[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PROTECTING HOMELAND SECURITY; A STATUS REPORT ON INTEROPERABILITY
BETWEEN PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE INTERNET
of the
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 23, 2004
__________
Serial No. 108-98
__________
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
95-444 WASHINGTON : DC
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
RALPH M. HALL, Texas Ranking Member
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
FRED UPTON, Michigan EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CHRISTOPHER COX, California SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia BART GORDON, Tennessee
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia ANNA G. ESHOO, California
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming BART STUPAK, Michigan
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona GENE GREEN, Texas
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING, KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
Mississippi, Vice Chairman TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
VITO FOSSELLA, New York 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 JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
LEE TERRY, Nebraska HILDA L. SOLIS, California
MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
DARRELL E. ISSA, California
C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
Bud Albright, 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
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida Ranking Member
Vice Chairman ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
CHRISTOPHER COX, California MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia JIM DAVIS, Florida
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico BART GORDON, Tennessee
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING, PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
Mississippi BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
VITO FOSSELLA, New York ANNA G. ESHOO, California
STEVE BUYER, Indiana BART STUPAK, Michigan
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
MARY BONO, California JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
GREG WALDEN, Oregon (Ex Officio)
LEE TERRY, Nebraska
JOE BARTON, Texas,
(Ex Officio)
(ii)
?
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Testimony of:
Boyd, David G., Deputy Director, Office of Systems
Engineering and Development, Department of Homeland
Security................................................... 6
Grube, Gary, Corporate Vice President and CTO, Commercial,
Government and Industrial Solutions, Motorola Inc.......... 13
LeGrande, Robert, Deputy Chief Technology Officer, Office of
the Chief Technology Officer, District of Coumbia.......... 21
Muleta, John B., Bureau Chief, Wireless Telecommunications,
Federal Communications Commission.......................... 32
(iii)
PROTECTING HOMELAND SECURITY; A STATUS REPORT ON INTEROPERABILITY
BETWEEN PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 2004
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and the Internet,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:39 p.m., in
room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Fred Upton
(chairman) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Upton, Gillmor, Cox,
Shimkus, Fossella, Bass, Terry, Barton (ex officio), Wynn,
McCarthy, Stupak, and Engel.
Staff present: Will Nordwind, majority counsel and policy
coordinator; Howard Waltzman, majority counsel; William Carty,
legislative clerk; and Peter Filon, minority counsel.
Mr. Upton. Must be 1:30. Good afternoon. You might say that
I know that there are a number of subcommittees this afternoon,
and I also know that late yesterday we were notified that
Secretary Powell is going to be up briefing members on the
situation in Iraq in a few minutes, so I would think that a
number of members will be torn when it comes to where they are
going to appear. We are in session as well with votes expected
in the not too distant future as well.
But good afternoon. Today's hearing is entitled,
``Protecting Homeland Security: A Status Report on
Interoperability Between the Public Safety Communications
System,'' and it represents this subcommittee's continuing
effort to examine matters related to homeland security within
its jurisdiction.
Sadly, we live in dangerous times. Since 9/11, our Nation
has tried to learn from the bitter events of the past and
better prepare to respond during the next crisis, whether it
is, God forbid, another terrorist attack, natural disaster, a
criminal act or something like the blackouts of last summer.
In all such events, it is our Nation's first responders who
answer the call of duty. As citizens flee and evacuate to
protect themselves, our Nation's first responders are running
the opposite direction, usually into harm's way. Nowhere was
this selfless service more self-evident than in Ground Zero on
9/11. To paraphrase Admiral Nimitz on that day, ``Our Nation's
first responders showed us that uncommon valor was a common
virtue.'' But I would submit that what we citizens consider
uncommon valor, our Nation's first responders humbly consider
to be just doing their jobs.
But in order to better equip them to do their jobs, our
Nation's first responders need to be able to communicate on
their radios with one another, not only in terms of fire,
police, EMS within a jurisdiction but also amongst local, State
and Federal jurisdiction. However, achieving interoperability
throughout our Nation has proved to a monumental and
multifaceted challenge.
Today, we will hear about some of those challenges are
being confronted and the status of progress being made
throughout our Nation. I am particularly pleased with the
leadership demonstrated by the FCC, Department of Homeland
Security, as they work with stakeholders at all levels of the
government and communities around the country to achieve
interoperability. As we will hear today from some of our
witnesses, one critically important challenge is to ensure that
public safety has the spectrum that it needs in bands which are
well suited for interoperability.
Back in 1997, Congress directed 24 megahertz for spectrum
in the upper 700 megahertz to be allocated to public safety.
However, the spectrum is encumbered by broadcasters and will be
until the transition to digital TV is complete. That is why
this subcommittee has spent an enormous amount of time working
to ensure the expeditious completion of the digital TV
transition.
Several weeks ago, this subcommittee examined a proposal by
the FCC's Media Bureau which would, in effect, provide a clear
path to the completion of the transition. There are many sound
policy reasons to pursue that plan, not the least of which is
getting public safety the spectrum that it needs to achieve
interoperability. As such, this subcommittee will vigorously
continue its work to advance the digital TV transition in the
months to come.
So today I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about
how our Nation is progressing toward interoperability and
without a doubt interoperability is a critical necessity for
our Nation's first responders as they help protect our homeland
security.
I would yield to my colleague, the gentleman from
California, Mr. Cox, for an opening statement.
Mr. Cox. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. These are very
important hearings. As you point out, the terrorist attacks on
September 11, 2001 and everything that we have been facing
since demonstrates on a continuing basis the vital need for
interoperable communications among our first responders.
On the Homeland Security Committee, which I chair--is this
mike a problem? This opening statement is just electric.
Is that the sound of one or two hands clapping? All right.
On the Homeland Security Committee, which I chair, we have been
working to get this problem of interoperable communications
solved, but the truth is the jurisdiction to do that in the
most effective way lies with this committee, the Energy and
Commerce Committee, and that makes the testimony that our
witnesses are going to present today of special importance.
From the first day in March 2003 that it was in operation,
the Department of Homeland Security took the lead in managing
Project SAFECOM, a Federal program established by President
Bush in 2001 to help local, State and Federal agencies improve
emergency response through interoperable wireless
communications.
The good news is that DHS will contribute $21 million to
this joint effort in fiscal 2005. That is a near doubling of
the current funding level. And based on the President's
proposed budget, other agencies, including the Departments of
Defense, Energy and HHS, as well as the Department of Justice,
will contribute an additional $10 million to this joint effort.
Since the creation of SAFECOM, and particularly in the last
year, under DHS leadership, we have seen real progress in this
area, as Dr. Boyd will describe in detail. The department has
developed guidance for public safety interoperability equipment
grants, and in April 2004, it established the first ever set of
interoperability requirements. These will help our Nation's
first responder community in determining their interoperability
needs.
The Secretary also is establishing a separate office within
the S&T directorate to manage and oversee issues relating to
interoperability and compatibility, including Project SAFECOM.
Most important, the department recently announced a short-term
incident level interoperable communications strategy to tackle
interoperability problems in 10 of America's highest risk
cities.
At relatively low cost, first responders will be able to
interact by voice with each other regardless of frequency or
mode. They will use a patching or a bridging network set up to
manage the specific incident. This will ensure that we have an
extra layer of interoperability protection now while we
continue to work toward resolving the technical and cost issues
relating to the more long-term solutions.
Since 9/11, this Congress and this administration have made
billions of dollars available to State and local governments to
purchase interoperable communications through our terrorism
preparedness grant programs at DHS and at the Department of
Justice. The technical issues and the lack of standards have
prevented quick acquisition of such technology by the first
responder community.
I am pleased that the Department of Homeland Security is
moving aggressively to address both the short-term needs of our
high-risk areas and, in conjunction with other Federal
agencies, the long-term challenges of technology development,
standard setting and spectrum limitations.
And that takes us to the central issue of spectrum. I would
like to commend Chairman Barton for his outstanding recent
comments affirming the need to reclaim the analog TV spectrum
by the end of 2006. These multibillion dollars slices of the
airwaves are now being used to send duplicate TV signals over
the air, two identical signals from each station, soaking up
the most valuable of our airwaves, even as the population of TV
viewers who actually receive their programming over the air
continues to decline.
Mr. Grube from Motorola will perform the valuable public
service today of describing for us exactly how small this
audience is. Perhaps we can go further and inquire how many of
the folks in this small audience simply cannot afford either
cable or satellite service or a $100 digital analog converter
and how many of these folks just don't care about television.
Maybe if we gave them the choice, they would choose super
high speed wireless Internet access or less expensive cell
phone service or a broadband public safety network or the next
generation of telemedicine. Maybe they would choose any or all
of these things over the right to watch endless reruns of
``Saved by the Bell'' without upgrading the receiver.
When we talk about the huge swaths of our public airwaves
that have been given away for nothing to the broadcasting
industry, we usually think of the billions lost to the
taxpayers who are forced to underwrite this subsidy or the lost
consumer opportunities when new wireless applications are
starving for bandwidth. But as we will hear today, lack of
available spectrum can also impose human costs that are beyond
measure.
I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony today. I
want to thank Chairman Upton and everyone on the staff and in
the audience who is working on this problem for your tireless
efforts to bring interoperable communications technology to our
first responders.
Again, Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
Mr. Shimkus?
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just focus on
welcoming a good Illinois company, Motorola, to the panel and
say that when members--for members to be successful, sometimes
we have to specialize just like anything else. And I have been
fortunate to be involved with the E911 systems, 911 as part of
an area that I have tried to focus on.
We have legislation that passed this committee and went to
the floor, and now we await Senate action on the House version
of the bill, which is H.R. 2898, trying to move and get all the
stakeholders engaged in having a true enhanced 911 system that
is also positioned--a location identification through cellular
systems and by GPS chips.
The importance in homeland security and other issues is
what we also find out in hearings, is the ability for the
public agencies to, in essence, to recall from the signals or
call to the signals to warn people in areas in which there may
be a biological attack and the wind drift areas and the like.
So I will use this to continue to promote movement on that
bill and encourage individuals to work with our Senate
colleagues to make sure that Enhanced 911 is going to get
enacted, and we get legislation passed on the Senate side and
we get reconciliation and we get a bill that the President can
sign, it is very important in this whole debate.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I yield back my
time.
[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 examine the ability of
public-safety agencies to seamlessly communicate with each other. In an
environment of terrorist threats, criminal activity, natural disasters,
and everyday-life emergencies, it is imperative that we address such
issues and continue lay the groundwork to ensure that first responders
have the tools they need to keep us safe, healthy, and secure.
Interoperability is certainly achievable, and I applaud the parties
represented today who have made great strides in overcoming different
coordination, technology, budget, and frequency challenges faced by
local, state, and federal agencies across the country.
I look forward to hearing from each of the witnesses, and in
particular the progress being made from such initiatives as Safecom,
but also other examples of current difficulties in achieving
interoperability as well as a prospective timeline as to when our
local, state, and federal agencies will be able to respond in a more
coordinated and consistent manner during an urgent situation, wherever
and whatever it may be.
Again, I thank the Chairman for bringing attention to this
important issue and yield back the remainder of my time.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Joe Barton, Chairman, Committee on Energy
and Commerce
Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing today. Protecting
our homeland security is a top priority of this committee, and I
applaud you for holding a hearing to examine the progress being made in
ensuring that our nation's emergency communications systems are
interoperable.
It is critical that first responders be able to communicate before,
during, and after terrorist attacks, criminal acts, and natural
disasters. The notion that police and fire departments from the same
city cannot use their handheld radios to communicate with each other is
mindboggling. And it is no less surprising that local officials cannot
use their radio systems to communicate with state or federal officials.
Part of the problem stems from the fact that first responders use
disparate frequencies for their communications systems. That is why it
is so important for television broadcasters to return spectrum in the
Upper 700 MHz band currently used to provide analog television service.
In 1997, Congress identified 24 MHz of spectrum in this band for public
safety use. However, until the broadcasters vacate the band, the
spectrum is virtually worthless to public safety. As a result, Congress
needs to enact a hard date for the digital television transition so
that the broadcasters vacate the band.
The 24 MHz allocated in the 700 MHz band is ideal for
interoperability. First responders across the nation could use this
spectrum to share common channels on which multiple local, state, and
federal agencies could coordinate emergency response.
Achieving interoperability between emergency communications systems
will save lives. I appreciate the efforts being undertaken by the
Department of Homeland Security and the FCC to make interoperability a
reality. I encourage these agencies to continue to work within the
Executive Branch as well as with state and local officials and industry
to make every community's communications systems ready to prevent or
mitigate a possible terrorist attack.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for holding this hearing. I look
forward to working with you and our colleagues to ensure that this
committee is doing everything possible to protect our homeland
security.
Mr. Upton. Thank you. Well, today we are fortunate to have
the witnesses that we have. And we will start with Dr. David
Boyd, Deputy Director of the Office of Systems Engineering and
Development at the Department of Homeland Security; Mr. Gary
Grube, corporate VP and CTO, Commercial, Government and
Industrial Solutions for Motorola; Mr. Robert LeGrande, deputy
chief technology officer of the Office of the Chief Technology
Officer of the District Of Columbia; and Mr. John Muleta,
Bureau Chief of the Wireless Telecommunications, obviously from
the FCC.
And, gentlemen, we appreciate your testimony. It will be
made as part of the record in its entirety and we would like
you to spend 5 minutes now, starting with Dr. Boyd, at which
point when you are finished we will have questions from members
of the panel.
Dr. Boyd, welcome.
STATEMENTS OF DAVID G. BOYD, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; GARY GRUBE, CORPORATE VICE PRESIDENT AND CTO,
COMMERCIAL, GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SOLUTIONS, MOTOROLA INC.;
ROBERT LEGRANDE, DEPUTY CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE
CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER, DISTRICT OF COUMBIA; AND JOHN B.
MULETA, BUREAU CHIEF, WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS, FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Mr. Boyd. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good
afternoon, members. Thank you for the invitation to speak to
you today.
Earlier this year, Secretary Ridge observed that, ``The
ability of our first responders to communicate with each other
as well as share equipment in times of crisis is a critical
issue facing our Nation. Solving this challenge is a long-
standing and complex problem. There are, however, some
immediate steps the department can take this year to address
the communications and equipment needs of first responders and
make substantial progress to achieving the penultimate
communications solution.'' To address the needs identified by
emergency response providers, the Secretary has directed the
establishment of intradepartmental program offices to address
several key homeland security priorities. One of these is a
program office to significantly improve the coordination and
validation of the department's interoperability programs, thus
allowing firefighters, police officers and other emergency
personnel to better communicate and share equipment with each
other during a major disaster.
The directorate of Science and Technology within DHS has
been tasked to lead the planning and implementation of this
office in coordination with other DHS programs. We recognize
that for this office to succeed, emergency response providers
and homeland security practitioners who own, operate and
maintain more than 90 percent of the Nation's wireless public
safety infrastructure must be integrated into the program from
its beginning, so the solutions we create are solutions that
will actually meet their needs. Cooperation and coordination
with existing programs is key to reducing the necessary
duplication of effort and allowing the leveraging of investment
many public safety agencies have already made.
Properly designed, non-proprietary open architecture
standards will maximize competition across industry, encourage
technology innovation, reduce costs and help to ensure
compatibility among public safety and homeland security
agencies. Compliance with the National Incidence Management
System, the National Response Plan and relevant homeland
security Presidential directives will provide a consistent
nationwide approach for agencies at all levels of government to
work together to prepare for, prevent, respond to and recover
from major incidents.
And, finally, outreach efforts will emphasize the need for
interoperability and provide access to tools for its
implementation. Initial priority portfolio areas that the
office will address include communications to the most mature
of the portfolios, equipment training and others as required.
We will model this office after the successful SAFECOM
Program, which as a public safety practitioner-driven program
works with existing Federal initiatives and key public safety
stakeholders to address the development of better technologies
and processes for the cross-jurisdictional and cross-
disciplinary coordination of existing systems and future
networks. We will do the same across all the portfolios for the
more than 50,000 local and State public safety agencies and
organizations and over 100 Federal agencies engaged in public
safety disciplines, such as law enforcement, fire fighting,
public health and disaster recovery.
The SAFECOM Program, which will continue as a key national
initiative within the new Interoperability Office, has already
made significant progress at achieving both its short-term
goals and in building the foundations for a long term,
comprehensive program. In fiscal year 2003, SAFECOM developed
common grant guidance which was incorporated into the grant
programs of the COPS Office, FEMA and ODP and which constituted
the first coordinated effort to coordinate and align funding
for communications programs in the Nation.
We published a comprehensive statement requirements for
wireless public safety communications and interoperability in
coordination with the National Public Safety Telecommunications
Council, the major public safety associations, NIST, and the
Department of Justice. The requirements identified in this
document will drive the development and creation of interface
standards needed to satisfy the needs of State and local
responders. It offers industry the information they need to
align their product development efforts with actual users'
needs, and it will guide research, development, test and
evaluation programs.
It constitutes the first national definition of what
interoperability must accomplish, and within a month of its
publication more than 5,000 copies were downloaded by public
safety agencies, practitioners and manufacturers, and many of
those manufacturers have already approached us to show us how
they are mapping their capabilities to those requirements.
We will employ a system engineering or life cycle approach
to identifying, defining and developing action plans in each
portfolio area. Common components of this life cycle approach
include the validation and means assessments, the development
with the user community of a comprehensive statement of
requirements for each portfolio, completion of baselines to
provide starting points for each portfolio, a robust research
and development program, a robust standards program to identify
and adopt existing effective standards and to support the
development of essential standards when none exist, testing and
evaluation of technologies, development of appropriate grants
and funding guidance and development of policy and legal
reference materials or recommendations relevant to each
portfolio.
To ensure that the efforts of this office are well
coordinated an Interagency Interoperability Policy Board will
be established to help reduce duplication in programs and
activities. By the direction of Secretary Ridge, this new
office has already undertaken a major initiative to achieve
near-term emergency incident level interoperability in high-
threat urban areas before the end of this year.
Working with a wide range of Federal agencies, including
the DHS Office for Domestic Preparedness, the Justice
Department and the National Guard, we have begun working with
all 10 urban areas to identify what is already in place, what
is available and what is still needed to provide
interoperability to support a major incident.
As a Nation, we must continue to pursue a comprehensive
strategy that takes into account technical and cultural issues
associated with improving communications and interoperability.
It must address research, development, testing and evaluation;
procurement planning; spectrum management, including solving
the current 800 megahertz interference problems and identifying
and freeing up additional spectrum; standards training and
technical assistance. And it must recognize the challenges
associated with incorporating legacy equipment and practices in
the face of a rapidly changing technology environment.
The many obstacles facing public safety interoperability
makes for a complex interlocking set of problems with no one-
size-fits-all solution. The new office, in company with a broad
array of partners from all levels of government, is working
toward a world where lives and property are not lost because
public safety agencies are unable to communicate or lack
compatible equipment and training resources.
I would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of David G. Boyd follows:]
Prepared Statement of David G. Boyd, Director, SAFECOM Program Office,
Directorate of Science and Technology, Department of Homeland Security
Good morning and thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee for the invitation to speak to you today. I appreciate your
interest in the Department's interoperability efforts and am grateful
for this opportunity to address the important issue of public safety
interoperability and compatibility before you.
PUBLIC SAFETY BACKGROUND
As Secretary Ridge stated on February 24, 2004,
The ability for our nation's first responders to communicate
with each other as well as share equipment in times of crisis
is a critical issue facing our nation. Solving this challenge
is a long-standing and complex problem. There are, however,
some immediate steps the department can take this year to
address the . . . communications and equipment needs of first
responders and make substantial progress to achieving the
penultimate communications solution.
Communications interoperability is the ability of public safety
agencies to talk across disciplines and jurisdictions via radio
communications systems, exchanging voice and/or data with one another
on demand, in real time, as authorized. The nation is heavily invested
in an existing infrastructure that is largely incompatible. Currently,
efforts within the Federal government to address the interoperability
problem are being coordinated to incorporate the needs of local, state,
and Federal practitioners. However, there remain many challenges, both
technical and cultural, facing the improvement of public safety
communications and interoperability.
