[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 5785, THE WARNING, ALERT, AND RESPONSE
NETWORK
ACT OF 2006
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE
INTERNET
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JULY 20, 2006
Serial No. 109-125
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
30-298 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202)
512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman
RALPH M. HALL, Texas JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida Ranking Member
Vice Chairman 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
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia BART GORDON, Tennessee
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ANNA G. ESHOO, California
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico BART STUPAK, Michigan
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
CHARLES W. "CHIP" PICKERING, Mississippi ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
Vice Chairman GENE GREEN, Texas
VITO FOSSELLA, New York TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
ROY BLUNT, Missouri DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado
STEVE BUYER, Indiana LOIS CAPPS, California
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire TOM ALLEN, Maine
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania JIM DAVIS, Florida
MARY BONO, California JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
GREG WALDEN, Oregon HILDA L. SOLIS, California
LEE TERRY, Nebraska CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey JAY INSLEE, Washington
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
C.L. "BUTCH" OTTER, Idaho MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
SUE MYRICK, North Carolina
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
BUD ALBRIGHT, Staff Director
DAVID CAVICKE, 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
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico JAY INSLEE, Washington
CHARLES W. "CHIP" PICKERING, Mississippi RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
VITO FOSSELLA, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
GREG WALDEN, Oregon BART GORDON, Tennessee
LEE TERRY, Nebraska BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey ANNA G. ESHOO, California
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma BART STUPAK, Michigan
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
JOE BARTON, Texas (EX OFFICIO)
(EX OFFICIO)
CONTENTS
Page
Testimony of:
Knapp, Julius, Acting Chief, Office of Engineering and
Technology, Federal Communications Commission 18
Lawson, John, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Association of Public Television Stations 30
Guttman-McCabe, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs,
Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association 46
Kelly, Vincent D., President and Chief Executive
Officer, USA Mobility, Inc. 52
Pitts, Billy, President, Government Affairs, The NTI
Group, Inc. 59
Jackson, Sheriff Michael, Vice President, Maryland
Sheriffs' Association 72
Allen, Sara, Senior Radio Engineer, Ciara Enterprises,
Inc., on behalf of Prometheus Radio Project 76
H.R. 5785, THE WARNING, ALERT, AND RESPONSE
NETWORK ACT OF 2006
THURSDAY, JULY 20, 2006
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE INTERNET,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in
Room 2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Fred
Upton (Chairman) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Shimkus, Wilson,
Pickering, Bass, Walden, Terry, Blackburn, Markey, Wynn, Inslee,
Eshoo, Stupak, and Upton.
Staff present: Howard Waltzman, Majority Chief Counsel for
Telecommunications and the Internet; Kelly Cole, Counsel; Anh
Nguyen, Legislative Clerk; Johanna Shelton, Minority Counsel;
and David Vogel, Minority Research Assistant.
MR. UPTON. Good morning. Today we are holding a
legislative hearing on H.R. 5785, the Warning, Alert, and
Response Network Act, also known as the WARN Act. I want to
in particular, thank Mr. Shimkus and Mr. Wynn for introducing
this bipartisan legislation and for facilitating discussion of such
critical importance on our Nation's emergency alert systems.
As we experience technological breakthroughs on a near daily
basis, there is no question that our emergency alert system should
also employ the growing technologies of the 21st Century. But as
we saw on 9/11 and during Hurricane Katrina, there do exist many
shortcomings in our current alert system.
The first national alert system was first employed in 1951 by
President Truman, establishing a network that would later become
the Emergency Broadcast System to provide the President with a
direct means to directly communicate with the public over the
radio in times of national emergency.
While much has changed during the days of Harry Truman, the
alert system has only expanded to analog radio and television
stations as well as wired and wireless cable TV systems.
However, in October of 2005, the FCC expanded the
obligations to direct broadcast satellite, digital TV, digital cable,
satellite digital audio radio, and digital audio broadcasting services.
The 2005 rules go into effect this December 31, except for the
direct broadcast satellite rules, which take effect on May 31, 2007.
This is a very important step for our national alert system, but with
burgeoning technologies, it seems that more can be done to ensure
a greater blanket of coverage for the alert systems.
I applaud the WARN Act for looking at the wireless industry to
help bolster our alert system. With nearly 200 million Americans
carrying cell phones and other wireless devices it seems only
natural to also look to the wireless industry to help communicate in
times of emergencies.
This is a priority for the Bush Administration as well, as he
issued an executive order just 3-1/2 weeks ago declaring that U.S.
policy is "to have an effective, reliable, integrated, flexible, and
comprehensive system to alert and warn the American people."
What we must strive for is an emergency system that leaves no
one behind. I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panel
of witnesses to hear how they believe that we can better improve
our emergency alert system from coast to coast, ensuring that folks
in major urban areas, as well as small rural communities are all
notified in times of emergency.
Again, I want to thank Mr. Shimkus and Mr. Wynn for
introducing this bill and bringing the important issue to the
forefront. This literally is a matter of life and death. Thank you. I
yield to the Ranking Member of the subcommittee, my friend, Mr.
Markey.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. FRED UPTON, CHAIRMAN,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE INTERNET
Good morning. Today we are holding a legislative hearing on
H.R. 5785, the "Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act," also
known as the WARN Act. I thank Mr. Shimkus and Mr. Wynn for
introducing this legislation and for facilitating a discussion of such
critical importance on our nation's emergency alert system.
As we experience technological breakthroughs on a near daily
basis, there is no question that our emergency alert system should
also employ the growing technologies of the 21st century. But as
we saw on 9/11 and during Hurricane Katrina, there do exist
shortcomings in our current alert system.
The first national alert system was first employed in 1951 by
President Truman, establishing a network that would later become
the "Emergency Broadcast System" to provide the President with a
direct means to directly communicate with the public over the
radio in times of national emergency.
While much has changed since the days of Harry Truman, the
alert system has only expanded to analog radio and television
stations, as well as wired and wireless cable television systems.
However, in October 2005, the FCC expanded the obligations
to direct broadcast satellite, digital television, digital cable, satellite
digital audio radio, and digital audio broadcasting services. The
2005 rules go into effect December 31, 2006, except for the direct
broadcast satellite rules, which take effect on May 31, 2007. This
is a very important step for our national alert system, but with
burgeoning technologies, it seems that more can be done to ensure
a greater blanket of coverage for the alert systems.
I applaud the WARN Act for looking at the wireless industry to
help bolster our alert system. With nearly 200 million American
carrying cell phones and other wireless devices, it seems only
natural to also look to the wireless industry to help communicate in
times of emergencies.
This is a priority for President Bush as well, as he issued an
executive order just three and a half weeks ago, declaring U.S.
policy is "to have an effective, reliable, integrated, flexible, and
comprehensive system to alert and warn the American people."
What we must strive for is an emergency system that leaves no
one behind. I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panel
of witnesses to hear how they believe that we can better improve
our emergency alert system from coast to coast, ensuring that folks
in major urban areas as well as small rural communities are all
notified in times of emergency.
Again, I thank Mr. Wynn and Mr. Shimkus for introducing the
WARN Act and bringing this important issue to the forefront.
This is literally a matter of life and death.
Thank you.
MR. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
commend you for calling this hearing this morning on emergency
alert systems. As we are in the midst of hurricane season and
coming up on the fifth anniversary of 9/11, it is appropriate that we
analyze and examine proposals to enhance warnings for citizens
when danger is imminent. President Harry S. Truman established
in 1951 the first national alert system called CONELRAD, which
stands for control of electromagnetic radiation. This system was
used amongst other things to prepare young children such as
myself in the 1950s to deal with a nuclear attack from the Soviet
Union.
At 640 and 1240 on your dial about once every 3 to 4 months
the nuns at the Immaculate Conception grammar school would turn
on that radio, as we had a coordinated system, and initially we all
used to just put ourselves under our desks to protect ourselves
against a nuclear blast. And then it was decided we would be
better off if all 1,300 boys made it to the basement walking very
swiftly but not running so we could get into the basement, all of us,
within 2 minutes as the CONELRAD warning went on.
I can say this. CONELRAD worked to the extent to which we
were all in the basement. I am not sure it worked in terms of
protecting us against the effects of a nuclear blast but that was just
a misperception that our leaders had, but on this one they had a
good idea. The system evolved into the Emergency Broadcast
System and later into the Emergency Alert System or EAS.
The EAS provides the President with the ability to address the
American people in the event of a national emergency. It vests
sole responsibility to determine when the system is activated at the
national level to the President, and the President has delegated this
authority to the director of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency. Although the EAS was developed and implemented with
the notion that it would transmit presidential messages in times of
national crisi,s the EAS has never been activated for a national
presidential message. Many significant emergencies potentially
afflicting millions of citizens are more localized and occur at the
State or regional level.
Moreover, since the EAS system was developed America's
telecommunications infrastructure has changed. We no longer rely
upon broadcast television and radio for information as we did in
previous decades. We now have cable television, satellite radio,
the Internet, e-mail, pagers, and over 200 million wireless
subscribers across the country using wireless phones and all sorts
of wireless gadgets. These devices and communication systems
provide our nation with multiple means to reach people in
emergencies whether they are at home watching TV, listening to
the radio, online, in their car, at their office or walking down the
street. The Administration has begun an initiative to explore the
use of the public broadcasting system and digital technology to
provide alerts across various media and communication systems
including wireless devices.
In addition, the FCC is currently working on a proceeding that
could wind up mandating that wireless providers implement new
alert technology. The wireless industry has raised some concerns
about the feasibility of blasting out alerts simultaneously to a
specific geographic area. They have also noted the cost of
upgrades to existing networks and the prospect of swapping out
consumer hand sets at significant cost and suggest that the FCC's
action could constitute an unfunded mandate.
On the other hand, it is clear that the Administration is
prepared to fund the public broadcast project, and the budget
passed earlier this year included over $100 million for this type of
system, and also a tsunami warning system. The House
Republicans, however, in the Appropriations Committee several
weeks ago zeroed out the funding for infrastructure that public
broadcasts will rely on to make this new digital Emergency Alert
System functional. So it is obvious those members didn't get the
same policy alert message the President was sending.
And I think we need an over-arching plan here. Again, this is
supposed to be an alert system for occasions requiring immediate
public response and action. As a result, I think it is appropriate to
revisit the voluntary nature of some pending proposals. As bad as
an unfunded mandate would be, it seems equally problematic to
spend potentially hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer
money on a new alert system and a new office in the Government
somewhere to administer it and then indicate to industry that they
don't have to use it.
This would represent a funded, non-mandate, the worst of all
situations. Finally, as we continue to look into these issues and
consider any legislative proposals, we also need to look closely at
the method for extending credentials to officials permitted to use
the system, the criteria for what constitutes an appropriate
emergency message, and location and operation of any
administrative entity at the national or regional level and the
relationship this system will have with other pre-existing
complimentary alert or warning systems. Again, Mr. Chairman,
this is a very important subject, and I thank you for having the
hearing.
MR. UPTON. Mr. Shimkus.
MR. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding this hearing. I want to thank my good friend, Albert
Wynn, for his help on this piece of legislation, along with original
co-sponsors Mary Bono, George Radanovich, Eliot Engel, and
Chip Pickering. And I think that is a good start. This legislative
hearing is important to flush out a lot of the questions and see
where we are at. I have had a lot of good comments from folks
coming in upon the dropping of the bill. I am very optimistic that
it will move us in a better direction than we are.
Currently, and as was called upon by the Katrina report, which
said we've got to do a better job, there is a lot of technology out
there, there are a lot of capabilities. So the real debate is how do
you expedite the process, how do you move us forward without
doing great harm and slowing up the process, and I think we have
reached a pretty good balance. We want to make sure that, one, it
is used and it is used appropriately. We want to make sure that
those who make those decisions have been well trained to make
sure that so you don't get the cry wolf syndrome and people just
disregard the alerts.
I look forward to hearing your comments as to how we are
successfully doing that or maybe there are possible improvements
to make sure that we can move effectively as possible. Last night
tornados went through St. Louis, Missouri. I live 15 minutes from
St. Louis. Lacey Clay, my good friend, just came in and his St.
Louis home was out of power until 4:00 a.m. Parts of my district
were left--I mean there is some damage but nothing major.
