines, under-funded
systems or no deployments at all.
While I'm not questioning the right of state policy makers to make
critical public policy decisions regarding their budgetary needs, this
alarming trend is, at best, slowing our progress towards truly
universal 9-1-1 service, and, at worst, outright endangering its
implementation. While the nature of emergency services will always be
local, the access to those services is a national expectation. This
expectation and need was acknowledged in the Wireless Communications
and Public Safety Act of 1999.
We would ask the Members of Congress to do everything in their
collective and individual power to protect and support 9-1-1 monies for
9-1-1 purposes. This is a principle and policy agenda that federal,
state and local governments can and should all agree on.
future path planning
Our collective job today is also about planning for our future.
While this hearing specifically speaks to wireless E9-1-1
implementation and progress, I can not overemphasize the importance of
future proofing our nation's 9-1-1 infrastructure. I say this with a
word of caution and concern, because if we don't, we'll be back here
year after year, dealing with the challenges of new and emerging forms
of communications.
Earlier this year, the FCC sought comment on a notice of proposed
rulemaking, asking whether its regulations on access to emergency
service communications networks and systems should be expanded to
address a variety of other devices and services, including mobile
satellite service (``MSS''), telematics (in-vehicle) services, multi-
line telephone systems (``MLTS''), resold cellular and PCS services;
pre-paid calling services; ``disposable'' phones; automated maritime
telecommunications systems (``AMTS''); and ``emerging voice services
and devices.'' This is an important and necessary first step. Much more
will need to be done.
Preparing for our next challenge, NENA's Future Path Plan is
integrating the growing variety of non-traditional ways to access 9-1-1
by adding components and functions to the overall 9-1-1 system to
ensure that new methods are more effective, more dependable, and/or
more economical than what we have, or than other alternatives. This
technical plan for future 9-1-1 systems is providing a long-term
direction for development to support new call sources and needs. VoIP
is already here. Who knows what the future will bring.
final thoughts
The deployment of E9-1-1 services, coupled with new technologies,
has dramatically improved personal safety and security and given new
promise to what is possible. What was once a dream is now a reality in
643 jurisdictions nation wide.
In these jurisdictions, wireless 9-1-1 callers are being located,
new technologies are being introduced, lives and resources are being
saved.
Earlier this week, NENA sent individual wireless E9-1-1 state
deployment profiles to each committee member. The profiles, which have
been made possible by the United States Department of Transportation
(USDOT)/NENA Wireless Implementation Program; as we are presently
surveying State and County 9-1-1 coordinators to provide national
information on readiness of states, counties and PSAPs for wireless E9-
1-1. I I owd In the coming weeks, as you and your colleagues return
home for recess, I would ask that you review the status of E9-1-1
implementation in your state, share the information with your
colleagues, local leaders and constituents. [This information can be
found on the NENA website at the following: http://dot.nena.org/]
The 9-1-1 Call to Action is simple, help us make wireless E9-1-1 a
top public policy priority in your community, state and our nation.
Mr. Upton. Thank you very much.
Mr. Korsmo.
STATEMENT OF KARL KORSMO
Mr. Korsmo. Good morning and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
inviting AT&T Wireless to share our E-911 implementation
experience with you.
I am Karl Korsmo, Vice President of External Affairs, and I
am responsible for E-911 in our company. AT&T has approximately
22 million customers in the United States. We are using a
network-based E-911 solution for our TDMA or second generation
network to provide Phase II location for E-911 calls. This TDMA
network today provides service to the majority of our
customers. In the third quarter of 2002, we decided to deploy
that same network-based solution to our new GSM network.
Network-based location systems use equipment installed in our
wireless cell sites to locate callers rather than GPS receivers
and phones. As a result, our wireless customers will not need
to purchase new handsets to take advantage of Phase II E-911
when it becomes available in their area.
AT&T Wireless and our partners in public safety are making
great strides in deployment of wireless E-911 service, first on
our TDMA network. We have hundreds of PSAPs with Phase II
deployed and having service today on our network, hundreds, and
more every day. We have Phase II service active with PSAPs in
over 20 States today. We are meeting our milestones that we
have committed to the FCC. By the end of June, we will have
over 4,000 of our TDMA cell sites providing Phase II location
to PSAPs. Locally, here in the Washington, DC area, we have
integrated our Phase II service with PSAPs in Louden,
Arlington, Prince William, and Stafford counties and
Alexandria, Virginia, and in Fairfax County, Virginia. And in
Ann Arundel County, we have installed the Phase II equipment
and are ready to hook it up to the PSAPs. On our new GSM
network, we have been deploying GSM capable location equipment
in our cell sites for the past 5 months, as soon as it was
available from our vendor. We have equipped well over 3,000 GSM
cell sites already with this equipment, and in this, we are
also meeting the FCC milestones that we have committed to. We
have completed testing on GSM in our Nokia infrastructure. We
have integrated that GSM today with the PSAP in Fort Myers,
Florida, and we have begun rolling out on our Nokia
infrastructure GSM Phase II on those thousands of pre-equipped
cell sites. We are still working to complete the testing on the
rest of our GSM non-Nokia systems, and we expect that testing
to be completed shortly.
Vendor delays have severely compressed our schedule for
meeting our next FCC milestone, but let me stress to you AT&T
wireless has done everything possible and continues to do
everything possible to speed the delivery of Phase II on GSM.
We have GSM integrations with PSAPs scheduled in six States for
this month and in 12 States, an additional 12 States for the
next month.
I wanted to share today three lessons learned by AT&T
Wireless in deployment of AT&T's Phase II service. First, we
and our vendors are getting very experienced at deploying Phase
II. On TDMA, the speed of our network design and installation
has been improving so that the critical path issues on Phase II
deployment are not usually the wireless technology but rather
procedural and coordination issues such as getting trunk orders
processed by local exchange carriers, end-to-end integration
testing, and obtaining permits for new antennas.
Second, we find that State and regional leadership by
public safety officials speeds Phase II deployment
significantly. Kansas City is a good example. The Metropolitan
Area Regional Council or MARC prepared for this for a long
time, and when we were ready to hook up our Phase II system in
Kansas City, MARC officials had over 30 PSAPs scheduled and
ready. Likewise in Indiana, State leadership by both elected
and public safety officials provided key leadership in
education and funding. Other States such as Texas, North
Carolina, California, Tennessee, New Jersey, Minnesota, and
Illinois are examples of widespread Phase II implementation
today due to foresight by State public safety leaders.
I am going to skip to my conclusion. Finally, carriers and
public safety together should do more to make deployments more
efficient. Having done hundreds of successful Phase II
deployments today, carriers and public safety officials should
do more to apply our learning to the benefit of the remaining
areas of the country. However, we organize it through the NENA
SWAT process that John mentioned or State by State. I know from
experience that Phase II implementation will become more
efficient as our cooperative efforts increase.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Karl Korsmo follows:]
Prepared Statement of Karl Korsmo, Vice President of External Affairs,
AT&T Wireless
introduction
Good morning and thank you Mr. Chairman for inviting AT&T Wireless
to share our E911 implementation experience.
AT&T Wireless is the largest independent wireless provider in the
U.S. with approximately 22 million customers. AT&T Wireless is using a
network-based E911 solution in our TDMA second generation network to
provide Phase 2 location of calls to 9-1-1. This network today provides
service to the majority of our customers. In the third quarter of 2002
we decided to deploy that same network-based solution in our new GSM
network. Network-based location systems use equipment installed in
wireless cell sites, rather than GPS receivers in phones, to estimate
the latitude and longitude of a caller. As a result, AT&T Wireless
customers will not need to purchase new handsets to take advantage of
Phase 2 E911 when it becomes available in their area.
making progress
AT&T Wireless and our partners in Public Safety are making great
strides in deployment of wireless E911 service. First, on our TDMA
network, over 1,300 requesting PSAPs receive Phase 1 service today,
which includes the caller's phone number and location of the serving
cell site. Approximately 340 of these PSAPs also requested and receive
Phase 2 service, which provides a more precise estimate of the caller's
location. We have dozens of requesting PSAPs in various stages of
deployment, and we are integrating Phase 2 service with additional
PSAPs nearly every week.
We have Phase 2 service now in 20 states, with service in more
states scheduled in the next several months. By the end of June, we
will have over 4,000 TDMA cell sites providing Phase 2 location to
PSAPs. Locally, we have integrated our Phase 2 service with PSAPs in
Loudon, Arlington, Prince William and Stafford Counties and Alexandria,
Virginia. In Fairfax County, Virginia and Anne Arundel County,
Maryland, we have installed Phase 2 equipment and are ready for
integration.
On our new GSM network, we have been deploying GSM capable
locations equipment in our cell sites for the past five months, as soon
as it was available from our vendor. We have equipped well over 3000
GSM cell sites already. We have been testing since early March in two
markets--Ft. Myers, FL on a Nokia GSM network and York County, PA on an
Ericsson GSM network. Pre-deployment testing on the Nokia network
completed last week, and GSM Phase 2 is now integrated with the PSAP in
Ft. Myers. We expect our vendor to complete shortly the final pre-
deployment validation on one remaining component still under test in
York County. We have begun rolling out GSM Phase 2 service on our Nokia
GSM systems as rapidly as possible, to those thousands of pre-equipped
cell sites.
Vendor delays can sometimes challenge our short term progress on
the milestones we committed to--this week, for instance, we will be
providing the FCC with information on vendor delays in finalizing the
operational software for GSM Phase 2 systems--but let me stress that
AT&T Wireless has done everything possible, and will continue to do
everything possible, to speed the delivery of Phase 2 on GSM. Though
our schedule for PSAP integration is now severely compressed, we are
working diligently with our vendor to solve remaining deployment and
technical hurdles, and to stage our resources across the county to
catch up on GSM as quickly as possible. We have GSM Phase 2 integration
scheduled this month in 6 states with our partners in Public Safety,
and in 12 additional states next month.
lessons learned
I have three ``lessons learned'' to share with you, from our
experience to date.
First, AT&T Wireless and our vendors are getting very experienced
at deploying Phase 2 systems. On TDMA, the speed of our network design
and installation has been improving, so that the ``critical path''
issues are usually not the wireless location technology, but rather
procedural and coordination issues--such as getting trunk orders
processed by local exchange carriers, end-to-end integration testing,
and obtaining permits for new antennas. Likewise on GSM, as our vendor
breaks through the final technical barriers, procedural and
coordination issues will become the critical path to deployment.
Second, we find that state and regional leadership by Public Safety
officials speeds Phase 2 deployment significantly. Kansas City is a
good example. The Metropolitan Area Regional Council (MARC) prepared
for a long time, and when we were ready to hook up and test our Phase 2
system, MARC officials had over 30 PSAPs scheduled and ready. Likewise,
in Indiana, state leadership--in this case by both elected officials
and Public Safety--provided key leadership in education and funding.
Other states, such as Texas, North Carolina, California, Tennessee, New
Jersey, Minnesota and Illinois are examples of widespread Phase 2
implementation, due to the foresight of state Public Safety leaders in
education, planning, coordination and fiscal management. State and
regional leadership have made a big difference.
Third, AT&T Wireless has seen significant progress result from the
collaborative dialogue on technical issues sponsored by the Emergency
Services Interconnection Forum's (ESIF). This is a neutral forum for
industry and Public Safety experts to discuss solutions to technical
issues. Though active for only a year or so, ESIF has already been a
great help to Wireless E911 deployment efforts.
conclusion
Finally, carriers & public safety together should do more to make
deployments more efficient. Having done hundreds of successful Phase 2
implementations, carriers and public safety should do more to apply our
learning to the benefit of the remaining areas of the country. AT&T
Wireless pledges the deployment experience of our engineers and
technicians, and that of our vendors, to work with Public Safety
experts in the states, and with national NENA & APCO experts, to
establish pre-deployment teams. These pre-deployment teams could
transfer knowledge, lessons learned and best practices to Public Safety
agencies interested in having Wireless E911 service. We are ready to
begin now to establish these teams. Perhaps we could have one pre-
deployment team per state. However we organize it, through the NENA
SWAT process or state-by-state, I know from experience that Phase 2
implementation will become more efficient as our collective efforts
increase.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share our experience
with the Committee this morning and I look forward to answering any
questions you may have for me.
Mr. Upton. Thank you very much.
Mr. Callahan.
STATEMENT OF JAMES CALLAHAN
Mr. Callahan. Thank you. Good morning.
My name is James Callahan. I am the President and Chief
Operating Officer of MobileTel, headquartered in Larose,
Louisiana. MobileTel provides wireless service to Lafourche and
Terrebonne Parishes, which comprises roughly 3,300 square miles
of mostly sparsely populated rural territory, located in
Louisiana's Third Congressional District. I would also note
that MobileTel was the first carrier in its market to deploy
Phase I, ahead of all the national major carriers.