Whether fighting a fire or responding to a terrorist attack,
efficient and effective emergency response requires coordination,
communication, and the sharing of vital information and equipment among
numerous public safety and security agencies. As the National Strategy
for the Physical Protection of Critical Infrastructures and Key Assets
makes clear, ``systems supporting emergency response personnel,
however, have been specifically developed and implemented with respect
to the unique needs of each agency. Such specification complicates
interoperability, thereby hindering the ability of various first
responder organizations to communicate and coordinate resources during
crisis situations.'' 1 The Department of Homeland Security
(DHS or the Department) believes this issue is so important that it has
identified interoperability of communications and equipment as the
number two priority for the second year strategic plan. We seek to
ensure the interoperability of critical emergency response systems or
products by making it possible for them to work with other systems or
products without special effort on the part of the user.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``National Strategy for the Physical Protection of Critical
Infrastructures and Key Assets,'' The White House, February 2003, page
43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department also has developed intradepartmental program offices
to address the needs identified by emergency response providers
2 and to respond to the problems identified in the National
Strategy for the Physical Protection of Critical Infrastructures and
Key Assets. One of these is a program office to significantly improve
the coordination and validation of the Department's interoperability
programs, thus allowing firefighters, police officers and other
emergency personnel to better communicate and share equipment with each
other during a major disaster.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ As defined in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Section 2(6),
``The term `emergency response providers' includes Federal, State, and
local emergency public safety, law enforcement, emergency response,
emergency medical (including hospital emergency facilities), and
related personnel, agencies, and authorities.'' 6 U.S.C. 101(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since its beginning, the Department has been involved with the
issue of wireless interoperability through project SAFECOM. As a public
safety practitioner driven program, SAFECOM, housed within the
Department, has been the Federal government's central point to
coordinate Federal wireless investments and activities and partner with
State, local, and Tribal governments to improve the interoperability of
our nation's wireless communications.
Secretary Ridge has now specifically tasked the Directorate of
Science and Technology (S&T) within DHS, in coordination with other DHS
programs, to lead the planning and implementation of an office of
interoperability that will address the larger issue of
interoperability, including wireless communications. By coordinating
and leveraging the vast range of interoperability programs and related
efforts spread across the Federal government, this office, currently
titled the ``Office of Interoperability and Compatibility'' (OIC), will
reduce unnecessary duplication in programs and spending and ensure
consistency across federal activities related to research and
development, testing and evaluation (RDT&E), standards, technical
assistance, training, and grant funding related to interoperability.
This new program office will encompass the SAFECOM office, which will
continue as a key national initiative, into the effort to address the
larger issue of interoperability.
Portfolio Areas
Within the OIC, we will create a series of portfolios to address
critical interoperability and compatibility issues related to the
emergency response provider and homeland security communities. Initial
priority portfolio areas that the OIC will address, in coordination
with other Departmental offices, including the DHS Office for Domestic
Preparedness (ODP), include:
Communications (through the SAFECOM Program Office);
Equipment;
Training; and
Others as required.
To establish these portfolios, the OIC currently is identifying the
necessary stakeholders and will utilize these stakeholders to assess
and finalize the portfolio areas. Through this process, the OIC will
identify the current initiatives as well as the most appropriate short-
term deliverables.
Office Implementation
The OIC is being modeled after the SAFECOM Program, which
represents a successful model for how to address highly sophisticated
technical and policy issues associated with public safety
communications and interoperability. Leveraging the work that the
SAFECOM Program has already undertaken, the OIC will look to replicate
relevant elements of the SAFECOM process and to build on SAFECOM's
achievements in bolstering public safety communications.
The new OIC will employ a systems engineering or lifecycle approach
to identifying, defining, and developing action plans in each portfolio
area. This lifecycle approach is both iterative and collaborative. It
emphasizes the need to create a common set of standards, policies, and
procedures that encourage backwards compatibility of new solutions
which will drive the migration of systems towards advanced,
interoperable equipment and processes in the future. Common components
of this lifecycle approach include:
Validation of needs assessments (consistent with Homeland Security
Presidential Directive-8, which lays out the National
Preparedness Goal, as appropriate);
Development, with the user community, of a comprehensive statement of
requirements for each portfolio;
Completion of baselines to provide starting points for each
portfolio;
A robust research and development program for new capabilities;
A robust standards program to identify and adopt existing, effective
standards and to support the development of essential new
standards when none exist;
Testing and evaluation of existing technologies;
Development of common standards for training and technical
assistance;
Development of appropriate grants/funding guidance; and
Development of policy and legal reference materials or
recommendations relevant to each portfolio.
Within the OIC, we are following the successful SAFECOM model by
creating action plans for each of these areas, and for others
identified as the portfolios are developed. Each of these action plans
will be developed through a collaborative process that brings together
the relevant stakeholders to provide clear direction on a path forward.
The process to develop action plans will involve:
Assessment of the government agencies involved in each portfolio;
Identification of the relevant stakeholders at the local, state, and
federal levels;
A stakeholder working session to define the issues, assess user
needs, and create a detailed vision of the ``end state'' for
each portfolio; and
A governance structure that ensures ongoing participation on the part
of key stakeholders at the local, State, and Federal levels.
Through this end-user input, the new OIC will produce a strategy
and action plan to address the interoperability and compatibility needs
in each of these portfolios.
The OIC structure should be an organizational reflection of the
lifecycle process it is designed to manage and support. The main
purpose of the OIC will be to provide common standards of practice,
protocol, planning, and evaluation across the broadest spectrum of
interoperability activities and to facilitate the prioritization and
coordination of these efforts within the framework of a common,
nationwide vision.
The OIC will include a program management office responsible for
coordinating the various portfolio managers and their respective
management offices. In addition, a cross-departmental coordinating
council or interagency interoperability policy board, chaired by the
Undersecretary for S&T, will be established to ensure that its efforts
are coordinated intra- and inter-departmentally. This board will help
reduce duplication in programs and activities.
With respect to specific task, the new OIC has already, at the
direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security, undertaken a major
initiative--RapidComm 9/30--to achieve near term, emergency, incident-
level interoperability in ten high threat urban areas by September 30,
2004. Working with a wide range of Federal agencies, including the ODP,
the Justice Department, and the National Guard, we have begun working
with all ten urban areas to identify what it is in place, what is
available, and what is still needed to provide interoperability to
support a major incident.
Players: Owners, Partners, and Stakeholders
Those with a vested interest in the OIC are the people, agencies,
and organizations that will directly benefit from enhanced
interoperability of equipment and processes. Creating interoperability
requires coordination and partnerships among office managers, partners,
and stakeholders. Secretary Ridge has directed that S&T will be the
manager--or owner--of this office, and it will be essential for the
office to establish partnerships with all relevant offices and agencies
in order to effectively coordinate like-topic activities. These
partners will be instrumental in ensuring that our programs address all
possible issues, ranging from grants for equipment procurement to
regulatory policy creation. These partners and additional relevant
stakeholders include representatives from the following communities:
Emergency response providers represented by their national
associations;
Department of Homeland Security and other government agencies
a. Operational programs and offices
b. Research & development offices
c. Test & evaluation programs
d. Technical assistance providers
e. Grant programs;
Standards Development Organizations; and
Industry
Principles for Achieving Interoperability
In order for the OIC to effectively coordinate and validate the
Department's interoperability programs, it will need to employ a common
set of standards, policies, and procedures. This will require that the
program employ a user driven approach and recognize the substantial
investments that public safety and homeland security agencies have
already made in existing equipment and procedures. Additionally, this
office must recognize the challenges associated with incorporating
legacy equipment and practices in the face of constantly changing
technology. Driving principles behind the management of this office
include:
1. Recognizing that it must be a user driven program--Emergency
response providers and homeland security practitioners--who
own, operate and maintain more than 90% of the nation's
wireless public safety infrastructure--will be integrated into
the program from its beginning, thereby allowing the program to
create solutions that meet their needs. The public safety
community will be involved primarily through associations.
There are two reasons for this approach: (1) the associations
represent the leadership of their respective constituencies;
and (2) as the National Task Force on Interoperability (NTFI)
has demonstrated, the associations are an excellent way to
reach out to these communities.
2. Extensive leveraging of what exists--Cooperation and coordination
with existing programs reduces unnecessary duplication of
effort and increases efficient use of Federal resources
dedicated to common causes. In addition, the investments that
many public safety agencies have already made must be
maximized.
3. A standards-based approach--Standards maximize competition across
industry, encourage technology innovation, create an overall
cost savings, and increase compatibility among public safety
and homeland security agencies.
4. Compliance with key policy documents and initiatives--Compliance
with the National Incident Management System, the National
Response Plan, and relevant Homeland Security Presidential
Directives will provide a consistent nationwide approach for
agencies at all levels of government to work effectively and
efficiently together to prepare for, prevent, respond to, and
recover from major incidents.
5. An effective outreach program--Outreach efforts will emphasize the
need for interoperability, and tools for its implementation, to
practitioners and policy makers at all levels of government,
and the public safety community.
Portfolio Example: Communications Interoperability
As a public safety practitioner driven program, and as part of OIC,
SAFECOM is working with existing Federal communications initiatives and
key public safety stakeholders to address the need to develop better
technologies and processes for the cross-jurisdictional and cross-
disciplinary coordination of existing systems and future networks.
SAFECOM has three objectives: (1) developing standards in partnership
with Federal, State, local, and tribal public safety organizations to
define the requirements for first responder interoperability at all
levels; (2) building from those standards, developing a national
architecture in coordination with the work under the National Response
Plan to assist in the progression towards wireless interoperability;
and (3) developing and implementing a process to coordinate the Federal
government's wireless interoperability investments and programs. The
customer base includes over 50,000 local and State public safety
agencies and organizations. Federal customers include over 100 agencies
engaged in public safety disciplines such as law enforcement,
firefighting, public health, and disaster recovery. Because it is a
government-wide E-Gov initiative, SAFECOM is not a part of the S&T's FY
2005 budget request. Rather, SAFECOM is currently funded by multiple
partner agencies that transfer funds to DHS.
SAFECOM Achievements To Date
Over the last year, SAFECOM has made significant progress in both
achieving its short-term goals and building the foundation for a longer
term, comprehensive program. It has established itself as the umbrella
program within the Federal government coordinating with local, tribal,
State, and Federal public safety agencies to improve public safety
communication and interoperability.
Coordinated Funding Assistance--In FY 2003, SAFECOM developed grant
guidance in keeping with the needs of public safety for use by
Federal programs funding public safety communications equipment
to State and local agencies. Community Oriented Policing
Services (COPS), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
and ODP incorporated this guidance into their public safety
communications grants. This guidance marked the first
coordinated approach to funding requirements. In further
support of the coordinated grant process, SAFECOM organized and
funded the peer review process for the joint grant solicitation
from COPS and FEMA. SAFECOM also supported the Department of
Commerce National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
Summit on Interoperability that was the first step towards
identifying all the Federal and national programs involved in
public safety communications so that a broader coordination
effort can continue.
Statement of Requirements Development--SAFECOM recently developed the
Statement of Requirements (SoR) for Wireless Public Safety
Communications and Interoperability in coordination with the
National Public Safety Telecommunications Council, NIST, and
the Department of Justice's AGILE Program. The SoR contains
interoperability scenarios describing how SAFECOM envisions
technology enhancing public safety. From these scenarios,
operational requirements are defined and functional
requirements of the technologies are extrapolated. The
requirements identified in the SoR will drive the development
and creation of interface standards that will satisfy public
safety practitioner needs. The SoR will also offer industry a
resource for understanding the users' needs in the development
of new technologies and serve as a guide for SAFECOM to develop
its research development, test, and evaluation program and
constitutes the first national definition of what
interoperability must accomplish.
SAFECOM is on track to achieve these critical milestones in 2004:
June: SAFECOM Strategic Plan Update
SAFECOM will conduct a strategic planning session at the Executive
and Advisory (EC/AC) Committee Meetings in June. The EC and AC
are comprised of senior level stakeholders from the local,
State, and Federal public safety communications communities. At
this time, strategic initiatives developed at the December
Joint Planning Meeting will be reviewed, and new objectives
will be developed for the short and long term goals of the
program. Afterwards, SAFECOM will produce and distribute a
modified strategic plan based off the stakeholder comments
presented at these meetings.
July: Detailed Interoperability Project Plan for Virginia
SAFECOM will develop a detailed project plan using the result of the
strategic planning session and the project team's technical
expertise. This project plan will include tasks that need to be
accomplished by the Commonwealth along with realistic
timeframes for completion. Like the Virginia Strategic Planning
Session, this plan will serve as a model for other States as
they work towards achieving communications interoperability for
public safety first responders.
August: Interoperability Grant Peer Review
SAFECOM will facilitate interoperability grant peer review sessions
enabling public safety communications subject matter experts to
evaluate and comment upon grant applications for FY 2004 COPS
and FEMA communications equipment grants. These reviewers will
ensure that grants will be distributed only for projects that
meet SAFECOM developed interoperability requirements.
September: RapidCom9/30 Completed
SAFECOM is undertaking an initiative to ensure a minimum level of
public safety interoperability is in place in ten key urban
areas by September 30, 2004. The RapidCom9/30 project will
provide incident commanders in charge of managing/directing
various responding agencies the ability to adequately
communicate with each other and the respective command center
within one hour of an incident. Due to this effort's limited
scalability, it is not meant to serve as comprehensive public
safety communications solutions, but as an interim solution
that provides minimum interoperability capability during
emergency responses.
September: Narrowbanding Report Released
SAFECOM will release a report detailing the program's recommendations
on spectrum policy in regard to narrowbanding in the 700 MHz
band. As recent events in the 800 MHz band have shown,
coordinated spectrum policy is important for public safety
communications, and SAFECOM's input to any plan in the 700 MHz
band will allow for more efficient spectrum use when allocated
frequencies become available in the next decade.
September: National Guard Study Released
SAFECOM will release a report outlining how National Guard Land
Mobile Radio (LMR) resources can be incorporated into the plan
to achieve nationwide interoperability. It will also identify
how local public safety organizations can leverage National
Guard assets. The National Guard already has a great deal of
investment in LMR facilities, and this report will help local
and State public safety organizations utilize resources that
may already be present in their communities.
October: Communication Device Report Released
SAFECOM will release a report detailing the findings of its testing
and evaluation program. The first report will focus on the
performance of public safety communications equipment with the
P25 Phase I standard. This report is the first step in
developing a comprehensive national architecture plan for
communications interoperability.
November: Portal for Interoperability Information goes live
The Web Portal of Interoperability Information will be the ``One-
Stop-Shop'' for information pertaining to public safety
communications interoperability. As a portal, it will be an
interactive community space, allowing registered users to
research potential solutions as well as share their thoughts on
existing technologies. Version 1.0 of this portal, which will
be released in November, is the first attempt to provide first
responders with a central repository of critical information
pertaining to communications interoperability.
December: National Interoperability Baseline Methodology Released
SAFECOM will release a methodology detailing how a baseline of the
level of interoperability nationwide can be established. The
baseline is required in order to understand the current level
of interoperability at the local and State levels and will be
used to measure the success of the SAFECOM Program in achieving
national communications interoperability for first responders
in the coming years.
Conclusion
Our nation is heavily invested in an existing infrastructure that
is largely incompatible. As I stated earlier, current efforts within
the Federal government to address the interoperability problem are
being coordinated to incorporate the needs of local, State, and Federal
practitioners. We must continue to pursue the current comprehensive
strategy that takes into account technical and cultural issues
associated with improving communications and interoperability, and
recognizes the challenges associated with incorporating legacy
equipment and practices given the constantly changing nature of
technology.
The many obstacles facing public safety interoperability and
compatibility make for complex problems with no one-size-fits-all
solution. Flexible and dynamic resolutions are necessary to combat the
unique challenges presented by distinct localities and States. The new
OIC, with its partners, will work towards a world where lives and
property are never lost unnecessarily because public safety agencies
are unable to communicate or lack compatible equipment and training
resources.
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
Mr. Grube?
STATEMENT OF GARY GRUBE
Mr. Grube. Good afternoon, Chairman Upton, Ranking Member
Markey and members of the subcommittee. My name is Gary Grube,
and I am the chief technology officer of Motorola's Public
Safety Communications Enterprise, and I have worked with the
first responder community for nearly 25 years.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling this
hearing, for your committed leadership on communications
matters and for focusing on the needs of the Nation's first
responders. It is an honor to be here with you today to discuss
mission critical, interoperability communications capabilities.
Chairman Barton and Ranking Member Dingell, thank you for
the excellent work earlier this month in marking up the DHS
authorization bill. It now addresses the need for the
deployment of communications equipment based on national
voluntary consensus standards. As you know, a standard called
Project 25 is the open standard that has been endorsed by every
major law enforcement organization in the country.
This hearing follows quite nicely the one you held on June
2nd on the FCC's digital television transition plan. Motorola
is highly encouraged by this initiative. The committee
leadership sent a real message that change is afoot. Chairman
Barton's leadership and proposal changed the terms of the
debate. We would like to express our deep appreciation for the
positive new direction he is setting for the transition.
I also want to thank the other Congressmen Fossella,
Stupak, and Engel who have been exploring ways to help get the
funding first responders need. Motorola has been a leading
provider of public safety solutions for over 65 years. Wireless
communications provide our first responders with the right
information, at the right time and in the right place, whether
that information is voice, data or video.
Today, the technology exists to improve the quality and
effectiveness of public safety operations, but there are two
obstacles to deploying these new technologies. First, public
safety must have access to the 700 megahertz spectrum by year-
end 2006 to deploy interoperable voice and advanced data
technology as early as possible. This spectrum can literally
save lives.
Second, public safety needs additional Federal funding to
purchase the radios and systems necessary to do its job. When
these steps are taken, advance wireless technology can fully
support our first responders. Together we can improve the
quality of mission-critical information to our front-line
responders.
An officer or agent could transmit video of a potential
bomb or biological weapon and get real-time counsel from an
expert in another location. Local or State police could
instantly send or receive a photograph of a missing or abducted
child. Firefighters can access building blueprints, hydrant
locations, hazardous material data and other critical
information.
We have heard a great deal about the need for improved
interoperability among first responders organizations. Some
Federal funds have been made available for this purpose, but
they are inadequate to reach an acceptable level of
interoperability in a reasonable time. We need congressional
leadership committed and enforcing a sustained well-funded,
multiyear Federal program that guarantees this communications
problem will be fixed.
Turning to the need for spectrum. In 1997, this committee
and the FCC recognized its importance by allocating spectrum in
the 700 megahertz band for mission-critical State and local
public safety communications. This spectrum continues to be
used for TV and needs to be cleared.
This spectrum is critical to public safety operations for
two reasons. No. 1, 700 megahertz provides additional capacity
for interoperability and voice communications. And, number 2,
700 megahertz is the only dedicated spectrum allocation where
public safety can have high-speed data, wide area access in the
field to data bases, the Internet, imaging and video, or, in
other words, critical information.
Unfortunately, most metropolitan area public safety
operations cannot use the spectrum today, nor can they predict
with any certainty when they might have access to these
frequencies. This uncertainty is due to the way the current law
is written. In reality, there is no hard date for ending the
DTV transition, leaving public safety and deployment of vital
technology in limbo. Until this problem is addressed, 5 percent
of this Nation's TV stations block improved public safety
communications for over 50 percent of the population. We are
mindful of the other considerations that are involved in
clearing these channels, and we believe that the adverse
effects can be mitigated.
At a hearing last year, this committee asked about the
impact on TV viewers. Using independent data, we have
determined that, on average, only 3 percent of the TV
households covered by these blocking stations actually tune in
over the air during a typical week. As we explore ways to
resolve the transition, we encourage you to continue your
examination of the Berlin model which delivered a crisp analog
cutoff date using digital-to-analog converter boxes. This
ensured a seamless changeover for all TV consumers.
Motorola is completing its analysis, and we expect to place
on record at the FCC an estimate in the sub-$100 range per unit
for a digital-to-analog converter that would inexpensively
facilitate a Berlin model type solution in the U.S.
Even more spectrum may be required in the band to support
homeland security coordination among Federal, State and local
agencies and critical infrastructure entities. For example, a
wide area broadband pilot here in the Capital demonstrates the
need for such additional spectrum.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, making the public safety spectrum
available nationwide by the start of 2007 will not happen
without your commitment and your help. The first step is to
agree today to set that hard date. We urge this committee to
clear the spectrum and to invest in interoperability for all
public safety radio users. Motorola pledges its support to our
customers and to this committee to make this happen. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Gary Grube follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gary Grube, Corporate Vice President and Chief
Technology Officer, Commercial Government and Industrial Solutions
Sector, Motorola
Good afternoon, Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Markey and Members
of the Subcommittee.
My name is Gary Grube, and I am the Chief Technology Officer of
Motorola's business sector that serves state and local public safety
and Federal law enforcement customers. I have worked with the 1st
responder community for nearly 25 years.
I want to express my appreciation to you, Mr. Chairman, for
scheduling this hearing to address such an important issue as improving
interoperability for our nation's Police, Firefighters, Emergency
Medical Personnel and Federal agents. It is an honor to be here with
you today to discuss mission critical interoperable communications
capabilities.
I would be remiss if I did not thank you, Chairman Barton, and
Ranking Member Dingell for the excellent work you undertook earlier
this month in marking up the Select Committee on Homeland Security's
DHS authorization bill. It now addresses the need for the deployment of
communications equipment based on national voluntary consensus
standards. As you know, a standard called ``Project 25'' is the open
standard that has been endorsed by every major law enforcement
organization in the country. And, because it delivers true
interoperability, the FCC has set P25 as the interoperability standard
in the 700 MHz band.