But the article from the Springfield paper says such was not the
case in St. Louis where a section of the roof at Lambert St. Louis
International Airport was ripped off, and the windows were
knocked out of a rooftop restaurant. Three people were reported
injured when a building collapsed in south central St. Louis. This
is why we are here. Major events that at least we can get people
warned and it is coming down the pike, we ought to use all the
technology available. And we should not hinder new technological
development by dictating what that technology should be.
So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the hearing, and I look
forward to working with you to move the bill forward.
MR. UPTON. Well, I just want to say to the gentleman from
Illinois that I know he is a diehard Cardinal fan despite being from
the State of Illinois, and as I understand the turf was ripped up at
the Cardinal game last night. All the windows of the press box
were blown out. It was pretty serious trouble. I want to at this
point put in by unanimous consent an opening statement by Mary
Bono into the record, and would yield now to Mr. Wynn for an
opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Mary Bono follows:]
THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARY BONO, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Markey, good morning
and thank you for holding this hearing today. Additionally, I
would like to welcome our witnesses and thank them for
participating in this important hearing on H.R. 5785, the "Warning,
Alert, and Response Network Act of 2006."
As a representative of a district prone to natural disasters, like
earthquakes, fires and floods I am proud to be an original co-
sponsor of the WARN Act. If enacted, this legislation would serve
to help us better utilize our national communications capabilities
for the increased safety of our citizens. This bi-partisan bill, co-
sponsored by several members of the Energy and Commerce
Committee, is designed to ensure the transmission of alerts across
a broad variety of communication technologies, including wireless
communications devices such as cell phones and PDAs, the
Internet, television and radio, and other communications resources
available in the United States. This important step towards
improving the safety of our citizens is within our reach.
I think it is important to note that this legislation parallels the
recommendations of the FCC's Independent Panel Reviewing the
Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Communications Networks and an
Executive Order issue by President Bush this past June. One of the
findings of the FCC Independent Panel was "the use of
communications networks to disseminate reliable emergency
information to the public is critical - before, during and after such
events." The Panel also found that our current emergency alert
system is not where it needs to be. The Panel's dual emphasis on
the alert and instruction is an important aspect of this bill.
Additionally, in President Bush's Executive Order issued in
June he stated that the United States policy is "to have an effective,
reliable, integrated, flexible, and comprehensive system to alert
and warn the American people..." The WARN Act supports both
of these notions.
To bring this matter closer to home, I recently co-hosted a
roundtable discussion in my district with Congressman Ken
Calvert. At that roundtable, we discussed preparedness,
coordination and the response of the federal, state, tribal, and local
government efforts in the event of a natural or man-made disaster.
While there were many topics discussed at the roundtable, the
issue of providing citizens with information was discussed at
length. It is perfectly clear that the greater the number of
communications technologies used to spread alerts and
instructions, the greater the reach into the public important
messages will have. The wisdom of this bill is that it recognizes
both the value of information itself and the importance of granting
citizens access to information.
As we are all well aware, the ability to alert and instruct
citizens before, during, and after the occurrence of a disaster is
essential to the public's safety. An emergency alert system that has
the capability to warn citizens of danger and provide them with
instructions on how to secure themselves and their families has the
potential to be the difference between life and death.
I would like to once again thank the Chairman and the Ranking
Member for holding this hearing and would urge further action on
this important legislation.
Thank you and I yield back.
MR. WYNN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would
like to thank you for holding this very important hearing on H.R.
5785, the Warning, Alert and Response Network, WARN Act. I
would like to begin by thanking my colleague, Congressman
Shimkus, for his leadership on this issue. He has done a great job,
and I want to thank him for allowing me to be a co-sponsor on this
measure. I think it is a very important piece of legislation. He just
left, but I also wanted to thank my colleague, Mr. Markey, for
bringing back nostalgic memories of an innocent time when we
thought that hiding under a wooden desk would save us from a
nuclear attack.
Also, finally I would like to recognize my good friend and a
true first responder, Sheriff Michael Jackson, from Prince George's
County. He has been extremely diligent in providing an effective
voice for law enforcement in Prince George's County, and I would
also mention that he is an incoming chair of the legislative
committee of the Maryland Sheriffs' Association. As a Member of
Congress whose district is in close proximity to Washington, D.C.,
a prime target for terrorism, I am particularly concerned about
having an effective alert system. On September 11, 30 of my
constituents were killed in the attacks. Many congressional staff
and the largest number of Federal workers in the country, 70,000,
reside in my district in Prince George's and Montgomery Counties.
Currently, the Emergency Alert System provides emergency
warnings only for television and radio broadcast. Unfortunately,
the system has not kept pace with our increasingly mobile and
wireless society. The WARN Act would establish a network for
the transmission of alerts through numerous methods of
communication technologies including wireless communication
devices such as cell phones and Blackberries, the Internet, digital,
analog, cable, satellite television, and satellite and analog radio, as
well as non-traditional media such as a public warning siren.
The WARN Act creates a voluntary national alert system to
provide the public with a reliable communication system capable
of warning the public in the event of a catastrophic event. An
important aspect of this bill is that it establishes a national alert
system working group which will bring together all parties to
establish a reliable, comprehensive approach, implementing a
wide-scale emergency alert communication system.
We need this input from the folks on the ground. The bill will
provide Federal, State, and local emergency managers with a tool
to input alerts into the system and have them directed out to a
geographically targeted section of the population as necessary.
The White House Katrina report recommended that we should
employ all available 21st Century technologies both to update and
utilize the National Emergency Alert system in order to provide the
general public with advanced notification and instructions for
disasters and emergencies. This bill builds on that
recommendation.
I believe it remains our goal to develop and maintain a
comprehensive emergency management program. Through
planning with Federal, State, and local officials and the private
sector, I am certain that we can develop a coordinated safety and
preparedness strategy to protect life, property, and the environment
from the effects of both natural and man-made disasters, including
terrorist acts. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today,
and again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this very
important hearing.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Albert R. Wynn follows:]
THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. ALBERT R. WYNN, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I would like to
thank you for holding this important hearing on H.R. 5785, the
Warning, Alert, and Response (WARN) Act. I would like to thank
my colleague, Congressman Shimkus for his leadership and
allowing me to co-sponsor this bill. I would also like to take this
opportunity to recognize one of our witnesses, Sheriff Michael
Jackson from Prince George's County, a true first responder.
Sheriff Jackson has been extremely diligent in helping to provide
effective voice in law enforcement for Prince George's County.
As a Member of Congress whose district is in close proximity
to Washington, D.C.- a prime target - I am particularly concerned
about an effective alerts system. On 9/11, thirty of my constituents
were killed in the attacks. Many Congressional staff and the
largest number of federal workers in the country, over 70,000
reside in my district - Prince George's and Montgomery
Counties. As evidenced by 9/11 and Hurricanes Katrina and Rita,
we need to dramatically upgrade our communications network.
Currently, the Emergency Alert System provides emergency
warnings only for television and radio broadcast. Unfortunately
this system has not kept pace with our increasingly mobile and
wireless society. The WARN Act will establish a network for the
transmission of alerts through numerous methods of
communication technologies, including wireless communication
devices (cell phones, black berries, etc.), the Internet, digital,
analog, cable, satellite television, and satellite and analog radio, as
well as non-traditional media such as public warning sirens.
The WARN Act creates a voluntary National Alert System to
provide the public with a reliable communications system capable
of warning the public in the event of a catastrophic event. An
important aspect of this bill is that it establishes a National Alert
System Working Group, which will bring together all parties to
establish a reliable, comprehensive approach to implementing a
wide-scale emergency alert communications system. The bill will
also provide federal, state and local emergency managers with a
tool to input alerts into the system and have them directed out to a
geographically targeted section of the population.
The White House Katrina report recommended that we should
"Employ all available 21st Century technologies both to update
and utilize the national Emergency Alert System in order to
provide the general public with advanced notification of and
instruction for disaster and emergencies." This bill builds on that
recommendation.
It remains our goal to develop and maintain a comprehensive
emergency management program. Through planning with federal,
state and local official, and the private sector, I am certain that we
can develop a coordinated safety and preparedness strategy to
protect life, property, and the environment from the effects of
natural and man-made disasters, including terrorist acts. I look
forward to hearing from the panelists today.
MR. UPTON. Thank you again for your sponsorship. Mr.
Terry.
MR. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and first of all thank
you for holding this hearing, and thank you to my two colleagues
for drafting what I think is a creative and important piece of
legislation to implement what the authors of this legislation intend
and grasping--getting our arms around a variety of technologies
out there in a creative way of alerting people of imminent danger.
This technology, frankly, exists in the commercial markets today
and is implemented by large corporations. I represent Omaha,
Nebraska, which is a telecommunications services center.
Unfortunately, missing in our very esteemed blue ribbon panel
here today are the companies that are already doing this large
scale.
For example, some executives from a teleservices company,
one of the top three in the Nation, Citel International, told me
about the technology that they are trying to implement one on one
with county emergency services around the country as the ability
to reach out and call several hundred thousand people with a
recorded message warning them of an imminent danger. They can
do that right now. I mean that is their business and they have the
software. It is just a matter of who wants that type of service.
They can hone in the message, so if you are reaching in Omaha,
for example, a Hispanic household that is Spanish-speaking, they
can have a warning that is in Spanish or for the 9,000 Sudanese
they can break it up into three different dialects. That technology
already exists.
And they can have a recorded message saying this is the
danger, this is what you need to do. If it is like in New Orleans to
evacuate the message can even tell them which routes their part of
the city has to use. It can actually determine or they can pre-
determine, for example, if there is a disabled person with no
transportation that would then alert the authorities that this person
is on a list to need extra help in case of an evacuation. This
already exists out there so it is a matter of, I think, clueing in our,
frankly, Federal government and local governments that this exists,
but I think this is creative. Not only can they telephone your house
but they can send it to your PDA, your Blackberry with e-mail
messages.
So it exists out there today. I think we just need to make sure
that we have a comprehensive plan where this technology that
already exists out there is brought into our national emergency
preparedness plans driven down of course to the very local levels.
So I am very pleased to be part of the hearing. Thanks to all of our
witnesses here, and I think the authors of this legislation, Mr.
Shimkus and Mr. Wynn, have done a great service to our country.
MR. UPTON. Ms. Eshoo.
MS. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing, and I want to salute my friend, John Shimkus, and his co-
sponsors for writing the bill. He is always thoughtful in these
areas. I know firsthand because we have worked closely together
as the co-chairs of the House E911 caucus.
I think it is more than appropriate that we consider emergency
warning systems so that we can take advantage of modern
communications and weave this through our entire
communications system.
Very often a good idea just makes so much sense we think,
well, why didn't we do this before? I think that this legislation
bears that imprimatur. Regardless of where an individual is or
what kind of media they may be using, everyone in the country
should be able to receive in the most timely way any kind of urgent
communications relative to their public safety. We know that we
are challenged by natural disasters. We know that there are human
made, I don't want to say man made, human made accidents, and
then what has been visited upon our country, acts of terror.
We have the capacity to do this, and we have, I think, the finest
partners in the private sector that will help to implement this. But
what public policy is about is shaping the direction, having the
vision, working with the partners, and I have no doubt that we can
accomplish this.
I am going to slip in here, you would be surprised if I didn't,
that the Congress still has to fund the ENHANCE 911 Act. If in
fact we are going to have really a ubiquitous system in the country,
the funding of that I think is really essential.
I think most members would still be surprised, certainly the
American people would be, to know that when millions of people
call 911 that the operators still in so many areas really do not know
where that call is coming from. If you don't know where the call is
coming from then you can't get help to the person that is calling.
That kind of identification I think is absolutely essential. So there
are many of us that are still in the trenches trying to make this a
reality in our country, and to those of you that have helped with it,
I say thank you to you. We still need your help because the
implementation of this important effort in our country has not yet
been realized.
I don't think Mr. Bilirakis is here, but we have a bill together,
the Calling for 211 Act, that also fits in with part of the effort that
is on the table today.
So I look forward to hearing from the witnesses. I want to
thank you for all the work that you have done and what you will
do. And again my congratulations to the sponsors, and thank you,
Mr. Chairman, for having the hearing.
MR. UPTON. Mr. Pickering.
MR. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for
holding this hearing. I do commend Congressmen Shimkus and
Wynn for their leadership on this issue. I look forward to hearing
the panel. I do think as our region, my State, recover from Katrina
that these types of efforts are critically important as we prepare for
future storms and disasters. I think that this is the right approach
and the working group that will help all parties, all stakeholders,
resolve the different set of standards and come up with appropriate
ways to implement these objectives is the right way to go.