I am honored to testify on behalf of MobileTel and also to
represent the nearly 100 member companies that comprise Rural
Cellular Association. RCA member companies provide services in
more than 135 rural and small metropolitan markets where
approximately 14.6 million people reside. For those of you
unfamiliar with MobileTel, our service area is distinctly
rural. Our subscribers in the general public benefit from our
commitment to maintain a network that maximizes coverage in
areas deemed commercially unattractive by other wireless
service providers. It is important for Congress to hear
directly from small rural carriers about an issue that has such
implications for the future of public safety and wireless
service delivery in rural America.
The FCC's Phase II E-911 requirements have put many small
carriers like MobileTel at a critical crossroads. In talking
today about the challenges that face MobileTel and other small
rural companies, the FCC's mandate, the theme you will hear is
simple, but critical. Current FCC requirements are shaking the
very foundation of our businesses in rural America. Many small
carriers are now being forced to make choices that could mean
their geographic areas will not expand to serve areas still
unserved, and more importantly, in fact, service areas may well
shrink, creating an even greater void in wireless service
delivery in rural America. We are deeply concerned that already
underserved consumers will lose out because of FCC policies
that reflect little understanding of rural America.
MobileTel recognizes and fully supports the public safety
goals of the FCC's E-911 mandates. Safety concerns have always
played a large part in MobileTel's network decisions. Like our
relationship with our customers, MobileTel's relationship with
the public safety community is local, direct and open. Small
rural wireless carriers have been and are still working very
hard in communities across this Nation to successfully overcome
Phase II hurdles. These hurdles include geography which is
unique to America, technological limitations, and the lack of
adequate cost recovery for small rural wireless carriers. The
technical and resource challenges of delivering Phase II
services to rural America are so significant that the
compliance is having a major impact on our viability and
jeopardizes the ability of wireless services, including basic
911 service, in many rural parts of this country. The FCC's
mandates and schedule for compliance should be adjusted to fit
the realities of the rural marketplace. If the Commission is
unwilling to take this action, then Congress must step in to
achieve the public policy goals of E-911.
Like many rural carriers, our subscriber base is small. The
capital requirements for meeting Phase II present a significant
expenditure and one without an immediate economic return. Our
system, like most rural systems, was designed with two goals in
mind, efficiency and economy. Many current subscribers are able
to enjoy the full benefit of our services because of the use of
older three-watt analog phones. Within its decision matrix, our
choice of technology to implement Phase II has been limited to
a network-based solution, yet, I am not aware of a single rural
service provider that has been able to secure a vendor's
guarantee that deployment of its network solution in the
carrier's market will meet the FCC's accuracy standards.
I refer you to my written testimony for a more detailed
outline of the geographic and technological obstacles that
require more time for compliance. These issues do not lend
themselves to a quick soundbite; yet it is important to note
that technology is still a problem in the communities we serve.
Technology problems could be eased if the FCC relaxed current
accuracy requirements. The current accuracy standards are
unrealistic in rural areas. A conclusion affirmed by the
unwillingness of vendors to guarantee that their products will
allow small carriers to meet the FCC accuracy standards. In
fact, the FCC rules allow for averaging, and, in effect, it is
an admission that the accuracy results will vary and may not be
able to be achieved in rural areas like those we serve. Unlike
the large carriers, small carriers cannot tap an urban market
to use averaging to comply with the FCC rules.
Cost recovery is also a critical issue for small carriers
because of the expense of deploying technology and the very
limited ability to recoup costs from subscribers. With such
emphasis now on public safety, the Federal Government must
ensure that funds are allocated for small wireless carriers to
help meet critical public safety needs, without requiring us,
by economic necessity, to reduce services now available to our
consumers. This applies not only to E-911 Phase II, but also to
any future mandates intended to enhance homeland security. The
way the FCC has handled Phase II mandates for small carriers
confirms the need for legislation that would require the FCC to
scrutinize the cumulative impact of regulations on small rural
wireless carriers. Such legislation should be introduced and
passed by the 108th Congress.
In conclusion, we ask that logic, common sense, and reason
prevail. With changes in the requirements, rural communities
can still benefit from enhanced public safety services. In
short, we ask that the time lines for implementation be
extended, the accuracy standards be relaxed, and the government
funding be made available for small carriers to defer financial
burdens not experienced by the larger national carriers.
Thank you for this opportunity to have participated in our
great democracy. I would refer you again to my detailed written
testimony to give you a better understanding of the problems
confronting small rural carriers, and I will be happy to answer
any questions you may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of James Callahan follows:]
Prepared Statement of James Callahan, President & COO, MobileTel, LLC
My name is James Callahan. I serve as the President and Chief
Operating Officer (COO) of MobileTel, LLC, headquartered in Larose,
Louisiana. MobileTel provides wireless service to LaFourche and
Terrebone Parishes, comprising roughly 3300 square miles of mostly
sparsely-populated rural territory. Putting this into another context,
MobileTel provides services in Louisiana's 3rd Congressional District
represented by the distinguished Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman
Billy Tauzin. We at MobileTel are proud of our congressman and consider
him not only an effective representative for the interests of the
residents of our community, but also a good friend.
First, let me express my appreciation for this opportunity to
present testimony before the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and the Internet on a subject as important as Wireless E-911 services.
This is a critical issue confronting wireless carriers, especially
small rural wireless carriers, as well as all Americans concerned with
public safety. Second, I would suggest that this hearing represents a
significant milestone for Congress to hear directly from small rural
wireless carriers about an issue that has critical implications for the
future of public safety and wireless service delivery in rural America.
And third, I want to emphasize upfront that much of my testimony today
may seem to focus on the ``hurdles'' that small rural wireless carriers
have experienced since the FCC promulgated its current rules on Phase
II E-911--and continue to experience today--as we seek to address the
critical public safety needs of consumers in rural America.
But frankly, the deployment of Phase II E-911 is about more than
jumping ``hurdles'' for many small rural wireless carriers. The FCC's
Phase II E-911 requirements have put many small rural wireless
carriers, like MobileTel, serving geographic areas that may otherwise
have no access to wireless services, at a critical crossroads. As a
result of current FCC Phase II E-911 requirements, many small rural
wireless carriers are now being forced to make choices that could mean
their geographic coverage areas will not expand to serve areas still
unserved. Our service areas may well shrink creating an even greater
void in wireless service delivery for consumers living and working in
rural America. We are deeply concerned that underserved consumers in
rural America will lose out as a result of FCC policies that reflect
little understanding of rural America.
I am honored to have been asked to testify at this hearing today on
behalf of MobileTel and also represent the nearly 100 member companies
that comprise the Rural Cellular Association (RCA). As you know, RCA is
a membership association representing the interests of small and rural
wireless licensees providing commercial services to subscribers
throughout the nation. Its member companies provide services in more
than 135 rural and small metropolitan markets where approximately 14.6
million people reside. The RCA was formed in 1993 to address the
distinctive issues facing small and rural wireless service providers.
small rural wireless carriers provide services in niche markets
As a small carrier serving rural areas, MobileTel, like most other
small rural wireless service providers still in existence today, is
able to compete with the national telecommunications conglomerates only
because it serves--and serves well--a discrete market niche. Unlike
large carriers that may enter our markets, our coverage extends beyond
the population centers and heavily-traveled highways to offer wireless
services in more remote areas that also are in need of quality wireless
services and would be served by no other carrier.
For those of you unfamiliar with MobileTel, we are headquartered in
Larose, located on Bayou Lafourche. Much of our service area is either
fresh or salt water marsh, complete with alligators, nutria, and
varieties of birds in the wild. Our service area covers the bayous and
marshes, where you can experience a swamp tour, enjoy some of America's
best salt water fishing, and travel ``down the bayou'' through Cajun
villages to the Gulf of Mexico. In other words, our service area is
distinctly rural. MobileTel's subscribers expect, and receive, a high-
quality signal throughout our service territory. Our subscribers and
the general public benefit from our commitment to maintain a network
built to maximize coverage in areas deemed commercially unattractive
and unappealing by other wireless service providers.
promoting public safety
MobileTel recognizes and fully supports the public safety goals
reflected in the FCC's E-911 mandates. Safety concerns have always
played a large part in MobileTel's network decisions. For example, well
in advance of its legal obligation to do so, MobileTel proactively
worked with PSAPs throughout its service area to deploy Phase I E-911
technology. Similarly, law enforcement officials are well aware of
MobileTel's availability and willingness to work with appropriate
authorities on a real-time basis to provide assistance. Like its
relationship with its customers, MobileTel's relationship with PSAPs
and other public safety officials is local, direct, and open.
phase ii e-911 services: standing at the crossroads
Small rural wireless carriers have been and are still working very
hard in communities across this nation to successfully overcome the
Phase II E-911 ``hurdles'' to rural America's access to enhanced 911
services. These hurdles include:
Geography unique to rural America;
Limits of technology which are not always adequately addressed
in discussions about Phase II services but that affect rural
markets uniquely; and
The lack of adequate cost recovery for small rural wireless
carriers.
The technical and resource challenges of delivering Phase II E-911
services to rural America are so significant for small rural wireless
carriers that many carriers are finding themselves at the crossroads
having to make critical decisions that could have the effect of
jeopardizing the ability of consumers in very remote parts of the
country to have access to quality wireless services, like those now
offered by MobileTel and the many other small rural wireless carriers
operating across this country.
The FCC's E-911 regulations and mandates and the schedule for
compliance should be adjusted to fit the realities of the rural
marketplace. If the Commission is unwilling to take this action, then
Congress must step in if the public policy goals of E-911 are to be
achieved and if we are to ensure that consumers in distinctly rural
markets have real access to enhanced public safety services.
Nearly all small rural wireless carriers would have their own story
to tell this subcommittee today about the hurdles they have confronted
to comply with the FCC's Phase II E-911 mandate. Although each story
may be unique, all would fit a pattern. Each would convey a sense of
frustration that the FCC has written rules that seem to be particularly
burdensome for small rural wireless carriers and reflect a fundamental
lack of understanding about rural America, telecommunications service
delivery to rural America, the costs of providing services in remote
parts of rural America, and the very special relationship--rooted in
what is too often now viewed with cynicism as an old-fashioned
commitment to service--that exists between a small rural wireless
carrier and the communities they serve. As small rural wireless
carriers, we still believe there is nothing old-fashioned about
delivering exceptional customer services.
As a rural wireless carrier, MobileTel, like other small wireless
carriers serving primarily rural areas, has been working diligently to
overcome the limits of technology, the lack of a cost recovery
mechanism, and unique geographical characteristics that make compliance
with the FCC Phase II E-911 mandate much more than a mere ``hurdle,''
but a federal regulatory requirement that has a major impact on a
company's viability.
So, today, I would like to tell you my story, but ask you to
realize there are companies throughout this nation and serving some of
the smallest rural communities in this nation that are experiencing
similar challenges. Without a solution, services to consumers--who may
be left with no access to wireless services, including basic 911
services, from any other wireless carrier--could suffer.
The FCC's Phase II E-911 requirement to provide PSAPs with location
information within the specified accuracy standards presents MobileTel
and other small rural wireless carriers with distinct and specific
challenges. First, our subscriber base is small, and that translates
into a competitive disadvantage when we have to either absorb the
significant costs of Phase II E-911 or spread the costs to relatively
fewer customers on a per capita basis.
Second, as a small company with limited resources, the capital
requirements for meeting the Phase II obligations present a significant
expenditure, one without immediate economic return. That being the
case, dedication of resources to a Phase II obligation limits our
ability to improve or expand service, and potentially presents even
more difficult decisions regarding service continuation.
Third, as a niche market player providing quality service where it
may not be available otherwise, we are highly sensitive to any
diminution of our ability to provide service area-wide coverage. Our
system, like most rural systems, was designed with two goals in mind--
efficiency and economy. Accordingly, the network was constructed to
cover the most area with the fewest towers. Many current subscribers
are able to enjoy the full benefit of our services because of their use
of older, 3-watt analog phones.
Within this decision matrix, our choice of technology to implement
a Phase II solution has been limited to a ``network'' solution. Yet, I
am not aware of a single rural service provider that has been able to
secure a vendor's guarantee that the deployment of its network solution
in the carrier's market will meet the FCC's accuracy standards. I
understand that these standards are met only under ideal test
circumstances, and, as yet, no real-world applications in hard-to-serve
rural America bear out the promise of testing.
technology and vendor issues
Many wireless carriers in rural areas utilize analog and TDMA
technology. Consequently, like MobileTel, their Phase II E-911 answers
rely on network solutions that generally utilize the triangulation of
cell sites to obtain location information for wireless 911 calls. Where
cell sites have been deployed to maximize efficiency (that is,
utilizing antennas with service footprints overlapping only enough to
allow call hand-off between the cell sites), this ``string of pearls''
configuration makes the determination of location impossible without
the construction of additional tower sites and the acquisition of
position determining equipment.