This hearing also follows quite nicely the one you held on June 2nd
on the DTV transition. You heard testimony from Mr. Ferree on the FCC's
Media Bureau Plan to advance the DTV transition and thereby provide
needed spectrum to public safety by the start of 2009. Motorola is
highly encouraged by this initiative. At that hearing, the Committee
leadership sent a real message that change is afoot and that the
American public and their heroes can look forward to date certain
availability for spectrum for critical interoperable communications.
Chairman Barton's powerful words and proposal resonated with us and the
public safety community, and we'd like to express our deep appreciation
for the positive direction he is setting for this debate.
I also want to thank the other Members of this Committee, notably
Congressmen Fossella, Stupak, and Engel who have been exploring ways to
usher in new 1st responder high-speed communications and to find
additional funding mechanisms to enable them.
Meeting these communications needs is critical to the safety and
well being of our first responders and the entire American public they
serve. I am pleased to be with you today to support your efforts to
achieve our shared goal of meeting public safety's communications
needs.
I'd also like to note that it is good to be at the witness table
with David Boyd, who heads the SAFECOM program at the DHS. Mr. Boyd
works very closely with State and local 1st responders and is very
supportive of their interoperable communications equipment needs.
Motorola is a leading provider of communications and information
solutions, with more than 65 years of experience in meeting the mission
critical needs of our public safety customers. We offer an extensive
portfolio of solutions specifically designed to meet the rapidly
evolving safety and security needs of these customers. Our solutions
include interoperable mission-critical radio systems based on the P25
public safety interoperability standard; command and control solutions;
identification and tracking solutions; information management for
criminal justice and civil needs; and physical security and monitoring
solutions.
In 2002, my business sector in Motorola received the Malcolm
Baldrige National Quality Award, the nation's premier award for
performance excellence and quality achievement. We continually strive
to translate the quality processes upon which this award was based into
high quality and reliable communications systems for our public safety
customers. Motorola works very closely with our customers to help them
implement communications capabilities needed for both every day mission
critical needs and catastrophic events.
PUBLIC SAFETY REQUIRES DEDICATED MISSION CRITICAL SYSTEMS
Our partnership with the public safety community over the years has
taught us that first responders need systems designed specifically for
mission critical operations to get the job done. As with most of the
Northeast and Midwest, the State of Michigan was confronted with a
large-scale emergency during the August 2003 blackout. Despite the
failures experienced by various commercial carrier networks in Michigan
and surrounding states due to these power outages, Michigan's nearly
12,000 public safety radios experienced no interruptions in
communications. Police officers, firefighters and EMS providers worked
as a team in real time to serve the public. Michigan had control over
its communications because it had created a statewide critical network
designed specifically for catastrophic situations and events, including
the disruption of normal power sources. While many public safety
entities also use public carrier networks for less critical
communications, there is no substitute for mission critical systems
when the safety of first responders and the public they serve is at
risk.
TRUE INTEROPERABILITY REQUIRES A SUSTAINED FOCUS
Ask any firefighter, police officer or EMS provider and they will
tell you that the ability to communicate reliably, instantly and
securely is one of the most critical factors in managing a crisis
situation. For almost all first responders, a handheld radio device is
their communications lifeline--giving them the ability to communicate
during a crisis situation. While the most visible part of the
communications system to first responders and the public, these
handheld devices must be supported by communications network
infrastructure. Together the system of infrastructure and radios must
be designed to provide the necessary coverage, capacity, reliability
and features required for mission critical operations. Yet, despite the
Federal prioritization of homeland security, a large number of first
responder radio systems are not yet truly interoperable and simply
cannot talk to each other in a crisis situation. While public safety
agencies are making progress on improving communications capabilities
and interoperability, much more remains to be done. This problem will
not be solved overnight. There is no ``quick fix'' solution for true
interoperability. Providing true interoperability for the nation's
first responders will require a multi-year dedication and focus on the
part of Congress, the public safety community and industry.
There are four key foundation blocks to achieving improved public
safety communications capabilities and interoperability. These are 1)
sufficient spectrum, 2) adequate funding, 3) use of standardized
mission critical technology, and 4) operational planning and practice.
I'll address these briefly, and then in more detail.
Spectrum that could significantly improve interoperability of
public safety communications has been allocated but is not yet
accessible in most major markets. Additional spectrum allocations are
also needed. The Administration and the Congress have begun to fund the
various grant programs administered by the Departments of Justice and
Homeland Security and to set interoperability as a high priority for
these funds. However, the level of funding in general and the amounts
set aside for interoperable equipment purchases must be increased
significantly and sustained over multiple years to deliver on this
goal.
Interoperability standards that meet public safety needs and are
open to all manufacturers have been established for voice and data
communication and for wideband services. A broadband standards
development initiative is also underway. Communications technology
meeting the Project 25 (P25) voice and data interoperability standard
developed by the public safety community and industry is available from
multiple equipment vendors. Wideband and broadband technologies capable
of meeting public safety's increasing need for high speed data and
imaging have been developed and are being trialed.
Finally, Pubic safety users realize now, more than at any time in
history, the value of planning and practice among multiple agencies,
jurisdictions, and levels of government.
The remainder of my testimony addresses in more detail the four
foundation blocks and what Congress can do to help public safety
improve communications capabilities and interoperability.
REAL ACCESS TO MORE PUBLIC SAFETY SPECTRUM IS ESSENTIAL.
As discussed above, effective mission critical mobile and portable
communications systems are absolutely essential to public safety
operations. Police officers, firefighters, emergency medical personnel
and their departments use mobile and portable communications to
exchange information that can help protect public safety officials and
the citizens they serve. Traditionally, this information was mostly
exchanged by voice. Increasingly, as public safety entities strive to
increase efficiency and effectiveness in today's world, they also need
the capability to transmit and receive high performance data, still
images and video reliably. Spectrum is the road upon which such
communications travel, and increased communications requirements lead
to the need for more spectrum.
Based on a thorough justification of need, Congress and the Federal
Communications Commission dedicated 24 MHz of spectrum in the 700 MHz
band to State and local public safety in 1997. The FCC established
specific nationwide interoperability channels within this spectrum
allocation, as well as both narrowband and broadband channels to
support a variety of identified public safety communications
requirements. However, seven years later, incumbent television stations
operating on channels 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68 and 69 prevent public
safety access to this essential resource in most major urban areas
where the demand for more spectrum is the greatest. The recent focus on
increased interoperability and Homeland Security make availability of
this public safety spectrum nationwide even more critical.
These channels are critical to public safety for two reasons:
(1) Together, the new 700 MHz and current 800 MHz bands provide the
best opportunity to integrate interoperable communications. The
700 MHz band's proximity to the 800 MHz band allows public
safety agencies to expand their current 800 MHz narrowband
voice and data systems for interoperability and regional
coordination on an ``intra'' as well as ``inter'' agency basis.
Equipment operating in these combined frequency bands on the
FCC endorsed Project 25 interoperability standard is
commercially available today. The FCC has granted each state a
license to operate such narrowband communications in the 700
MHz band. Localities throughout the country are actively
engaged in spectrum planning at 700 MHz, a prerequisite for
obtaining their own FCC licenses. For example, after a yearlong
review by the FCC, the Southern California regional plan was
recently approved, but TV incumbency prevents actual use of the
spectrum in much of that area.
(2) 700 MHz is the only dedicated spectrum allocation where public
safety can implement advanced mobile wide area systems that
bring high-speed access to databases, the intranet, imaging and
video to first responders out in the field.
This technology offers a whole new level of mobile communications
capabilities, which is far beyond today's voice and low speed data
applications. For example:
a. An officer or agent could transmit video of a potential bomb, or
biological weapon and get real time counsel from an expert in
another location.
b. Local or state police could instantly send or receive a photograph
of a missing or abducted child.
c. Crime scene investigators can transmit live video of footprints,
fingerprints and evidence to speed analysis and apprehension of
perpetrators.
d. Firefighters can access building blueprints, hydrant locations
hazardous material data and other critical information.
e. Paramedics can transmit live video of the patient to doctors at the
hospital that would help save lives.
Motorola previously conducted wideband trials together with public
safety entities in Pinellas County, Florida and the City of Chicago,
and we are currently participating in the District of Columbia's
broadband trial. As to the Chicago trial, we greatly appreciate
Chairman Upton leading a delegation of Committee Members, including
Congressmen Bass, Rush, and Terry to participate in a demonstration
last year with the Chicago Police Department. We would like to
encourage a similar delegation to see the outstanding broadband trial
that is being led by Robert LeGrande on behalf of the DC Government. We
are proud to be working with him on an innovative solution that will
deliver powerful applications to the frontline 1st preventers here in
our Nation's Capitol. All of these trials operate under experimental
700 MHz licenses from the FCC. The capabilities demonstrated are the
emerging powerful multi-media applications that will bring public
safety communications into the Twenty-First Century.
Public safety users and industry finalized the wideband
interoperability standard, TIA902, through the Telecommunications
Industry Association (TIA). Public safety has recommended that standard
to the FCC for the 700 MHz wideband channels, and we are anxiously
awaiting FCC action on that request. Right now, actual product
development could proceed as soon as we know with certainty that this
spectrum will be available nationwide to the public safety community.
Unfortunately, most metropolitan area public safety operations
cannot use this spectrum today, nor can they predict with any certainty
when they might have access to these frequencies because of incumbent
TV operations. Therefore, public safety users in most cities cannot
deploy, or firm up plans for the actual deployment of, improved
interoperability and advanced capabilities that will improve their
effectiveness and safety.
Current law and policies set December 31, 2006 as the date for
clearing television from the band. However, this is not a firm date.
Broadcasters do not have to clear the band until 85% of the households
in their service areas have the capability to receive digital TV, an
environment unlikely to be met in most markets by yearend 2006 under
the current rules. Under current law, while TV incumbents are required
to vacate this spectrum at the end of 2006, they can receive an
unlimited extension of this deadline based on the state of the
transition in their particular market. So, in reality, there is no
``hard date'' when the transition will end and the spectrum will really
be accessible to public safety everywhere. This is not the optimal
situation for the public safety community and those they serve. We
commend and encourage efforts by this Subcommittee and the FCC to
ensure that this spectrum is cleared nationwide for public safety use
no later than yearend 2006.
The reality is that 5% of this country's TV stations are blocking
improved public safety communications for 84% of the population in the
largest cities, those over 200,000. Of that 84%, more than two-thirds
have no access to the spectrum, while the remaining third have only
limited access. When we look at all areas of the country, rural as well
as urban, 54% of our country's population is totally blocked by this
relatively small number of TV stations from receiving any benefits of
public safety communications in this band.
In a hearing before this Subcommittee in June, 2003, Greg Brown of
Motorola testified about the need for access to the 700 MHz spectrum.
During that hearing, Subcommittee Members acknowledged this need, but
also discussed the potential impact on some TV operations of setting a
firm date for broadcasters to finally return their analog TV channels
in the 700 MHz band.
The concerns expressed at that hearing spurred us to perform a
study to determine the impact on the viewing public of clearing that
spectrum. That study ``700 MHz TV Clearing and its Impact on TV
Viewership'' is attached in its entirety. As shown in this study, the
potential harm to the viewing public is limited. And the benefit to
public safety is dramatic.
First, only 75 stations, equaling less than 5% of the more than
1500 U.S. TV stations, affect public safety's availability of its
Congressionally mandated 700 MHz band frequencies. Second, Motorola's
analysis of independent television industry data shows that, on
average, only 14% of the TV households who have the option to view
these stations actually do so at all, and that of those viewing, 82%
watch by cable. This means that, on average, only 3% of the TV
households within these stations' coverage areas actually tune to these
stations over-the-air sometime during an average week.
The Committee is also aware of an FCC plan that would complete the
analog to digital TV transition by January 1, 2009. We applaud the FCC
for taking the leadership and initiative to move the debate toward a
successful conclusion. While 2009 may be an appropriate date by which
all 1500 or more TV stations would complete the transition, the public
safety community has stated that its needs justify clearing the 5% of
stations blocking its 700 MHz band channels by 2007. By yearend 2006,
public safety will have waited almost ten years to access this
spectrum.
As noted above, very few TV households would notice any significant
impact of clearing this spectrum for public safety. Those that do could
be provided with an inexpensive digital-to-analog over-the-air
converter box. Motorola is a TV set-top box provider. That business
unit is presently completing its analysis, and we expect to place on
the record at the FCC a sub-$100 estimate per unit for an over-the-air
digital-to-analog converter that would help to facilitate a Berlin
Model-type solution in the US. We understand the Committee and the GAO
are already reviewing the actions undertaken in Berlin, Germany to
ensure a seamless and pain-free crisp analog to digital TV transition.
This was achieved through the provision of converter boxes to some TV
consumers who did not subscribe to cable or satellite service and
maintained an analog TV set. We believe this is a positive step that
could provide a real path forward on how to solve the transition here
in the U.S.
Congressional action is required to ensure that TV incumbents
return this critically needed spectrum, without exceptions, by a firm
date--which should be no later than yearend 2006.
We urge the Committee not to be deterred from setting this goal
because it has been hard to achieve to date. Rather, once it has been
set, the affected parties, including the public safety community, the
FCC and NTIA, the involved broadcasters and other affected parties,
including our company, should be called upon to devote our energies to
making it happen.
As you know, the 24 MHz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band is
allocated for State and local public safety use. That spectrum, if
cleared, would only partially satisfy the spectrum need documented by
the public safety community. No comparable spectrum exists for meeting
the Homeland Security requirements of Federal agencies or critical
infrastructure entities. Such interoperability among State and local
first responders, Federal agencies and critical infrastructure entities
will best be achieved through the availability of comparable spectrum
resources. Therefore, we recommend that Congress consider meeting these
additional needs by reallocating the remaining 30 MHz of commercial
spectrum in the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz portions of the band which
are presently targeted for auction. This spectrum should be reallocated
as a Homeland Security band to support State, local, Federal and
critical infrastructure (such a utilities and nuclear facilities)
communications needs.
We also note that a spectrum coalition headed by Mr. LeGrande, in
the District of Columbia Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO),
has requested that 10 MHz of additional spectrum at 700 MHz be
designated for broadband use. Since that 10 MHz falls within the 30 MHz
recommended for reallocation here, we believe that request and
reallocation of the 30 MHz are complementary to one another. Motorola
is quite pleased to be one of the partners with OCTO in trialling 700
MHz broadband systems and public safety applications.
As part of this reallocation, Congress should charter a committee
of key representatives from major public safety associations, Federal
agencies and critical infrastructure entities to determine how that
additional 30 MHz of spectrum should be distributed among State, local,
Federal and critical infrastructure entities.
Should the government wish to pursue this important reallocation of
spectrum, anticipated auction revenue from these 30 MHz of spectrum
would no longer be available. However, we believe substitute spectrum
that could provide potentially stronger auction receipts can be
identified to replace this anticipated revenue and could be used to
support a Berlin Model-type subsidy solution domestically. Motorola
greatly appreciates this Committee's continued policy thrust to find
ways to reinvest spectrum auction revenues in ways to advance
technology deployment and economic development, whether it is the
Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act that this body passed last year and
is under active consideration in the Senate, or the Chairman's proposal
to use auction revenue to help support the return of the analog TV
frequencies for other valuable services--including interoperability.
PROJECT 25 IS THE U.S. INTEROPERABILITY STANDARD FOR MISSION CRITICAL
OPERATIONS
In addition to spectrum access, standardized technology is
critically important to achieving interoperability. Fortunately, the
public safety community and multiple manufacturers have partnered to
develop a suite of standards for interoperability known as Project 25.
Public safety users adopted the P25 standard in order to implement
an open standard that promotes interoperability and system migration,
and enables more competitive procurements for digital radio systems and
radios--thereby eliminating dependence on one vendor for radios, even
after their systems have been installed.
P25 is actually a full suite of standards that, when built into
communications equipment, provides the basis for interoperable digital
radio voice and low-speed data communications among multiple public
safety users, departments and agencies. These standards were developed
under the auspices of, and are published by, the Telecommunications
Industry Association (TIA), and accredited by the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI). Public safety users led the development of
the standard and have the option to choose Project 25 products from
multiple vendors.
Unlike many other communications standards and technologies in the
broader wireless industry, the unique mission critical requirements of
public safety users drove the development of the P25 suite of
standards. High priority was given to public safety's operational and
tactical requirements. For reasons of cost effectiveness, the Project
25 standards permit a graceful migration path from aging analog to new
digital systems. These standards promote improved spectral efficiency,
and, as intended, allow for multi-vendor equipment offerings. Radios
that meet the P25 standards incorporate backward compatibility with
conventional analog systems. Project 25 radios communicate in analog
mode to analog radios, and either digital or analog modes with other
P25 radios.
Public safety users at all levels of government have embraced
Project 25. For example, P25 has received the endorsement of the
National Association of State Telecommunications Directors (NASTD), the
Association of Public Safety Communications Officials--International
(APCO), the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the
International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), the Major Cities
Chiefs (MCC), the National Sheriffs' Association (NSA), and the Major
County Sheriffs' Association (MCSA).
Project 25 has received broad support at the Federal level as well.
Based on public safety user recommendations, the FCC endorsed the
Project 25 suite of standards for voice and low-speed data
interoperability in the new nation-wide 700 MHz frequency band. Every
700 MHz radio must include Project 25 compatibility defined by this
TIA/ANSI standard, and the FCC set P25 as the required mode of
operation on the 700 MHz interoperability channels. The U.S. Department
of Defense mandated P25 for new land mobile radio systems. The
Department of Homeland Security has also endorsed P25 as the preferred
standard for digitally trunked radio systems as part of its Federal
grant guidance.
INTEROPERABILITY FUNDING SHOULD BE A NATIONAL PRIORITY
Full public safety communications interoperability within the
decade should be a national goal. This is an ambitious goal, but a very
worthy and doable one. Our nation has the necessary technology, the
standards and equipment. After spectrum, what is lacking are the
economic resources to acquire the equipment and deploy the systems,
particularly at the state and local level, and we will not achieve this
goal at the present pace of system upgrades. Instead, it will require a
commitment lead by determined champions. Mr. Chairman, I urge this
Committee to assume this important role.
There are several reasons why the Federal government must take the
lead. As we all know, homeland security is a Federal, State and local
responsibility, but national planning begins at the Federal level. This
is one of the reasons why the Congress and the President created the
new Department of Homeland Security.
While we cannot predict future terrorist attacks, we must prepare
for the real possibility and threat. Also, we do know that we will face
natural disasters such as hurricanes, tornados, wildfires, and
earthquakes and other threats such as hostage takings, hazardous
materials spills, and train wrecks. Interoperable public safety
communications are critical to effective response in all these cases.
The states face a staggering $80 billion aggregated deficit in
FY2004 alone, and this puts serious limits on their spending. As a
result, they cannot be expected to accomplish this goal without
substantial Federal support. Accordingly, we need a well-funded, multi-
year Federal program that guarantees that this communication problem is
fixed, once and for all.
Consequently, we must work aggressively to increase the funds
devoted to interoperable communications now and until the job is done.
Nothing should be allowed to delay or impede this funding effort. In FY
2004, approximately $4.4 billion was appropriated for Federal equipment
grant programs for State and local first responders.-- However,
wireless communications is only one of a large number of allowed uses
for these funds. Only about $85 million or 2% of the total was
designated in the legislation specifically for wireless communications
enhancements.-- We would ask for your help to increase the sums
designated for wireless communications in light of the broad consensus
that exists for improving the status of wireless communications
interoperability among government entities. If we are going to fix the
interoperability problem we must have a well-defined goal, a program to
achieve that goal, and a way of measuring programs that is visible to
the Congress.
We certainly cannot afford the human costs associated with delaying
achievement of full interoperability.
planning and practice are also essential for interoperability
Planning for interoperability at the operational level is also a
key element of improving interoperability. In situations where multiple
agencies and jurisdictions have planned operational procedures and
practiced that plan, interoperability has improved. For example,
multiple agencies can decide in advance how best to organize
communications groups to support the various responders at an incident
scene. Practice drills help public safety responders become familiar
with these procedures so they can be more easily implemented at an
actual emergency incident.
Planning and practice are supplements to, not substitutes for,
adequate spectrum, funding and technology. All elements of the
foundation need to be in place to improve public safety mission
critical interoperability and capability. While Congress has the
greatest influence over the interoperability building blocks of
spectrum and funding, public safety agencies are the focal point for
planning and practice.
Mr. Chairman, ensuring that our nation's public safety officials
have the tools they need to protect our citizens in the years ahead is
a sound investment for the entire country. We urge this Committee to
clear spectrum for public safety and to champion investments in
interoperability for all public safety radio users. Motorola pledges
its support to our public safety customers and to this Committee to
help you make this happen.
Thank you.
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
Mr. LeGrande?
STATEMENT OF ROBERT LEGRANDE
Mr. LeGrande. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of
the subcommittee. My name is Robert LeGrande, and I am a deputy
chief technology officer for the Office the Chief Technology
Officer, the central information technology and
telecommunications agency of the District of Columbia
government. I am responsible for wireless communications
infrastructure for the District government and a representative
of the Spectrum Coalition for Public Safety.