I look forward to hearing the panel, and, Mr. Chairman, thank
you for holding this hearing.
MR. UPTON. Mr. Stupak.
MR. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for
holding this hearing. This subcommittee has a strong record of
advancing our Nation's public safety and emergency
communications. However, it could be stronger if you would just
at least allow a hearing on my legislation of public safety
interoperability trust fund. No response. Okay. The legislation
before us today, H.R. 5785, the Warning, Alert and Response
Network Act or WARN Act, will continue in the tradition of this
subcommittee. As a former law enforcement officer I know how
important it is that our citizens are well informed and have clear
direction in the case of emergency.
Out Nation's Emergency Alert System has no doubt saved
thousands of lives by giving citizens direction ahead of severe
storms. We learned during Hurricane Katrina that emergency
broadcast communications can play a vital role after the storm has
passed. That is why the efforts of the Federal Communications
Commission, industry, and the public safety community to
modernize emergency alert systems are so important. People have
more ways then ever before to be and remain connected.
Blackberries, pagers, cell phones, satellite radio, digital radio, and
televisions are all new technologies that can and should be
harnessed to ensure that people stay informed before, during and
after emergencies.
I commend the FCC for beginning the proceeding to look for
ways to expand the Emergency Alert System to these new
technologies. I commend Mr. Shimkus and Mr. Wynn for
introducing the WARN Act to help us further this effort. Mr.
Shimkus and Mr. Wynn's legislation will ensure that there is
appropriate redundancy in interoperability in these emergency alert
efforts. I also want to note that just as important as emergency
communications with the public is emergency communications
between the first responders, which is just as important if not more
important.
We are already billions of dollars and years behind where this
country should be in terms of investing in a fully interoperable
public safety communication system. However, we can solve this
problem if the committee once again would have hearings and
enact a dedicated funding mechanism for emergency
communications which would then fund interoperability public
safety communications, E911, and emergency alerts. I have
introduced such a bill, as I mentioned earlier, that would dedicate a
portion of spectrum sales to a public safety interoperability trust
fund.
Last year the committee, drawing from my legislation, created
a trust fund and made a billion dollar deposit from the DTV
auction proceeds, but a billion dollars we all know is a mere drop
in the bucket. This committee should now enact legislation to
ensure that the country continues to invest in public safety
communications by creating a secure dedicated funding source
from the trust fund. Finally, I would like to thank our witnesses
for coming today to give us their perspective on this legislation. I
would especially like to thank Sheriff Michael Jackson, Prince
George's County, Maryland, who will tell us a lot about the
realities first responders face on the ground. With that, Mr.
Chairman, I will yield back my time. Thank you.
MR. UPTON. Mr. Bass.
MR. BASS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As our distinguished
Ranking Member of the committee says on many occasions, I have
a splendid statement that I would like with your permission to
submit for the record. Thank you for having this hearing today.
Much of what is in this statement has been covered by others, and I
yield back.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Charles F. Bass follows:]
THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHARLES F. BASS, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW
HAMPSHIRE
Thank you Chairman Upton and thank you to the witnesses for
being here today and I look forward to hearing your testimony.
During the Cold War and the proliferation of the atomic bomb,
the U.S. created the CONELRAD (Control of Electromagnetic
Radiation) which later evolved into Emergency Alert System
(EAS) for cases of a national emergency. This system was created
so the President could communicate to as many Americans as
possible in a time of crisis to provide assurance and information.
Fortunately, the system has never been needed to be used in such a
scenario.
Since that time, the EAS has evolved with broadcasters and
cable systems voluntarily working with state and local agencies to
use the existing system to communicate local emergency messages
- such as tornadoes, hurricanes, Amber Alerts, and other
emergencies. These have often been successful in getting critical
information to citizens, but as we saw with larger disasters such as
9/11 and Hurricane Katrina there is room to improve.
It is important to point out that the nature of the threat has
changed since 1951 -to one of terrorist attacking localities or
regions - as well as the technology available to people to
communicate. Almost -if not everyone in this room has at least a
cell phone, pager, blackberry, or other communication devise on
them right now. This was unimaginable at the time we first created
this emergency system and thus these changes should be reflected
in any emergency system.
These various devices make it easier for people to get
information wherever they are located even when phone, cable,
and electric lines are down. Some parents are even providing their
children with cell phones or pagers so they can communicate to
them in time of emergency. Information is the best defense in any
emergency and H.R. 5785 takes us the next step in taking
advantage of the new technologies available to the industry and
citizens so there is no issue of interoperability with citizens as well
as first responders getting necessary information.
The ability to communicate to the public with an authoritative
source is critical to citizens to know what is happening and how to
respond in a timely manner. If that communication breaks down -
it can lead to loss of life. As we saw with Tsunami, the lack of
warning to people resulted in lost of thousands of lives. In New
Orleans and other places in the Gulf, lack of clear information
caused confusion for many of the evacuees in the Gulf region - as
well as amongst those that were there assisting the evacuation and
recovery process. Misinformation from various sources caused
confusion during evacuation. Even in my state of New Hampshire,
we have had two massive floods causing many citizens to evacuate
their homes and communities. Some of these towns are very rural
and evacuation was made difficult by the flooding out of roads and
bridges- sometimes the only way to leave their homes. The ability
to communicate to citizens in a certain area of roads washed out
and alternate routes would help many of our communities.
I am pleased to see so many stakeholders eager to work
together on expanding our emergency communication system and
again I thank you for being here.
MR. UPTON. I look forward to reading that splendid statement.
MR. BASS. I also want to commend the Chairman. I do not see
anybody from Michigan on this panel. Unusual.
MR. UPTON. I will come back with something in a moment.
Ms. Wilson.
MS. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding this hearing. I also wanted to commend my colleagues,
Mr. Wynn and Mr. Shimkus, for their leadership on this issue.
Most of us remember as kids on Saturdays usually at lunch time, at
least it was in my hometown, where they sent that tone over the
radio and it said this was a test, this is only a test of the emergency
broadcast system. All of us are used to seeing on the--hearing on
the radio and then seeing the crawler on the television that there is
a flash flood warning or a fire warning or those kinds of things on
television and radio, but we need to get beyond that to new modes
of communication, whether it is the Blackberry we carry around on
our hips or cell phones or Internet.
And we have already started to see that in a voluntary way with
something called the Amber Alert where we are using the
emergency broadcast system to alert people in communities about
children who might have been abducted. But certain online
services like America Online have started using those Amber
Alerts and putting them out to their members on America Online
so there are possibilities here to expand our emergency
notifications and use new technologies to get information to people
when they need it most. So I look forward to this hearing, hearing
about how the pilot project has worked, what we have learned,
what we need to do better, and what legislation might be required.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. UPTON. Mrs. Blackburn.
MRS. BLACKBURN. I will waive an opening statement. I do
want to welcome our witnesses today and thank them for being
here, and we are looking forward to some good questions.
[Additional statement submitted for the record follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOE BARTON, CHAIRMAN,
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today on
the "Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act," known as the
WARN Act. This is an important public debate, and it is time we
start considering the value of advancements in communications
and the role that such advancements can play in emergency alerts.
Events like 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina made having a vibrant
and robust emergency alert system a priority. In the chaos of a
general emergency, people must have a reliable way to receive
information about what has happened and get instructions about
what to do.
We have come a long way since 1951 when President Truman
established the first alert system. Those were the days when
television was just arriving and a long-distance phone call was an
event in the life of a family. Today, we live in a culture of
mobility, where most of us have access to the Internet, millions
have cellphones and many carry data devices like BlackBerrys and
Treos. With 200 million people in this country carrying wireless
devices, it makes sense that when the government needs to alert the
public about emergencies, the best way is to get their attention is
through the communications devices they carry on them.
In fact, one of the recommendations coming from the White
House Katrina Report was that the U.S. should "employ all
available 21st century technologies both to update and utilize the
national Emergency Alert System in order to provide the general
public with advanced notification of and instruction for disasters
and emergencies."
The WARN Act, introduced by Reps. Shimkus and Wynn, will
create a National Alert System so that anybody with a
communications device can be warned. The WARN Act will
enable emergency alerts to be transmitted over a broad range of
technologies, including broadcast and cable, whether digital or
analog, mobile phones, BlackBerrys, and satellite television and
radio. And, importantly, the WARN Act requires the creation of a
Working Group made up of government officials and experts in
industry and public safety. With the input of all interested parties,
we can create a vibrant emergency alert system that is consistent,
redundant, and, most importantly, reliable.
I understand that there is a great deal of activity going on in the
emergency alert space. As we will hear today, the Federal
Communications Commission is currently examining this issue in
light of their work with the Emergency Alert System. The
Association of Public Television Stations has been working on
pilot projects using the existing public broadcasting infrastructure
to transmit emergency alerts. I am anxious to learn more about
these projects and how they fit into the WARN Act work we are
doing today.
I thank Representatives Shimkus and Wynn for their good
work on this bill, and the Chairman for holding this hearing. I
yield back.
MR. UPTON. That concludes the opening statements from the
members. We are delighted with the panel that we have
assembled, and I am sure that someone will talk about their roots
to Michigan along the way. We are joined by Mr. Julius Knapp,
Acting Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology from
the Federal Communications Commission; Mr. John Lawson,
President and CEO of the Association of Public TV Stations; Mr.
Christopher Guttman-McCabe, Vice President of Regulatory
Affairs, Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association;
Mr. Vincent Kelly, President and Chief Executive Officer of USA
Mobility; Mr. Billy Pitts, President, Government Affairs, NTI
Group, here in Washington, D.C.; Sheriff Michael Jackson, Vice
President of the Maryland Sheriffs' Association; Ms. Sara Allen,
Senior Radio Engineer for Ciara Enterprises on behalf of the
Prometheus Radio Project.
Welcome all of you. We appreciate that your statements came
up at the deadline, and they are made part of the record in their
entirety, and we would like you to take no more than 5 minutes to
summarize your statement, at which point we will then ask
questions from our panel here. Mr. Knapp, we will start with you.
Welcome. Good to see you.
STATEMENTS OF JULIUS KNAPP, ACTING CHIEF, OFFICE OF ENGINEERING AND
TECHNOLOGY, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; JOHN LAWSON,
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC TELEVISION
STATIONS; CHRISTOPHER GUTTMAN-MCCABE, VICE PRESIDENT, REGULATORY AFFAIRS,
CELLULAR TELECOMMUNICATIONS & INTERNET ASSOCIATION; VINCENT D. KELLY,
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, USA MOBILITY, INC.; BILLY
PITTS, PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, NTI GROUP, INC.; SHERIFF MICHAEL
JACKSON, VICE PRESIDENT, MARYLAND SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION; AND SARA ALLEN,
SENIOR RADIO ENGINEER, CIARA ENTERPRISES, INC., ON BEHALF OF PROMETHEUS
RADIO PROJECT
MR. KNAPP. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Upton,
distinguished members of the committee. I am Julius Knapp, the
Acting Chief of the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology.
I welcome this opportunity to appear before you to discuss the
Emergency Alert System or EAS. Since the Cold War era, the
United States has had a mechanism in place for the President to
communicate with the public in the event of a national emergency.
Under the current emergency alert system, all analog broadcast,
radio, television and cable systems are required to deliver a
presidential level activation of EAS but their use of EAS in
response to State and local emergencies, while encouraged, is
voluntary.
Effective December 31 of this year, digital television
broadcasters, digital cable systems, digital audio broadcasters, and
satellite digital audio radio service providers will be required to
deliver presidential EAS messages; and effective May 31, 2007,
direct broadcast satellite providers will be required to do so. In
light of today's Homeland Security threats and potential for natural
disasters, the FCC remains acutely aware of the importance of
timely and effective warnings.
In addition, there are exciting changes in our communications
media that may allow for additional improvements in our warning
systems. As a result of these changes, EAS has recently been the
subject of much examination. To ensure that we do our part to
contribute to an efficient and technologically current public alert
and warning system, the Commission is conducting a rulemaking
proceeding to consider whether the current EAS is the most
effective way to warn the American public of an emergency, and,
if not, how this system can be improved.