Although there is an alternative to triangulation, so-called
``Angle of Arrival'' or ``AOA'' technology, it is frequently the case
that the existing towers in a ``string of pearls'' configuration will
not support the additional weight of the required specialized AOA
antennas and associated feed lines. Even where AOA antennas can be
added to existing towers, additional sites still may be required in an
AOA scenario to achieve even the predicted accuracy standard--let alone
the real-world standard--because of the dense foliage or hilly terrain
common in many rural areas. Adding additional cell towers is an
extremely costly proposition for rural carriers as well as time-
consuming, potentially requiring far more than the available time frame
for deployment mandated under current FCC rules.
Under these and similarly difficult technical circumstances,
relaxation of the current accuracy requirements would enable carriers
to deploy a solution that meets the public safety needs of rural
consumers. Moreover, relaxation of current requirements would still
achieve the public policy objective of providing enhanced public safety
services to consumers in rural America. Very recently, MobileTel was
able to provide location information on a real-time basis to public
safety officials who simply called for assistance. As a local company
with direct ties to the community, including the immediate availability
of senior, decision-making management on site, MobileTel's ability to
react immediately and directly to community needs is one of its
strengths. This characteristic is typical of small, local rural
carriers.
Small rural wireless carriers are not necessarily faring any better
with the other technical solution--handset location capability--in
which much of the location technology is included in a consumer's
telephone. Currently, handset vendors have not developed a product that
works with state-of-the-art GSM digital networks, TDMA digital
networks, or the older analog technology. The large GSM carriers are
choosing instead a network solution that apparently can be implemented
with success in urban and suburban settings where population density
characteristics generally require a network configuration that supports
triangulation without significant additional cell site requirements.
In addition, larger carriers can use their urban coverage areas to
meet the FCC's accuracy standards because averaging of accuracy results
is allowed under the FCC's rules. Thus, larger carriers can comply with
the letter of the rules but offer no additional security for consumers
in those rural territories that are part of their coverage areas.
Bluntly, large carriers can provide no greater accuracy in rural areas
than small carriers. However, small carriers, alone, are penalized
because they are unable to conform to the FCC's accuracy guidelines.
Small rural carriers do not have the urban base of customers that large
carriers can rely on to place enough E911 calls that enable the larger
carriers to use averaging as a way to meet the FCC's location accuracy
requirements. This is yet another example of how FCC rules are simply
unfair to small rural carriers and the rural consumers that MobileTel
and the other members of RCA are committed to serve. Rather than
promoting public safety in rural America, the FCC rules place undue
burdens on small rural wireless carriers and reflect a basic lack of
understanding of rural America, its geography, and its people.
Moreover, small rural wireless carriers have been further
disadvantaged by the simple fact of market size and economic potential
when they try to secure vendor agreements to purchase technology to
meet the FCC's current requirements. Business management principles and
simple logic would suggest that vendors have less interest in working
with small carriers and small carriers have less ability to influence
the availability of products that will meet the FCC's requirements in
rural America. But, more importantly, many small rural wireless
carriers' experiences with vendors also reflect this fact of doing
business in today's society.
For example, for many carriers choosing network solutions, the
experience with True Position, one of two vendors that offer a network
``solution,'' has been frustrating at best. One RCA member providing
service in Illinois' 19th Congressional district represented by
Congressman John Shimkus has experienced a string of unkept promises,
non-returned phone calls, and non-answered e-mails from the vendor.
Although having budgeted $1.5 million for Phase II in 2003 and trying
to position itself as the first carrier to offer Phase II services in
the market, the small carrier is still without an agreement because it
has been misled by a vendor. Now, this small wireless carrier must
begin new discussions with Grayson, the other vendor, after more than a
year of broken promises and unanswered questions. A year after
committing orally to a contract but delaying in signing a contract,
True Position now says its technology will not work in this particular
market.
Like many carriers, this RCA member company prefers a network
solution because of the prohibitive cost of a handset solution.
Additionally, the company wants to be able to provide public safety
services to all customers, including the more than 500,000 yearly
analog roamer calls now supported by the company.
Unfortunately, this experience is not unique. Another RCA member
providing service in North Carolina's 5th Congressional District
represented by Congressman Richard Burr has been unable to secure a
guarantee from Grayson that its network system would meet the FCC's
accuracy requirements. Following this, the carrier spent more than a
year attempting to work with TruePosition, which again failed to
respond in a timely manner to repeated telephone calls and e-mails.
Eventually, TruePosition responded but was not willing to execute a
contract. The carrier already has received requests from local PSAPs to
provide Phase II service. The carrier has now been forced to switch to
a handset location solution in an attempt to meet FCC deadlines, and
based upon a planned conversion to CDMA technology. The small carrier
has successfully executed a contract with a Phase II handset solution
vendor. However, it is highly probable that the company could have
implemented a Phase II solution by now if many months were not wasted
by vendors who initially offered the promise of a network solution but
could not deliver on that promise in such a distinctly rural market.
MobileTel has recently decided to make a technology change, which
would make a handset solution a possibility. Nonetheless, to replicate
our current coverage capability, we again face the specter of
significant capital expenditures against a backdrop of limited
resources and a small subscriber base. The rational business decision
regarding modification of its technical approach at this point,
however, is further complicated by considerations of timing obligations
related to Phase II E-911 compliance. MobileTel's ability to meet the
Phase II E-911 standard with handsets utilizing the new technology will
not solve its concerns regarding its legacy customers, who prefer the
older handsets and the extended geographic coverage that the older
handsets provide. This concern is shared by a number of other small
rural wireless carriers.
While these issues have a huge impact on my company and its future,
it is also clear that what affects our company--and all small wireless
carriers across the rural communities of this nation--also affects our
services, and ultimately affects the convenience and safety of the
citizens who rely on and use our services. As all of us are now
considering the issues of public safety and security in the light of
the new realities that recently and sadly have been forced upon this
county, MobileTel submits that matters which rise to the level of
federal mandates for the purposes of promoting homeland and community
security are worthy of federal funding allocations.
cost recovery and the economics of phase ii e-911
Cost recovery is a critical issue for small rural wireless carriers
because of the expense of deploying the technology and the very limited
ability to recoup costs from subscribers. Although some states have
cost recovery mechanisms in place, these vary from state to state and
will offer only limited opportunities for carriers to recover costs.
Public safety is a critical issue for the nation--now more than ever.
As Americans, vulnerable for the first time in our modern history on
our own continental shores, we look to and expect the federal
government to secure and protect our safety. Given the renewed
importance of Phase II services, the federal government must be willing
to take more responsibility to ensure that Phase II E-911 policy making
includes the allocation of appropriate funding for small rural wireless
carriers to help meet critical public safety needs without having to
reduce the level and quality of wireless services now available to our
consumers.
We would sound an additional note of caution about any new mandates
for public safety and homeland security that may evolve over time.
Periodically, we hear rumblings in Larose, Louisiana, from this city on
occasion that the FCC and other federal agencies want to look to
wireless services as a priority means of communication in times of
national emergencies. The emergence and expansion of wireless services
creates new opportunities for this type of emergency communication
capability. We in small rural communities have a unique understanding
of how wireless services are a critical component of our communities'
economies and infrastructure. But, small rural wireless carriers simply
cannot afford additional public safety-related regulatory mandates that
require additional significant expenditures of capital. Congress must
be willing to appropriate money to fund any additional public safety
mandates on small rural wireless carriers as part of any national
initiative to protect and advance emergency communications and homeland
security.
In my discussion of the challenges that MobileTel and other small
and rural companies face in meeting the FCC's current Phase II E-911
mandate, the theme you've heard is simple, but critical. Small and
rural carriers face distinct challenges, both financial and technical;
small and rural carriers often provide service in areas where there is
little or no competition; small and rural carriers are local and
accountable within their communities. For small and rural carriers,
funding is necessary to implement any Phase II E-911 solution within
the currently required time frames. At a minimum, both implementation
deadlines and technological shortcomings should be reviewed and
examined critically by Congress as part of the policy making process.
relaxing current fcc accuracy standards
We believe the accuracy standards are unrealistic in rural areas
and we suggest that the FCC's current rules that allow for averaging
are, in effect, an admission by the FCC that accuracy requirements will
vary and may not be able to be achieved in rural areas like those we
serve. If there was not a problem with meeting the accuracy requirement
in a rural area, then why would the FCC even offer averaging as a way
to accomplish the public policy goal of enhanced 911 services?
Averaging provides flexibility that helps large carriers comply with
the FCC's accuracy requirements but it discriminates against the small
rural carriers who cannot tap urban customers to fit a mathematical
formula that has no bearing on meeting the public safety needs of rural
consumers.
In rural areas, the accuracy standard can be substantially lower
than it is in urban areas without compromising public safety. I say
this not only as the COO of a wireless telecommunications company
delivering services in rural areas, but I say this also as a resident
of a rural community charged with the responsibility of enhancing the
public safety for my neighbors, friends, and family. With a relaxed
standard, public safety personnel will still have as good of an
opportunity to locate the calling party--certainly better than if there
was no wireless service at all. Revised accuracy requirements for both
network-based and handset-based technologies in rural areas should be
adopted by the Commission after verifying the availability of location
products and solutions that work, so that consumers in rural areas can
have access to quality public safety services.
If the Commission is unwilling to do this, then Congress should
step into the void quickly so we can get about the business of
improving public safety communications in rural America.
fcc rules have a unique impact on small carriers
Finally, we believe that the FCC should have more carefully
scrutinized the types of problems that small rural wireless carriers
would confront to deploy Phase II E-911 technology. Although we applaud
the Commission's initiative that produced the Hatfield Report, it is
the type of study that should have been initiated much sooner by the
FCC.
We recognize the public interest in focusing attention on national
carriers and encouraging compliance on an expedited basis. However, the
way the FCC has handled the Phase II E-911 mandates confirms the need
for legislation that would require the FCC to scrutinize the impact of
regulations that affect small and rural wireless carriers. This type of
legislation was introduced in the 107th Congress and we would encourage
its introduction and passage in the 108th Congress. Public law that now
requires regulatory agencies to assess the impact of their rules on
small businesses has simply failed to protect small businesses, such as
MobileTel, and has failed to identify the true impact of FCC
regulations on small rural wireless carriers.
If such adequately protective legislation had been public law when
Phase II E-911 regulations were first promulgated, the FCC would have
been required to offer better direction and guidance to small rural
wireless carriers and we--both collectively and as individual
companies--could have saved the money, time, and other resources that
we have expended to bring these issues to the attention of the FCC and
other policy makers at the federal level. At a minimum, the FCC could
have determined earlier in this process that small rural wireless
carriers would need more time to comply with the Phase II E-911 mandate
given the geographical obstacles for compliance, the lack of real-world
tested technology that could meet the FCC's requirements in rural
areas, and the capital costs of deployment that are shaking the very
foundations of our businesses in rural America.
It is important to note that small rural wireless carriers, like
all telecommunications providers, are in the business of expanding
services and improving service delivery. We do not like the fact that
many of us now may be forced to reduce our service area in order to
comply with an FCC mandate when our business and community instincts
are to invest in our systems and our customers. We want to improve our
services and ensure that rural America has access to all that wireless
can offer. We are uniquely positioned in our markets to work to expand
service delivery and we are committed to serve all parts of the rural
communities that comprise the rural American marketplace--not just
those that are most lucrative. But with limited capital budgets,
federal regulatory mandates take a greater toll on our ability to
expand services for consumers in rural America. What may have only
limited financial impact on a large nationwide carrier can be
economically devastating for companies, like ours, with such limited
capital budgets.
Too often, the FCC fails to recognize the cumulative impact of its
mandates on our businesses--but even more importantly, on the
consumers, both businesses and individuals, in rural America who rely
on us for wireless services. For some small rural wireless companies,
their very survival has been threatened by the additional costs
associated with complying with cumulative FCC mandates.
conclusion
Like all small rural wireless carriers serving communities across
this country, MobileTel is committed to working with federal and local
authorities to maintain and improve public safety. We commend the
Subcommittee for holding this hearing. As we have tried to work with
the FCC over the years on this issue, we stand ready to work with the
members of this Subcommittee and the full Energy and Commerce Committee
to speed deployment of enhanced 911 services.
We simply ask that logic, common sense, and reason prevail. In
short, we ask that the timelines for implementation be extended, the
accuracy standards be relaxed, and government funding be made available
for small rural carriers to defray financial burdens not experienced by
the larger nationwide carriers.
Thank you for this opportunity.
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
Mr. O'Connor.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL O'CONNOR
Mr. O'Connor. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. And thank you for giving Verizon the opportunity
to present its views on wireless E-911.
My name is Michael O'Connor, Director of Federal Regulatory
Affairs for Verizon, and in that capacity, one of my
responsibilities is managing E-911 policy issues throughout the
Verizon footprint. Additionally, I am a member of the National
Emergency Number Association, and a participant in the NENA
Strategic Wireless Action Team initiative.