Over the past year and a half, I have led wireless public
safety voice and data communications programs for the District
of Columbia. In this role, I have partnered with executives,
communication decisionmakers and field personnel of the
Metropolitan Police Department and the Fire and EMS Department
to upgrade our public safety voice network and install public
safety broadband wireless networks.
During this process, I gained tremendous respect for the
work of our first responders and gained an even greater
appreciation of their communications needs. Today, I will
describe for you the efforts and the results of the voice
communication upgrades, which include local, regional and
Federal interoperability. I will also describe the Spectrum
Coalition for Public Safety's efforts to secure additional
megahertz of 700 spectrum which will enable Public Safety to
build and deploy broadband wireless networks throughout the
United States.
Please reference the diagram with the city configuration
here to my right. This diagram represents both the
accomplishments of a wireless voice and the vision of our
wireless broadband communications within the District. As
depicted in the diagram, our recently upgraded 10-site radio
network provides comprehensive in-building coverage, augmented
by 63 vehicle repeater systems to provide the highest level of
coverage available to first responders.
In addition, by using distributive antenna techniques, we
provided for the first time nearly 100 percent coverage in the
underground subway system. It is important to emphasize that
interoperability is accomplished individual by individual, and
I say this because we must first ensure that our first
responders can communicate clearly in all areas of the city
before we focus on communications outside or with other
agencies. Without sufficient radio coverage, intraoperability,
much less interoperability, is impossible, putting lives at
risk, even for day-to-day first responder events.
This wireless infrastructure will soon ride on the city's
fiber optic network. DC Net delivers the highest level of
redundancy and reliability for our first responders.
In order to achieve interoperability, we took several
steps. First we had to upgrade the coverage and capacity or our
preexisting non-interoperable local networks. We accomplished
this by creating a single dual-band radio network. Next, we had
to create interoperability on our intra-District public
communication systems and other first responders in the region.
Please reference the Rubik's Cube depiction of the DC-based
regional public safety interoperability diagram. When my team
first shared this diagram with me, I simply hated it, because
it was too complex and too hard to understand. Later, my
thought became, ``Exactly.'' Interoperability among many
jurisdictions is very complex and hard to understand. In this
diagram, we only note the interoperability methodologies for
the District of Columbia. Please understand, every agency that
is on the left of that diagram must have a similar Rubik's Cube
representing its interoperability methodologies. All of these
puzzles must be figured out for all the agencies represented in
order to achieve interoperability in the region. It is a very
complex process.
I am very pleased to report to this committee that we have
made substantial improvements in public safety voice
communications, and a detailed status of the DC
interoperability progress is provided in attachment 3 of my
testimony. These improvements would not have been possible
without Federal investment and the coordinated efforts of our
Regional Council of Governance, which is made up of first
responders, which is made up of first responders, leaders and
communications specialists from our surrounding region.
Additionally, and without them prompting me to say this,
without clear, unambiguous direction from our congressional
leaders, our mayor, city council, city administrator, deputy
mayor for public safety, police and fire chiefs and my boss,
Suzanne Peck, the chief technology officer of this city, we
would have simply failed that direction: Work together, get it
done now.
The interoperability effort considered several options. We
chose to create dual band 460 and 800 megahertz network because
we could use Motorola's existing SmartZone architecture to
incorporate all of the existing 800 megahertz radios and over
half of the 460 megahertz radios. This allowed neighboring
agencies using 800 megahertz radios to communicate with our 460
megahertz police radios through a central hub, and through
trunk radio technology delivered the maximum number of
individual communication paths for numerous simultaneous
incidents and talk groups.
As mentioned previously, our underground project, managed
jointly with WMATA and completed in March of this year,
remedied coverage problems for the District's fire and EMS
first responders in the WMATA subway system, upgrading the 800
megahertz underground distributive antenna system. District
firefighters now have seamless coverage for above and below
ground, and they can actually ride the train and achieve a high
level of voice quality. Together, these two projects gave the
District one of the best public safety wireless voice systems
in the Nation: Comprehensive coverage, 27 channels, a
regionally interoperable system providing clear voice
communication, encryption and other digital features.
During the requirements and design phase of our voice
programs, we realized that providing upgraded voice
communications for first responders is simply not enough. The
threats to our country and region are real an imminent.
Providing our first responders with city-wide remote
surveillance, chemical and biological and bomb detection
systems is critical to preventing attacks.
Additionally, early detection of attacks will speed our
response capabilities. We evaluated the use of commercially
available wireless networks, wideband wireless networks and
networks deployed at the 4.9 gigahertz spectrum, and none of
these met our requirements. Please note, individuals and
organizations that wish to do our country harm already have
city-wide broadband wireless capabilities in the District of
Columbia, North Carolina and San Diego. They can sign up
anonymously for Verizon or Nextel's services in these areas and
conduct real-time broadband intelligence gathering and video
surveillance; worse, attack coordination for far better
coordination capabilities than was used in Madrid, Spain. Our
first responders need better tools than the terrorists.
Recently, the District launched initiatives aimed at
delivering the next generation broadband wireless solutions in
the Nation's Capital, and potentially the Nation. We founded
the Spectrum Coalition for Public Safety for 30 states,
counties, cities, regions and public safety organizations. The
goals of this coalition is to pursue legislation that require
the FCC to reserve an additional 10 megahertz of radio spectrum
for wide area public safety broadband wireless uses, enabling
competitive, affordable technologies that meet first responder
requirements and facilitate nationwide network deployment.
Concurrently, the District is deploying on a pilot basis
the Nation's first citywide wireless broadband public safety
network to demonstrate these public safety applications. We
have one transceiver site working in the Capitol Hill area.
Please reference quickly the diagram to the left. These
pictures taken yesterday show a real-time video teleconference
between my team members located at the Capitol and MPD
headquarters.
The solution leverages Flarion Technologies OFDM Flash
Network and Motorola's newly developed greenhouse video
dispatch application. The full 10-site network operating under
an 18-month experimental license approved by the FCC is slated
for completion in the summer of this year and will provide
broadband wireless service throughout the District of Columbia.
I would like to stress that the continuing cooperation from DHS
and FCC is appreciated. We also enjoy our ongoing support of
our corporate partners, Flarion Technologies, Televate,
Motorola and SAIC.
In conclusion, please allow me to list some public safety
challenges that this committee can help address. First, of
course, is to provide the additional 10 megahertz of 700
spectrum for wide area broadband wireless public safety
applications. Second, to accelerate, as we have mentioned
earlier, the 700 megahertz spectrum clearing efforts. And last,
of course, is to accelerate the resolution of the Nextel
interference issue.
We look forward to the debate on the merits of our
legislation, which we have included in our testimony, and we
also welcome the opportunities to demonstrate this forward-
thinking solution to the members of this subcommittee. I thank
you for your support.
[The prepared statement of Robert Legrande follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert LeGrande, Deputy Chief Technology Officer,
District of Columbia Government
INTRODUCTION
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. My
name is Robert LeGrande. I am a Deputy Chief Technology Officer in the
Office the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO), the central information
technology and telecommunications agency of the District of Columbia
government. I am responsible for wireless communications infrastructure
for the District government, and a representative of the Spectrum
Coalition for Public Safety. I will describe for you how the District
now has a state-of-the-art public safety voice network, complete with
local, regional, and federal, interoperability and where we came from
to get to this state. I will also describe the Spectrum Coalition for
Public Safety's efforts to secure additional 700 MHz spectrum which
will enable Public Safety to build and deploy Broadband Wireless
Networks throughout the U.S. To reach this level of interoperability,
we had to take several steps. First, we had to upgrade the coverage and
capacity of our pre-existing non-interoperable local networks. Next, we
had to unify these separate networks. Finally, we had to create
interoperability between our intra-District public safety
communications systems and other first responders in the region. We
reached these goals by completing two major projects in September 2003
and March of this year. We have now embarked on the next step in fully
loaded public safety communications capabilities: creating the high-
speed broadband wireless data communications urgently needed by first
responders throughout the nation. (Please see Attachment I, Public
Safety Wireless Voice and Data Communications, for a graphic
representation of these initiatives.) I will describe each of these
efforts in grater detail, focusing particularly on the interoperability
challenges we faced and the solutions we developed.
PUBLIC SAFETY VOICE COMMUNICATIONS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PRE-
SEPTEMBER 2003
Before September 2003, the District's public safety radio
communications infrastructure included two networks: a four-site
Motorola SmartZone TM system operating at 800 MHz for Fire
and Emergency Management Services (FEMS) and Emergency Management
Agency (EMA) personnel, and a seven-site conventional analog system
operating at 460 MHz for the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). Both
networks had major deficiencies. The FEMS network had insufficient in-
building radio coverage in the core areas of the city--limitations
compounded by the complex architecture of buildings in Washington, DC.
(Despite these in-building coverage limitations, however, the network
compared favorably with other major city networks in on-street coverage
and quality.) There was no coverage in underground subway tunnels. The
police network provided reasonable coverage throughout the city, but it
was antiquated, failing, and in critical need of replacement. The
network was over 30 years old, spare parts were no longer available
from the original manufacturers, and some of them were no longer in
business. Both networks suffered from capacity limitations. The FEMS-
EMA 800 MHz network provided 16-radio channels, while the MPD UHF
network had only 13 conventional channels and regularly experienced
channel congestion intervals during the busiest hours. Our
infrastructure had little to no interoperability within the District,
due to the technical and operational disparity between the two
networks, including frequency band and radio technology.
PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO COMMUNICATIONS UPGRADE
To solve these problems, a team of Motorola and District of
Columbia engineers worked for six months to design an optimal unified
communications network that would address the interlocking deficiencies
of coverage, capacity, and interoperability in Washington, DC.
Coverage Analysis and Design
City management set an aggressive coverage goal of providing 100%
communications within the District while minimizing the need for radio-
to-radio communications (talk-around). We met this challenge in two
projects, an above-ground project completed in September 2003, and an
underground project completed in March 2004.
Our above-ground coverage analysis revealed that it was impractical
to cover the interiors of all buildings using traditional radio sites.
Instead, the analysis yielded a strategy to cover the majority (85%) of
exterior and interior locations by expanding antenna sites from four to
10 and explore alternatives for covering the remaining areas. These
alternatives were in--building distributed antenna systems and in-
vehicle repeater systems. Our team quickly discovered that in-building
systems were extremely expensive, created noise in the system that
would degrade overall coverage, and could easily fail during fires or
terrorist attacks. Vehicular repeater systems presented none of these
problems, although they could not provide the same transparency as in-
building systems, because they require first responders to change
channels on their radios from the city-wide network to the vehicular
repeater frequency. The city piloted a half-dozen vehicular repeater
systems and found that single or multiple units could solve coverage
problems in the densest of District buildings. Ultimately, the District
implemented vehicular repeater systems in 63 fire suppression vehicles
to ensure that a VRS would be available wherever needed to enhance in-
building communications.
The subway tunnel system presented a more daunting challenge. The
coverage gaps in tunnels were far too great to be addressed by VRS
systems. However, sufficient resources existed underground to support a
distributed antenna system. Therefore, the District, in partnership
with The Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) chose an
underground distributed antenna system at 800 MHz and permitted the MPD
to share WMATA's 490 MHz radio network that provides underground
coverage. Key advantages of this system were the scope of coverage and
transparency. Nearly 100% of all public underground areas were covered
by the underground project completion date in March 2004,--there
remains one lone corridor with fair voice quality will soon be upgraded
to excellent voice quality.
Together, our above-ground and underground coverage solutions
deliver nearly 100% coverage with only very limited need for radio-to-
radio communication and provide District of Columbia first responders
with citywide clear voice communication.
Interoperability and Capacity Analysis and Design
In addition to providing our first responders with the best
possible radio coverage, we needed to deliver the best interoperability
and capacity solution--the ability for District first responders to
communicate within their agencies and among the maximum number of
external agencies whenever necessary. Most of the District's
surrounding counties use Motorola SmartZone TM technology
1 at 800 MHz. As discussed above, before the upgrade, the
District had a seven site conventional analog system operating at 460
MHz for MPD and a four site Motorola SmartZone TM system
operating at 800 MHz for FEMS and other District agencies. The District
owned over 1,000 800 MHz radios compatible with the Motorola SmartZone
TM system, nearly 2,000 portable 460 MHz radios with
SmartZone TM capabilities and over 1,000 mobile 460 MHz
radios capable of communicating on a SmartZone network. These same
radios could be upgraded to support the public safety Project 25 radio
standard, but not while maintaining important features and allowing
dual-mode operations with SmartZone TM systems. Further, the
surrounding municipalities operated mobile and portable radios that
were programmed and configured to support SmartZone TM
networks, but not Project 25 networks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For purposes of simplicity, we use SmartZone TM
generically to describe both SmartNet TM and SmartZone
TM systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is important to note that these radios operate in a single band.
The 460 MHz radios operate in the 450--512 MHz range and the 800 MHz
radios operate in the 806-824 MHz range. Therefore, a 460 MHz radio can
not communicate directly on our neighboring county networks operating
in the 806-824 MHz range. To alleviate this problem, the District
aggressively sought to migrate MPD to 800 MHz. The team calculated a
net requirement of 27-35 trunked voice channels at 800 MHz to satisfy
aggregate demand for all District of Columbia public safety personnel.
The District had 16 channels at 800 MHz and 13 channels at 460 MHz at
the start of the analysis.
We considered several options for the migration:
Implement additional 800 MHz frequencies,
Use the public safety 700 MHz spectrum (24 MHz) and operate a 700/800
MHz network,
Split the 16 existing 25 kHz channels to create up to 32 channels,
and
Create a dual-band 460/800 MHz network.
I'll review each option briefly.
Implement Additional 800 MHz Frequencies
To satisfy the aggregate demand, the District would need an
additional 12 frequencies in the 800 Mhz band. Unfortunately, given the
presence of our neighboring jurisdictions and Nextel in this band, we
could not identify enough 800 MHz channels to meet our needs. We
approached Nextel and engaged vendors to investigate short-spacing
channels, both without success. Therefore, we had to discard this
option.
Use the Public Safety 700 MHz spectrum (24 MHz) and Operate a 700/800
MHz Network
The additional channels in the 24 MHz of radio spectrum in the 700
MHz band presented some compelling opportunities. First, there were
cost-effective multi-band radios on the market that could operate in
both 700 and 800 MHz.2 Second, there was considerable
capacity in that band. Third, the technology used in the 700 MHz band,
Project 25, was in the process of standardization, and therefore,
presented an opportunity for expanded vendors and products. However,
given the majority of users and systems operating SmartZone systems,
our network needed to provide SmartZone service to agencies supporting
District first responders within the city. Unfortunately, no
integrated, dual-mode (P25 and SmartZone) network existed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ However, the entire police department would need new 800/700
radios, and FEMS might need new radios as well (their radios supported
only 800 MHz). The result would be between 5,000 and 7,000 new 800/700
MHz radios costing $7-13 million more than the cost of upgrades to 460
MHz radios and new digital-capable 460 MHz radios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, the availability of the 700 MHz band was limited by the
presence of TV broadcasters in our region. Therefore, we had to
conclude that this option not feasible and halted efforts to build a
Project 25-compatible network.
Split Existing 800 MHz Channels to Create up to 32 Total Channels
To implement this solution, a vendor would have to enable the use
of adjacent channels at 12.5 kHz (instead of the existing 25 kHz)
without interfering among the channels. Given the preponderance of
SmartZone TM systems in the region, we first explored
creating a SmartZone system that could utilize the half-spaced
channels. Unfortunately, this option proved infeasible because the
SmartZone system could not tune to those interspaced frequencies.
Create a Dual-Band 460/800 MHz Network
The dual band option would provide city-wide service from all sites
at both bands and integrate them at a central hub. Analysis revealed
that this option was not only feasible, but highly advantageous. It
relied on existing frequencies licensed to the District of Columbia,
and therefore presented limited risk of interference and licensing
issues with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Motorola's
existing SmartZone architecture could create a zone at 460 MHz and 800
MHz. This solution could incorporate all of the existing 800 MHz radios
and over half of the MPD radios. It also allowed adjacent agencies
using 800 MHz radios to communicate with MPD radios at 460 MHz through
the central hub. Further, by incorporating trunked radio technology,
this solution delivered the maximum number of individual communications
paths for simultaneous incidents. For example, this solution allows our
first responders to communicate with Prince George's County Police
while simultaneously maintaining a separate communications channel with
United States Park Police but not consume resources when those channels
were not needed. In addition, because WMATA uses a Motorola SmartZone
network operating at 490 MHz, MPD could gain direct interoperability
with WMATA and MPD will gain coverage within the tunnel system in July
2004. The dual-band option could also support a total of 27 trunked
voice channels, providing adequate capacity for the first time.
The main disadvantage of this option was lack of interoperability
for MPD officers operating outside the coverage area of our District of
Columbia 460 MHz network. However, the disadvantage proves relatively
insignificant. MPD officers travel outside our coverage area
infrequently, as most mutual support situations (e.g., July 4th,
Presidential Inaugurations, marches, and demonstrations) bring officers
from neighboring municipalities into the District.
Upgrade Implementation
We implemented the coverage, interoperability, and capacity
solutions I've just described on a fast track (April 2002-March 2004,
less than two years from conception to completion) and at a relatively
reasonable total cost of $42 million ($36 million in federal emergency
preparedness funds, $2.5 million in grants, and $3.45 million in
District funds). The results, as I've indicated, were overwhelmingly
successful: we now have a full-coverage, 27 trunked voice channels,
regionally interoperable system providing clear voice communication,
encryption, and other digital features for all our first responders.
Of course, we faced numerous challenges along the way. We overcame
these challenges through clear, unified direction and support from our
Mayor, City Council, Deputy Mayor for Public Safety, Chiefs of Police
and FEMS, Chief Technology Officer, and police and fire unions. In
addition, we were fortunate in having strong, knowledgeable, and driven
corporate partners, Motorola, Inc. and Televate, LLC.
RADIO INTEROPERABILITY WITHIN THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION/COUNCIL OF
GOVERNMENTS
The National Capital Region (NCR) consists of in two states
(Virginia and Maryland) and the District of Columbia. Voice radio
interoperability for public safety entities in this region is
essential. Equally essential for the District is interoperable
communications with multiple critical federal agencies including the
FBI, Secret Service, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF),
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the State Department, and
others. There are also over 40 federal law enforcement agencies
operating in the city, including Capital Police, Park Police, Mint
Police and many others, with whom MPD dispatch and police officers must
have direct communications. Finally, it is important that the District
maintain communications within the WMATA subway tunnels and directly
with police and airport authorities at the Reagan National Airport.
As illustrated in Attachment II (Regional Public Safety Wireless
Communications Interoperability), establishing voice radio
interoperability with this wide array of agencies, many of which are
operating multiple radio technologies in different regions of the radio
spectrum, including VHF, UHF and 800 MHz, is a major technical,
operational and administrative challenge. The interoperability cube in
the attachment depicts the levels of interoperability planned by the
region. The region continues to implement solutions to further enhance
and simplify radio communications. More funding for technical and
operational standards development and training, along with the
installation of permanent, dedicated ``interoperability'' managers and
technicians is required to ensure that these solutions remain readily
available on demand in the community.
In order to simplify this complex radio communications effort,
interoperability has been engineered into three levels.
Level One Interoperability: Spare incident radios (radio cache)
operating on common interoperable channels, including mutual aid, are
made available to local and national responders who do not have
programmed UHF and 800 MHz trunked radios or conventional radios on
regional mutual aid channels. The simplest, but not necessarily the
most effective, means to achieve interoperability is to distribute on-
location radios to incident commanders and responders. Existing radio
caches and excess spare radio inventories within the District and NCR/
COG are distributed as appropriate. In response to an identified
shortage of spare radios in the NCR, the federal government provided a
grant in FY 2004 to increase the availability of 800 MHz trunked
radios. A 1,000 unit COG Radio Cache will be available beginning in
mid-summer of 2004, just weeks away.
Level Two Interoperability: In order to achieve a higher level of
interoperability within the NCR between separate public safety
portable/mobile radios and telephone system exchanges, regional
partners have implemented a ``radio interface module'' manufactured by
JPS Communications, the ACU-1000. With assistance from the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) wireless division, SAFECOM, this technology
has been successfully implemented in most of the jurisdictions and
agencies (local, state and federal) in the region. The ACU-1000 device
provides communication ``patching'' between agencies by integrating
agency radios into an interface module. Radio patching allows
dispatchers to manually facilitate radio communications between users
of different technologies and frequencies. The District's ACU-1000 unit
encompasses 21 distinct radios, supporting all local fire and police
agencies and critical federal agencies.
Radio patching through the ACU-1000 or similar devices, while
effective in enhancing interoperability, has various limitations and
presents operational challenges. Agency radios must be integrated,
maintained and programmed to reflect the latest radio user template.
Since templates change almost annually for most public safety radio
users, it is difficult to maintain up-to-date radios in the device. The
technology also entails complicated set-up protocols, requires user
training, and lacks standardized operational procedures. Because these
devices are not daily equipment, end users can become ``rusty'' and
function improperly. Because the networks are not integrated, this is
the only means to connect multiple networks today.