In an August 2004, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the FCC
raised broad questions about whether the technical capabilities of
the EAS are consistent with the Commission's mission to ensure
that public warning systems take full advantage of current and
emerging technologies, particularly digital broadcast and wireless
telecommunications medium. The Commission also raised the
issue of whether the voluntary nature of the EAS at the State and
local level has led to inconsistent treatment of emergency alerts
across the Nation, and, if so, whether that is appropriate in today's
world.
We also considered issues such as what the respective roles of
the Federal government department and agencies involved in the
implementation of that EAS should be, how the delivery pipeline
for public warning can be made more secure, how it can be tested,
how both emergency managers and the public can use and respond
to a public warning system in the most effective manner, and how
a public warning system can most effectively provide emergency
warnings to the disabled community and those to whom English is
a second language.
Indeed, a key focus of our inquiry was and continues to be how
to reach each and every citizen. In November 2005, the FCC
adopted its first report and order and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking. In the first report and order, the Commission
expanded the reach of the EAS to insure that more Americans are
able to receive public alert and warnings by requiring the
participation of digital communication systems including digital
television and radio, digital cable, and satellite television and radio.
In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission
sought further comment on ways that it could expedite the
development of a comprehensive, efficient, and redundant state of
the art public alert and warning system.
We have coordinated closely with the Department of
Homeland Security and its component, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, or FEMA, and with the National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, and its
component, the National Weather Service. The Commission
values these agencies' continued participation in our review of
EAS. We look forward to working with Congress, our colleagues
and other Federal, State, and tribal agencies and the public to
ensure that we can provide the best possible warning system to our
citizens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear
before you today. This concludes my testimony and I would be
pleased to answer questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Julius Knapp follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JULIUS KNAPP, ACTING CHIEF, OFFICE
OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
MR. UPTON. Thank you. Mr. Lawson, welcome back.
MR. LAWSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that my wife's
mother and sister are from Michigan.
MR. UPTON. I knew it. Make sure you repeat that when Mr.
Bass returns.
MR. LAWSON. On behalf of the Association of Public
Television Stations, I do welcome this opportunity to participate in
the hearing. We have been heavily involved in the development of
a 21st Century alert and warning system for the American public
and were keenly interested in the subject at hand, so let me begin
by saying that APTS strongly endorses the WARN Act, and we
commend Mr. Shimkus and Mr. Wynn for their leadership in
introducing the bill as well as the members of the committee for
co-sponsoring it. And we applaud you, Mr. Chairman, for
scheduling this hearing so quickly after the introduction of the bill.
As you know, public television has embraced digital
technology. It is enabling us to roll out a new generation of
services for the American public. In addition to high definition
and multi-casting, we have pioneered a third application made
possible by DTV, and that is datacasting. Through our broadcast
signal along with our programming, we can send text, graphics,
streaming media in the Internet protocol format throughout a wide
geographic region wirelessly. For some time we have been
discussing our emergency alert capabilities even before 9/11 with
officials in the Executive Branch and Congress, and I am happy to
say that members of this subcommittee and others are listening as
evidenced by this hearing.
In fact, last week the White House, the Department of
Homeland Security, and my association, APTS, jointly announced
that the Department has committed to funding the build out of a
national digital Emergency Alert System or DEAS. Public
television will serve as a backbone of a network of networks. This
commitment was based on the completion of a successful two-
phase pilot project that proved that alerts transmitted and a
station's digital signal could be received and re-transmitted on a
wide range of media and communications platforms. In other
words, it proved interoperability and it supports the President's
executive order in this way.
The current EAS as you and others have noted has its roots in
the Cold War. What we announced last week is an alert system for
the mobile network and digital America of today. Like the current
EAS, the digital EAS is designed for the President or his successor
to communicate with the American public at a time of national
crisis. The WARN Act is the logical next step to DEAS, and that
is because it builds upon the new presidential system to provide
local, State, and regional alert and warning capabilities as well.
And like DEAS, the WARN Act recognizes a huge cost-
effective dual use opportunity for the Federal government. Public
stations have raised over $1.1 billion for the conversion to digital
with about one-third of that coming from Federal sources. As a
result of this investment, public stations have the digital
infrastructure in place today to serve as a dual-use backbone for
the national alert system authorized under WARN. Please allow
me to provide an overview of our capabilities.
We have 356 public television station transmitters in this
country and many translators are 100 percent interconnected via
the PBS satellite network. These are locally owned, non-profit
institutions. Public television reaches 99 percent of the U.S.
population, about 95 percent now with our digital signal. Mr.
Chairman, our system was built for universal service and we
deliver it. And DTV datacasting has many advantages to this
system. DTV is really a very powerful wireless data distribution
platform. It provides total scalability. It is designed for mass
distribution. We can reach a million receivers as easily as one
without any of the congestion we saw with cell line and phone
lines during 9/11.
It is a receivable and inexpensive receiver device. We are
talking about $40 under the television receiver subsidy program. It
can be addressed to selected receivers and encrypted on a need to
know basis. Just a brief look at the dynamics of the bandwidth
allocation. This is a representation of an American digital
television signal and you can see that high definition does not take
the whole bandwidth. You can dedicate some of the bandwidth for
data transmission. You can find other data opportunistically.
Typically we are using only less than a megabyte per second in our
emergency alert projects.
So let me transcribe the architecture of our pilot project, which
will be the basis for the actual deployment and the demonstration
we want to conduct for you in just a moment. One of the--at the
upper left is the Department of Homeland Security. In the pilot,
they have originated test messages which are sent on a dedicated
line to the PBS satellite operations center in Springfield, Virginia.
The satellite without anyone touching it, no one at the station or
PBS touches these messages, they are simply passed through
digitally. Stations receive the signal off the satellite. In this case,
WETA received it and retransmitted it simultaneously. These
alerts were picked up by a variety of media including cell carriers,
paging companies, satellite radio, and other broadcasters and we
sent it to stations around the country.
One of the hallmarks of the pilot project was the large number
of partners we had in the public and private sectors, Federal
agencies here, all sorts of private media and communications
carriers. Because of the success of phase one, DHS funded us to
expand the project and conduct phase two, which came to 24
public stations participating in this project. Mr. Chairman, we
commend the WARN Act for its goal of creating a truly integrated
national alert system. This commitment of $106 million will go a
long way toward providing the kind of system that the American
people need and deserve.
We do have some questions about the funding mechanism
through WARN. We are concerned that our stations would incur
the cost of installing the equipment and then have to be
reimbursed. We hope to discuss that with you and members of the
subcommittee. But we are deeply gratified to see this legislation
moving forward. Digital public television stands ready to provide
the backbone of a network of networks that can deliver instant
warnings to people wherever they are or whatever they are doing.
And now, Mr. Chairman, with your permission we will be
happy to conduct a live demonstration of the digital Emergency
Alert System.
MR. UPTON. Fire away.
MR. LAWSON. Please let me go back to the schematic and
describe what you will see and hear rather then me talking over the
test. FEMA will originate a live test message and send it to the
PBS facility in Springfield. It will be up linked with video
satellites. We can also provide live streaming media and audio.
MR. UPTON. I will just note that it just came over my
Blackberry just now.
MR. LAWSON. And we can ring cell phones and Blackberries.
So radio and newscasts receive the audio portions of this alert live
off of WETA and are retransmitting it so that is what you are
hearing with a slight delay coming off their satellite. You can also
see, we are seeing this through a computer browser through this
server, which is connected to a small indoor antenna in the window
and the DTV tuner part is built into this device inexpensively.
Along with the alert and the audio and video, we are sending files
that are building here that we can delete and reload. This is just
hypothetical information. It could be sent by the authorities to
police departments or the sheriff's departments or hospitals in
addition to the alert that the public is receiving, so this is a highly
flexible and robust system.
In this test today, we did set off cell phones for those of you
who gave us your numbers. We used the Internet for this through
software developed by Specter Rep called Alert Manager, but in
the pilot project here in the National Capital region the cellular
providers actually took the signal off air from WETA and
retransmitted the text messages from that. So we can repeat this
test if you would like at some point, a lot was happening, but we
are doing this with commercial off the shelf technology. There is
nothing really exotic about this, but even though we can encrypt
some of the data on a need to know basis. So this concludes my
oral testimony. I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of John Lawson follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN LAWSON, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC TELEVISION
STATIONS
MR. UPTON. Thank you. Mr. Guttman-McCabe.
MR. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good
morning, Chairman Upton, and distinguished members of the
subcommittee. I am Christopher Guttman-McCabe, Vice President
for Regulatory Affairs at CTIA, the Wireless Association. I am
privileged to appear before you today to endorse the WARN Act,
to highlight the wireless industry's efforts regarding creation of an
all hazards network and to discuss what role government can play
in that effort. I want to thank Chairman Upton, the subcommittee,
Representative Shimkus, Representative Wynn, and the other
sponsors of the bill for their strong leadership and for focusing
attention on the important and timely issue of emergency warnings
and alerts.
The wireless industry recognizes the importance of this effort.
CTIA and the industry have coordinated our efforts with the
Department of Homeland Security, FEMA, and the FCC. The
industry also launched a voluntary wireless Amber Alert service
that not only will help protect our Nation's children, but also will
provide a useful template as the industry moves forward with an
Emergency Alert Service. The industry, like many other high-tech
industries, is in a process of continual change and renewal. The
wireless industry has invested billions of dollars in their networks.
Additionally, consumers have also invested billions in handsets,
PDAs, and data cards.
Going forward, new technologies and services are likely to
extend both the reach and the capacity of wireless services. A
sensible emergency alert and policy must take into account both
the massive investment in place today, an investment that will
define the capabilities that can be used in the short run, and the
technological developments that propel the industry in the long
run. We believe the WARN Act is designed to do just that,
collaboratively considering government's needs as well as
industry's existing capabilities and planned investments and
evolution.
CTIA, working with the industry, has initiated a two-part
approach toward development of an emergency alert solution.
CTIA and the industry are working within existing capabilities to
establish and initiate a voluntary effort to deliver presidential level
emergency alert messages that would be sent via short message
service to those subscribers that opt in to a participating carrier.
This is based on the industry's current point to point configuration,
which differs from broadcasters' point to multi-point platforms.
As discussed today, CTIA and the industry partnered with
FEMA and APTS on a pilot project that utilized public television's
digital spectrum to deliver alerts to wireless phones utilizing SMS.
While there are both limitations on the number of SMS messages
that can be sent during any one period of time, as well as
limitations on the number of characters that can be contained in
any single message, there is one significant benefit to the short-
term use of SMS: SMS exists today.
However, this initial service must be approached with caution
as the limitations and concerns regarding both capacity and
message content are likely to arise during an emergency. Second,
as part of a longer term effort going forward, CTIA and the
industry are investigating mechanisms for geographic delivery of
messages. This second stage effort is designed to take advantage
of the constant evolution that is a hallmark of our industry.
Several of the capabilities being investigated for a geographic-
based service would require the industry to address issues
including standardization, product development and deployment,
and likely handset turnover if the service is not available in
existing handsets. The WARN Act provides a very sensible
process that will help to integrate capabilities and evolution of the
industry into the Emergency Alert Service.
The Act establishes an expert working group of government
officials and industry experts that will work toward a service
description and develop standards. This group logically will take
into consideration industry capabilities and evolution. CTIA and
the industry believe that any emergency alert service should utilize
the full range of communications devices, such as wireline and
wireless phones, e-mail and instant messaging systems, radios and
television sets, each of which delivers a capability unique to that
service, mobility for wireless and satellite devices, video for
broadcasters, voice for radio broadcasters, and more.
The efforts discussed above are only a part of the work being
done in this area. More work needs to be completed and ultimately
government can help. A true government-industry partnership as
envisioned in the WARN Act, as envisioned in the President's
recent executive order, and as occurred during the development of
the Wireless Priority Service, will benefit the emergency alert
service. The WARN Act mirrors the Wireless Priority Service
model and that is why I am encouraged about its adoption. It
provides a process for collaboration, allowing the service to be
defined before requirements are set, as well as funding for
development and deployment.