As an initial point, I would like to define the role of a
local exchange carrier or LEC in enabling the provision of
wireless E-911 capabilities. Simply, the LEC typically has two
functions. One is to provide the connections and services
necessary to get the E-911 information from the wireless
provider to the PSAP. And the second function, historically,
has been the LECs often serve as the project manager for
wireless E-911, coordinating and facilitating the activities of
the other participants. The Verizon telephone companies have
established a reputation as an industry leader in supporting
wireless E-911 implementation. During the recent E-911
Coordination Initiative hosted by the FCC, Steve Marzolf, the
Public Safety Communications Coordinator for the Commonwealth
of Virginia stated, ``I would be remiss if I did not also
mention the support and commitment we have received from our
local exchange carriers, Verizon and Sprint.''
Comments such as these are not isolated perspectives.
Verizon local telephone companies have been able to attain and
maintain a leadership position in wireless E-911 deployment
through several corporate policy initiatives. Foremost among
these initiatives, Verizon has created an internal wireless
implementation team that works with PSAPs, CMRS carriers, and
third-party providers in developing, implementing and testing
wireless E-911. At the request of PSAPs or State 911 boards,
this Verizon team has visited and provided expertise to more
than 1,100 PSAPs in over 30 States. Verizon currently serves as
the E-911 coordinator for approximately 2,000 PSAPs.
Additionally, the Verizon telephone companies are currently
ready to meet all regulatory deadlines for wireless E-911
deployment. In 2002, then Chief of the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau Sugrue requested the largest local
exchange carriers to provide information about their readiness
to carry out their roles in wireless E-911 deployment. At that
time, Verizon reported its ability to handle any PSAP or
wireless carrier request for wireless E-911 service within the
deadlines established by the FCC's rules.
Last, Verizon has established a policy of safety first,
tariffs later. Verizon believes that all E-911 system providers
must be allowed a fair return on their investment. Nonetheless,
we have established a policy that to the extent tariff
modifications are necessary, Verizon will complete the
implementation efforts for wireless E-911 deployment whether or
not the tariff changes have made their way through the approval
process.
So that is what Verizon is doing to help deploy wireless E-
911, but the salient question for this morning is what can be
done to move the process forward and achieve the goal of
universal availability of wireless E-911? Verizon suggests the
following principles are fundamental to achieving that goal:
First, public funding should be used to support universal
availability of wireless E-911. As many of the subcommittee
members have noted and some of the panel members have noted, E-
911 service is not simply a useful option for wireline and
wireless customers. It is widely acknowledged to be a public
safety feature that benefits the entire community. Customers
use E-911 service not only to report their own emergencies but
also to report events that involve other persons such as
accidents, health emergencies, crimes and natural disasters. In
particular, all of society has an interest in a robust wireless
E-911 system that is as capable as the wireline system of
providing the information that PSAPs need to respond to
emergencies.
The effect of lack of funding cannot be ignored. The
funding mechanisms for PSAPs involve local determinations on
how to develop the financial means to implement and maintain
the service. In the current economic environment, local funding
for wireless E-911 is a serious concern. Taking funding out of
the equation would promote wider and faster deployment of
wireless 911 service.
In most States, funding of E-911 implementation costs for
PSAPs wireline carriers, and in most cases wireless carriers,
is accomplished through surcharges on the wireless and wireline
customer. This is not an optimum solution. Such surcharges
inflate the prices for telecommunication services and lower
demand. Verizon believes that development of public funding for
E-911 service through general tax revenues rather than through
additional telecommunications surcharges serves the public
interest.
As a second principle, Verizon advocates nationwide
coordination for wireless E-911 deployment and policy, and
supports Dale Hatfield's recommendation, noting that we believe
the National 911 Program Office within the Department of
Homeland Security supported by a Federal advisory committee
would assist in addressing the policy issues concerning
implementation for wireless 911.
And as a final principle, Verizon advocates that all
constituencies that provide wireless 911 functionality are
allowed to recover costs. In the E-911 coordination initiative
hosted by the FCC, Chairman Powell opened the meeting and had
the following observation: ``. . . we must work together to
move wireless carriers, manufacturers, consumers along the
migration trail for E-911 capability while ensuring the
necessary ILEC capabilities are made available in a timely
manner on financially reasonable terms. Verizon believes that
the capital expenditures necessary to achieve the goal of
universal availability of wireless E-911 will be enhanced when
the investors and the technologies be allowed an expectation of
a reasonable return.
That concludes my formal testimony. Thank you for giving me
the opportunity, and I would be happy to answer any questions
that the committee might have.
[The prepared statement of Michael O'Connor follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael O'Connor, Director of Federal Regulatory
Affairs, Verizon
Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. And
thank you for giving Verizon the opportunity to testify and present its
views on E911.
My name is Michael O'Connor, Director of Federal Regulatory Affairs
for Verizon. In that capacity, one of my responsibilities is managing
E911 policy issues throughout the Verizon footprint. Additionally, I am
a member of the National Emergency Number Association (NENA), and a
member of the NENA Strategic Wireless Action Team (SWAT) initiative.
As an initial matter, let me define my understanding of the term
``wireless E911''. My view is that wireless E911 is the capability to
determine the location, in terms of latitude and longitude, of a caller
who dials 911 on a cellular telephone. This is sometimes referred to as
wireless Phase II capability. To make this work, the wireless provider
must transmit information sufficient to make this determination and the
agency providing the 911 service must have the equipment required to
use this information.
One might ask, ``What is the role of a Local Exchange Carrier (LEC)
in enabling the provision of wireless E911 capabilities?'' The LEC
typically provides various connections and services to get the E911
information from the wireless provider and the government agency
operating the 911 service. These services include:
1) Links ordered by CMRS carriers to our E911 tandems (sometimes called
Selective Routers). Links ordered by Public Safety Answering
Points (PSAPs) to connect our E911 tandems to the PSAP
location.
2) Customer Premise Equipment (CPE) that allows PSAP personnel to
interpret location data.
3) Connections to wireless information databases that contain location
information.
The LEC can also serve as project manager for wireless E911,
coordinating and facilitating the activities of the other participants.
This coordination and facilitation is critical to the timely deployment
of the wireless E911 capability.
The Verizon telephone companies have established a reputation as an
industry leader in supporting wireless E911 implementation. This
reputation was acknowledged during the recent ``E911 Coordination
Initiative'' hosted by the FCC. Steve Marzolf, public safety
communications coordinator for the Commonwealth of Virginia stated, ``I
would be remiss if I did not also mention the support and commitment we
have received from our local exchange carriers, Verizon and Sprint.
They have been proactive with system upgrades.'' Steve Marzolf further
stated, ``They (Verizon and Sprint) have been a strong member of the
deployment team almost from the start of the project. I know many other
states and PSAPs have complained. We've heard here today about problems
with the local exchange carriers being an impediment to progress. I'm
very pleased to say that's not been the case for us.''
Comments such as these are not isolated perspectives. Verizon local
telephone companies have been able to attain and maintain a leadership
position in wireless E911 deployment through several corporate policy
initiatives.
Foremost among these initiatives, Verizon has created an internal
wireless implementation team that works with CMRS carriers and third-
party providers in developing, implementing and testing wireless E911.
At the request of PSAPs or state 911 boards, this team has visited and
provided expertise to more than 1100 PSAPs. Verizon currently serves as
the E911 coordinator for approximately 2000 PSAPs.
One of the goals of these visits is to educate PSAPs about the way
in which LEC and CMRS networks function. This education process
includes providing descriptions of the different technologies used to
provide wireless E911, reviewing call flow when the technologies are
deployed, and explaining the activities PSAPs need to undertake to
accomplish wireless E911.
Additionally, the Verizon telephone companies are currently ready
to meet all regulatory deadlines for wireless E911 deployment. In 2002,
then Chief of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Sugrue, requested
the largest local exchange carriers to provide information about their
readiness to carry out their roles in wireless E911 deployment. At that
time, Verizon reported its ability to handle any PSAP or wireless
carrier request for wireless E911 service within the deadlines
established by the FCC's rules.
Lastly, Verizon has established a policy of safety first, tariffs
later. One of the often heard reasons for the delay in wireless E911
implementation has been that the E911 system providers have been
unwilling to deploy the technology until state tariffs for additional
services have been established. Verizon believes that all E911 system
providers must be allowed a fair return on their investment.
Nonetheless, we have established a policy that, to the extent tariff
modifications are necessary, Verizon would complete the implementation
efforts for wireless E911 deployment, whether or not the tariff changes
had made their way through the approval process.
So, that is what Verizon is doing to help deploy wireless E911. But
the salient question for this morning is ``What can be done to move the
process forward and achieve the goal of universal availability of
wireless E911 Verizon suggests the following principles are fundamental
to achieving that goal:
First, public funding should be used to support the universal
availability of wireless E911. E911 service is not simply a useful
option for wireline and wireless customers--it is widely acknowledged
to be a public safety feature that benefits the entire community.
Customers use E911 service not only to report their own emergencies,
but also to report events that involve other persons, such as
accidents, health emergencies, crimes, and natural disasters. In
particular, all of society has an interest in a robust wireless E911
system that is as capable as the wireline system of providing the
information that PSAPs need to respond to emergencies. As such, public
monies should be used to support the necessary infrastructure and
operational expenses associated with providing the service.
The roll-out of wireless E911 service is hindered in most areas by
the lack of adequate funding and the use, in some states, of money from
E911 cost recovery mechanisms for other public purposes. The FCC has
addressed the issue of which types of costs must be borne by wireless
carriers vs. PSAPs. However, the issue of PSAP funding has yet to be
addressed.
The effect of a lack of funding cannot be ignored. The funding
mechanisms for PSAPs involve local determinations about how to develop
the financial means to implement and maintain the service. In the
current economic environment, local funding for wireless E911 is a
serious concern. Taking funding out of the equation would promote wider
and faster deployment of wireless 911 service.
In most states, funding of E911 implementation costs for PSAPs,
wireline carriers and, in most cases, wireless carriers, is
accomplished through surcharges on wireless and wireline customers.
This is not an optimum solution. Such surcharges inflate the prices for
telecommunications services and lower demand.
Verizon believes that the development of public funding of E911
service through general tax revenues rather than through
telecommunications surcharges serves the public interest.
As a second principle, Verizon advocates nationwide coordination of
for wireless E911 deployment and policy. The evolving nature of
technology and new types of communications services, such as voice over
the Internet, will require closer coordination for the efforts of
government and private entities.
Verizon recommends that the Congress focus on two areas--creation
of a National 911 Program Office within the Department of Homeland
Security, and creation of a Federal advisory committee. The National
911 Program Office should coordinate state and local emergency
activities within the context of nationwide security planning. The
advisory committee should include representatives of all stakeholders,
including trade associations, carriers, vendors, and federal and state
regulatory agencies. The advisory committee would be a resource for
collecting information and providing analyses to assist the DHS in
addressing policy issues concerning the implementation of E911 services
for wireline carriers, wireless carriers, and new, emerging
communications media, such as handheld computers and voice over
Internet technologies.
As a final principle, Verizon advocates that all constituencies
that provide wireless E911 functionality are allowed to recover costs.
In the aforementioned ``E911 Coordination Initiative'' hosted by the
FCC, Chairman Powell opened the meeting and had the following
observation, ``. . . we must work together to move wireless carriers,
manufacturers, consumers along the migration trail for E911 capability
while ensuring that the necessary ILEC capabilities are made available
in a timely manner on financially reasonable terms.''
Verizon believes that the capital expenditures necessary to achieve
the goal of universal availability of wireless E911 will be enhanced
when investors in the technologies be allowed an expectation of a
reasonable return.
This concludes my formal testimony. Thank you for giving me the
opportunity today to share Verizon's views on wireless E911. I would be
happy to answer any questions that the committee may have.
Mr. Upton. Thank you very much.
Mr. Amarosa, welcome.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL AMAROSA
Mr. Amarosa. Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee.
My name is Michael Amarosa. I am the Senior Vice President
of TruePosition. I would like to start by thanking you and
Representative Markey and other subcommittee members for their
leadership on this important public safety issue of wireless E-
911.
The recently established Congressional E-911 Caucus, which
Representatives Shimkus and Eshoo chair in the House, is a
further source of support for this critical effort. In recent
months, wireless E-911 implementation has made great progress.
Carriers are pursuing their responsibilities forthrightly.
Several States and local governments have under consideration
legislation that will address the challenges of modernizing 911
communication centers, public safety answering points, PSAPs,
to receive the location information. The combination of focused
and stable responsibilities that are seriously enforced with
clear requirements for carriers and funding assistance for 911
communication centers is a major source of progress.
Timely and effective emergency response means getting the
right people with the proper equipment to an emergency
expeditiously. I spent 24 years working in public safety,
including managing the largest 911 center in the Nation in New
York City's Police Department. During my tenure, the NYPD
undertook and completed major upgrades of the system supporting
911.
More recently, my role at TruePosition has given me the
opportunity to work with the full range of 911 communication
centers. The challenges the systems face today in implementing
E-911 parallel past efforts to bring modern technology to
emergency response. TruePosition has made a substantial
investment to develop and provide commercially available
location technologies that fully comply with the FCC
requirements to find any phone, anywhere. TruePosition's
research, development, testing and implementation have made E-
911 a reality. We continue to work with the public safety
community and with the carriers both large and small to bring
about pervasive E-911.