Level Three Interoperability: The most effective route to
interoperability for co-located work groups is to install directly
compatible, same-technology systems and radios (trunked or
conventional). Trunked networks, common in the NCR, must be programmed
with common trunked system and radio IDs and interoperable talkgroups.
Most of the fire department users in the region, except for Prince
George's County in Maryland, have direct access to each other's 800 MHz
trunked radio networks. When first responders in the region enter the
city to assist the District's fire department, they can communicate on
the District's radio network or vice versa. All users are operating on
a common radio network using the same radio technology.
The new MPD radio network, while not at 800 MHz where surrounding
county police reside, was designed to be fully compatible with local
law enforcement radio networks through the use of a Motorola SmartZone
radio network switch. The District is able to provide local law
enforcement users access to the District 800 MHz trunked network, which
supports direct communications with MPD radio users on their UHF
network.
An alternative to direct radio network compatibility is to
establish mutual aid channels for non-standard network users with call-
in capability to a dispatch console. The District has implemented a
conventional VHF channel that facilitates direct access for several
federal agencies to the District's citywide MPD dispatcher. A federal
user with this channel programmed into his/her radio can direct call
the MPD dispatcher to request MPD support and/or communication with
individual MPD officers. The District is now working with SAFECOM to
enhance this mutual aid network, expand the number of usable channels
to three, and extend coverage throughout the NCR. This approach will
support regional interoperability between the District and federal user
agencies and enhance interoperability among federal agencies and
between federal users and surrounding NCR first responders. While not a
perfect interoperability solution, the mutual-aid-channel design will
provide near-term mobile communications between responder agencies.
Attachment III (DC-Regional PS Voice Interoperability Status)
presents a tabular view of current and in progress interoperability
within the NCR. This summary reflects the work of hundreds of public
safety officials, first responders and technologists, who, with the
support of Congress, dedicate their energy and lives to ensuring
reliable and functional radio communications within the region and
beyond. However, while our success to date is encouraging, we have more
work to do to achieve simple, on demand regional and federal
interoperability within the region. Public safety radios must be
programmed directly to change talkgroups or frequencies. Therefore,
while an interoperable network infrastructure exists, a considerable
amount of work still remains to reprogram thousands of radios and train
first responders how to use the new capabilities. Additionally, as
discussed below, the Washington, DC NRC does not have interoperability
with key Department of Defense agencies that is vital to higher-level
emergency response.
INTEROPERABILITY BETWEEN THE DISTRICT AND DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
AGENCIES
District officials and technologists have recently begun
discussions with various Department of Defense (DoD) agencies to
analyze the current state of interoperability between the parties.
While the investigation is still in its infancy, hampered by lack of
dedicated staff and capital resources, the results are clear:
interoperability between NCR first responders and critical DoD agencies
is insufficient and must be increased now to ensure that the affected
agencies can meet near-term emergency communications requirements. The
recommendations agreed upon between the DoD and NCR include
implementing technical and operational solutions that are available
today and expanding and institutionalizing the dialogue between the
affected agencies to ensure that planned radio network changes and
upgrades are regularly addressed and incorporated into the
interoperability operations. It is important to note, however, that the
District is already providing technical support to the Washington
National Guard and has designed interoperability into a radio network
enhancement that the Guard is now undertaking.
WIRELESS BROADBAND DATA NEEDS
The Challenge of High-speed Wireless Data Communication
The District's current wireless data communications capabilities
rely on commercial cellular offerings at low speed (19.2 kbps). This
speed provides extremely limited capabilities, largely restricted to
text transmission. It also places public safety at risk from commercial
networks that are not built to withstand long periods without power
(e.g., hurricanes and winter storms) and lack enough redundancy to
maintain connectivity between transceiver sites and central hubs.
Additionally, the commercial technology upon which the District's
public safety communications relies will be dismantled in 2005 forcing
the District, and all such users nationally, to migrate to an
alternative wireless transport technology.
Adequate response to emergencies ranging from multiple-alarm
building fires to chemical, biological and other terrorist attacks
requires immediate and rapid communications among multiple first-
responders including fire, police, and emergency medical services.
Currently, first-responders must rely on voice communications to
receive time-sensitive information about an emergency incident.
Information often comes too late or is lost altogether. Broadband
wireless networks can dramatically improve public safety communications
and operations nationally by providing full-motion, high-resolution
video and other bandwidth-intensive monitoring tools to multiple first
responders. These tools will allow sharing of time-critical information
needed to respond more effectively to both routine and catastrophic
events.
The demand on a wireless broadband network from one user can range
from low-speed web browsing at 50-200 kilobits per second (kbps) to
multiple real-time streaming video images transmitted at 1.2 megabits
per second (Mbps). The District has demonstrated that its aggregate
citywide demand on a network can exceed 50 Mbps and that usage can be
concentrated in one area to require 10 Mbps per transmission site.
Unfortunately, current public safety spectrum allocations at 700 MHz
and 4.9 GHz for wireless data do not meet these needs, as data speeds
do not meet individual and aggregate demand levels, or service is
limited geographically and first responders must travel to hotspots to
secure information--potentially losing critical life-saving time.
Attachment IV (Public Safety Spectrum Overview 1 and 2) provides an
analysis of the options available to public safety to satisfy high-
speed wireless data needs.
At the root of the problem are radio propagation and channel
bandwidth. The former results in signal degradation as the first
responder travels farther from the transmission site (or when walls or
other obstructions lie between the two endpoints). The latter results
in decreased channel rates.
The propagation characteristics of radio frequency waves at 4.9 GHz
and radio frequency waves at 700 MHz are so different that they result
in extremely high deployment costs and operational costs for 4.9 GHz
systems. In particular, as the transmitted frequency rises, the RF wave
propagation transmission losses increase, thus reducing the coverage
area of a base station. Therefore, assuming the deployment of the same
technology, complete coverage of a city like Washington, DC would
require significantly more sites at 4.9 GHz rather than at 700 MHz.
For instance, if we assume free space propagation conditions, all
things besides the frequency considered being equal, the range of a 4.9
GHz base station would be seven times smaller than the range of a 700
MHz station.3 Consequently, to provide citywide coverage
would require almost 50 times the number of antenna sites at 4.9 GHz as
at 700 MHz. The District of Columbia has estimated that about 420 sites
would be needed to provide comprehensive coverage throughout the city
at 4.9 GHz instead of the 10 required at 700 MHz, leading to
significant deployment costs and prohibitive operational costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The free space propagation at 1 km is 89.3 dB at 700 MHz, and
106.2 dB at 4.9 GHz. Those 17 dB propagation difference would result in
a coverage radius ratio of 7 (coverage area ratio of 49), between the
two frequency bands. Therefore obtaining the same services provided by
the 10 sites covering the city at 700 MHz today would require more than
400 sites at 4.9 GHz.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, these comparisons are optimistic, as they are based on a
free-space propagation assumption. In fact, the reality of the mobile
propagation environment is worse, and actually worsens for higher
frequencies. As described in a white paper published by TROPOS networks
4 natural or man-made obstacles generate propagation losses
in addition to the free space propagation loss. In the referenced paper
the authors compare 2.4 GHz to 4.9 GHz propagation characteristics.
However, for the reasons explained above (propagation performance
worsens as the frequency increases), the numbers in this paper would
have to be considered lower bounds of propagation differences between
700 MHz and 4.9 GHz.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See http://www.troposnetworks.com/pdf/Spectrum_Whitepaper.pdf
for further details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those significant additional signal losses at the higher
frequencies suggest that 50 to 100 times more sites would be needed for
wireless coverage at 4.9 GHz to match coverage at 700 MHz. Thus, the
4.9 GHz spectrum is fundamentally limited in reach and requires
numerous repeaters to reach even marginal distances. It is actually
best suited to line-of-sight propagation, e.g. rooftop-to-rooftop
communications, mesh-type networks where users can create a daisy chain
for end-to-end communications, or short-distance communications around
a fixed location (hot-spots).
Most public safety wireless data applications are expected to reach
or support first responders wherever they are located in the District,
whether driving car in a park or working in buildings. The 700 MHz band
is the best-suited spectrum to support those applications.
Channel Bandwidth and Numbers of Channels
The maximum channel bandwidth in the existing 700 MHz allocation to
public safety is 150 kHz. Technologies such as the standardized TIA-902
Scalable Adaptive Modulation have been tailored to this channel
bandwidth and offer speeds up to 460 kbps. Unfortunately, this
bandwidth does not support multiple video streams for an individual
user. Furthermore, the 12 MHz 5 of radio spectrum set aside
for wideband data must be shared among three states and over a dozen
public safety agencies. Consequently, the District expects no more than
three or four paired channels offering peak citywide throughput of 1.4
to 1.9 Mbps--far less than projected citywide demand and much less than
aggregate demand for one transmission site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ This represents the paired amount of spectrum for frequency
duplexed operation. Of this 12 MHz, 5.4 MHz is reserved for future
applications by the FCC. The total number of 150 kHz paired channels is
40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requirements for Broadband Wireless Data for First Responders
First responders need video, Geographical Information Systems
(GIS), high-resolution still images, and other broadband data wherever
their work takes them. On the highways, high-resolution images must be
delivered as soon as possible. At the farthest points of any service
area, first responders need to send and receive video for appropriate
support. Further, first responders need broadband data delivered deep
inside buildings on portable handheld devices, just as voice signals
are now delivered by our new voice network. Table-1 below outlines the
multiple requirements for broadband wireless data for first responders:
Table 1: Summary of Technical Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Requirements
User Throughput........................... Designed to 80% load
Downlink (kbps)......................... 1,500
Uplink (kbps)........................... 500
Scalability............................... High, Minimal coordination
burden when increasing
capacity.
Mobility.................................. Vehicular (>80 mph)
Coverage.................................. Wide area (95% of Outdoor
Area)
Connectivity.............................. All IP addressable.
Cost...................................... Comparable with existing
cellular solutions.
Terminals................................. Supports standard device
interfaces and offers low
power consumption and small
form factor options.
Large-Scale Incident Throughput
Requirements
Aggregate Demand (Entire District)........
Downlink (kbps)......................... 56,100
Uplink (kbps)........................... 20,080
Throughput Concentration.................. 70% of major incident
traffic in 20% of the city
geography
Per Site Throughput (demand).............. 10 sites with the above
throughput concentration
Downlink (kbps)......................... 7,860
Uplink (kbps)........................... 2,951
Per Site Throughput (with margin)......... Designed to 80% load
Downlink (kbps)......................... 10,000
Uplink (kbps)........................... 3,700
Net Capacity (Entire District)............
Downlink (kbps)......................... 100,000
Uplink (kbps)........................... 37,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL COALITION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY BROADBAND SPECTRUM
Recognizing that our wireless high-speed broadband data needs were
the same as those of the rest of the nation, the District of Columbia
founded the Spectrum Coalition for Public Safety (see Attachment V,
Spectrum Coalition Fact Sheet). Thirty States, counties, cities,
regions and public safety organizations quickly joined the Coalition.
The public safety communications organizations documented their support
in the attached letter (Attachment VI, Public Safety Organization
Support for New Broadband Spectrum Allocation). The Coalition's
objectives are to pursue legislation that would require the FCC to
reserve 10 MHz of radio spectrum for wide area public safety broadband
wireless uses; to enable competitive, affordable technologies that meet
first-response requirements; and to facilitate nationwide network
deployment. We have developed draft legislation (Attachment VII, First
Responders Enhancement Act (FREA)) that calls for the spectrum
allocation changes and have briefed more than 35 House and Senate
member offices on our goals.
Design and Installation of Pilot Network
The urgent needs of first responders in the District of Columbia
required more than pursuing legislation to facilitate network
deployment. Our need is real and immediate. With the support of our
public safety, technology, legislative, and executive leaders and our
corporate partners--Motorola, Inc. and Flarion Technologies, Inc.--we
obtained an experimental license from the FCC and are now installing
the nation's first high-speed broadband wide-area wireless network for
public safety. One additional partner, SAIC, is assisting us with
application analysis. We have one live transceiver site and can
transmit broadband radio signals throughout the Capitol Hill area. In
late summer of 2004 we will complete installation of all 10 transceiver
sites in the network and will provide broadband radio coverage
throughout the District of Columbia. We will use the pilot to refine
our system requirements for usability, scalability, reliability, and
security. The applications planned for testing on the network include
remote chemical and biological agent detection, video surveillance;
helicopter video support, bomb squad video support, GIS applications,
and EMS remote doctor support. This pilot network, with the full 10 MHZ
allocation, will meet the requirements outlined in Table 1.
CONCLUSION
As the nation's capital, the District of Columbia faces unique and
unusual public safety communications challenges. We have met the first
level of these challenges by upgrading our public safety voice network
to one of the best in the nation. We look forward to complementing that
network with the nation's first citywide wireless broadband public
safety network, and we hope that our leadership of the Spectrum
Coalition will enable other jurisdictions to have the same public
safety tools in the near future. We appreciate the support that the
Coalition has received in both the Senate and House of Representatives
and look forward to continuing our dialogue with the nation's leaders
on the Coalition's critical objectives.
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
Mr. Muleta? Welcome back.
STATEMENT OF JOHN B. MULETA
Mr. Muleta. Thank you. Good afternoon Chairman Upton,
Ranking Member Markey and other members of the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and the Internet. I want to thank you for
this opportunity to appear before you on behalf of the FCC to
discuss our work in facilitating interoperability between the
Nation's 40,000 public safety communications systems.
Under the leadership of Chairman Powell, the commission has
intensified its efforts in this area and designated homeland
security and public safety issues one of the commission's six
core strategic objectives. As September 11th vividly
demonstrated, the ability of public safety systems to
communicate seamlessly at incident sites with minimal onsite
coordination is critical to saving lives and property. The FCC
is therefore committed to use all of its resources to promote
and enhance the interoperability of the thousands of public
safety systems that make up a critical part of our Nation's
homeland security network.
Interoperability requires focus on more than spectrum,
technology and equipment issues. It also requires focus on the
organizational and personnel coordination and communication
that is necessary to make it available in the time of our
greatest need. For its part, the commission directs its efforts
to, No. 1, providing additional spectrum for public safety
systems; two, nurturing technological developments that enhance
interoperability; and, three, providing its expertise and input
for interagency efforts such as SAFECOM to improve our homeland
security.
To date, specific FCC efforts have included designating
blocks of spectrum between 100 and 900 megahertz for
interoperability and emergency services; adopting regional
planning as an alternative approach for spectrum licensing and
management to drive coordination and communication, promoting
and sharing of radio spectrum facilities, and adopting
recommendations set by the Public Safety National Coordination
Committee, exploring the potential of new technologies such as
cognitive radios to enhance interoperability, and, finally,
developing stronger day-to-day working relationship with
SAFECOM and other critical organizations that help drive
interoperability.
It is important to note that despite all of our efforts,
there are limitations to what the FCC can do. The FCC is only
one stakeholder in the process, and many of the challenges to
interoperability exist because disparate governmental
interests, local, State, and Federal, individually operate
portions of our national public safety system. Each of these
interests has different capabilities in terms of funding and
technological sophistication, making it difficult to develop
and deploy interoperability strategies uniformly throughout the
country. Regardless of these problems, we at the FCC continue
to advance policies that enable all of the stakeholders to do
their best in maintaining a strong and viable national public
safety system.
Turning to spectrum for public safety, the commission has
currently designated throughout the country approximately 97
megahertz of spectrum from 10 different bands for public safety
use. Public safety entities also actively use spectrum-based
services in other spectrum bands.
For example, under the ultra-wideband rules, the ground
penetrating radars and imaging systems enable public safety
users to detect the location or movement of people behind or
within walls or other structures, an important and potentially
lifesaving tool. Moreover, the available priority access
services on some commercial wireless networks gives certain
emergency personnel greater ability to access commercial,
cellular and personal communication services in times of
crises.
Looking at more recent public safety spectrum allocations,
in the last few years, the commission has made two allocations
that illustrate the importance placed on assuring that public
safety entities have the sufficient spectrum to carry out their
critical missions. First, consistent with the Balanced Budget
Act of 1997, the FCC identified and allocated 24 megahertz of
spectrum in the 700 megahertz band for public safety used, as
has been noted by many folks today.
As part of this proceeding, the FCC dedicated 2.6 megahertz
of this spectrum for interoperability purposes. Given the
central role that states play managing emergency
communications, the FCC also concluded that the states are best
suited for administrative interoperability spectrum and that
State level administration will promote safety of lives,
property through seamless coordinated communications on
interoperability spectrum.
The FCC also designated 50 megahertz of spectrum at 4.9
gigahertz for public safety users in the response to requests
from the public safety community for additional spectrum for
broadband data communications. The 4.9 gigahertz band will also
foster interoperability in two ways: One, by providing a
regulatory framework where traditional public safety entities
can license it on a shared basis and where they can also pursue
strategic partnership with other non-public safety actors as
needed for the completion of their mission.
In addition to using its resources to identify additional
spectrum, the FCC has also provided for, No. 1, innovative
licensing methods; two, creating planning methods that
encourage better coordination and communication; and, No. 3,
promoted new technologies. Foremost in this area, the
commission adopted the regional planning approach to spectrum
management as an alternative to the traditional long-held
belief in first-in-the-door approach to spectrum licensing and
management in the public safety context.
In order to promote interoperability, the commission also
permits 2 types of spectrum sharing. First, the FCC's rules
specifically provide for shared use of radio stations where
licensees may share facilities on a non-profit, cost-shared
basis with other public safety organizations and end users. In
July of 2000, the commission expanded this sharing provision.
This rule also allows Federal Government entities to share
these facilities as end users.
A second type of sharing is unique to the 700 megahertz
public safety spectrum. In this band, State and local public
safety licensees may construct and operate joint facilities
with the Federal Government. The commission took this action to
encourage partnership of FCC-licensed State or local government
entities with Federal entities in order to promote
interoperability and more efficient use of the spectrum.
To promote the new technologies, the FCC chartered the
Public Safety National Coordination Committee, NCC, which
operated as a Federal advisory committee between 1999 and 2003.
The NCC recommended technical and operational standards to
assure interoperability in the 700 megahertz public safety
band. The NCC worked with the Telecommunications Industry
Association, a credited standard developer, to develop
interoperability technical standards that are open and non-
proprietary.
Moving on to the coordination issue, the FCC recognizes
interagency coordination as an essential factor in developing
effective interoperability. To that end, my staff and other
staff of the FCC routinely confers with critical organizations,
including APCO, the National Public Safety Telecommunications
Council, the International Association of Fire Chiefs and
International Association of Chiefs of Police.
Moreover, my staff has been working closely with the
Department of Homeland Security's SAFECOM. The FCC and SAFECOM
share the common goal of improving public safety communications
interoperability. We are continuing to work on our
collaborative efforts to develop a strong working relationship,
both formally and informally.
For example, the FCC is an active member of SAFECOM's
Advisory Group. In addition, FCC staff meets routinely with
staff from SAFECOM, including on several occasions where
information was exchanged and we received briefings. Most
recently, we did this on a March 11 presentation to SAFECOM's
Executive Committee on matters pending before the commission.
The FCC has also attended and participated in several events
hosted by SAFECOM, including its 2003 Summit on Interoperable
Communications for Public Safety and the 2004 Public Safety
Communications Interoperability Conference.
Moreover, on a personal level, Dr. Boyd and I have
established direct lines of communication between us to promote
and ensure effective coordination regarding homeland security
and public safety communications initiatives.
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify in
front of you on this important issue affecting our homeland
security, and I will gladly answer any questions you might
have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of John B. Muleta follows:]
Prepared Statement of John B. Muleta, Chief, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission
INTRODUCTION
Good afternoon Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Markey and other
Members of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.
Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you on behalf of the
Federal Communications Commission to discuss our work in facilitating
interoperability between the nation's public safety communications
systems.
Currently, there are more than 40,000 spectrum licenses designated
for public safety systems under the Communications Act. The Commission
has the unique role of providing spectrum for state and local
governments to use as part of these systems. As a result, the
Commission has had a long-standing commitment to the protection and
enhancement of public safety communications systems. Under the
leadership of Chairman Michael K. Powell, the Commission has
intensified its efforts in this area and designated homeland security
and public safety issues one of the Commission's six core strategic
objectives. As September 11, 2001 demonstrated, the ability of public
safety systems to communicate seamlessly at incident sites with minimal
on-site coordination is critical to saving lives and property. The FCC
is therefore committed to use all of its resources to promote and
enhance the interoperability of the thousands of public safety systems
that make up a critical part of our nation's homeland security network.
The Commission's experience indicates that a holistic approach is
the best method for fostering interoperability. Achieving
interoperability requires an emphasis on more than spectrum, technology
and equipment issues--it also requires a focus on the organizational
and personnel coordination and communication necessary to make
interoperability available in times of greatest need. For its part, the
Commission directs its efforts toward providing additional spectrum for
public safety systems, nurturing technological developments enhancing
interoperability and providing its expertise and input for interagency
efforts such as SAFECOM.