Additionally, it would be important to consider liability
protection as part of the Act. Ultimately, the WARN Act will
provide a framework that will facilitate development and
deployment of a nationwide Emergency Alert Service. CTIA and
the industry look forward to continuing the partnership with
government toward development of a robust Emergency Alert
Service. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and the committee for
this opportunity to voice our support for the WARN Act. We look
forward to working with you and your staff toward a service that
will benefit the American people, and I welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Christopher Guttman-McCabe
follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER GUTTMAN-MCCABE, VICE
PRESIDENT, REGULATORY AFFAIRS, CELLULAR
TELECOMMUNICATIONS & INTERNET ASSOCIATION
The wireless industry, like many other high-tech industries, is
in a process of continual change and renewal. New technologies
and services are likely to extend both the reach and capacity of
wireless communications. A sensible emergency alerting policy
must take into account both the massive investment in place today
-- investment that defines the capabilities in the short run -- and the
technological developments that propel the industry in the long
run. The Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act ("WARN
Act") reflects this careful, balanced approach and complements the
wireless industry's concerted efforts to develop and deploy an
effective Emergency Alert service.
CTIA, working with the industry, has initiated a two-part
approach toward development of an Emergency Alert capability.
In the short-term, the wireless industry proposes to deliver a
SMS-based, or text messaging, solution. Along these lines, the
industry is participating in a FEMA pilot project utilizing existing
SMS capabilities. While limitations exist on the number and size
of SMS messages, a significant benefit to the short-term use of
SMS is that it is available today. However, this initial SMS-based
service should be implemented with a clear understanding of its
limitations.
Second, as part of the longer-term effort, CTIA and the
industry are investigating mechanisms for geographic delivery of
messages. The capability to deliver messages geographically
currently does not exist in wireless networks in the United States.
The industry is looking into what role capabilities such as cell
broadcast, the existing NOAA service, or even geographic SMS
could play in Emergency Alerts.
These longer-term solutions likely would require the industry
to address issues including standardization, product development
and deployment, as well as the need for handset turnover. CTIA
continues to work with FEMA on the creation of a framework for
development of an Emergency Alert service that utilizes the full
range of communications devices.
The WARN Act will advance the efforts that have occurred to
date and speed delivery of an effective Emergency Alert capability.
The WARN Act's national network for the transmission of alerts
aims to take advantage of wireless, Internet and other advanced
technologies, while remaining technology-neutral. It enables
appropriate federal, state or local government agencies to alert the
public of disasters and threats, and reflects the same
highly-successful process used to create the Wireless Priority
Service, whereby government worked closely with the industry to
establish a service description.
CTIA and the wireless industry also support the WARN Act's
contemplation of a true government/industry partnership that
investigates the following areas:
Liability protection.
Creation of a joint government/industry partnership to
develop the requirements of an emergency alert service,
with the goal of establishing standards.
Appointment of a specific authority responsible for
balancing local, state and federal requirements against
industry capabilities.
Designation of an entity tasked with operation of the
Emergency Alert service and creation of a clear set of rules
governing who may generate messages coupled with a
process to authenticate and secure any Emergency Alert
messages.
Funding for research, development, and deployment of a
nationwide alert service.
Good morning Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Markey,
and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. I am
Christopher Guttman-McCabe, Vice President for Regulatory
Affairs at CTIA, The Wireless Associationr. CTIA is the
international organization that represents all sectors of the wireless
communications industry: wireless carriers, manufacturers, and
data companies. I am privileged to appear before you today to
endorse the Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act ("WARN
Act") (H.R. 5556), to highlight the wireless industry's efforts
regarding creation of an all hazards network and to discuss what
role Government can play in that effort. I want to thank Chairman
Upton, the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the
Internet, Representative Shimkus, and the other sponsors of the
Bill for their strong leadership and for focusing attention on the
important and timely issue of emergency warnings and alerts.
The wireless industry recognizes the importance of this effort.
CTIA and the industry have dedicated resources to examine this
issue and are working towards an emergency alert capability.
CTIA and the industry have coordinated their efforts with the
Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency ("FEMA"), as well as with the Federal
Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission"). As
discussed below, the industry also launched a voluntary Wireless
AMBER Alert Service that not only will help to protect our
Nation's children, but also will provide a useful template as the
industry moves forward with an Emergency Alert service. While
the AMBER alert service differs from an Emergency Alert service
in that the AMBER Alerts are not necessarily initiated during a
time of severe network congestions (as is likely the case in the
context of an Emergency Alert), the industry already has begun to
learn from the provision of this service.
Background
The industry, like many other high-tech industries, is in a
process of continual change and renewal. The wireless industry
has invested billions of dollars in their networks. Additionally,
consumers also have invested billions in handsets, wireless PDAs,
and data cards. The industry runs on a mix of technologies varying
from first generation analog to the latest third-generation designs.
Manufacturers and service providers unveil new capabilities every
few days. New technologies and services are likely to extend both
the reach and capacity of wireless services. Unfortunately, we do
not know today what all those new capabilities will be or when
they will become available. A sensible emergency alerting policy
must take into account both the massive investment in place today
-- an investment that defines the capabilities that can be used in the
short run -- and the technological developments that propel the
industry in the long run. We believe the WARN Act is designed to
do just that - - take into consideration the industry's existing and
planned investments.
Developing a national emergency alerting policy should not be
a one-time event. Going forward, there should be a continuing
process for identifying the emergency alert environment and
merging it with industry capabilities. Uses and expectations of the
service will indicate what may be appropriate for capacity of
message delivery in the short term and long term. Further, the
scope of who uses the system and for what purpose is very
important to understand as it relates to the cost to develop, the
management of the service, and effectiveness of the system.
CTIA, working with the industry, has initiated a two-part
approach toward development of an Emergency Alert capability.
The goal is to balance the industry's existing capabilities with the
perceived requirements of an Emergency Alert service, at the same
time recognizing that the industry is evolving. The continued
evolution of the industry likely will result in different options
being considered for delivery of Emergency Alert messages. For
example, currently there is nothing initiated in the network for
delivering messages to a specific targeted geographic area.
Handsets and/or networks would have to be upgraded or replaced
in order to provide such a service, and development and
deployment of any geographic service would take time.
Accordingly, CTIA and the industry are initially working
within existing capabilities to establish and initiate a voluntary
effort to deliver Presidential-level Emergency Alert messages via
Short Message Service ("SMS"), or text message, to those
subscribers that opt in to a participating carrier. As discussed
below, CTIA and the wireless industry have partnered with FEMA
on a pilot project that initially will utilize the industry's existing
SMS, or text message, capabilities. The SMS capability exists in
the majority of handsets, and is provided by the overwhelming
majority of carriers.
While there are both limitations on the number of SMS
messages that can be sent during any one period of time, as well as
limitations on the number of characters that can be contained in
any single message, there is one significant benefit to the short-
term use of SMS - it is available today. Utilizing SMS initially
will work to avoid a significant amount of the development
timeframe that will accompany the solutions discussed below.
However, this initial service must be approached with caution, as
the limitations and concerns regarding both capacity and message
content are likely to arise during an emergency.
Unlike the existing Emergency Alert network, which operates
on broadcast networks designed to transmit messages from one
point to multiple points, the existing wireless network was
designed to be point to point - one customer to another customer,
where the network has to route calls and text messages using
switches and databases to direct traffic to individual users. In this
environment, utilization of SMS to retransmit messages likely will
result in latency of delivery of the message to some consumers.
However, as was concluded in the Wireless AMBER Alert context,
an SMS offering - despite its expected limitations - is the best
existing, short-term option for delivery of alert messages.
Second, as part of the longer term effort going forward, CTIA
and the industry are investigating mechanisms for geographic
delivery of messages. This second stage effort is designed to take
advantage of the constant evolution that is the hallmark of the
wireless industry. The goal is to address the capacity issues that
are part of any SMS-based alert service, as well as to develop a
capability for targeting messages geographically.
The industry is looking into what role, if any, services such as
cell broadcast and other broadcast technologies could ultimately
play in the Emergency Alert environment. Recent developments,
including but not limited to broadcast offerings on wireless phones,
as well as services such as Qualcomm's proposed MediaFlo
offering, highlight how the industry and its technology are in
transition.
Several of the capabilities being investigated for a geographic-
based service would require the industry to address issues
including standardization (both of the underlying product as well
as the alert development and delivery process), product
development and deployment, as well as the need for handset
turnover if the service is not available in existing handsets. The
WARN Act provides a very sensible process that will help
facilitate that evolution. The Act establishes an expert working
group of government officials and industry experts that will work
to set a service description and develop standards. This group
logically will take into consideration industry capabilities and
evolution, and will lead to a more robust service.
In the interim, CTIA continues to work with FEMA and the
Federal Communications Commission on the creation of a
framework for development of an alert service that ultimately can
be transmitted on multiple retransmission media, including
wireless. CTIA and the industry believe, that while wireless can
be a component of any alerting service, any Emergency Alert
service should not focus solely on the wireless network. Rather, an
Emergency Alert service should utilize the full range of
communications devices, such as wireline and wireless telephones,
email and instant messaging systems, radios and television sets,
each of which delivers a capability unique to the service - -
mobility for wireless and satellite devices, video for broadcasters,
voice for radio broadcasters, etc..
FEMA Capitol Region Pilot Project
CTIA has been working diligently with carriers, manufacturers,
and FEMA on a digital Emergency Alert pilot project in the
national capitol region. As discussed this morning, the pilot
project, being directed by FEMA, coordinated with the Association
of Public Television Stations ("APTS"), and utilizing the digital
broadcast spectrum, is designed to provide the Nation with an
enhanced alert system. The goal of the first phase of the project
was a "proof of concept" that Emergency Alert messages can be
sent from FEMA to public broadcasters, embedded in the digital
broadcast spectrum, and then re-transmitted to third parties,
including wireless carriers. A portion of the embedded Emergency
Alert message contained a text file that the wireless carriers were
able to extract. Phase 1 of the pilot project has successfully been
completed.
AMBER Alerts
The industry already is pursuing use of the wireless phone for
the safety of the country. On its own initiative, the industry has
launched a Wireless AMBER Alert Service that will provide
another level of safety to its customers and the American public.
This service enhances the industry's vast array of socially
responsible initiatives. Partnering with the National Center for
Missing & Exploited Children ("NCMEC") as well as the
Department of Justice (the designated national AMBER Alert
coordinator), the wireless industry is making potentially life-saving
AMBER Alert text messages available to wireless subscribers who
"opt in" to the offering. The carriers currently participating
collectively provide service to more than 90% of U.S. wireless
customers. The service has been designed to be scaleable so that
additional carriers can continue to join the effort going forward.
Wireless AMBER Alerts will significantly increase the reach
of the AMBER Alert notification program. The Ad Council
recently has chosen the Wireless AMBER Alert program for its
support. Past experiences indicate the first three hours are critical
to the successful recovery of an abducted child, and the Wireless
AMBER Alerts will be an invaluable tool in assisting the search
process. According to the NCMEC, Wireless AMBER Alerts will
potentially serve as a preventive tool as well. People who prey on
innocent children will perhaps think twice before carrying out their
malicious acts, knowing that almost any cell phone owner they
pass could identify a perpetrator and have access to the immediate
means to guide law enforcement officials to their location.
Under the program, the subscribers of participating carriers may
"opt-in" to receive Wireless AMBER Alerts, and may do so at
www.wirelessAMBERalerts.org, or by visiting their wireless
service provider's web site.
Going Forward
The efforts discussed above are only a part of the work being
done in this area. More work needs to be completed, and,
ultimately, government can help. A true government/industry
partnership as envisioned in the WARN Act, will facilitate
development and deployment of the service. The wireless industry
has in its immediate past an example of what can happen when
government and industry partner voluntarily on the creation of a
new service -- Wireless Priority Service. Wireless Priority Service
is a White House-directed National Security/Emergency
Preparedness program, through the National Communications
System, that utilizes the commercial wireless networks to deliver
priority access to key government officials during times of crisis
and high call volume. Government, through both the National
Communications System and the Federal Communications
Commission, worked with industry on development of the
requirements for the service, but did not mandate a solution.
Instead, government has provided funding to manufacturers and
vendors for development of the capability, resulting in rapid
deployment of the service in two phases. The WARN Act mirrors
the Wireless Priority Service model - and that is why I am
encouraged about its adoption. WARN will provide a framework
that will facilitate development and deployment a nationwide
Emergency Alert Service.
CTIA and the wireless industry believe that it is counter-
productive to have a statutory mandate in this environment.
Application of the Wireless Priority Service model of
government/industry partnership will lead to a solution that takes
advantage of the industry's creativity and ingenuity. As
government and industry move forward with both a short-term and
possibly longer-term solution, the following are some of the issues
that would benefit from joint government/industry consideration:
Liability relief. As with the Broadcasters that currently
provide the Emergency Alert service, the industry requires
full liability protection for delivery of any Emergency Alert
message, both for any short-term solution and any longer-
term solution.