TruePosition provides location technology today to wireless
carriers in 37 markets. For example, TruePosition has deployed
its technology in over 5,200 of Cingular cell sites. The
implementation agreed upon by Cingular and the FCC was met and
Cingular continues to use our technology to fulfill new
requests for 911 communication centers for location information
that meets the FCC's accuracy rules. The action by Cingular and
TruePosition is a distinct and tangible demonstration that E-
911 is a reality.
TruePosition's system works in almost any environment--
indoor, outdoor, urban, suburban or rural. It provides nearly
100 percent yield and is not affected by obstructions as tall
buildings or concrete walls. This accuracy in precision is
critical for emergency responders as almost 55 million calls to
911 are made annually from wireless phones. The discovery
development and evaluation phase for wireless E-911 technology
is largely complete. For progress to continue, it is important
that the FCC's principal regulations be maintained with respect
to implementation, timing, location, accuracy as that it
technology is available for deployment. Wireless E-911 is a
systems problem, resulting from the reality that different
components of the system are independently controlled.
The key to successful deployment lies in speeding up the
lagging factors rather than slowing the leading ones. This
means assuring investment in PSAP infrastructure and
delineating the responsibilities of private interest carefully.
Constant change to E-911 deployment deadlines and accuracy
requirements are counterproductive. Public investment in
ensuring the 911 communication centers are able to receive and
use 911 and other information is a critical part of improving
homeland security and should be considered a national priority
deserving of financial assistance. Congress should buildupon
its actions earlier this year in the Wartime Supplemental
Appropriations Act, which recognized the relationship between
E-911 deployment and homeland security by funding PSAP
infrastructure improvements.
The individuals who staff the local 911 centers are the
first of the first responders, a citizen's contact when facing
an emergency. Confronting the challenge of improving homeland
security by improving the efficiency of our 911 centers will
provide tangible improvements toward getting the right
emergency help to an incident sooner.
The current PSAP infrastructure faces the challenge of
integrating various technologies to bring about an automatic
number and automatic location information. Without an increased
investment, the current PSAP infrastructure would be
constrained in its ability to bring 911 to all Americans.
Investment must be directed to upgrading the internal PSAP
infrastructure so that that location information and other
caller information now being provided by wireless carriers can
be transmitted efficiently and effectively to 911 communication
centers. Funding assistance should be first predicated upon
specific objective of modernizing customer premise equipment of
the 911 centers so that their infrastructure is capable of an
effective and efficient receipt of an automatic number,
automatic location, and other information via wireline,
wireless and emerging forms of communications technology.
Funding should also be available to train personnel to operate
the upgraded systems. Second, present funding structures for
911 communications remain a very serious problem. There are
numerous circumstances where money is assessed against wireless
phone use, ostensibly for the purpose of E-911 and other
emergency communications service cost recovery, are much too
often diverted to fund other programs or cover State and local
government fiscal shortfalls. Any financial assistance should
address and correct this problem.
I commend the subcommittee's leadership in bringing forth
nationwide enhanced 911 systems. E-911 will help individuals in
need. It will save lives and property and make all of us more
secure. TruePosition values this opportunity to appear before
you today, and I thank you for the time that you have allotted
to me.
[The prepared statement of Michael Amarosa follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael Amarosa, Senior Vice President,
TruePosition, Inc.
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. My name
is Michael Amarosa and I am Senior Vice President of TruePosition, Inc.
It is a privilege to appear today as part of the Subcommittee's
continuing oversight regarding implementing E911 Emergency Calling
Systems. Enhanced 911 or E 911 is the technology that locates
individuals calling for help from a wireless phone. The technology
saves lives, protects property, and contributes to a more secure
America.
In recent months wireless E911 implementation has made great
progress. Carriers are pursuing their responsibilities forthrightly.
Moreover, several states and local governments have under active
consideration legislation that will address the challenges of
modernizing 911 communications centers--public safety answering points
(PSAPs)--to receive location information. Just as significantly,
Congress has passed legislation that integrates E911 with homeland
security initiatives by making funding available to local communities
as part of this National priority. The combination of focused and
stable responsibilities that are seriously enforced with clear
requirements for carriers and funding assistance for 911 communications
centers is a major source of the progress.
TruePosition is particularly proud that Cingular Wireless has
implemented location capability in more than 5200 cell sites across the
country with TruePosition technology. It highlights that TruePosition
technology complies with the accuracy and other requirements (``Phase
II requirements'') of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This
result brings tangible meaning to E 911; those making calls on these
networks can be located by PSAPs able to receive the information. The
delivery of this capability to the American public, in conformance with
the FCC's rules, brings a strong impetus to all interests pursuing
implementation. It reflects that the FCC's requirements are reasonable
and reachable.
TruePosition commends the Subcommittee, Chairman Upton and
Representative Markey, and other members for your lasting leadership on
this important public safety issue. Much progress can be traced to the
Committee's conviction that E 911 brings faster emergency response to
all areas of the country, rural, urban and suburban, and that E 911
should be a reality. The recently established Congressional E 911
Caucus, which Representatives Shimkus and Eshoo chair in the House, is
a further source of support to this critical effort.
Timely and effective emergency response means getting the right
people with the proper equipment to an emergency expeditiously. I spent
24 years working in public safety and was honored to manage the largest
911 center in the Nation, that of the New York City Police Department
(NYPD), as Deputy Commissioner for Technological and Systems
Development. A fundamental principle of the NYPD was to bring to public
safety technologies that speed police, firefighter and emergency
medical service response to the citizen needing help. During my tenure,
the NYPD undertook and completed major upgrades of the systems
supporting 911. This effort included obtaining funding, designing the
system upgrades, and implementing the upgrades operationally. This
endeavor reflects a microcosm of the ongoing national effort to deploy
wireless E 911. Since leaving the NYPD, my role with TruePosition has
given me the opportunity to work with the range of 911 communications
centers, large and small, urban, rural and suburban. The challenges the
system faces today in implementing E911 parallel past efforts to bring
modern technology to emergency response.
TruePosition's very existence evolves from wireless location
technology. We have made a substantial investment to develop and
provide commercially available location technologies that comply fully
with requirements established by the FCC. TruePosition's research,
development, testing and implementation have made E 911 a reality. We
continue to work with the public safety community and with carriers,
both large and small, to bring about pervasive E 911. The result, not
only of our efforts, but those of government and carriers, is that we
now see a tangible demonstration of what E911 brings to emergency
response.
TruePosition is providing location technology to wireless carriers
in 37 markets. TruePosition's relationship with Cingular Wireless LLC
represents the most definitive and extensive rollout of E 911 to date.
Recently, TruePosition and Cingular Wireless expanded their
relationship to encompass Cingular's GSM network. The agreement
reflects TruePosition's extensive expertise, testing and experience in
providing location solutions across the United States for the full
range of wireless technologies.
TruePosition has deployed its technology on over 5200 of Cingular's
cell sites. The implementation schedule agreed upon by Cingular and the
FCC was met, and Cingular continues to use our technology to fulfill
new requests from 911 communications centers for location information
that meets the FCC's accuracy rules. The action by Cingular and
TruePosition is a distinct and tangible demonstration that E 911 is a
reality.
trueposition, inc.
TruePosition's systems work in almost any environment be it indoor,
outdoor, urban or suburban, ``Anyphone, Anywhere'' 1. The
TruePosition system provides nearly 100% yield and is not affected by
obstructions such as tall buildings or concrete walls. This capability
is critical for emergency responders, who depend upon accurate and
precise information regarding the location of the individual needing
help.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Anyphone, Anywhere'' is a registered trademark of
TruePosition, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When a person calls 911 from a traditional wireline phone, public
safety agencies typically can automatically determine the individual's
location; if the same person calls from a wireless phone, a public
safety agency, historically must rely on the caller to provide an
accurate location. As almost 55 million wireless calls to 911 are made
annually from wireless phones, the continued rollout of E 911 is
critical.
TruePosition's technology is network-based; there is no
modification necessary to consumer handsets; nor will consumers need to
purchase new GPS-equipped handsets as is required by other E 911
solutions. This means that TruePosition's system can locate any mobile
phone, new as well as old. All existing phone sets can be located on
the TruePosition system within the requirements set by the FCC, as soon
as the wireless carrier completes deployment. There is no need to wait
years as consumers slowly replace their handsets. Our technology
encompasses the four major wireless air interfaces: automatic message
processing system (AMPS), code-division multiple access (CDMA), time-
division multiple access (TDMA) and Global System for Mobile
communications (GSM).
The TruePosition system determines a wireless phone's geographical
location by collecting and processing the RF signals transmitted by the
phone. When a signal is transmitted--when a phone call is placed--the
system gathers information about the signal from nearby mobile base
stations. The data are transmitted to a processor that analyzes the
information and computes the position of the caller by using
TruePosition's patented Time Difference of Arrival (TDOA) and Angle of
Arrival (AOA) algorithms. For a 911 call, the TruePosition system then
determines the location of the call and delivers the information so
that the appropriate PSAP can dispatch assistance to the caller.
Recently, TruePosition's technology, U-TDOA, one of three high-
accuracy wireless location technologies, has been formally standardized
by the Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), the official
governing body for development and standardization of GSM and UMTS
networks. The 3GPP decision provides wireless operators with the
assurance that TruePosition's technology will have seamless
interoperability between various vendors' equipment and that the
technology will be widely accepted and maintained. It is another
indication of the reality of E 911.
the federal communications commission e 911 mandate
Wireless telephone carriers are required to provide Automatic
Location Identification (ALI). Under the FCC's rules there are separate
accuracy requirements and deployment schedules for network-based and
handset-based technologies. The FCC has also developed different
timetables depending on carrier size. FCC enforcement actions have led
to several of the largest carriers committing to specific deployment
schedules.
The FCC's efforts have been ongoing since 1994. The principal
requirements have been in place since 1996. The FCC's policies and
enforcement actions demonstrate substantial judgment and commitment,
and encompass expertise in engineering, economics and law. It has
comprehended the investment that must be made and the evolving
technology. It has resolved difficult issues and struck a careful
balance between the critical need for location information by the
American public, while affording carriers and providers adequate time
to come into compliance. Through its action, the FCC has made clear how
critical E 911 is; it can be the difference as to whether assistance
can arrive in time.
TruePosition's network technology network is not only effective but
also fully compliant with the FCC accuracy standards. The FCC has
scrutinized carrier progress. It has also sought to define the
parameters of responsibilities among the various interests so as bring
accountability to the entire process. Overall, the FCC has pursued a
``results-oriented, cooperative approach'' where tangible displays of
good faith are viewed as legitimate efforts to meet the objective of
pervasive E 911.
Recognizing the range of interests that must join together in this
effort, and the need to emphasize the public policy that E 911 be a
reality, the FCC held a productive forum addressing E 911
implementation. At the forum, the various interests--government
agencies, carriers, and public safety organizations--participated in
day long discussions addressing how to achieve pervasive E 911. The
FCC's commitment toward bringing about E 911 to all Americans is
demonstrated by the leadership role it has shown.
the 911 infrastructure
The discovery, development, and evaluation phase for wireless E 911
technology is largely complete. Technology unquestionably capable of
providing the level of accuracy mandated by the FCC is available.
Installation is largely accomplished in several major markets
demonstrating what can be accomplished with reasonable effort.
For progress to continue, it is important that the FCC's principal
regulations be maintained with respect to implementation timing and
location accuracy, as that technology is available for deployment. The
progress that has been made, and that which will follow, can be
attributed to delineating clearly the responsibilities of each of the
interests that needs to cooperate to implement E 911. The respective
obligations of carriers, local exchange carriers and public safety
agencies must continue to be unmistakable.
In the context of the 911 communications centers, wireless E 911
deployment is a systems problem, resulting in part from the reality
that different components of the system are independently controlled.
In my experience, the key to successful deployment in this situation
lies in speeding up the lagging factors rather than slowing the leading
factors. As a practical matter, this means assuring investment in the
PSAP infrastructure, and delineating the responsibilities of private
interests (i.e. the carriers) carefully. The obligations of the
wireless carriers, the local exchange carriers, and the other entities
that contribute to E 911 effectiveness must be spelled out and they
must be stable. Constant changes to E 911 deployment deadlines and
accuracy requirements must be recognized as counterproductive.
There is reason for optimism. The recent progress in E 911
deployment carries a very important implication for how soon E 911
becomes universally available. The deployment of E 911 systems that has
begun will produce vast and increasing amounts of relevant information
as an inevitable by-product. That information is likely to prove
invaluable to all of the wireless E 911 stakeholders--consumers, public
safety agencies, PSAP service providers, wireless carriers, technology
companies, and regulators. TruePosition believes that it will affect
public demand for wireless E 911 service; demonstrate best practices
with respect to design, deployment, and operation of wireless E 911
equipment and service; and provide benchmarks against which to judge
progress and performance.