There are limitations, however, to what the FCC can do. The
Commission is only one stakeholder in the process and many of the
challenges facing interoperability are a result of the disparate
governmental interests--local, state, and federal--that individually
operate portions of our national public safety system. Each of these
interests has different capabilities in terms of funding and
technological sophistication, making it difficult to develop and deploy
interoperability strategies uniformly throughout the country.
Regardless of these problems, we at the FCC continue to advance
policies that enable all of the stakeholders to do their best in
maintaining a strong and viable national public safety system.
COMMISSION RESOURCES
The FCC works in an integrated and flexible fashion to assign
spectrum for public safety purposes. The Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau (WTB) and the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) share
significant responsibility for intra-agency projects related to
interoperability technology and policy development. The Commission also
maintains a Homeland Security Policy Council (HSPC) and created the
Office of Homeland Security within the Enforcement Bureau to facilitate
intergovernmental communications on homeland security issues.
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
WTB underwent a reorganization this past year that created the
Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure Division (PS&CID). PS&CID now
has a clear focus--its job is to administer the licensing rules for
public safety radio networks and the related radio networks of critical
infrastructure industries such as the nation's utilities. The division
also has the responsibility of promulgating rules that require wireless
carriers to deploy E911 systems throughout the country for the benefit
and use of over 160 million cell phone subscribers--another critical
element of the nation's homeland security system. The division's
routine day-to-day contact with public safety licensees, their vendors
and other stakeholders allows it to closely monitor industry trends and
needs. In 2003, WTB processed more than 529,000 public safety and other
private and mobile applications, including applications for new
licenses, license modifications and renewals, waivers, and requests for
special temporary authority.
Office of Engineering and Technology
In addition to its responsibility for spectrum allocations, OET
routinely assesses vulnerabilities in communications networks and
equipment and makes recommendations for facilitating improvements to
network security, reliability and integrity. OET also evaluates new
technologies and makes recommendations to the Commission for rule
changes which would enable their use to improve the communications
capability of the nation's public safety community. OET is the agency's
principal point of contact with the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA) and in this role works with NTIA on
spectrum issues that affect both non-Federal and Federal government
spectrum users, including state, local and federal first responders.
Homeland Security Policy Council and Office of Homeland Security
The FCC's Homeland Security Policy Council (HSPC), created in
November, 2001 and composed of senior managers of the Agency's policy
bureaus and offices, and the Office of Homeland Security (OHS) assist
the Commission in implementing the Homeland Security Action Plan. Among
the directives of the Action Plan is to ensure that public safety,
public health, and other emergency and defense personnel have effective
communications services available to them as needed.
Equally as important, HSPC and OHS ensure coordination with other
federal, state, and local entities that are involved with Homeland
Security. For example, as a partner with the Department of Homeland
Security, the FCC has promoted registration of states and localities in
the Telecommunications Service Priority and the Wireless Priority
Access Service programs. These programs provide wireline and wireless
telephone dial tone to public safety entities on a priority basis
during and following a disaster. HSPC members are also working with
disabilities rights organizations to identify and resolve
communications issues that have an impact on that community during
national emergencies.
In addition, HSPC and OHS work closely to support the Network
Reliability and Interoperability Council (NRIC VII) and Media Security
and Reliability Council (MSRC), two of the FCC's federal advisory
committees. Through NRIC VII, communications industry leaders provide
recommendations and best practices to the FCC focused on assuring
optimal reliability and interoperability of wireless, wireline,
satellite, paging, Internet and cable public communications networks
and the rapid restoration of such services following a major
disruption. MSRC does much the same with the goal of achieving optimal
reliability, robustness and security of broadcast and multi-channel
video programming distribution facilities. Public safety
representatives are part of this effort since, during emergencies, TV
and radio are sources of information for citizens.
SPECTRUM FOR PUBLIC SAFETY
The Commission currently has designated throughout the country
approximately 97 MHz of spectrum from ten different bands for public
safety use. Public safety entities also actively use spectrum-based
services in other spectrum bands. For example, under the ultra-wideband
rules, ground penetrating radars and imaging systems enable public
safety users to detect the location or movement of people behind or
within walls or other structures, an important and potentially
lifesaving tool. In addition, various frequencies are available from 2
to 25 MHz for emergency communications.
The Commission also grants licenses to public safety entities for
non-public safety spectrum to promote effective and efficient public
safety communications. Such actions have allowed public safety entities
to implement state-of-the-art communications systems and/or increase
interoperability. Also, many public safety entities use commercial
wireless communications to supplement their other non-emergency
communications. Finally, the availability of Priority Access Service
(PAS) on some commercial wireless networks gives certain emergency
personnel greater ability to access commercial cellular and Personal
Communications Service (PCS) systems in times of crisis.
Spectrum Dedicated for Public Safety Interoperability
The Commission has designated certain channels in the public safety
bands for public safety interoperability. A public safety entity may
use these designated frequencies only if it uses equipment that permits
inter-system interoperability. The frequencies that have these so-
called ``use designations'' include 2.6 MHz of the 700 MHz band, 5
channels in the 800 MHz band, 5 channels in the 150 MHz band (VHF
Band), and 4 channels in the 450 MHz band (UHF Band).
Starting on January 1, 2005, the Commission will require newly
certified public safety mobile radio units to have the capacity to
transmit and receive on the nationwide public safety interoperability
calling channel in the UHF and VHF bands in which it is operating.
Also, in the case of certain inland coastal areas, known as VHF Public
Coast areas (VPCs), the Commission has designated several additional
channels in the VHF band to be used exclusively for interoperable
communications.
Recent Public Safety Spectrum Allocations
In the last few years, the Commission has made two allocations that
illustrate the importance placed on ensuring that public safety
entities have sufficient spectrum to carry out their critical missions.
First, consistent with the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the Commission
identified and allocated 24 MHz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band for
public safety use. Second, the Commission made available for public
safety use 50 MHz of spectrum at 4.9 GHz.
To better facilitate use of the 700 MHz public safety spectrum, the
Commission adopted special rules and policies. It crafted provisions
both to address the continuing interoperability issues among various
public safety systems and to provide flexibility to accommodate a wide
variety of innovative uses. In particular, the Commission dedicated 2.6
MHz of this spectrum for interoperability purposes. Given the central
role that states provide in managing emergency communications, the
Commission concluded that states are well-suited for administering the
interoperability spectrum and that state-level administration would
promote safety of life and property through seamless, coordinated
communications on the interoperability spectrum.
The FCC's rules provide that the states may manage interoperability
channels in two ways: (1) they may establish a State Interoperability
Executive Committee (SIEC) or its equivalent; or (2) they may designate
their Commission established Regional Planning Committees (RPCs).
Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia elected to administer
their interoperability spectrum. For the fourteen that did not, the
RPCs have been delegated the responsibility to administer this
spectrum.
From the beginning, the Commission has recognized that the utility
of this spectrum for public safety depended on taking actions,
consistent with the current statutory scheme, to minimize, and
ultimately clear, the broadcast use of this spectrum. For instance,
during the digital television (``DTV'') planning, the Commission
minimized the use of channels 60-69. As a result, the new 700 MHz
public safety spectrum on TV channels 63-64 and 68-69 is available now
in many areas of the country. Because of the significance of this
spectrum for public safety, especially first responders and
interoperability, the Commission is actively considering ways to bring
the digital transition to its conclusion. Indeed, under the direction
of Chairman Powell, the Media Bureau has developed a bold framework
that would provide a soft landing and a clear conclusion for the DTV
transition so that, in part, we can provide public safety with this
additional spectrum.
The Commission's second allocation, 50 MHz of spectrum at 4.9 GHz
(4940-4990 MHz), promises to permit the use of new advanced wireless
technologies by public safety users. This spectrum is part of a
transfer of Federal Government spectrum to private sector use. The
Commission initially proposed to allocate the 4.9 GHz band for fixed
and non-aeronautical mobile services and to auction it to commercial
users, with no designation of the spectrum for public safety use. In
response to requests from the public safety community for additional
spectrum for broadband data communication, the Commission designated
the 4.9 GHz band for public safety use in February 2002 and adopted
service rules in April 2003.
The Commission intended the 4.9 GHz band to accommodate a variety
of new broadband applications such as high-speed digital technologies,
broadband mobile operations, fixed ``hotspot'' use, wireless local area
networks, and temporary fixed links. The 4.9 GHz band rules also foster
interoperability, by providing a regulatory framework in which
traditional public safety entities can pursue strategic partnerships
with others necessary for the completion of their mission.
Licenses for this spectrum will be granted to public safety
entities based on a ``jurisdictional'' geographical licensing approach.
Accordingly, the 4.9 GHz spectrum will be licensed for shared use.
Under this approach, the Commission will authorize 4.9 GHz licensees to
operate throughout those geographic areas over which they have
jurisdiction and will require them to cooperate with all other 4.9 GHz
licensees in use of the spectrum. In order to increase spectrum use and
foster interoperability, the Commission will permit licensees to enter
into sharing agreements or strategic partnerships with both traditional
public safety entities, including Federal Government agencies, and non-
public safety entities, such as utilities and commercial entities.
PROMOTION OF PUBLIC SAFETY INTEROPERABILITY
There are a range of mechanisms that specifically promote
interoperability. As discussed above, the Commission has used its
resources to identify additional spectrum. The Commission also has
provided for innovative licensing methods, created planning methods
that encourage better coordination, and promoted new technologies.
Regional Planning
The Commission adopted the regional planning approach to spectrum
management as an alternative to the traditional first-in-the-door
approach to spectrum licensing and management in the public safety
context. Regional planning allows for maximum flexibility of the RPCs
to meet state and local needs and encourage innovative use of the
spectrum to accommodate new and as yet unanticipated developments in
technology and equipment. The Commission has utilized this approach for
public safety spectrum in the 700 and 800 MHz bands.
Sharing of Radio (Spectrum) Facilities
In order to promote interoperability, the Commission has rules for
two types of spectrum sharing. First, the FCC's rules specifically
provide for shared use of radio stations where licensees may share
their facilities on a nonprofit, cost shared basis with other public
safety organizations as end users. In July 2000, the Commission
expanded this sharing provision. This rule also allows Federal
government entities to share these facilities as end users. A second
type of sharing is unique to the 700 MHz public safety spectrum. In
this spectrum band, state and local public safety licensees may
construct and operate joint facilities with the Federal government. The
Commission took this action to encourage partnering of FCC-licensed
state or local government entities with Federal entities to promote
interoperability and spectrum efficiency.
Public Safety National Coordination Committee
The Public Safety National Coordination Committee (NCC) operated as
a federal advisory committee from 1999 to 2003 and recommended
technical and operational standards to assure interoperability in the
700 MHz public safety band. The over 300 members employed a consensus-
based decision-making process to meet its charge. The NCC was guided by
an eleven-member Steering Committee and used three subcommittees, each
of them having several working groups to develop its recommendations,
many of them highly technical. It submitted its final recommendations
in July 2003.
The NCC developed recommendations on a technical standard for the
narrowband voice and data channels to ensure that police, firefighters,
EMS and other public safety officials using 700 MHz radios can
communicate with one another instantly on common voice and data
channels. The same channels are designated for interoperability use
everywhere in the United States. The Commission adopted the narrowband
voice standard and also a narrowband data standard in January 2001 as
the NCC recommended.
The NCC also developed a recommendation for a wideband data
standard and forwarded it to the Commission in July, 2003. This
standard would give public safety agencies a common ``pipeline,'' on
700 MHz wideband data interoperability channels, with which to
implement such applications as sending mug shots and fingerprints to
police vehicles, medical telemetry from EMS units to hospitals,
blueprints of burning buildings to firefighters and video coverage of
incidents to the incident commander. The NCC worked with the
Telecommunications Industries Association--an accredited standards
developer--to develop interoperability technical standards that are
open and non-proprietary. The Commission will consider the remaining
NCC recommendations, including the wideband data standard, in a future
rulemaking.
Intelligent Transportation Systems Radio Service
In December 2003, the Commission adopted service and licensing
rules for the Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC) Service in
the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Radio Service in the
5.850-5.925 GHz band. It is envisioned that DSRC would provide the
critical communications link for ITS, which is key to reducing highway
fatalities, a high priority for the Department of Transportation. The
effective and expeditious implementation of DSRC not only benefits
American consumers by providing solutions to today's transportation
challenges and allowing life-saving communications. It also provides
public safety entities with another communications tool that can assist
them in fulfilling their missions. To ensure interoperability and
robust safety and public safety communications among DSRC devices
nationwide, the Commission adopted rules requiring that the ASTM-DSRC
standard be used. The Commission also adopted licensing and technical
rules aimed at creating a framework that ensures priority for public
safety communications, thereby allowing both public safety and non-
public safety use of the 5.9 GHz band. Further, the Commission adopted
a jurisdictional licensing approach similar to that used for the 4.9
GHz band.
Cognitive Radios Proceedings
The Commission is actively exploring the potential of new
technologies to enhance interoperability and encourage network
efficiency of public safety systems. One example of such new
technologies is cognitive radios, which have the capability to change
their power and/or frequency, sense their environment, know their
location, and optimize their communication path. This technology holds
tremendous promise for public safety interoperability by making it
possible for radios from different public safety systems to operate
seamlessly at an incident site without prior coordination. The
Commission has initiated a Cognitive Radio Technologies proceeding to
examine the enhanced interoperability potential that these even more
flexible technologies may offer.
COORDINATION
The FCC recognizes that interagency coordination is an essential
factor in developing effective interoperability. To that end,
Commission staff routinely confers with the Department of Homeland
Security's SAFECOM. The FCC and SAFECOM share the common goal of
improving public safety communications interoperability. We are
continuing our collaborative efforts to develop a strong working
relationship, both formally and informally. For example, the FCC is an
active member of SAFECOM's Advisory Group. In addition, FCC staff has
met with staff from SAFECOM on several occasions for information
exchanges and briefings, including, most recently, a March 11, 2004
presentation to SAFECOM's Executive Committee on matters pending before
the Commission.
FCC staff also has attended and/or participated in several events
hosted by SAFECOM, including its 2003 Summit on Interoperable
Communications for Public Safety and 2004 Public Safety Communications
Interoperability Conference. Moreover, DHS Deputy Director David Boyd
and I continue to work together to further promote and ensure effective
coordination regarding homeland security and public safety
communications initiatives. We agree that it is critical that the FCC
and SAFECOM continue to work cooperatively to achieve our common
interests of promoting homeland security and interoperability.
CONCLUSION
The FCC is dedicated to marshalling all of its resources and
expertise in order to ensure that adequate spectrum and technology is
available for providing interoperability among the nation's public
safety systems. The Commission continues to work with a wide range of
stakeholders to foster and promote new policies, rules, regulations and
technologies related to public safety interoperability. Although some
of the challenges involved in bringing interoperability to public
safety systems are outside the scope of the FCC's authority, the
Commission continues to take a leadership role in trying to resolve
these challenges.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important issue
affecting our homeland security.
Mr. Upton. Well, thank you much, all four of you. At this
point, we will go to questions from members of the panel.
Mr. Grube, I want to say I appreciated very much, your
testimony, particularly as you referenced that there was no
hard date on the transition, that you are in limbo. I want to
say I know that I speak for the chairman, who will be asking
questions soon, that we do want a hard date, and we do want
people to know when that date will be, and we intend next month
to have a hearing, yet another hearing on the transition,
specifically on the Berlin model and what we can learn from
their experience.
Mr. LeGrande, those of us that share DC as a second home,
for those of us that commute from our states, Mr. Stupak and me
from Michigan, we appreciate the work that you have done to
upgrade our city's resources here, and I have a couple of
questions. You indicated in your testimony that the District
firefighters had pretty good interoperability, being able to
communicate both above and below ground with the subway system.
Do the police have that same capability? What about EMS? And
what about their ability to communicate with each other in
those same scenarios?
Mr. LeGrande. Okay. First, the fire department does have
seamless communications, meaning they don't have to change
their radio channels or anything like that when they go from
above or below ground----
Mr. Upton. I am actually a member of the Firefighter
Caucus, and actually there was 1 day, not too many years ago,
that we actually rode with the department. They didn't have
that capability then.
Mr. LeGrande. March of this year, that is when they got it.
And the police department's upgrade will be completed in July
of this year.
Mr. Upton. Will they be able to communicate with each other
then as well?
Mr. LeGrande. Yes. We have intra-District--we call it
intra-District interoperability where our police, fire and EMS
do have the capability above ground to interoperate now. When
the police come on in the subway system, they too will be able
to interoperate as they do now above ground.
Mr. Upton. Did you experience cultural challenges, disputes
between the two departments?
Mr. LeGrande. Yes.
Mr. Upton. You have not sworn under oath, but we want your
honest answer.
Mr. LeGrande. I do have to go home after I leave here.
Mr. Upton. They are outside the door waiting for you.
Mr. LeGrande. Yes, absolutely. But, you know, first, when I
went through the process, honestly, I understood. I paused to
understand that over 30 years we have developed these systems
and just understanding based on a finite set of requirements
and a threat that is usually jurisdictional. So I kind of
understood that there was a reluctance on some parts to do
that.
But I think what I have found in our first responders, not
only here but also in the various first responders that we have
met through the Public Safety Spectrum Coalition, that there is
a commitment on their part, and I think that sometimes the
difficulty in culture is somewhat--I will just say somewhat
exaggerated. I know there are cases where it isn't, but some
cases they are very willing to work together to help this
communications problem.
Mr. Upton. Dr. Boyd, you referred to their cultural
challenges between different departments. What do you see that
we have to do to overcome some of those challenges?
And, Mr. Muleta, I would like you to respond to that too.
Mr. Boyd. I think your insight that the cultural issue is a
critical piece of interoperability is on the mark. Our
experience has been that there is an increasing interest on the
part of all the disciplines in actually communicating with each
other and jurisdictions in communicating with each other. When
you get to the details, it is sometimes fairly difficult
because it begins to threaten existing structures.
We are finding increasing levels of cooperation, however,
interdisciplinary as well interjurisdictionally. And one of the
things that we have discovered as crucial in creating
interoperability is a governance structure that works from the
lowest level up. Our experience has been that Federal
interoperability efforts tend to fail because we try to drive
them too often the top instead from working from the bottom.
The same thing happens at the State level. And if you can build
a really good model that starts with the most local level and
work up, then you can begin to really resolve interoperability.
We had a project recently with the State of Virginia, we
will be producing a report shortly, where we worked with them
to experiment with exactly that model in the development of a
statewide plan, which we think is working out really well. And
we started that with the most rural, smallest jurisdictions in
the State and then worked our way around. That, we think, is
the key to fixing the cultural issues.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Muleta?
Mr. Muleta. I do think cultural issues exist, but at the
FCC what we have tried to do is a couple of things. One is we
are spending a great deal of time with the various public
safety communities, both at the Federal and the State level, to
sort of understand the requirements and through the regional
planning process sort of define a common set of issues and then
work around those. So I think that has been incredibly helpful.
Inside the FCC we have also make great strides in making
sure that there are no walls between various parts of the FCC.
Chairman Powell has created the Office of Homeland Security and
there is a Homeland Policy Council as well as within my
organization I recently reorganized to put in all of the
elements of public safety issues, including E911, which really
plays an important role in sort of threat identification and
management, to be part of our overall look in public safety.
So between better coordination, a more holistic
understanding and planning of issues, we are trying to address
these issues, and I think, unfortunately, the events of the
last few years where the threat, as you mentioned, have been
much greater, have helped make all of us realize that we have
to work together.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Stupak?
Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for holding
this hearing. I ask that my full statement be made part of the
record.
Mr. Upton. Without objection, all members' statements will
be made part of the record.
Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We had a hearing
earlier this month where we discussed basically the same
challenges, and I would be interested in knowing what has
happened since then. From what I can see, not much has
happened. We still have the same challenges, there is no
funding, we still have the spectrum interference, as we are
hearing about, we still don't have any real coordination plan
in meeting this goal.
It has been almost 3 years since 9/11 and I really don't
see a lot happening and I am really disappointed we didn't have
at least some first responders here today to tell us what they
are hearing on the street, because while we have all these
offices and new policies, even in a seamless radio connection
like we have here at DC, if the police officer or the fire
department individual who's out of his car, out of the station
cannot respond back and talk to each other, it doesn't do us a
whole heck of a lot of good.
So let me ask Mr. LeGrande, in your seamless radio system
here, can a police officer outside his car talk back to
stations, thing like that, on his hand-held?
Mr. LeGrande. Yes.
Mr. Stupak. All right. Can he talk to a fire department
official?
Mr. LeGrande. Yes.
Mr. Stupak. Okay. Can he talk to the Capitol Police?
Mr. LeGrande. Yes.
Mr. Stupak. How about the Park Police?
Mr. LeGrande. In my testimony, there is a detailed status
in the attachment 3----
Mr. Stupak. Sure.