Service Description. As considered in the WARN Act, a
joint government/industry partnership to develop the
requirements of any emergency alert service that ultimately
would result in the development and adoption of standards.
This partnership will allow manufacturers to build to
specific requirements.
Designation of Authority for Development of an
Emergency Alert Service. As in the WARN Act,
designation of a specific authority responsible for balancing
local, state and federal requirements against industry
capabilities.
Designation of Authority for Operation of an Emergency
Alert Service. Again, as considered in the WARN Act,
designation of a specific authority tasked with operation of
the Emergency Alert service as well as creation of a clear
set of rules governing who is permitted to generate
messages and under what circumstances they can be
generated, coupled with a process to authenticate and
secure any Emergency Alert messages. Due to the
possibility of a hoax transmission, this process must
guarantee the integrity of the messages from the point of
origination to delivery.
Research, Development, Deployment and Implementation
Support. Finally, as considered in the WARN Act, the
provision of funding to support research and development,
as well as deployment and implementation, will benefit the
establishment of a nationwide alert service.
Conclusion
CTIA and the wireless industry look forward to continuing the
partnership with government toward development of an
Emergency Alert Service. Thank you again for this opportunity to
voice our support for the WARN ACT, to highlight the wireless
industry's efforts to contribute to an all hazards network, and to
discuss what role the Government should play in that effort. We
look forward to working with you and your staff toward a service
that will benefit the American people.
MR. UPTON. Mr. Kelly.
MR. KELLY. Chairman Upton, and members of the
subcommittee, good morning, and thank you for inviting me to
testify on emergency communications and the WARN Act. My
name is Vincent Kelly, and I am the President and Chief Executive
Officer of USA Mobility, the Nation's largest provider of paging
services. I have been with the company and its predecessor,
Metrocall, for over 19 years. USA Mobility strongly supports the
WARN Act and applauds the subcommittee's efforts to promote
public safety through the broader dissemination of critical and
often life-saving emergency information.
Paging services are ideally suited to this task. Our network is
robust, reliable, and redundant, and our services are affordable.
For those reasons, paging is often the technology of choice for
emergency responders, healthcare professionals, and others who
need messaging capabilities that will remain operational during a
crisis. When voice networks were out of service or overloaded
during times of national emergency, such as on September 11 or
during Hurricane Katrina, our network performed extremely well
and allowed first responders to get critical messages to each other.
We are proud that the FCC's independent panel reviewing the
impact of Hurricane Katrina recently issued a report praising the
exemplary performance of paging services during the storm and
recommending that emergency responders throughout the Nation
rely on paging services on a primary basis or as a backup to mobile
phones and other broadband devices.
Just as importantly, our paging network is equipped to
broadcast thousands or even millions of alert messages
simultaneously to the public, a capability not matched currently by
mobile phone providers. My written testimony describes in detail
how our network operates and why it offers superior reliability for
emergency communications, but let me take a moment to highlight
some of the key attributes.
First, our network is extremely reliable because we do not use
the public switched telephone network to back all our traffic from
our transmitters to our switches. Instead we rely on satellites
which means hurricanes and other calamities that damage trunk
lines and telephone switches do not interrupt our service. Second,
we simulcast signals to our subscribers from multiple towers, and
our transmitters are generally located higher off the ground and
emit higher powered signals than mobile voice providers. For
those reasons, our signals can travel further and penetrate buildings
better than mobile voice services. And if one tower goes down our
simulcast technology often allows users to receive messages from
another tower in the area.
Third, paging devices themselves are reliable and very easy to
use. Unlike cell phones and PDAs, a pager typically runs for
weeks on a single AA or AAA battery. Battery-powered pagers
are not affected by a loss of electrical power because there is no
need to recharge them. These attributes make paging devices ideal
for messaging among first responders and also make our network
perfect for use in our national alert system. Our company is
committed to transmitting alerts to our subscribers in an
emergency. In addition, because mobile voice networks currently
are not set up to broadcast alerts and our network is, our broadcast
capabilities must best be utilized in emergencies if mobile
telephone carriers were to integrate our paging technology into
mobile phones.
This approach could offer the fastest and most promising way
to roll out a national alert capability to mobile voice subscribers or
either to work with the voice carriers and manufacturers to make
this concept a reality in the near future. In closing, I would like to
underscore our support for the proposed legislation and highlight
three issues that are particularly important. First, we strongly
support the working group approach taken by the bill. The best
way to establish systems and protocols capable of delivering
messages to a wide array of technology platforms is to convene a
working group as proposed in the WARN Act. USA Mobility is
prepared to play a significant role in the working group.
Second, the legislation is necessary to provide funding for this
initiative. The national rollout of an expanded multi-platform alert
system will require funding in addition to that proposed by the
WARN Act. USA Mobility urges Congress to provide additional
funding to the Department of Homeland Security to authorize
grants to State and local emergency responders for the acquisition,
use, and improvement of reliable communication systems
including paging services.
Finally, USA Mobility believes that any legislation must
provide liability protection for communication service providers
who participate in the national alert system. The threat of baseless
lawsuits would have a chilling effect on participation by service
providers, which would limit the success of the initiative. In
conclusion, USA Mobility commends the subcommittee and
Representatives Shimkus and Wynn and other sponsors of the
WARN Act for their attention to this critical issue and looks
forward to assisting in the development of a robust national alert
system.
[The prepared statement of Vincent D. Kelly follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF VINCENT D. KELLY, PRESIDENT AND
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, USA MOBILITY, INC.
Summary of Written Statement of Vincent D. Kelly
As the nation's leading provider of paging services, USA
Mobility is eager to play an integral role in the national alert
system contemplated by the WARN Act. USA Mobility's paging
services already provide a highly reliable, redundant, and
affordable text-messaging solution to mission-critical emergency
responders. We also have the capability today to broadcast
emergency alerts to all of our text-messaging subscribers, using
satellite-controlled transmitters. Moreover, our nationwide
network can support alerting capabilities for other service
providers, such as wireless voice carriers that cannot provide
similar point-to-multipoint messaging.
USA Mobility's paging network has several key attributes that
are ideally suited to emergency communications. Our network
relies on satellites rather than the PSTN to link transmitters and
switches, and therefore can maintain operations when telephone
trunk lines and switches are out of service. In addition, our paging
transmitters emit extremely powerful signals in a "simulcast"
fashion, maximizing the network's geographic reach and in-
building penetration. Paging devices typically run on a single AA
or AAA battery and have a long battery life; unlike cell phones and
PDAs, these devices are not affected by a loss of electrical power
because there is no need to recharge them. While damage to a
transmission tower usually will disrupt mobile telephone service,
paging's use of simulcasting enables the delivery of messages to
paging devices from other nearby towers. Paging also is a very
affordable technology, which makes it suitable either as a primary
communications tool or as a backup.
These strengths were clearly demonstrated during recent crises,
including Hurricane Katrina and September 11. For example, the
FCC's Independent Panel on the Impact of Hurricane Katrina on
Communications Networks praised the exemplary performance of
paging services during the storm and even called on federal
officials to promote the use of pagers by emergency responders
nationwide. During 9/11, the paging network remained operational
when wireline and mobile voice networks became overloaded and
could not complete calls.
USA Mobility seeks to leverage these strengths as a participant
in the expanded national alert system. Our network will continue
to serve as a critical tool for first responders, and we are ready,
willing, and able to provide emergency alerts to all of our text-
messaging subscribers. In addition, our network's broadcast
capabilities might be best utilized in emergencies if the national
mobile telephone carriers were to integrate our paging technology
into their handsets. This approach seems to offer the fastest and
most promising way to roll out a national alert capability to mobile
phone subscribers, because mobile voice networks are not set up to
broadcast alerts.
USA Mobility applauds the Subcommittee for its work on the
national alert system, and in particular we endorse the working
group approach taken by the WARN Act. Industry stakeholders
and officials at all levels of government should collaborate on the
development of technical interfaces, security procedures, and
related matters. We also believe that the legislation's funding
provisions are necessary to the deployment of a robust multi-
platform system, and Congress should expand its funding of grants
to emergency responders. Finally, any legislation should include
liability protection for participating service providers.
Chairman Upton and members of the Subcommittee, thank you
for inviting me to testify on emergency communications and the
Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act ("WARN Act"). My
name is Vincent Kelly, and I am the President and Chief Executive
Officer of USA Mobility, the nation's largest provider of paging
services.
USA Mobility strongly supports the WARN Act and applauds
the Subcommittee's efforts to promote public safety through the
broader dissemination of critical, and often life-saving, emergency
information. Paging services are ideally suited to this task.
Perhaps the most important feature of our network today is the
ability to broadcast messages to millions of Americans
simultaneously utilizing a "group call" feature with our simulcast
technology on a geographic zone-by-zone basis. While my
company serves several million customers and is capable of
transmitting alerts to our messaging subscribers in an emergency,
our network's broadcast capabilities might be best utilized in
emergencies if other service providers-such as the national
mobile telephone carriers-were to integrate our paging
technology into mobile phones and similar devices, allowing
information to be transmitted across multiple platforms
simultaneously.
Our paging network also is extremely reliable, inherently
redundant through simulcast technology, and very affordable. For
these reasons, paging has proven particularly vital to mission-
critical personnel such as first responders, doctors and nurses, and
government officials. In fact, the FCC's Independent Panel
Reviewing the Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Communications
Networks recently recognized the exemplary performance of
paging networks during Hurricane Katrina and recommended that
paging carriers play an important role in any expanded alert
system.
My testimony today will describe the unique strengths of
paging technology, its proven record in emergency situations, and
the role we are prepared to play in an expanded national alert
system. Before addressing these issues, I will begin with some
brief background information on USA Mobility.
Company Background
USA Mobility was formed in late 2004 by the merger of Arch
Wireless, Inc. and Metrocall Holdings, Inc., then the nation's two
largest independent paging and wireless messaging companies. I
have been with the company and with its predecessor Metrocall for
19 years, and I understand well the communications issues that
arise during times of emergency.
USA Mobility provides one-way and advanced two-way text-
messaging services, as well as traditional numeric paging services.
As of March 31, 2006, USA Mobility provided service to over 4.6
million messaging devices, out of a total of more than 8 million
units industry-wide. While the mass market for paging services
has declined in recent years as consumers have increasingly relied
on mobile phones, our paging services continue to play a critical
role for first responders, including police officers, fire fighters, and
rescue workers. In addition, hospitals and health clinics, as well as
government agencies, rely heavily on paging services. We also
serve more than 80 percent of Fortune 1000 companies. Our
paging networks, which include approximately 15,000
transmitters, reach more than 90 percent of the U.S. population
with one-way service and over 80 percent with two-way service,
encompassing the largest 100 markets.
Key Attributes of Paging Networks
USA Mobility's paging network is ideally suited to emergency
communications based on several key attributes, including
reliability, redundancy, and affordability. These attributes will
strongly further the WARN Act's goals by ensuring the availability
of a text-messaging capability as a primary or back-up system for
public alerts and facilitating communications among first
responders in emergency situations.
Paging is one of the most reliable communications
technologies on the market today. Our network architecture
combines digital satellite transmission with an extensive system of
terrestrial transmitters and paging switches. Because our
narrowband PCS transmitters are controlled by satellites, our
transmission network is far less dependent on the public switched
telephone network than many other wireless systems-and thus far
less vulnerable to outages during natural disasters and other
emergencies. Satellite transmission also enables us to direct
messages to multiple base-station paging transmitters within a
geographic footprint in a "simulcast" fashion. Moreover, paging
networks enjoy redundancy due to the benefits of this simulcast
technology. Because paging messages are simulcast from multiple
towers to each pager, damage to a single tower or even several
towers does not necessarily interrupt the delivery of messages, as
the pager might be able to receive signals from other towers in the
area. Mobile voice networks typically lack this capability.
Another distinctive feature of paging networks is that our
transmitter antennas are located on towers high off the ground
(over 300 feet) and on the tops of buildings, and emit extremely
powerful signals of up to 3,500 watts ERP. In contrast, most
mobile phone transmitter antenna arrays typically are located 100
feet above the ground and emit significantly less powerful
transmitter signals of 90 watts ERP. As a result of our unique
simulcasting and high-power transmissions, paging signals can
travel farther and penetrate buildings better than signals used by
other wireless technologies. Additionally, many mobile phone
outages result from damage to their large antenna arrays, in
contrast to the resilience of the smaller antennas utilized by paging
systems. Paging devices are also very reliable. Unlike cell phones and
PDAs, pagers typically run on a single AA or AAA battery and
have a long battery life relative to other wireless devices. These
battery-powered pagers are not affected by a loss of electrical
power because there is no need to recharge them.