Again, my experience in public safety counsels that once there is
tangible evidence of a service, and how it can speed emergency
response, the public comprehends the importance and advocates its
priority. Once embraced by a community's political leadership, the
financial challenges to finding the public investment necessary to
enhance the emergency response infrastructure moves toward resolution.
funding the 911 infrastructure
Public investment in ensuring that 911 communications centers are
able to receive and use E 911 and other information is a critical part
of improving homeland security and should be considered a National
priority deserving of financial assistance. The individuals who staff
the local 911 centers are the first responders a citizen contacts when
facing an emergency. Confronting the challenge of improving homeland
security by improving the efficiency of the Nation's 911 centers will
provide tangible improvement toward getting the right emergency help to
an incident sooner.
The current PSAP infrastructure, the communications centers that
receive 911 calls, face the challenge of integrating the varying
technologies that bring about automatic number information and
automatic location information that are the fundamentals of E 911.
Without increased investment, the current PSAP infrastructure will be
constrained in its ability to bring E 911 to all Americans. Investment
must be directed to upgrading internal PSAP infrastructure so that the
location information and other caller information now being provided by
wireless carriers can be transmitted efficiently and effectively to the
911 communications center. Fostering investment in the PSAP
infrastructure is a critical element in bringing E 911 to the public.
It will enhance the quality of emergency response.
The funding issue encompasses at least two elements. The first is
providing adequate funding that allows each community to make the
necessary upgrades to receive E 911 information. The second is to
analyze present funding mechanisms to determine whether monies are
appropriately directed.
We begin with one advantage. The formal institutional structures
are in place. There is no need to create a new significant governmental
apparatus to provide what is needed. State and local governments have
built and managed 911 communication centers effectively. The centers
are an important part of providing core public safety services to their
communities. In a very real way, 911 communications centers are
instrumental in providing the most basic government service and their
performance is a measure of how well government is responding to its
citizens.
Funding assistance should be predicated on the specific objective
of modernizing customer premises equipment of the 911 centers,
including design and modification so that the 911 communication center
infrastructure is capable of effective and efficient receipt of
automatic number, automatic location, and other information via
wirleline, wireless and emerging technology forms of communication.
Funding should also be available to train personnel to operate the
upgraded systems.
In this latter regard, the ongoing educational efforts of the
National Emergency Numbering Association (NENA) has significantly aided
both small and large PSAPs in understanding the FCC's rules and what
must be undertaken to meet the formal requirements for making a valid
request to a carrier for wireless location information. These efforts
should continue and will assist in ensuring that funds are properly
directed to meet the goal of a nationwide E 911 capability.
In an important related issue, present funding structures for 911
communications centers remain a very serious problem. There are
numerous circumstances where the monies assessed against wireless phone
use, ostensibly for purposes of E 911 and other emergency
communications service cost recovery, are much too often diverted to
fund other programs or cover state and local government fiscal
shortfalls. Any financial assistance should address and correct this
problem. TruePosition believes that this will ultimately be corrected.
As wireless location is implemented, it will produce material
improvements in safety of life and property. As dramatic episodes of
the technology's effectiveness come to light, it should create a public
demand for installation in every community, making the diversion of
funds less likely. In the meantime, however, it is a practice that
should be actively discouraged.
An indication of progress is that several state legislatures in
their current sessions have under active consideration proposals that
will establish or reform funding mechanisms for PSAP implementation of
E 911. These important endeavors, when combined with Congress' action
in the Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, signed by the President
on April 16, 2003, which recognized that modernizing 911 communications
centers so E 911 information can be received is an integral part of
homeland security, and makes available resources to state and local
governments, reflects significant progress.
summary
E 911 is a reality. Its place in providing a more secure homeland
by providing more expeditious response to the citizen as a critical
tool for the Nation's first responders is demonstrated by the progress
made since the Subcommittee's last hearing. TruePosition continues to
work closely with large and small public safety agencies and the
dedicated associations and individuals that represent them, to best
integrate our system into the 911 communications centers that receive
emergency calls. We have also worked closely with wireless carriers in
their significant cooperative effort toward the goal of E 911
deployment. We think that an emphasis on those circumstances where
challenges remains, such as the need for investment to upgrade the
nation's 911 communication centers, while maintaining the principal E
911 schedules and accuracy standards, is the most direct and timely
path to pervasive wireless E 911.
We commend the Subcommittee's leadership in bringing forth
nationwide Enhanced 911 systems. E 911 will help individuals in need.
It will save lives and property and make all of us more secure.
TruePosition values the opportunity to appear before you today.
Mr. Upton. Again, we appreciate all of your testimony this
morning. At this point we will begin questioning from the
members that are here.
The bottom line is this is a national priority. We have had
a number of hearings on this issue, and I can recall that
virtually every member of this panel had made a 911 call using
their cellular phone. There was some frustration for those
calls that didn't come through. Mr. Engel raised the case of a
very tragic situation earlier this year, those four young kids
on the river. And while I have called for the establishment of
a national E-911 office in the Homeland Security Department, as
Mr. Hatfield had recommended in his report, I was interested in
Mr. Green's comments, and I don't know whether Homeland
Security is the best place.
Maybe particularly Mr. Hatfield, you are here today as a
private citizen but as the former Acting Administrator of NTIA,
what are your thoughts between those two as to where it might
go?
Mr. Hatfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to
start out by ducking your question.
Mr. Upton. I am not going to let you.
Mr. Hatfield. But, quite frankly, as I said in my
testimony, I just don't know all the dynamics now among the
different agencies here that have responsibility in this area.
I would say you mentioned NTIA. Historically, NTIA in the very
beginning played a very active role in getting the original 911
out. So perhaps that would be a possibility but basically I am
afraid I am ducking your question because I just don't feel I
have my hand on the pulse of what is going on here.
Mr. Upton. You agree that we need someone at the Federal
level to ride herd on the States? Particularly frustrating, to
I am sure every member of this panel, is the fact that some
States have a record of diverting the funds collected. Some
States don't even have a State Coordinator, and even those that
do, some of them are not all that efficient and may just be a
name plate on the door with really no power to work with the
counties or the local first responders.
Any other comments on the panel in terms of where the
national office might fit? Any recommendations or thoughts?
Mr. Melcher. Well, I think from a public safety
perspective, we wouldn't exactly have a target for you, but the
input we would like to give you is that it should make up
expertise that deals with what we are dealing with. Homeland
Security may or may not be the best place. It is really a
telecom/public safety issue, as I mentioned earlier, and as you
have the appropriate expertise from the appropriate
constituents that are involved, I think you have the model for
success.
One of the things that we may be able to deliver to you is
the consensus recommendation on where that should go and that
is what is going on with the SWAT initiative right now with all
of the players, and while I don't want to preempt the outcome
of that because we are still in the process to which we are
very committed, perhaps that might be one of the deliverables
that you could ask us for, and we might be able to give you
some recommendations, as a group, of consensus.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Muleta, you are not volunteering the FCC; is
that right?
Mr. Muleta. Yes. I think in order for the FCC to do what I
think you are proposing, which is sort of ride herd of all of
the stakeholders, I think there would have to be sort of both
explicit funding and authority associated with that. So the
FCC, in the alternative, has taken on this Coordination
Initiative. We have established electronic data bases that have
information. So one of Professor Hatfield's recommendations is
that we, through some mechanism, become a national
clearinghouse of information so that the stakeholders can all
keep track of where they are with each other. So we are
achieving that. We have the Coordination Initiative in which we
brought all the stakeholders and are trying to figure out what
have been positive success stories and how those can be
translated into places where they haven't been working. So I
think the FCC is actually playing in that role, absent explicit
authority to ride over--ride herd, as you say, over the various
stakeholders.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Korsmo, explain to me as a consumer, when I
send my check in for my service and there is a fee attached for
E-911, follow for me where my dollars go because we have the
fingers pointing at the PSAPs, at the wireless, the State
level. We want the job done. Where is the money going when I
write out my check and how is it disbursed to the LECs, to the
PSAPs, to the States? How do you do that and how does it vary
from State to State?
Mr. Korsmo. I am sure Mr. Melcher can help me on the
distribution part of that.
Mr. Upton. What do we need to do to make sure that all of
the money collected goes for the purposes that it was intended,
so that we can get to Phase II in every county?
Mr. Korsmo. When we act essentially as a tax collection
point for the States, when we put a 911 tax on our bill, that
money does not go to us. It is passed through to the States, as
any other tax would be passed through to the States. From there
the States do various things with it. It really depends, State
by State, on the administrative apparatus that has been set up,
and what we notice is it depends very much, as I said in my
testimony, on the leadership within that State how strong the
leadership has been in the public safety interest as to how
that money is used. In some States, that money, for example, is
flowed fairly directly to public safety agencies, and in some
States, there is even cost recovery given to wireless carriers
to incent wireless carriers and give them compensation for
deploying E-911 quickly. In other States, that money goes
places where frankly it probably is not benefiting E-911.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Melcher, and I know my time is expiring
rapidly here, but is there such a thing as a State by State
analysis of what has happened to the dollars collected? So we
can look at what has happened at Michigan versus New York
versus Florida?
Mr. Melcher. Yes, sir, we can help you with that. We would
be glad to provide that to you in writing, but I believe in all
50 States, we have a breakdown of how the funding is spent. A
lot of it is geared toward how it gets to the locals. A good
example, in Texas there are two different ways of
administering, actually three but one is more local and
regional in nature and the other is through the large councils
of government. In the State of Texas, people like Mr. Korsmo's
company send the money to our State Controller. They distribute
the money based on the population to the districts, there are
communication districts, like our own, which are regional
programs or to the studies that administer their own, but for
the Councils of Government Program they are run by the State
911 office and they are subject to legislative appropriation.
And in the last two sessions the State has not appropriated
that wireless money to those programs. So you have the
``haves'' and the ``have nots'' even in one State, but NENA
will be glad to give you a breakdown of our observation of
funds distribution.
Mr. Upton. Thank you very much. The next member is going to
be Mr. Engel, recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And the testimony has been very, very good. I want to start
asking the questions of the two people on the panel that sound
like me from New York. Let me start with Mr. Amarosa. You spent
24 years with the NYPD?
Mr. Amarosa. That is correct.
Mr. Engel. And that is quite an accomplishment in itself,
and I realize that you are now on the outside, but I would like
you to comment, if you can from your own perspective, as to why
the NYPD is so far behind in deploying technology for E-911.
As I mentioned in my opening statement, according to NENA,
there is not one PSAP in the Bronx equipped to handle a
wireless 911 call. I think you have a unique perspective on
that and I am wondering----
Mr. Amarosa. It is difficult to say. I have been away from
it for over 5\1/2\ years, and I think what you have to look at
is how they are equipped to handle the information once it came
in. They have been working very hard to try to get their CAD
system, the computer aided dispatch, up to speed in order to
actually get that information and allow it to be blown into the
system directly. They have been working with the wireless
carriers to have location technology available in New York
City. At this point in time, and only up until recently as you
know, the 70 cent surcharge that was collected did not come to
the city of New York. And that is something that we have been
fighting for a lot of years. So part of it became a funding
issue. A lot of that was sent upstate of that 70, and only
recently was there any money added on for the city. So I think
it is a combination of issues that have occurred. Some of it is
the plant equipment that they have, the customer premise
equipment I should say that they have. Some of it, I think, is
the ability of funding in order to do that because the
surcharge, the 35 cent surcharge that was instituted back in
the early 1990's to fund the 911 system that we have today, was
strictly to maintain the wireless system as it is today without
the E-911 component added on at that point in time.
So it is a funding, it is an equipment issue. I think they
have their arms around it. From what I have been told today,
they do have their arms around it. They are working with the
local exchange carrier. They are working with the wireless
companies that are in New York City to bring this forward, and
I think you are going to see it very, very shortly.
Mr. Engel. Thank you. I appreciate the answer because you
really answered even the follow-up question that I had in mind
about what is happening today; so I thank you for that.
Let me turn to the other New Yorker, Mr. O'Connor. And in
Professor Hatfield's report he found that LECs are an integral
part of the E-911 equation but that there remain technical
hurdles to integrate wireline and wireless systems. Verizon,
obviously, is a very large provider of both services. So could
you just tell us, enhance a little bit, what has your company
done to overcome these technical hurdles? I know you touched on
it in your testimony.
Mr. O'Connor. Yes, I did Mr. Congressman. Fundamentally, it
is actually creating an--it is an IT team that understands
exactly how the data bases and the links work between the
mobile carrier switch, the selective router that the LEC has,
the links between those selective routers in the PSAP
locations, and then the back-door channel for the location
technology, which goes from the mobile switch to generally a
third-party provider, and then from the third-party provider
through the data bases and into the PSAP. So that the PSAP
position, the dispatcher, gets a married set of information
that shows a telephone number, and it shows a location, either
an address or in the case of Phase II, a latitude and
longitude. So in the Verizon companies, we devoted a whole team
to that expertise and used that team, Boston-located team with
a very different accent than I have, and sent them around the
country. So that when a PSAP begins to think of the process how
would I upgrade, we will go there and we will help them
understand all the piece parts.