Mr. LeGrande. [continuing] and there are varying statuses
of where we are. Now, as far as the technical aspects of it, we
put in a system that will allow it. Currently, what we are
doing is working through the standard operations procedures. So
the technology exists. We are working through the process to--
--
Mr. Stupak. How many agencies do we have just in DC here
alone? Don't we have like about 25 to 30 different agencies?
Mr. LeGrande. Twenty-four in the region.
Mr. Stupak. Twenty-four. Can we all talk to each other?
Mr. LeGrande. From the DC perspective and from the DC
police and fire, we have the capability to talk to each one of
those. We are working on the finalizing the process. Before you
can actually go out and implement that capability, you really
have to go through a process definition and then a very
detailed training. So we are in the process of doing that. We
are well on our way.
Mr. Stupak. So a firefighter out of his wagon there, or
whatever you want to call it, he is in the building, he can't
talk to other members from other agencies yet. That is still
not there.
Mr. LeGrande. The capability exists, yes, for him to talk
to other agencies. And if he needs to right now, there is a
process of even patching him through right now. So I guess what
I am giving you a status of is that there is an ability for us
to go--for him to speak----
Mr. Stupak. I don't want to dispute it as an ability, but
can they actually do it? Are the actually doing it? I guess
that is what I am asking. It is almost 3 years now, and we saw
$100 million in the budget in fiscal year 2003 for a $6 billion
to $8 billion problem. So we put $100 million in the budget and
that is been it.
So I guess what I am trying to get at here today, I have
heard a lot about abilities and robust planning and all this,
but I mean this has been going on for a long time.
I have been associated with law enforcement for 30 years.
This has been going on for 30 years, and we still don't have
it. I am not blaming you guys. I am just maybe voicing a little
frustration, but I just really think that we really have to get
at this and allow that officer on the street or that emergency
medical person to talk to whoever they need to talk to and not
have to worry about having it patched back through dispatch and
dispatch then patch it back to somebody else.
Mr. LeGrande. Okay. Well----
Mr. Stupak. And that is what I am trying to get at.
Mr. LeGrande. All right. Let me try to specifically answer
your question. With regards to the fire department, they have
currently the ability to speak to Washington Airport Authority,
Fairfax County, Fairfax County Police Department, Alexandria
Fire Department, Alexandria Police Department, the Arlington
Police Department and the Arlington Fire Department right now.
Mr. Stupak. But can they talk to each other? I guess that
is what I am really asking.
Mr. LeGrande. Absolutely.
Mr. Stupak. Okay.
Mr. LeGrande. I am sorry. Maybe I misunderstood your
question.
Mr. Stupak. So the command officer on the street can talk
to the guy up in the building and tell him what is going on.
Mr. LeGrande. Yes, sir.
Mr. Stupak. So we don' t have the thing that happened at
World Trade Center where those people don't know what is going
on.
Mr. LeGrande. There are two questions you are asking----
Mr. Stupak. Sure.
Mr. LeGrande. [continuing] and I will just separate the
two. There are 2 problems on 911: Interoperability and in-
building coverage.
Mr. Stupak. Correct.
Mr. LeGrande. Okay. If you are in the District of Columbia,
that couldn't be more underscored with the marble buildings
that we created here and we had to build that in our design. We
put in a new 10-site system which increased the coverage and
capacity within the District. We also added 63 vehicle repeater
systems, such that if there is a major incident, we can go and
deploy these vehicles which will get around building
penetration radio signal. So, yes, they can absolutely speak.
Mr. Stupak. So in order to talk to them, they have to have
that repeater vehicle there.
Mr. LeGrande. Only if it is a very thick building requiring
that, and we know where those buildings are. And, by the way,
those units are some of the first units that are deployed.
Mr. Stupak. Do you know how much money you have spent on
this system to try to get it to where it is at today?
Mr. LeGrande. Approximately $42 million.
Mr. Stupak. $42 million. And did that come from the Federal
Government?
Mr. LeGrande. Yes, sir.
Mr. Stupak. So of the $100 million we have spent, $42
million went to DC?
Mr. LeGrande. I believe that is the case. I can't answer
that question.
Mr. Stupak. Just sort of magnifies the need across the
Nation.
Mr. LeGrande. Yes, it does, sir.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Barton?
Chairman Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing. I want to thank the panel for being here.
My first question is fairly elementary, but I want to
make--all these interoperability channels that we are talking
about, are these channels that only the first responders and
law enforcement officials have access to or can anybody with a
police scanner or monitor listen in on these channels?
Mr. LeGrande. Yes. These are channels that can be
monitored.
Chairman Barton. So anybody that--a terrorist, if they took
the time to go to Wal-Mart, could get a scanner and hearing
everything that was going on.
Mr. LeGrande. We, within the design of our system, at least
within the District of Columbia, included a significant amount
of encryption, which would prevent sensitive communications
from being monitored.
Chairman Barton. What does that mean in plain language?
Mr. LeGrande. That we have the ability to make the signal
between--an encrypted between one person and the other where
they couldn't be scanned.
Chairman Barton. They would just hear static.
Mr. LeGrande. Yes, or nothing at all.
Chairman Barton. How often is that actually done?
Mr. LeGrande. Well, right now there hasn't been any, I
believe--I really can't speak to that how often it has been
done, but the capability exists and is planned to be used in an
incident where we have to communicate sensitive information.
Chairman Barton. Okay. That leads to my next question, and
I don't know that this would be possible, but given the fact
that most law enforcement communication equipment can be
scanned, would it be possible to use some sort of a special
cell phone or even a regular cell phone that had special
priority, so that in the case of an emergency you could code a
certain code into the cell phone and those calls would go
through first and get priority? Because you cannot or it is
very difficult to monitor a cell phone call. Is there any
possibility to use some sort of a system like that?
Mr. Muleta. If I can address that question, I think, first
of all, the general question--maybe Mr. Grube can also address
this--is when you move to digital communications, it is much
easier to encrypt and therefore protect communications even if
it is on a public safety radio system. So part of the
transition that we have all been talking about is moving to a
uniform standard that has interoperability and enables visual
communications.
Part of the transition process is to be able to upgrade,
you know, uniformly throughout the country all the systems so
that, you know, they receive the benefits of encryption and
various things like that. I think the second question you asked
is is there a way of providing what is known as priority
access, that is, a program that we have been working with folks
at DHS on enabling into the cellular system so that doing an
emergency incident, you know, such as like 9/11 then certain
users, you know, Federal and public safety users can get
priority access on the commercial network. So that is a
program----
Chairman Barton. That could be done?
Mr. Muleta. And it has been done for some commercial
networks. And it is in the process of being rolled out. You
know, it takes a long time to, sort of, get all the procedures
right. But we know of at least one national carrier that has
put it in place, and others are in the process of considering
it and trying to implement that.
Mr. Grube. Mr. Chairman, if I could add some comments to
that, when we take a look at the interoperability, you know, it
is all about process, planning and platform, platform being
spectrum standards. When you look at the different levels of
interoperability from basic just sharing radios to level 6 that
we talk about, which is a common standard, the common digital
P25 standard that law enforcement has endorsed adds encryption
very easily.
I mean, that was one of the things that the users said they
wanted when that standard was devised is the ability to easily
encrypt it to a high level of encryption so that scanners, you
know, from the department store are not going to receive
sensitive information. That is available. So as we talk about
interoperability in, No. 1, joining together the people that
need to talk to each other when they need to.
No. 2 is just giving them day-to-day better operation when
they are just working within their jurisdiction. And that might
mean transmitting a mode that others can't listen to the
sensitive information. So as we do move forward with
interoperability as the agencies do move toward the digital
standard, P25, they will have that easy ability to add
encryption so that their messages are not received by others.
Mr. Boyd. If I can add a couple of cautions, though, that
we need to remember here, while P25 will allow encryption and
that is built into the standard for P25, many of the PAP
systems currently that are available that we are going to have
to use for some time aren't very robust and have a difficult
time in handling encryption when you begin to try to gather
systems that aren't all P25 compatible. That is the first
issue.
And Mr. Stupak addressed, I think, in part the issue that
it is going to take some time for some of these other systems
that are going to have to be included to make that transition.
So thinking, planning--I think the point that Mr. Grube makes
that is really important is prior planning. And that is that
the organizations on the ground have to think out ahead of time
both what they need to encrypt and where it is going to go.
The second piece of it that is important to recall is that
as we think about things like reducing the size of channels,
there is an overhead associated with encryption. And so, we
will have to consider the robustness of the encryption
algorithms as we make these decisions.
Chairman Barton. Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
Ms. McCarthy?
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you,
Mr. Chairman. I think this hearing and the panelists who have
just testified has been one of the most realistic, down to
earth presentations on the matter that we have had. And I
appreciate your pursuing this because I know you know how
important it is that we address this.
And we in the Congress have put out these great
expectations through our earlier legislation, but we have never
really come to grips with our role in carrying out the things
that need to change to make it able for you, Chief LeGrande to
accomplish what you so desire in the testimony you have before
us today. So this whole broadband transfer issue, I would love
it if you have some further wisdom to share on that.
I believe that, based on your testimony and what I have
learned over the past month and years, is really critical to
public safety that transfer has to happen. We have had
hearings, but we have really taken no action as a Congress, as
a committee to address it. But you lay out in your testimony
all the reasons why it is necessary for our first responders to
do their job adequately. And you have convinced me that it is
now time for the Congress to act.
And the funds needed for digital equipment so that wherever
they go they have got the high resolution video, whatever first
responders need we haven't paid for, we haven't funded. So the
Congress again has not done what is needed to make sure our
first responders have the equipment that is interoperable.
I come from a community, Kansas City, where I have got two
States kind of like the Virginia, Maryland, and you have got
the District of Columbia to boot. But I understand the whole
question for first responders because that dilemma exists in
the greater Kansas City area, not just Kansas and Missouri and
the river, but even within communities.
In my little community of Independence, Missouri, Harry
Truman's hometown, the police and fire when they were trying to
help with a dramatic ice storm we had a couple of winters ago
couldn't communicate on their equipment to go in and help each
other onsite. They ended up using cell phones. But in a
terrorist attack, that is not a very good way to go.
So I guess my comment is I want to thank each and every one
of you for reminding us today that we have a role to play in
this in the Congress and we ought to be about it. But if you
have some further thoughts to share, I would welcome them at
this time in what little time I have left.
Mr. LeGrande. I thank you for your comments. We really
appreciate that. I just want to clarify my title. I am not a
first responder. I am am a part of the technology organization,
although I do appreciate the compliment.
Broadband is clearly the next thing for, not only first
responders, but it is the Nation. In meeting with, not only
within the District of Columbia, our own MPD and fire, they
have provided us with very stringent requirements on what they
would like to be able to accomplish in order to meet the threat
that exists. This system that we have already started to deploy
on a pilot basis we already have reached out to our Federal
partners to create interoperability with them, the U.S. Park
Police and also the U.S. Capitol Police.
In fact, we can demonstrate within our current
configuration a video feed from a U.S. Park Police helicopter
from that helicopter that feed going into the FBI over to the
MPD headquarters and out through our wireless network. We can
show you where a first responder in the Capitol Hill region
would be able to receive that feed via an Ipac computer, which
is a small pocket computer or a laptop computer that, of
course, is ruggedized.
This type of increase in capability for our first
responders is exactly what they need. We have a threat that is
multiplying exponentially, and we have to increase our ability
to survey or to provide surveillance systems so that our first
responders aren't completely tapped. They still have a domestic
responsibility in addition to the new international threat that
is been added to us. So these types of increases in technology
will really help them to address that need. So we welcome the
opportunity to present this much further to this committee,
both in the legislation that is already included in our
testimony, but also in demonstrations that we are capable of
performing now.
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you. Would anyone else like to comment?
Mr. Grube. Yes, I would.
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Grube.
Mr. Grube. Thank you for your kind words. And it is a
pleasure to be here. And I wanted to follow-up on the spectrum
issue and tie that back to the applications that the public
safety people seek. My team at Motorola has been doing trials
for several years of what--to be compared to the last 65 years
of two-way voice communications for public safety as
breakthrough, revolutionary step change.
And back in 1997 when together, you know, we said let's
target 100 megahertz, you know, for the public safety community
and started making improvements toward that and most recently
with the 4.9 gigahertz band, at that time, of course, pre-9/11,
we didn't really understand the total picture yet.
And I think, you know, as leadership operations here in the
district and other agencies that we have trialed broadband
technology with, we have come to learn that not only will
technology like this make a difference when these special
events happen, but they can use it day-to-day in their
operation to be safer, to be more efficient.
Some of the sound bytes that I have received firsthand from
some of the public safety people trialing this technology is,
``don't take it away. I feel safer when that broadband's
streaming video technology is in my squad car to send an image
of that traffic stop when I am out in the middle of nowhere
sending that back to the dispatch center or to my partners so
they can watch my back.'' I mean, these are the kind of words
that they are telling us.
So we have learned, I guess, just recently in the last
couple of years and since post-9/11 that, in addition to local
broadband spectrum allocations of 4.9 gigahertz in addition to
the high-speed data for Internet browsing, some simple video,
limited capacity at 700 in the 24 megahertz there is a
compelling need--and this is what the system in the district
here is showing everyone for what I will call--and I will use
my words very carefully--wide area broadband spectrum.
The 700 megahertz band is absolutely a sweet spot in terms
of economics to bring that type of technology which is now
coming into the industry, not only, you know, from companies
like Motorola, but the entire industry.
A few weeks ago, the FCC had a very nice get-together on
the wireless broadband topic. I served as a panelist. And there
certainly was a common thread that the industry was saying. And
this is not only for public safety. And I was there talking
about that in addition to the consumer world.
But they are saying there is this rich spectrum here. There
is new technology. We could deploy broadband, you know, for the
industry. And we could deploy broadband for public safety. So
the key message is the technology is here, the needs are now
realized. And I think this additional spectrum that the
district is talking about at 700 megahertz would be a wonderful
thing to really go after and help enable as part of the
platform for the public safety people.
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad I waived my opening
remarks.
Mr. Upton. You are lucky. I might just say before I yield
to Mr. Bass that there are a number of us from this panel that
actually witnessed that video transfer in Chicago. I think Mr.
Engel was with us that day. I think Mr. Bass and Mr. Terry were
there that day. And it is nice to hear as we listen to your
testimony, Mr. LeGrande, that it is actually now that we are
seeing it come into the field versus just a demonstration.
Mr. LeGrande. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Bass?
Mr. Bass. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was rather surprised
to hear that the system that you installed in the district cost
$42 million. I am not saying it is high or low, but it is
certainly a lot of money. And wondering about the question as
to whether or not as we plan this interoperability and these
new communications systems that we really have the best, most
modern, diverse systems that we can possibly get.
I recall when I was on the Transportation Committee the FAA
was authorized to spend an enormous amount of money on a new
radar system which ended up being obsolete before it even
arrived at the FAA centers, as I recall. And it cost many
billions of dollars.
In the course of examining these systems, are you looking--
let me start again. We had a hearing the other day in this
committee in which we looked at the most unbelievably
interesting new concepts for broadband communication and so
forth.
And it has been my experience when you get into various
sectors of government, the police or the fire departments or,
you know, law enforcement, FAA, other agencies, they tend not
to look outside of their own existing technologies, how they
have always communicated, two-way radios with a microphone over
your shoulder and so forth.
The fact is that a cell phone with a little television
screen on it is probably not a bad way to communicate. Or it
might be used as a basis upon which the agency--in this case,
homeland security--looks at entirely new mechanisms and
technologies outside of traditional radio communication, which
provide by their very definition interoperability maybe a lot
cheaper and with the ability to implement before digital
transition occurs.
I am just curious if anybody in the panel has thought about
this or, first of all, understands my question, but second, has
thought about or has observations on whether the decisionmakers
here are really looking at the big picture and trying to come
up with a mission or a plan that doesn't get obsolete before--
isn't obsolete before it is implemented.
Mr. LeGrande. Mr. Bass, first I would like to begin by
agreeing with you that, yes, we should evaluate in parallel to
addressing the urgent need for our first responders today, in
parallel to that effort, you really evaluate emerging
technologies and possibilities in the future. Currently I don't
believe there exists a commercially available solution that we
could quickly move to because the threat is so real and our
needs to tie our first responders together is so important
right now and time is of the essence.
As Mr. Stupak mentioned earlier, we didn't have the
opportunity, nor would I suggest that other public safety
organizations had the opportunity to move that quickly to the
other solutions that exist. A maturity needs to occur in moving
to those solutions. And that is why we are piloting our
broadband network within the district first.
We are going to run that pilot over a year as an
experimental license that was already approved by the FCC for
broadband communications. We are going to test security,
reliability, maintainability. And those are some of the just
varied components that we have to go into that maturity model
before you can actually deploy these networks operationally.
The last thing we want to do is move quickly to either a
commercially available solution or build our own solution based
on commercial technologies without testing it out thoroughly
because then we would run into a much larger problem. And so,
what my suggestion to you, sir, is that first you have to start
solving your short-term problem but in parallel work on the
long-term solution that could take you to another place.
Mr. Boyd. I would like to add some----
Mr. Bass. Yes, before others respond, can I just add one
other part to the question? Is there communication between
homeland security and the military so that you guys know how
the communication systems are working now with soldiers in
Iraq, for example, and how well the interoperability issues
that exist there and so on?
Mr. Boyd. In fact, that opens up an interesting question
that I think you need to address in understanding the field.
Now the first one is that I am retired from the United States
Army. We are, in fact, working directly now with the Department
of Defense with Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul McHale's
office. We have worked with the National Guard, and the
National Guard participates as a part of our executive council.
And I have gone to address the Defense Science Board on a
number of occasions.
There are a number of things you have to remember. And the
defense model is an interesting one to remember. The Defense
Department first became interested in becoming interoperable
some 10 years before I was commissioned a second lieutenant in
the United States Army. It did work diligently at that. And
today, some 12 years after I retired from the Army, they are
almost interoperable. That is four services in a single
department that is funded essentially by a single committee.
In this community, we are looking at 50,000 independent
agencies who are funded by the city councils, county
commissions, by the states and others. These are organizations
which, for the most part, have communication systems which have
a life cycle that is on the order of 30 or 40 years. Within the
technology life cycle, it is 18 to 24 months.
So part of the difficulty we have is how do you make sure
that you don't leave behind the community that can't afford to
upgrade its system but needs interoperability now, too. And so,
how do you bring these together?
It is, I think, tempting to imagine that there is a single
standard and a single technology that is going to solve the
problem. There is not. The reality is that we will always have
multiple systems over a period of time, even when we arrive at
fairly common standards because we don't want to stop the
innovation of the technology.
And so, you may have newer technologies developing that
will always require us to think ahead about how we are going to
tie them together. Which is why the approach--we took a batch
of systems--you need to think about routine communications and
emergency communications. The things that you use routinely
need to be the same things you are going to use in an
emergency, otherwise they not only won't know how to use them--
the military operates on the same basis--they may not even know
where they are stored.
So you need to use the same kinds of systems in both cases.
And you need to understand which parts of your routine
communications you can off-load onto, for example, the
commercial structures. In fact, one of the things we are
working with local law enforcement with is to help them to
understand where they can build in as part of their plan some
of the commercial infrastructure.
But it is important to understand that the cellular and the
public switch telephone network, that is the wired network, are
built only for a capacity that is about 10 percent over the
normal capacity, which is why during rush hour you frequently
can't get a call on a cell phone. And in an emergency, almost
by definition, those systems are overwhelmed almost
immediately.
So there has to be an emergency foundation that the public
safety community can fall back on. And we have to understand
that while we don't want to take 45 years as Defense did to get
to interoperability, we also are not going to get there in 1 or
2 years.
Mr. Bass. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Muleta. Mr. Engel?
Mr. Upton. Do you want to respond to that question?
Mr. Muleta. Yes, I think it is an important issue, and I
just wanted to give you a couple of points that I think are
very important. One is the kind of requirements development
that DHS through SAFECOM is doing right now will really help. A
lot of times the tradition has been in the public safety
environment that you, sort of, take the equipment as is, that,
sort of, technology is leading as opposed to the requirements
leading. So I think that is a very important step in terms of
the cultural change that is going on.
In terms of what the FCC has been doing, in various
proceedings that we have had regarding public safety radios, we
have tried to incorporate standards-based approach into the use
of the spectrum. So, for example, the 700 megahertz, the
process that we used there included regional planning, and it
also included the adoption of project 25 into what public
safety can use there. In terms of the intelligent transport
system, which is something we work cooperatively on with FAA
which is about vehicular accident effectively systems that are
just put on a terrestrial basis that feed information or allow
communications for DOT and DOT-sponsored organizations. We
again used various standards-based technology to be adopted in
that order.
So as, you know, car makers and as people are developing
radio systems to use that, they are, you know, effectively
using off-the-shelf components. And they are riding the curve,
the technology curve and the cost curve. But the commercial
world experiences a lot faster than the public safety has
traditionally.