Moreover, paging devices and service plans are affordable,
particularly relative to other wireless services. A typical paging
service plan includes the cost of the paging device and still costs
less than $10 per month. This low cost continues to make pagers
an attractive option for private employers and government agencies
that need basic messaging capabilities, either for primary use or to
back up their broadband services. The cost savings also benefit
low-income consumers who cannot afford more expensive wireless
communications services.
Performance During Hurricane Katrina and 9/11
The strengths of our technology were clearly apparent during
Hurricane Katrina and 9/11. Hurricane Katrina disabled most
communications networks in the Gulf Coast region, but paging
services remained operational in many areas while other networks
failed. USA Mobility's network was fully operational within two
days in the areas hardest hit by the storm (most wireline and
wireless providers required far longer to restore full service).
Several of our customers reported that paging services provided
their only link to the outside world, as they could not use wireline
or wireless telephones. For example, as an employee at Women's
Hospital and Tulane Lakeside Hospital reported:
Pagers were used by Medical Staff for communicating with the
doctors and nurses in transporting the Mom's and Babies from
one facility to another. Text messaging was the only way to
get critical messages out to the doctors and nurses since phone
lines were all down or all circuits busy.
Similarly, Carter C. Blumeyer, a Communication Specialist with
FEMA during Hurricane Katrina, reported his experience with
paging and the Reflex technology protocol we deploy on our two-
way network to an industry newsletter:
I am with an Urban Search and Rescue for FEMA and with the
cell and data service down and systems being flooded. . . .
ReFLEX is working fine and communications are flowing
through the units! We are allowing people to send e-mails to
loved ones to let them know they are alive and well. Again the
critical use of ReFLEX [has been available] in all the disaster
situations I have been to (9/11 NYC, Ivan, Isabel and now
Katrina!).
The recent report of the FCC's Independent Panel Reviewing the
Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Communications Networks
validated this anecdotal evidence and commended the exemplary
performance of paging services during the crisis. The Panel
concluded that paging systems were more reliable than other
networks because:
"[P]aging systems utilize satellite networks, rather than
terrestrial systems, for backbone infrastructure. Paging
technology is also inherently redundant, which means that
messages may still be relayed if a single transmitter or
group of transmitters in a network fails." (Report at 10.)
"Paging signals penetrate buildings very well, thus
providing an added level of reliability." (Id.)
"Additionally, pagers benefited from having a long battery
life and thus remained operating longer during the power
outages. Other positive observations concerning paging
systems included that they were effective at text messaging
and were equipped to provide broadcast messaging." (Id.)
"[G]roup pages can be sent out during times of emergencies
to thousands of pager units all at the same time." (Id.)
Because of the remarkable reliability of the paging network during
Hurricane Katrina, the Panel repeatedly recommended that
emergency responders rely on pagers as a primary or back-up
communications system in future emergencies. The Panel stated,
for example, that the FCC should "[u]rge public safety licensees to
familiarize themselves with alternative communications
technologies to provide communications when normal public
safety networks are down. Such technologies include . . . two-way
paging devices, and other technologies less reliant on the PSTN."
(Id. at 37-38) The Panel also called on the FCC to support
Department of Homeland Security efforts to make emergency
medical providers eligible for funding for emergency
communications equipment and to expand the Emergency Alert
System, see id. at 40, as the WARN Act seeks to accomplish.
Paging also performed exceptionally well during the tragic
events of September 11, 2001. While the wireline and related
wireless networks were quickly inundated with high call volumes
and thus inaccessible for most people, pagers continued to send
and receive data throughout the duration of the emergency. The
superior performance of paging systems during 9/11 led industry
expert Dr. Peter Kapsales to state that two-way paging "should be
considered a primary or backup system to improve real-time
communication among emergency personnel during critical
periods when voice communication is not practical or fails."
Paging Should Be a Central Component of the National Alert
System
As this past performance demonstrates, USA Mobility and
other paging carriers can leverage the benefits of their networks as
participants in the expanded national alert system. There can be no
legitimate debate about the value of enabling people to receive
alerts over as many communication platforms as possible, as the
WARN Act proposes. Nor is there any doubt that wireless
technologies in particular should play a key role in the national
system. Our society is going wireless. Although it is important to
reach the television and radio audiences with emergency
information, a growing number of citizens rely on wireless
networks to receive information (and, of course, to communicate
with others). As of 2005, there were more than 185 million mobile
telephones, and more than 8 million paging devices, in service.
Sending emergency information to wireless devices is especially
important if people are on the move during an emergency, or if
televisions and radios are inoperable based on power failures.
While mobile phone providers at this point serve vastly more
consumers than paging carriers, the superior point-to-multipoint
capabilities of paging networks make paging carriers critical
participants in the national alert system. The FCC's rulemaking on
expanding the Emergency Alert System has focused largely on
mobile phone providers' current inability to broadcast alert
messages to large numbers of consumers. Mobile phone carriers
have proposed short-term solutions based on short-message-
services, which are quite limited in terms of message length and
the number of subscribers that can be reached promptly. Over the
next several years, mobile phone carriers propose to develop more
robust broadcast systems capable of transmitting messages to large
numbers of subscribers simultaneously.
In contrast, as I have described, paging networks already have
this capability today. Broadcasting large numbers of messages
does not cause bottlenecks in paging networks because, unlike
voice networks, they are designed for this function. We are able to
put this capability to use in the national alert system, so that our
text-messaging subscribers can receive alert messages from local,
state, and national officials. Our systems can be configured to
transmit messages to targeted simulcast areas, to specific customer
groups (such as emergency responders), or even to our entire base
of text-messaging subscribers.
While our services are extremely important to our
subscribers-including first responders and health care
professionals in particular-a greater public benefit might result if
other service providers integrated our paging technology into their
own devices to take advantage of our extraordinary alert
capabilities. For example, wireless voice providers could direct
manufacturers to install paging technology in mobile phones. This
relatively low-cost solution would enable wireless carriers to
transmit alert messages to a far broader audience as soon as new
handsets are introduced into the marketplace. In addition, paging
networks can readily support the transmission of alert messages to
wall-mounted devices in consumers' homes, which could emit a
tone or light up when an emergency message has been received.
Such devices could even be detachable and portable so they would
deliver the benefits of mobile devices during a crisis.
Specific Recommendations
USA Mobility believes that the WARN Act will strengthen
emergency communications in a number of ways, and we
commend the Subcommittee for convening a hearing. I want to
highlight three aspects of the legislation that are particularly
important and beneficial.
First, we strongly support the working group approach taken by
the bill. As I have explained, USA Mobility's paging network is
capable of broadcasting alert messages to a mass audience or to
targeted areas and user groups. But the interface between our
network and the officials responsible for issuing alerts has yet to be
developed. In our view, the most efficient and effective way to
establish systems and protocols capable of delivering messages to
a wide array of technological platforms is to convene a working
group as proposed in the WARN Act. The working group not only
can develop appropriate transmission protocols but also can help
establish appropriate authentication and validation systems to
prevent misuse of the national alert system. As the nation's
leading paging carrier, USA Mobility is prepared to play a
significant role in the working group contemplated by the
legislation.
Second, the legislation is necessary to provide funding for this
initiative. To its credit, FEMA has undertaken an important pilot
program, the National Capital Region Digital Emergency Alert
System Pilot (DEAS-NCR), in which USA Mobility participated
along with public broadcasters and other entities. But the national
rollout of an expanded multi-platform alert system necessarily will
require additional resources. In addition to the funding proposed
by the WARN Act, USA Mobility urges Congress to provide
additional funding to the Department of Homeland Security to
authorize grants to emergency responders at the state and local
levels for the acquisition, implementation, and improvement of
reliable communications systems, including paging services.
Finally, USA Mobility believes that any legislation must
provide liability protection for communications service providers
who participate in the national alert system. The threat of baseless
lawsuits would have a chilling effect on participation by service
providers, and broad participation is essential to the success of the
initiative.
In conclusion, USA Mobility commends the Subcommittee and
the sponsors of the WARN Act for their attention to this critical
issue and we look forward to assisting in the development of a
robust national alert system.
MR. UPTON. Thank you. Mr. Pitts.
MR. PITTS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee. My name is Billy Pitts, and I am President of
Government Affairs for the NTI Group. I am not from Michigan
but I do appreciate old cars. I appreciate also the opportunity to
participate in this hearing on the WARN Act. I want to commend
Representative Shimkus and his fellow co-sponsors for
recognizing the urgent need to reform the Nation's emergency
communications capabilities. The WARN Act envisions the use of
advanced technologies that will help ensure that the public receives
fast, reliable information during crisis situations.
Earlier this year, I was privileged to serve as a member of the
FCC's independent panel reviewing the impact of Hurricane
Katrina on communication networks. The Katrina panel found that
for a variety of reasons the existing EAS system was not up to the
task. The panel recommended that a comprehensive national
warning system be established, focusing, in particular, on the use
of advanced technologies that can target alerts to particular areas
and at risk populations. I am pleased that the WARN Act shares
these same goals.
The reason I was appointed to the Katrina panel is that my
company is a leader in the development of an advanced Time
Sensitive Notification, TSN, technology that enables schools or
community leaders to deliver critical information to targeted
groups of citizens within a narrow timeframe. This technology
was dramatically demonstrated during last year's hurricanes. The
gentleman from Nebraska mentioned we are one of those boots on
the ground companies. We are doing over 12 million calls a month
currently. I expect to more than double that at the end of the year.
We do the multi-lingual target alerts the gentleman alluded to.
TSN technology combines advanced computing with the near
ubiquity of phone service to allow officials to record a voice
message and have it delivered to thousands of people in minutes
via cell phones, landlines, and a variety of other devices. TSN
systems represent a quantum leap forward from earlier auto dialer
systems that lack the speed, capacity, flexibility, and intelligence to
reliably provide emergency information to the public. An
advanced TSN system is capable of delivering a 30-second
message to over 400,000 recipients in less than an hour. In
contrast, a standard auto dialer would take over a day.
The way that our system works is elegantly simple. An
authorized user with access to either a landline or cell phone
interfaces with the password protected system via a toll free
number and records an outgoing voice message. The user then can
program this message either via a secure Internet connection or
over the phone to be sent immediately or at a specified time to
either an entire universe of recipients or to selected subgroups.
Such advanced systems offer a geographic mapping function that
gives users the ability to send messages to all residences or
businesses in a particular area. Using this feature a community
could, for example, notify all residents within five blocks of an
evacuation order. A school system could alert a group of parents
waiting at a single bus stop that their children's transportation has
been delayed or re-routed.
One of the best things about this technology is that it does not
require the installation of new equipment or have a steep learning
curve. Another benefit derives from built-in redundancies that
provide government officials with increased assurance that their
emergency messages will reach their intended recipients even in
the face of power outages or flood. Advanced TSN systems have
interactive functionality. They not only deliver messages but they
allow recipients to communicate back to the sender. For example,
the sending party can inquire whether a recipient is in need of
assistance and the recipient using the phone's touch-tone capability
can send an appropriate response greatly facilitating relief efforts.
The WARN Act is of crucial importance because it seeks to
rectify the current limitations of emergency notification systems
now in place. As the provider of one such advanced system, we
heartily endorse the WARN Act and look forward to working with
members of the subcommittee as this important legislation moves
forward. I would like to tell the gentleman from Maryland that we
have several Maryland schools as well as the D.C. public school
system that we are working with, and we would enjoy working
with you and your staff. I would be pleased to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Billy Pitts follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF BILLY PITTS, PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT
AFFAIRS, THE NTI GROUP, INC.
The co-sponsors of the WARN Act are to be commended for
recognizing the urgent need for Congress to incorporate advanced
technologies into the nation's emergency communications
capabilities in order to ensure that the public receives fast, reliable
information during crisis situations.
The FCC's Katrina Panel found that "the use of
communications networks to disseminate reliable emergency
information to the public is critical - before, during and after such
events." The Panel also found that, for a variety of reasons, the
current EAS system was not up to the task and recommended that a
comprehensive warning system be established "to increase the
penetration of warnings to the public," focusing on the use of
advanced technologies that can target alerts to particular
geographic areas and at-risk populations.