This is what you need to do to your customer premise
equipment. This is what the mobile carriers are going to need
to do. Here is how it would work. And that coordination role
has served us well.
Mr. Engel. Thank you. I am wondering, Mr. Hatfield if you
have any comment on that?
Mr. Hatfield. I think it is important to draw a distinction
between the technology that is employed today and the steps
that need to be taken to make it work today and some of the
longer-term issues. As I expressed in my report, I am concerned
with the ability of the current system to scale. I think John
Melcher essentially said the same thing. A lot of the stuff,
unfortunately, is still analog equipment in a digital world. So
as I said in my report, I think it is a real compliment to the
engineers, and so forth, that have developed the system that we
have, but I am worried long-term whether it can scale and
evolve into what we need to provide--meet the requirements in
the future.
Mr. Engel. Thank you.
Mr. Melcher, would you agree with that and could you also
comment since I mentioned before my question to Mr. Amarosa
that NENA had stated that there is not one PSAP in the Bronx
equipped to handle a wireless 911 call?
Mr. Melcher. I think the sheer volume of technology that is
out there now that has to be either replaced or upgraded, or
even in some cases the amount of equipment needs to be reduced,
is a huge challenge. As Mr. O'Connor mentioned, a lot of the
times the public safety folks look to the local exchange
carrier as their system integrator. They may not be possessed
of the technical skills or the coordinating skills, and they
look to their vendor to handle that for them. There has been
only recent regulatory relief, and there needs to be some more
regulatory relief to get rid of so many of these switches. We
don't need 800 to do the job, but also it is the interfaces
amongst carriers. It has taken a while to get some of these
interface issues resolved, and we are still working on some of
those through our partnership with ATIS and the standards
community. I think what you will find, though, is if we can
accelerate deployment and it is going to require some seed
money--we are not talking a huge delta here, but our findings
are that we think this is going to be somewhere between an $8
to $10 billion-issue over the next 5 years, but before you gasp
and grab your chest, we are trying to figure out exactly how
much money is being raised today, and so we don't think the
delta that is going to be that huge, but if we can get some a
little bit of congressional input, some seed money out there, I
think you will see the models develop that can be quickly
replicated successfully throughout the country, and we are
looking at a much more short-term resolution as opposed to
long-term.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. He has been very
generous with my time and I thank him for that.
Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Engel.
Mr. Shimkus.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to take
the liberty of quoting a letter that Mr. Addington wrote,
actually to Bob Goodlatte. I am not going to submit it for the
record because I haven't gotten any of these guys' permission
to do that.
Mr. Amarosa, I am not trying to put you on the spot, but
this is just what he writes. ``Unfortunately, technology has
not kept up with our business plans.'' He goes at great length
of how they are trying to make this rollout. ``Both network
solution providers that I am aware of, TruePosition and
Grayson, have been and continue to be unable to offer a
solution for our Motorola network platform, and I have been
trying to obtain a solution for over a year.''
The question is not to you, Mr. Amarosa. But, Mr. Hatfield,
did you encounter much of anecdotal evidence and that is what
this is, about these types of problems during your inquiry?
Mr. Hatfield. I am sorry. I am a little confused about the
context. What technology is this referring to? What area
interface?
Mr. Shimkus. Well, they have the Motorola platform, and
they are trying to get the location device. They are having
difficulty. And the question really pertains to the ability to
have available technology to do this rollout and really the
issue of vendors.
Mr. Hatfield. I assume that this relates probably to some
of the technology that is being phased out. I assume either
analog or TDMA technology that is being phased out and there
may not be readily available technological solutions from some
of the rural carriers. I would guess that that is the context.
Mr. Shimkus. Let me then actually move this to Mr.
Callahan, who is a rural provider, and have his comments on
this or other hurdles, especially on the vendor issue first and
then anything else.
Mr. Callahan. Certainly on the vendor issue, basically we
have experienced and a lot of our RCA members what you are
basically alluding to there, is that the vendors are not
willing to commit in writing that they can meet the FCC
accuracy standards when you have only a rural market.
When you have many cell sites that are border cell sites,
when you have a small market, you are not able to triangulate
which the network solutions are generally based on
triangulation. So first off, I would tell you what I believe
the gentleman from your area has experienced is an
unwillingness from the network solution providers to actually
sign a contract and say that it will meet those needs. I
believe that is where he currently is, based on conversations I
have personally had with him.
As far as other issues there, relative to rural if you
don't mind----
Mr. Shimkus. Yes.
Mr. Callahan. I would just comment the realities are 300
meters or 1,000 feet. Right here in Washington, DC that is a
very large measure, if you will, because somebody could be on
the tenth floor, ten blocks away, how are you going to find
them? You just don't have those situations in a rural
environment. And I am not prepared to say what the standards
should be. I am simply saying the standards could be possibly
relaxed to the point that the technology that is out there was
usable. We may have a more workable solution, although we would
still have many cost hurdles. Because today, in order to
accomplish this, we would simply have to remove cell sites to
legally meet the mandates of the FCC, as we understand the
technology from the vendors.
Mr. Shimkus. And that is the benefit of having them here,
so they can hear some of these concerns. I know that he also
addresses the whole issue of a string of pearls, where because
of rural areas, you want to place the cell sites along a major
road. You don't get the benefit of triangulation, and this is
all at a cost.
Mr. Amarosa, I am going to give you a chance to respond but
because cost is such a big issue in this for all the different
aspects, whether the PSAP has the money to make the application
or whether the cellular company is ready to provide the
information, I really want our friends at the FCC--and I
understand how local number portability has evolved. It has
evolved through a regulatory body interpreting the Telecom Act,
which I wasn't a member when it was passed. I am not sure that
the members here, that that was part of their intent; however,
you have been somewhat successful in defending that in court;
so it is coming, and I don't think any of us has problems with
it coming. The problem we have is we have tremendous capital
constraints right now to meet all the requirements from all the
folks who want to implement enhanced 911. And before we try to
take some legislative action, we are really in essence asking
the FCC to help us before we have to try to move legislation on
delaying the November deadline because we have got to set
priorities. And do we want to have enhanced 911 ubiquitously
across the country, or do we want to have local number
portability? What is the real priority that we should
establish? And I would think the FCC would want to establish
enhanced 911 for safety issues.
So please carry that back just because in the quote, we
talk about TruePosition. And let me just say, before I give you
a chance to respond, that what I found is being Chairman of the
Enhanced-911 Caucus is that at first there are a lot of people
who want to point the finger and blame different groups. The
reality is different areas of the country are at different
positions and different times, and we are just trying to get
everybody to work together to get this to happen. So had he not
mentioned you, I wouldn't have mentioned it, but I wanted to
quote it accurately. So Mr. Amarosa, if you want to give any
response as far as the vendor issue with my friend from my
district, Mr. Addington.
Mr. Amarosa. Sure. We have been working with Terry
Addington and with the RCA group on this for quite a while. As
you come across the country, there are some switches that are
nonstandardized. The marketplace has changed in some respects.
Where we used to use control channel capability to do location,
where now it is voice channel that is being used in some of the
voice channel capability is not adaptable to a particular
switch. So we are working with Mr. Addington's particular
manufacturer, switch manufacturer, at this point to try to
overcome that problem so that there is a plan that is out there
to try to address this. Whether that is going to come to
fruition or not I can't tell you, but it is not for a lack of
effort by all of the parties, and not just TruePosition but all
of the parties that are involved in this effort.
So it is something that we are on top of, and we have been
working with them for a while.
Mr. Shimkus. I thank you, and it just brings up another
hurdle that we have in moving this forward.
Mr. Chairman, of course you were very kind with my time
also, and I thank you and yield back.
Mr. Upton. Thank you. Mr. Towns.
Mr. Towns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I would direct
this to Mr. Melcher and Mr. Hatfield. A number of States
including my home State, New York, have taken funds collected
for E-911 deployment and used them for other purposes. How has
this affected E-911, and should the Congress act to prevent
this kind of stuff from happening?
Mr. Melcher. Well, I think that as you probably well know,
Congressman, that that is almost a loaded question but it is--
--
Mr. Towns. Almost.
Mr. Melcher. It is truly a terrible situation when
technology is available and funding is not. And this is really
not rocket science anymore. A few years ago when we were
talking about this before this very committee, some questions
still remained to be answered about technology.
Now, technology is not the issue. It is really a matter of
political will and of funding, and where the former exists in
earnest, the latter should surely follow.
Unfortunately, I think that the temptation in recent
economic times has been overwhelming for some of these
legislative bodies. And they have seen this bank account built
up over the years to prepare for the availability of this
technology and the PSAP community may or may not have been
completely ready, and so they took the funds and used them for
other purposes.
Obviously, being a public servant whose life is charged
with saving lives, I find this to be reprehensible. But I also
understand the political realities in tough economic times. I
think the true answer to your question is what I think this
body is trying to do, establish and affirm that 911 must be our
top priority.
We have many demands on us today. And the telecom industry
has a lot of mandates and regulations. Public safety has all
kinds of constraints and new trials and tribulations. But I
think the establishment and the affirmation and the enforcement
of 911 as being a top priority is truly the answer to the
dilemma that you describe.
Mr. Towns. Thank you. Mr. Hatfield.
Mr. Hatfield. I would just echo, I think, basically what
John says. I think it is a little difficulty--I'd have a little
difficulty saying that I would apply my judgment over the
judgment of locally democratically elected people in making
decisions of how revenues should be allocated and for what
purposes. But having said that, I think it is very clear to me
that the public is being misled when they see the item on their
bill thinking it is going to one purpose and being used for
something else. So that really does trouble me and offends me,
quite candidly.
Mr. Towns. Let me just follow up on that. You know, some
folks are saying that the States should establish a trust fund
or the Federal Government should do it. You know, what is your
reaction to that? Because I agree with you. I mean, if it's
indicated that this should go for a purpose, then it should go
for that.
Mr. Hatfield. I probably should back up a little bit here.
See, I think most economists would argue that it would be
better to support the sort of thing through a broader-based,
broader-based tax revenues, so that you don't distort prices in
the marketplace. So I would start with that. I think that's
probably the preferable solution. But having said that, if the
second best solution then is, I think, the sort of surcharge
that you are talking about, and I think you can tell from the
tone of my testimony that I feel that 911 is a very, very vital
service to the public and probably increasingly so going
forward. And therefore, I would support the second best
solution which is a fund of some sort dedicated to that
purpose.
Mr. Towns. Mr. Melcher.
Mr. Melcher. Actually, I think that that's a good role for
the Federal Government to play in making up that difference. We
are finding through our survey work that so much of 911
calling, especially from wireless devices, is not related to
your own personal emergency, but you are reporting something
that's happening to someone else. In the old days, you know you
used to crank the phone and say, Sarah, get me the sheriff in
Mayberry. You were reporting on something that personally
affected you or a member of your family. Now, there is a great
percentage of these calls that are for someone other than
yourself. So it really does kind of boil down to a public good
as opposed to a personal good. In the beginning it was user
pays. If you have got dial tone or its equivalent, you were the
user, so you should pay a fee. And these were surcharges, not
taxes rather. But in the event that now we have more people
benefiting from the service, I think it does warrant some
broader look at how it is funded.
But I think if you leave the basic funding mechanisms in
place, make sure there are some carrots and some sticks. Most
people don't realize that EMS the paramedic program in this
country was really started by a DOT effort through NTSA, and
they gave seed money out to upgrade ambulances because they
used to be just the hearses with the red lights on top, and if
you died on the way to the hospital, well, you would make a
left instead of a right, and, you know, the provider is still
happy. But through seed money out there, they created standards
for ambulances, and they created standards for training of
paramedics and said, if you actually have the right equipment
on board, can we save some lives and let that go for a few
years, and they found that they could.
And so we morphed to where we are today, and they said, if
you don't have a State program in place that has standards in
place for EMS, then we are going to cutoff your highway funds
and that got the attention of many Governors who were lagging
at the time and some State legislatures. So there are some
examples out there about carrots and sticks that allow us to, I
think, apply them to today's dilemma.
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much, and thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Towns.
Mr. Walden.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to go, I think, to Mr. Callahan on the issue of
rural areas and accuracy. Can you detail for me a little more
in terms of what the requirements are that you are under? I
represent a district larger than any State this side of the
Mississippi River, so it is a long way between cell towers.
Sometimes that's okay. My cell phone doesn't work, and that can
be a relief. But tell me what this means for a rural area?
Mr. Callahan. Are you speaking to the current standards?
Mr. Walden. Current standards, the costs that you would
face, or a provider would face, to meet the current standards
in a rural area.
Mr. Callahan. Well, first off, we are not convinced based
on negotiations with the vendors that we can actually meet
those standards the way our system is configured today with the
coverage we have today.
In our case, where we cover virtually all of the terrain at
least with a three-watt analog phone, the only way we think we
could make that 95 percent of the time accuracy within 300
meters, would be literally to pull out cell sites and remove
service, and, of course, that's the last thing we want to do.