In 4.9 gigahertz band, which is 50 megahertz dedicated to
public safety, again, we used basically equipment, you know,
sort of, standards that are used in the 5.8 gigahertz, which is
where a new allocation of Y5 is being placed. And so, other
things that we are doing are cognitive radios, effectively
helping the development of technology that allows radios to,
sort of, flexibly move from one band to another.
And so, in the case of an emergency if everything is tapped
out in spectrum a, you can move to spectrum band b. So the FCC
has a proceeding on this. So a lot of what we are working on is
trying to get to standards-based solutions and embed them into
the regularity model that we are using so that people won't be
caught--you know, actual operators like Mr. LeGrande won't be
caught short as technology moves or the cost curve declines
significantly in the commercial world.
Mr. Grube. Mr. Chairman, I have another comment.
Mr. Upton. Just very quickly. I stopped the clock.
Mr. Grube. Congressman Bass, Terry and Chairman Upton,
thanks for looking at the high-speed data pilot that we had in
Chicago. And I think that, you know, one of the take-aways when
public safety looks at deploying their own private networks is
your original question does come up a lot. And that is can we
use a consumer-based carrier network for the first responders.
And they do use them from time to time.
But if you look at the economics of a carrier system, it is
driven by putting just the coverage that you need where the
highest population of people is. And it may not be the third
sub-basement where the firefighter has to go or the police
officer has to go. It may not be the far reaches of the county
where the State patrol officer has to go. So coverage is always
a key thing. And that is one of the reasons the private
networks are here.
And I think that--and one of your other questions dealt
with the technology that is here and questioning is this here
to stay. I think the basic two-way voice--if you talk to the
people who carry guns and hoses, their primary need is to push
the button and to be instantly heard by someone at the end of
that radio communications path. Others around them that are
supporting the scene or supporting, directing what they do,
those are the ones that also need that capability plus all of
the richness that we have talked about in terms of video and
Internet access and those things.
And again, if we take a look at the carrier networks, we
learned a big lesson during the major blackout last year in the
Northeast. Half of--about half of the carrier cellular sites
were down. And that is because economics just don't motivate
the carriers, you know, to design around that. Whereas if you
look at the State of Michigan, their system was fully
operational. Everything was taken into account for, not only
capacity spikes, but also in terms of power outages.
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
Mr. Engel?
Mr. Engel. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
calling this hearing. This proves time and time again why this
is a great subcommittee and why we are always on the cutting
edge of things that are really on people's minds.
I know Mr. Stupak spoke about September 11 and the problem
in my home State of New York about the policemen and firemen
talking to each other. But, you know, just Monday, a couple of
days ago, I was meeting with police, fire and EMS officials in
Ramapo in Rockland County which is a northern suburb of the
city of New York in my district. And we were talking about rail
security.
And the fire inspector there said to me, ``You know, our
biggest problem is if we have an emergency, the first cop and
first firefighter on the scene can't talk to each other on
their radios.'' So this is obviously something that we are
still hearing from all across the country.
I wanted to mention before I asked my questions that I have
worked on a bill, a bipartisan bill with my colleagues on this
committee, Mr. Stupak and Mr. Fossella, to provide the funding
that our local first responders need. It is called the Public
Safety and Interoperability Implementation Act, which is H.R.
3370. And what it does is it would reserve a portion of future
spectrum auction revenues and place them in a trust fund for
helping State and localities in paying for these new systems.
So, Dr. Boyd, when you mentioned that smaller communities,
smaller areas and towns really don't have the money, we would
envision that if this bill were to be passed and implemented
that that would be a way of providing those kinds of funds.
Mr. Chairman, I want to ask unanimous consent. I have with
me a letter from the county executive of Rockland County, Scott
Vanderhoef, requesting assistance in obtaining Federal funds
for the complete overhaul and upgrade of emergency
communications in Rockland. Even though he was my opponent in
2002, I will certainly be helping him because he is right. And
I would just ask unanimous consent to enter into the record his
letter as an example of what our localities are facing when
trying to afford an interoperable system. I will ask unanimous
consent for that.
Mr. Upton. Without objection.
[The letter follows:]
County of Rockland
Office of the County Executive
New City, New York 10956
June 3, 2004
The Honorable Eliot L. Engel
The United States House of Representatives
2264 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-3217
Dear Congressman Engel: This letter is to request your assistance
with a matter of great importance to the citizens of Rockland County.
Since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, more than $23
billion have been appropriated to help States, municipalities, and
first responders improve preparedness for future acts of terrorism or
other emergencies. And since March 2003 the Department of Homeland
Security has specifically helped first responders prevent, prepare for,
and respond to acts of terrorism.
As you know, Rockland County is located a mere 15 miles north of
the George Washington Bridge. Along with its close proximity to New
York City, Rockland lies within the response area for the Indian Point
Nuclear Power Center. Interstate highways, rail traffic and Hudson
River access pose certain challenges in protecting our most vulnerable
and valuable assets.
I thank you for introducing the Public Safety Interoperability
Implementation Act in order to focus the resources of the federal
government on those areas that are most vulnerable. Homeland Security
Interoperable funds could help facilitate the implementation of Phase
II of Rockland County's Public Safety System Communications Project.
This project is designed to allow our fire, police and ambulance
responders to effectively communicate with each other even under the
most challenging of circumstances.
I am sure you can appreciate that this project should be considered
one of the highest of priorities among all government levels.
Terrorists are not arbitrary in their selection of targets and some of
the region's most vulnerable sites and communities lie within the 17th
Congressional District.
Therefore, I present the attached project outline in hopes of
accessing federal funds for this invaluable project.
Thank you for your consideration and continued advocacy on behalf
of the citizens of Rockland County.
Very truly yours,
C. Scott Vanderhoef
County Executive
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5444.001
Mr. Engel. Thank you.
Mr. LeGrande, I appreciate you have put so much time
working into the engineering design of the DC system. Obviously
we are all concerned. We work here. And DC faces many unique
problems caused by overlapping agencies and jurisdictions.
And I applaud you for making interoperability with the
Metro subway system a priority. I am wondering, though, how
much training is going on so that Metro workers, police, fire
and EMS, know what is going on. How many hours of training does
a Metro worker receive? Do they receive training for this sort
of thing?
Mr. LeGrande. Well, the system that we put in for our fire
department doesn't require any additional training to use it in
the Metro system. It is seamless, and in just the same way they
use it above ground, they use it below ground and while riding
on the trains. So no additional training is needed there.
Mr. Engel. What about the Metro worker?
Mr. LeGrande. When you speak of the Metro workers, they
have their own communications systems and their own set of
training that is gone on. Their systems have been in place for
quite some time, so I don't think there was any additional
training needed for them. ENGEL: All right. Now you mentioned
that your system has interoperability capabilities with the
Capitol Police. Am I correct? You said that they did.
Mr. LeGrande. For the U.S. Capitol Police, who I said is we
put the capabilities in, yes, to have interoperability with
them. And we need to work out those standard operating
procedures with them to facilitate that communication.
Mr. Engel. Okay. Obviously Capitol South Metro is adjacent
to the Cannon Building, and our police, the Capitol Police,
would respond to an incident there. Has there ever been a drill
held at that location?
Mr. LeGrande. None that I am aware of. I am here
representing the technology that we put in. The actual
operations of the police--that would really have to come from
the MPD. I can find out the answer to that question for you,
though.
Mr. Engel. Okay. And would you know how often drills are
held?
Mr. LeGrande. No.
Mr. Engel. Do you have any idea if that includes the Metro
Police, fire and EMS?
Mr. LeGrande. I wouldn't know the answer to those
questions, no, sir.
Mr. Engel. Okay. If you could find that out for me, I would
appreciate it.
Mr. LeGrande. Okay.
Mr. Engel. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Grube, I want to thank you for the information. It was
very extensive. There have been some efforts to immediately
move to TV stations operating on channel 63, 64, 68 and 69 off.
And I am wondering if you could give me some information about
that.
Mr. Grube. Well, one of the--there are several methods. And
one is to simply relocate the channels, the TV stations that
are in those channels down to a lower channel but still
transmit in the analogue mode. That is one way. And some
stations have applied for waivers to do that, I understand.
Another way is to have them move in the move to the digital
mode when they move out of that band and to provide the 3
percent of the households, according to the independent
analysis that we did, with digital to analogue converter boxes
so that they could still--that those consumers could still
continue to use the analogue TV equipment that they have today.
Those are a couple of the methods.
Mr. Engel. Well, we have a problem in New York. I don't
know if you are aware that there are adjacent TV channels that
are in use. Would those TV signals cause interference? And
would we have to shut down those adjacent channels as well?
Mr. Grube. They can't--yes, they should be included in the
analysis because, you know, a 5 megawatt transmitter spectrally
next to, you know, a poor, little homeland security radio could
be an issue. So I think that has been included in the analysis
that we have done. And it is very important to consider those
stations as well.
Mr. Engel. Because, for instance, in the New York City
metropolitan area, channel 67 is Univision on Long Island. And
channel 68 is Univision in Newark, New Jersey. And both serve
the New York City area. And during an emergency, obviously
Spanish-speaking people turn to Spanish language news. Thus
there is a competing safety concern as well. So I am happy that
it is included as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Fossella?
Mr. Fossella. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, gentlemen.
For Mr. Muleta, thank you for your testimony. Currently FCC
is looking at giving public safety additional spectrum and
other band widths. Is that correct?
Mr. Muleta. Yes.
Mr. Fossella. Some have suggested that additional spectrum
at the 700 megahertz band would be more useful for offering
interoperable broadband services. Do you agree with this?
Mr. Muleta. Seven hundred megahertz has, as we have talked
about, good propagation characteristics. And there is already
24 megahertz that is been allocated at 700 megahertz for use by
public safety.
Mr. Fossella. So in light of the ongoing discussion, do you
think having a larger block of spectrum in that single band
width to allow for more efficient use of spectrum makes the
interoperability easier to achieve than what is currently
proposed? Or as stated otherwise, is a single block of spectrum
better than the fragmentation of spectrum and other bandwidths?
Mr. Muleta. Well, I think there is already an allocation of
the 700 megahertz. There is 24 megahertz that is been
allocated. There has been a national plan put in place, a
unified standard for the technology in project 25.
I think the issues that, you know--the solution to the
problem that we have today on interoperability have more to do
with planning, coordination, communication and, you know, sort
of, actual deploying them, getting the dollars out to get the
systems up and also obviously the fact that that spectrum is
encumbered with the broadcasters.
So additional spectrum--you know, additional blocks of
spectrum, I think, would always be useful in any communications
context, whether public safety or any other application. I
don't think the current--that, you know, today an additional
block will get us, sort of, the uniform interoperability that
we are all looking for because I think those require
communication coordination and planning more so than additional
spectrum, from my perspective.
Mr. Fossella. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. LeGrande. Could I add a response to that question, sir?
From our perspective, the 24, while it has been allocated to
public safety, the current configuration of the 24 does not
allow for wide area broadband use. So on the issue of
interoperability, I don't disagree. But on the issue of
deploying wireless broadband technologies in the current 24
megahertz configuration, we cannot do that over a wide area.
Mr. Fossella. Mr. Muleta, in light of that, do you have any
comment?
Mr. Muleta. Yes, I think there have been several different
requests that have come through for additional blocks of
spectrum. I think by statute Congress has--you know, 24
megahertz was allotted to public safety. The additional
spectrum was for commercial uses for auction at various times.
And I think there are, you know, countervailing tradeoffs.
I think again the key is to get interoperability into the
hands of the folks today as quickly as possible. As Mr.
LeGrande so aptly put it, there needs to be interoperability
then interoperability and laying an additional amount of
spectrum, although it is useful as part of our planning
process, we need to--I think it needs to go through the whole
process of what the statute has asked FCC to do, which is to
design it for--this additional spectrum for commercial uses.
Mr. LeGrande. I would just disagree with the
characterization that it will be helpful. It is needed for
public safety to have wireless broadband technologies available
in order to address the threat that exists to our country. So I
totally agree that the 24 megahertz in the current
interoperability plans and the efforts that we are all making
here. But it is important that we also move right now to
providing that ability for our first responders.
Mr. Grube. Could I add a comment? You know, I think the
original Biswick Report did not contemplate at that time wide
area broadband wireless. And what we have been discovering in
the last few years is that there is a real need for this, one
that we didn't see before so that when we talk about the 700
megahertz band, presumably we are going to fix this, we are
going to clear it. That is a voice interoperability, the basic
data, not the wide area broadband. And its proximity to the 800
megahertz band in total makes a very nice economical way for
the industry, like Motorola, to provide product across those 2
adjacent bands.
But in addition to that, to solve the needs that we have
been discovering together about broadband, we feel strongly
that an additional allocation is required. And since public
safety is already bracketed by the 24 megahertz below and the
800 megahertz above, it makes a lot of sense to consider public
safety and Federal broadband, wide area broadband
interoperability in this 30 megahertz that we are talking
about.
And I think that the economics will help determine this as
well because from a propagation point of view, when you take a
look at the cost to go build a 700 megahertz wide area
broadband system for a relatively few number of users--and I
say that about public safety because if you look at the user
density per square mile for public safety, it is a different
equation, probably by a factor of 100 relative to the consumer
world.
And so, if you are a carrier and you are contemplating the
bands, you are probably already talking about smaller cells
that spectrum such as the 2.1 gigahertz band or others up in
that area would be very attractive in terms of spectrum that
they would like and pay money through an auction. So I think
that we have to together look at those options for the carriers
that want to create a business there and really take as a
priority the sweet spot, if you will, at 700 megahertz for
public safety.
Mr. Boyd. Just as a quick note, the public safety community
will tell you that right now they have a lot of priorities, but
two fundamental priorities. One of them is the elimination of
the interference problem on 800 megahertz. And the other is
additional spectrum. And they will tell you their priority
concern, while they are interested in all kinds of
communications, is always going to be voice.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Stupak has a couple of additional questions.
Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If the priority and if their basic system is always voice,
then what is standing in the way of just going and getting
voice out there so they can talk to each other? I mean, they
all have voice now as a basic component. They are on different
frequencies. And we have the technology that already exists and
has been around for a long time to allow different frequencies
to speak to each other. So why don't we as a first step, almost
3 years after 9/11, just do that part so they can just talk to
each other? Can that be done?
Mr. Boyd. A number of efforts were already being done to do
that. In fact, most of the major urban areas, even beyond the
U.S. areas that are defined by ODP have, in fact, patch
technologies and patch devices in place. But even these require
some time to put in place because it is not just a technical
problem. Part of it is a technical issue and, of course, the
costs associated with training and planning that goes with it.
But the other part of it is very much a cultural issue.
In 1993 when I first put together an interoperability
initiative in this case, we wanted to try to allow all of the
agencies, Federal, State and local in San Diego County to
communicate with each other. And we used a fairly primitive
switching technology, nothing as good as exists right now.
Mr. Stupak. Sure. Right.
Mr. Boyd. It took us 30 days to implement the technology
with us paying for it. It took 2 years to get all the agencies
to agree to play a role.
Mr. Stupak. But don't you think that is all changed since
9/11? I mean, not all changed, but has really lessened since 9/
11 and the different needs and different things that we are
asking them to do from the Federal Government from a terrorism
point of view?
Mr. Boyd. I think it is much easier to get people on the
same sheet of music.
Mr. Stupak. Sure.
Mr. Boyd. But you still have to take the time to do that.
Mr. Stupak. Sure.
Mr. Boyd. And that means that you need to set up a process
that brings in--the way we talk about it is that you need to
set up a process that lets the local guy have a serious
incentive, that makes him want to be part of this. There is a
tendency to try to force things from the top down, whether it
is from the Federal level or the State level.
Mr. Stupak. Right, I agree.
Mr. Boyd. And you cannot do that in this community.
Mr. Stupak. But the incentive for doing it is just basic
safety. It is basic safety. It is more and more municipalities
are going to one-person cars which they did not do before. And
I think we can see it from a number of examples. Going back to
San Diego there, if you could do the technology in 30 days,
what was the cost then?
Mr. Boyd. Well, at that time, we used an existing Navy
switch panel to do that.
Mr. Stupak. Right.
Mr. Boyd. And it essentially was a manual patch, and
operators sat there and tied them together.
Mr. Stupak. Right.
Mr. Boyd. It is not like they put them now. I would say we
probably invested to do that in that county just to do the
technology about a half a million dollars. That did not
support--understand it was--it took more to do that.
Mr. Stupak. Right. Yes.
Mr. Boyd. But that doesn't support the continuing training
and the manning of the system and so on.
Mr. Stupak. Right. But now with a lot of jurisdictions
going to 911 and emergency 911, E-911, it is a lot easier to do
this now, to get the coordination and jurisdictions down under
at least one call center.
Mr. Muleta. If I could answer that question----
Mr. Stupak. Yes, go ahead.
Mr. Muleta. Well, I think most jurisdictions, public safety
answering points which deal with E-911 are different than the
public safety radio systems which are usually allocated. You
know, the public safety answering point is----
Mr. Stupak. Sure, but doesn't the 911 also not only answer
but also dispatches?
Mr. Muleta. It dispatches, but it goes through, I believe--
let's say it dispatches directly to the metropolitan police
department which then makes a decision to go to. So there isn't
a direct link to the officer on the ground. It has actually to
go through----
Mr. Stupak. Well, we in the rural areas still do it
correctly. We don't have a metropolitan to go through. So we
are usually receiving and directing right back out to the cars.
And that is why interoperability is so important when you are
dispatching to a State, local or county sheriff. I mean, it is
all got to be the same.
Mr. Boyd, if I can go back, of the $4.4 or so in Department
of Homeland Security grants that have gone out the last 2
years, do you know how much has been dedicated to
interoperability?
Mr. Boyd. That is a really tough question. And I can
explain why. We know in the case of the interoperability grants
in COPS and FEMA last year, about $75 million in each agency.
We know that that was interoperability money.
Mr. Stupak. Right.
Mr. Boyd. And, in fact, we participated in helping to set
up the selection process to do that. And we know that the $85
million in the COPS Office this year is interoperability. Most
of the rest of the money, however, is block grant money which
goes to the states.
Mr. Stupak. Correct. Correct.
Mr. Boyd. And as you know, once it gets to the State, the
State then can provide it to localities for any of a series of
authorized uses. The states aren't obligated to report back on
how much of that is actually used for interoperability, for
example.
Mr. Stupak. Okay. Yes, last week I was going to do an
amendment on the House floor, and Chairman Rogers thought that
you might be able to come up with those figures because I
didn't want to waste the money. I would rather see the money go
into the interoperability----
Mr. Boyd. In fact, we may be able to help you. I am not
sure about----
Mr. Stupak. But even in Michigan--we called Michigan. They
have received about $120 million, and they could not tell me
how much was interoperability. Hopefully there will be some way
we can focus on this in the next few months because we are
looking at a huge price tag. And we talk a lot about Federal
Government having to take leadership. And we certainly do have
to put the money forward for this. So we would be interested to
see what has gone in there and how much it is going to take.
Mr. Boyd. Yes, one of the pieces that may help you with
that, that we hope will help you with that because we think it
is crucial to what we are doing----
Mr. Stupak. Sure.
Mr. Boyd. [continuing] is a baseline survey which we are
initiating right now. Now this survey will take probably about
a year to complete. But we want to try to get a picture of what
the level of interoperability is. And you can't go to any place
now. You can't go to a data base.
Mr. Stupak. Right.
Mr. Boyd. You can't go to a source and say, ``What is the
level.'' So we want to do a really well-designed survey to get
a picture of what that baseline is because we need to bounce
that against the statement of requirements we have just
produced, figure out what the gap is and then we can give
people realistic estimates of what it is going to take to move
to interoperability.
Mr. Stupak. Yes, and you might want to take a look at
Michigan. They have been one of the leaders in it. But still,
even with your new system--they just did it statewide to the
State police. They still have 1,000 public safety agencies in
the State still not tied into it and still don't have the
interoperability. So that is a good place to start because they
just completed theirs last year.
Mr. Boyd. Yes, sir. I spent some time working with Mike
Robinson. I am familiar with the system.
Mr. Stupak. Good.
Mr. Upton. Thank you. I would just comment on the fact that
was raised about E-911. I had the occasion to make an E-911
call the other day at 6:30 in the morning. And the system here
works. I was on the bridge coming from Virginia to DC, saw a
terrible accident and called in. I was immediately patched to
PSAP somewhere in DC and identified that it was Arlington
County. Or the accident actually was. And they responded. So
the system is working.
And this is a very important subject, that one as well as
interoperability. I am pleased to see that things seem to be in
place and moving forward in the right direction. But obviously
the rest of the country, whether it be in Michigan or other
places are on the ball as well.
And just as I talk about E-911, I lament the fact that this
subcommittee and committee in Congress, thanks to bipartisan
help in a major way passed a very good E-911 bill. And it is
still languishing more than a year later in the other body, as
they like to say. Some of us like to say the lower body, but we
won't say that.
But again, I appreciate all of your work. This is a very
important topic, not only for us, but for the country. And we
appreciate your leadership. We look forward to working with you
as we move the ball down the field.
This hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]