We are local for a reason and that's our advantage.
So we would be, you know, hard pressed to try to meet those
requirements because we don't think there is a technical
solution. If one were available, we then run across the issue,
certainly, of funding and what's the greater good here? For us
to roll out a solution would be approximately the same cost of
what we will spend per year for the next 4 years rolling out a
new technology? So it is the equivalent of the whole year of
capital spending putting out a new technology. So it's
extremely substantial to us.
Mr. Walden. And there is an issue between analog and
digital? Or is it just the new standards? Or is it the number
of towers you have so you can triangulate the signals?
Mr. Callahan. With a network based solution, which is what
would be required for analog or amps, TDMA--GSM, in its current
flavor, I don't think has any phones that are able to do
anything other than network base. For any network based
solution, you are pretty much going to have some form of
triangulation to figure out about where that unit is. In our
case, we don't think that we are going to be able to get there
95 percent of the time with the technology that's there. I
would agree that the technology, as I understand it, can get
there if I also served New Orleans and I served my local area,
because then I'd have so many subscribers in the New Orleans
market and in some of the areas of our market, that we could
locate more than 95 percent of the time.
You know, we don't know where the best solution is other
than we think we have to keep talking about either relaxing the
standards or looking technically at certain cell sites,
possibly, which is just an idea that just kind of popped in my
head just now. But, you know, looking at specific cell sites
and determining those cell sites would not be able to meet
those requirements and maybe that would be a way around it for
rural areas or those standards for those cell sites could be
relaxed. Somewhere along those lines, we should be able to
meet.
Mr. Walden. Well, I have to think my constituents would
rather have you come close than not be there at all. Isn't that
really what you are telling me, is that you can't afford to be
there if you have to meet these standards, so you might have to
just pull service?
Mr. Callahan. Absolutely. Basically, as I testified, basic
911 service in many of the communities where we serve and even
more communities in many of our brethren RCA companies would be
effected to the point that they will definitely be pulling back
service, and there will be no service in those areas.
So you won't get a basic 911 call off. It just seems
ludicrous that the rules would basically force us into pulling
sites back, but as we understand the way they would work today,
for us to be in compliance, we would have to do that.
Mr. Walden. And is that something the FCC then is going to
enforce?
Mr. Callahan. That is my understanding.
Mr. Walden. Can you address how this will work in a rural
area?
Mr. Muleta. Yes. We are, first of all, we have extended
timelines for mid and small-sized carriers, rural carriers, in
terms of their implementation of this technology. I think what
we are also looking at is based on our continuing dialog with
our carriers, such as Mr. Callahan's, is to try and think
through these issues and trying to manage the issue of as you
said, you know, having something that is available, but maybe
not as strict, versus not having it at all.
So we are very concerned with this issue, and we are
looking into it and trying to find appropriate solutions. We
are also working with new vendors that are coming in, having
technology more specific to those markets.
Mr. Walden. Okay. Because I really wouldn't say that--I
understand why you need to know which building in a city and
how you have all these cell towers and you can do all that, but
I am telling you, you get out in a district like mine or in
Montana or in Wyoming, you may go an hour before you see
another vehicle, and so I hope you will be understanding one
size isn't going to fit every shoe, and yet we want to get
there with the 911. I guess I sat here listening to the funding
issue knowing my State had a fund of $10 million that they are
now going to do something else with, and they have got enormous
budgets problems, and I respect their local decisionmaking
authority. But are you telling me that on the bill it says 911
tax, that that is what it says, and they are collecting it
for--well, how are they not committing mail fraud then by
sending out a bill saying here is what you are paying? Because
that's what I get asked when I go out there. What are all these
fees and things I am paying for? And I say, well, that's paying
911 and this is that. How is that not simply mail fraud?
Because if I send out a letter that says I am collecting money
for one purpose and use it for another, aren't you I--I mean,
not that I do that, but isn't that mail fraud? Don't you be
looking at all those letters Mr. Markey, but no, I mean,
seriously. We have got to quit perpetrating frauds on
taxpayers. It's no wonder none of us has any credibility.
Government does this all the time, and yet it's your companies
that have them on your bills mandated, I assume, by some level
of government. And so I know Mr. Markey has a lot of
credibility personally. I heard that. But you know what I am
saying. We used to have a dollar tax on tires to get rid of the
surplus tires that were being recycled. And when the Department
of Environmental Quality told us they were doing that,
everybody made a scramble for that buck a tire tax to spend on
something else. And I was in a position to say no, and we
stopped it because how do you ever restore credibility if you
don't do what you say you are going to do? So I ask that
rhetorically.
Maybe, Mr. Hatfield, you are the professor outside of the
private sector here that maybe tells us how do we get at that?
Do we mandate that if you are going to put a 911 tax on a bill,
then that can be all it is allowed to be used for?
Mr. Hatfield. I am not sure that an academic is the
appropriate answer to that. It seems that's probably even
more--but I agree as I said before. There is sort of a truth in
labeling here that seems ought to apply. And I think that's--I
am not an academic, I am just sort of a private citizen thing.
If there is a line on there that says one thing, it seems to me
that you ought to have some assurance that that's what it's
going to go for.
Mr. Walden. Yeah. Mr. Callahan.
Mr. Callahan. Yeah. My quick comment to that would be that
I agree the way it comes out in the papers for most areas it is
fraud. As far as whether or not it is mail fraud, the reason I
think it probably isn't mail fraud is I, as a carrier, am
charging it and simply passing it through, and I am actually
remitting it to a government entity, in my case a local
government entity that then--who then, to my knowledge, is
actually spending the money properly.
I might add, we don't have that concern, other than we
don't have a Phase II funding mechanism. We only have Phase I
and that has worked great. We have a great relationship with
our PSAPs.
Mr. Walden. Yeah, I appreciate that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will yield. I have no time to yield back.
Mr. Upton. Thank you. Mr. Markey.
Mr. Markey. Thank you. Now, some people have made
references to the wireless local number portability which will
allow wireless consumers to switch wireless companies, but
retain their same wireless phone number. Now, a lot of
consumers, me included, have come to believe that our number is
our number. That's our number. If we switch companies, we take
our number with us. And I think most people who are watching
this believe the same thing, that that's a sacred number. It is
my number. And we want the companies to help us to take it with
us, no matter where we go throughout our lives. I remember when
I was a boy and one of the earliest things your mother did with
you is say, in case you ever are in an accident, your number
is, for me, MA4-0815. I remember that conversation because I
had it over and over again. If you are ever in a accident--and
by the way, make sure you change you underwear every day in
case you are ever in an accident. You know, and so when I did
get run over by a car, and I am up in the emergency room, you
know, there is two things. I remember it. My number is MA4-0815
to the doctor. She's on the phone now with the doctor. And the
doctor saying, your boy is here, we need permission to operate.
And the other thing is, you know, I know I haven't changed my
underwear this week, you know what I mean. I am 5 years old and
I am a boy. So I have got big problems. And all these thoughts
are going through my brain.
Well, there is a lot of wireless carriers who are saying,
oh, my God. It is so hard to do E-911 and local portability at
the same time. You know. It is like running a wireless network
and chewing gum at the same time is so complicated. We don't
know if we can do both. You know what I mean. Now, I know at
age five, I could keep all of that in my brain. I am operating
on these different levels of my phone number, my underwear, you
know. My mother will kill me. And all these things are all
running through my brain. But many of these companies they have
a hard time in thinking in terms of multi-tasking, you know. So
I would point out that, right now, there are absolutely no
implementation problems when it comes to their billing
operations, these conditions. Many wireless companies have
already implemented a process which today has millions of
consumers already paying monthly fees for both E-911 and for
the wireless portability capacity, neither of which, in many
instances, exist. But the billing system is up and it is
modern, it is technologically perfect, and I am sure there is
some person that is moving right up the corporate ranks in each
company that's keeping that billing system up with the modern
information technology.
So that means, over the course of this year, the consumers
will be paying hundreds of millions of dollars for wireless
number portability to certain wireless carriers, even as some
of those carriers lobby Congress and the FCC for yet another
delay. One estimate I saw put the number at almost $2 billion
that would be collected from consumers as an extra fee over a
12-month period.
So I appreciate that both E-911 and wireless number
portability costs money, and I know that some carriers are
fearful of the repercussions to their companies bottom line if
consumers are finally permitted to keep their phone numbers
while shopping around for better service or lower rates. But
public safety and consumer protection are not competing goals.
They are not alternatives, choose one or the other for the
wireless companies. And I think many consumers resent hearing
that a wireless carriers has the temerity, while collecting
hundreds of millions of dollars in fees to even suggest to
policymakers that they should choose between public safety and
consumer protection. I don't want to see E-911 fees diverted by
States. I also don't want wireless local and number and
portability fees diverted to a carrier's general revenue with
consumers never seeing the benefit. That's not right. And I
expect the FCC to uphold the public interest and see that both
E-911 and wireless local number portability are implemented on
schedule.
So I have a brief question for Mr. Hatfield. In your
recommendations, Mr. Hatfield, you have suggested the creation
of a national E-911 program office as part of the Homeland
Security Department. Recognizing that E-911 is something that
States and localities implement, could you expand on what role
you believe a Federal national office could play in this area?
Is it as a clearing house of information, as an advocate within
the Federal Government for greater funding for first responders
and public safety needs? Or some combination of all of these
functions?
Mr. Hatfield. I think all of the things that you mentioned
are possible, and I want to make it clear. When I was talking
about earlier, I was reflecting here sort of the classic
separation of powers issue, the commission has certain powers
and authorities, and I think what the commission is doing with
this latest coordination effort and so forth, things that John
talked about are all wonderful steps. But it seems to me that
there is an executive branch responsibility here because of the
nature of this in terms of the--of national defense and
security and so forth. So it was in leadership in that role,
the Federal Government leadership in that role that I was
talking to. And that includes funding in support for some of
these, like the advisory committee that looks at this from a
bigger standpoint, from a more national standpoint that I was
referring to in my report. And as I said, I am still very much
in favor of something like that, whether it is housed in the
Department of Homeland Security or something is a little bit
hard for me to say being such a distance from Washington now.
Mr. Markey. Thank you very much. And please, at the FCC, do
what you can with these wireless carriers, you know, because
you know, it is a sad state of affairs when they are pleading
technological incompetence. I mean you just hate to hear it at
this advanced stage of the industry. So whatever you can do we
would appreciate it.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Markey. I want to thank all of
the panelists for your testimony your responses. Again, I
remind you that some members may actually submit some questions
in writing. We are looking forward, Mr. Melcher, to getting the
information back on a timely basis. And I just want to, again,
reconfirm the importance of this technology going forward, and
us all working together on the same page so that when someone
makes a call, whether they be in the rural part of Oregon or
Michigan or I don't know if they have any rural parts in
Massachusetts, maybe in the big dig. Is that still rural?
Anybody using that yet?
Mr. Markey. I know it sounds hard to believe that 50
percent of Massachusetts is trees, but after you get outside of
Boston, as anyone who has been there knows, it is a long ride
to New York City. And just as surprising to people, that's why
we have Berkshire Day at Finley park and a Maine Day at Finley
park because everyone feels like it is a long ride in from this
otherwise, you know, tree enshrouded world in which we live in
New England.
Mr. Upton. Well, we want this done so that when people
punch that number, they know that help is the on the way.
Mr. Markey. Can I say this though? Although I will admit
that the only relationship to rural America that we have in my
district are the three stuffed cows in front of the Hilltop
Steak House on Route 1, okay. So I do admit that in the urban
area, it is not that--excuse me.
Mr. Upton. Is that why you supported the dairy subsidies?
Mr. Markey. Can I tell you the truth about those dairy
subsidies? My father was a milkman for the Hood Milk Company.
So we were always at the retail end of the milk chain, okay?
And my father, privately, while working for the Hood Milk
Company, was always pointing out how the price of milk to our
family would be much higher if he didn't get, as my mother
always said to us, the special discount that your father gets
for being a milkman for the Hood Milk Company. But he would
always be pointing out how much the price of milk is for
everybody else in the neighborhood than it should be, although
since we worked for the Hood Milk Company and our income came
from the Hood Milk Company, we were all bound by the code of
Omanta on this subject. Okay. So I will admit that having a
great deal of knowledge about this subject, but the retail
perspective on those dairy subsidies is a lot different from, I
guess, your perspective on them. And that's why I think David
Stockman came out against dairy subsidies back in 1981. But his
mother, a dairy farmer, advised him that it was probably a big
mistake for him.
Mr. Upton. Yeah. They still have their barn.
Mr. Markey. They have the barn and the dairy subsidy.
Mr. Upton. No. But they don't have--the dairy subsidies
went down so they don't have the cows anymore.
Mr. Markey. Aw.
Mr. Upton. But when we punch in that number, we want to
make sure that our first responders get there as well because
they care about all the people that they serve, just like the
milkmen do.
Appreciate all of you. We are now formally adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:29 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
-