Time-sensitive notification ("TSN") systems, such as those
deployed by The NTI Group, Inc. ("NTI"), combine advanced
computing with the near ubiquity of phone service to allow
officials to record voice messages and have them delivered to
targeted recipients in a matter of minutes. TSN technology, which
is available and in use today, fulfills many of the recommendations
of the Katrina Panel and supports the specific goals that the
WARN Act identifies as integral to a new National Alert System,
as follows:
TSN technology can be used to provide messages to an entire
community or to very small subgroups (WARN Act goals: provide
alerts to the "largest portion of the affected population feasible"
and "permit narrowly targeted alerts");
TSN systems are designed with built-in redundancies to ensure
functionality in the event of power failures and, as "hosted"
services, do not require the installation of new equipment or
require users to learn to use a new technology (WARN Act goals:
"system redundancies," "widely dispersed access points," and no
need for activation of "a particular device").
TSN technology allows the government to communicate with
the public through a "credible spokesperson," such as a mayor, fire
chief, or school superintendent, thereby ameliorating the confusion
that is often created by the distribution of overbroad or inconsistent
information by systems that depend on the mass media (WARN
Act goal: "shall transmit addresses by Federal, state, tribal or local
officials when necessary"). Another major benefit of TSN
technology is that it has interactive capabilities that permit
recipients to communicate back to the sender.
While TSN technology is widely used for emergency and non-
emergency communications, particularly communications by and
among educators, students and parents, its adaptability for use on a
broader scale for public alerts has been firmly established. The
FCC has been urged to foster the deployment of TSN technology
by designating TSN services as "eligible" for E-Rate support and
by promoting pilot projects that would allow more immediate
evaluation and use of advanced notification technologies such as
TSN systems. We urge Congress to support these efforts.
Introduction
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee. My name is Billy Pitts and I am President,
Government Affairs for The NTI Group, Inc. ("NTI"). I
appreciate the opportunity to participate in this hearing on the
WARN Act and want to commend Representative Shimkus and his
fellow co-sponsors for recognizing that there is a pressing need to
incorporate advanced technologies into the nation's emergency
communications capabilities so officials at the national, state, and
local levels are able to provide members of the public with
warnings and crisis-related information in the most efficient and
effective manner possible.
Earlier this year, I was privileged to serve as a member of the
FCC's Independent Panel Reviewing the Impact of Hurricane
Katrina on Communications Networks. One of that panel's key
findings was that "the use of communications networks to
disseminate reliable emergency information to the public is critical
- before, during, and after such events." The Katrina panel also
found that, for a variety of reasons, the existing EAS system was
not up to the task with respect to Hurricane Katrina. As a result,
the panel made several recommendations aimed at improving the
nation's emergency communications system, including the
following:
Pursue the establishment of a comprehensive national
warning system that complements existing systems and
allows local officials to increase the penetration of
warnings and to target alerts to particular areas.
Commence efforts to ensure that persons with disabilities
and non-English speaking Americans receive meaningful
emergency information.
Improve coordination of public information functions in
order to facilitate the delivery to the public of consistent
and reliable emergency information.
Time Sensitive Notification Technology
The reason I was appointed to the Katrina Panel, and the
contribution I believe I can make to the Committee's consideration
of the WARN Act, arises from the fact that my company, NTI, is a
leader in the development of an advanced "time sensitive
notification" (or "TSN") technology that enables community
leaders to deliver detailed emergency information to targeted
groups of citizens, both small and large, within a narrow
timeframe. This TSN technology offers a proven method of
augmenting existing modes of emergency communications that
fulfills many of the Katrina Panel's recommendations and directly
supports the functions of a National Alert System outlined in the
WARN Act.
Generally described, TSN technology combines advanced
computing with the near ubiquity of phone service to allow
officials to record a voice message and have it delivered to
thousands of people in minutes via cell phones and landlines.
TSN technology also is capable of delivering messages to personal
communications devices, such as a Blackberry, PDA, or a standard
e-mail account. TSN systems can be used to convey vital
information before, during or after crises - in instances involving,
for example, an amber alert, storm warning, chemical spill, terror
attack, or pandemic. Best of all, TSN technology can be put to
immediate use by governmental entities without the need for
officials to install or learn how to operate any new equipment.
To explain a bit more fully, TSN systems are advanced "one-
to-many" telephonic systems that represent a quantum leap
forward from earlier auto-dialer systems. In contrast to auto-
dialers, which lack the speed, capacity, flexibility and
"intelligence" necessary to serve as a reliable provider of
emergency information to the public, TSN systems utilize a hosted
"Application Service Provider" model that makes them a far more
robust and user-friendly tool for communicating information in
urgent situations. While a standard 48-port auto-dialer system
takes over eight and a half hours to make a single attempt to send a
30-second message to 50,000 people, an advanced TSN system is
capable of delivering messages (including making repeat calls
where necessary) to tens of thousands of recipients in just a matter
of minutes.
To briefly summarize, TSN systems operate as follows: An
authorized user with access to either a landline or cell phone
interfaces with the password-protected system via a toll-free
number and records an outgoing voice message. The user can then
program this message (either via a secure Internet connection or
over the phone) to be sent immediately, or at a specified time, to
either an entire universe of recipients or to selected subgroups.
Some TSN systems even offer a geographic mapping function that
gives users the ability to send messages to all telephones in a
particular area. Using this feature, a city could, for example, notify
all persons on a particular block of an evacuation order or a school
district could alert a group of parents waiting at a single bus stop
that their children's transportation has been delayed or re-routed
due to an accident or weather conditions.
Unlike predecessor notification systems, TSN systems
typically are designed with multiple redundancies. For example,
the TSN systems deployed by NTI not only have the ability to
deliver messages through multiple mechanisms, they also have
carrier redundancy, power redundancy, and database redundancy.
Carrier redundancy is achieved by locating TSN systems on
several local exchange carriers' ("LECs") and interexchange
carriers' networks, allowing the TSN system user to place
thousands of calls without the call traffic congestion that would
occur if all of the calls passed through a single LEC's central
office. For instance, if a mayor chose to initiate calls from an auto-
dialer located within his or her city, both the outgoing calls and the
incoming calls would cause the LEC to experience congestion. By
initiating calls from multiple sites located outside of the LEC's
service area, a TSN service provider is able to eliminate one layer
of congestion and reduce the risk of system failure. Enhanced
TSN systems avoid overwhelming the local network operations
center ("NOC") by using software that can read congestion at the
local level and sort call traffic automatically. As a result, TSN
systems are able to offer the quickest and highest percentage
possible for call completion.
In order to obtain power and database redundancy, TSN
providers deploy systems at sites straddling the nation's three
power interconnects, ensuring constant access to power during
emergencies; if one of the major power interconnects fails and all
back-up resources have been expended, the TSN system provider
can redirect calls to its operational centers located on the other two
power interconnects to ensure that its users' messages are sent.
Furthermore, if there is a power failure or other problem associated
with a data center in a geographic area, the TSN technology can
automatically extract information (e.g., the phone numbers to
which calls should be sent) from a redundant data center in another
geographic area. Each data center also is supplied with its own
back-up systems (gas generators, etc.) to allow the center to remain
operational should it experience a power failure. Thus, users of
TSN providers' systems maintain the ability to send messages even
in circumstances where the user's primary site, or one of its other
sites, may lack electrical power.
Multiple redundancies are only one of the features that
distinguish advanced TSN systems from predecessor technologies.
Other benefits offered by TSN technology in providing urgent
communications include the following:
The architecture of intelligent TSN systems minimizes local
phone line congestion. TSN systems have intelligent delivery
capability, utilizing mathematical algorithms to analyze network
congestion and to automatically adjust to the point-of-present
capacity. Where call congestion is detected, TSN systems can
throttle down how frequently calls are sent while simultaneously
looking for less congested paths. Thus, for example, when NTI's
advanced TSN technology detects a certain level of congestion, it
can redirect calls to other central offices, so that a local telephone
network is less likely to be "exhausted" by urgent calls.
Predecessor systems with unsophisticated delivery detection,
on the other hand, are not aware of congestion. They are simply
programmed to send one call per line upon the previous call's
completion. If the system is large enough to get calls through
quickly, meaning, if enough phone lines are employed to send calls
at one time, then the system could potentially choke the local
telephone network to the point of collapse. If the system is small
enough to not cause this type of congestion, it is most likely not
going to have enough capacity to get calls out to a large number of
recipients quickly.
TSN systems send messages at faster speeds than their
technological predecessors. Unlike predecessor notification
systems, TSN systems are not limited to the number of telephone
ports installed by the user. Rather, TSN systems are capable of
originating thousands of calls over several different carriers'
networks simultaneously, allowing users to deliver significantly
more messages in substantially less time (and providing
redundancy protection should one carrier experience its own
congestion or failure) than older notification technologies. For
example, NTI's advanced TSN system is currently delivering
400,000 thirty-second voice messages in a half-hour and has
contracted Service Level Agreements ("SLAs") to ensure the
capacity to deliver well over that amount. As discussed above, by
employing software that can read congestion at the local carrier
level, TSN providers are better able to ensure that more calls can
get through the pipe at the local level quickly by minimizing
network congestion (fast busy signals). This performance stands in
stark contrast to predecessor systems' slower speeds, which are
causing some municipalities to consider making equipment
upgrades to increase their system speeds.
TSN technology provides message consistency and facilitates
the use of a "credible spokesperson." According to the FCC's
Katrina Panel, one of the shortcomings in the dissemination of
emergency information during last year's storms was the confusion
engendered by the lack of a consistently accurate and reliable
source of information. The failure of the impacted communities to
fully utilize the existing EAS meant that the public was dependant
on reports from mass media sources (particularly broadcast radio
and television) that often misconstrued events or provided
inaccurate information. Even where the EAS was operational or
media reports were accurate, the information provided tended to be
either over or under inclusive in terms of its relevance to the
various areas impacted by the disaster.
Relying on the mass media to get timely, accurate and relevant
information to our citizenry poses risks that we can ill-afford. In
contrast, TSN systems have the advantage of ensuring that the
information delivered to the public is both uniform and tailored to
the audience. TSN systems can deliver consistently worded
messages to as many or as few recipients as is appropriate given
the circumstances. Thus, for example, in the event of a health
crisis, times and instructions for the receipt of medical treatment
could be delivered on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis,
minimizing the risk of institutions being overwhelmed by panic-
stricken citizens.
A related advantage of TSN systems is that they permit
governmental entities to communicate emergency information
through a familiar voice of authority, be it the voice of a mayor,
county executive, governor, school superintendent or another
recognized "credible spokesperson." The benefit of using a
"credible spokesperson" to speak to the public in times of
emergency is widely recognized. As Dr. Julie Gerberding, the
Director for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said
in the context of communicating to the public about a smallpox
threat, "Now, people really look toward the most credible
spokesperson, especially when there is a lot of uncertainty on an
issue, and that's going to be very important and helpful to us to
have people at the local level that are trusted and credible come out
and be able to educate people about this. We're really counting on
that." Only an emergency notification system that allows a single
point of presence to formulate and deliver the message can achieve
the goal of a "credible spokesperson."
Advanced TSN systems offer interactive functionality,
including call delivery reporting. Advanced TSN systems are
interactive, allowing the government entities that use the system
not only to create and send messages, but also to receive
information in response. For example, the "sending" party can
deliver a TSN message that requests the receiving party's location
or that inquires whether the receiving party needs assistance; the
receiving party, by using his or her phone's touch-tone capability,
can provide an appropriate response, thereby facilitating urgent
relief efforts. This interactive capacity allows those engaged in
emergency management to determine whether their messages have
been received - an important advantage over anonymous, one-way
broadcast technologies.
Another significant feature of advanced TSN systems is their
superior reporting capability. For example, NTI's advanced TSN
technology allows the originator of the emergency communication
to receive a report of successful and unsuccessful message
deliveries - distinguishing between "live" reception, voice-mail
reception, non-reception and non-working numbers - all within
minutes of sending the message. The sender then has the option to
resend calls to those who did not receive the message.
TSN systems possess multi-lingual capability. Another issue
raised by the Katrina Panel was the need to ensure that emergency
information was available to non-English speaking Americans.
TSN systems can be and are used to deliver messages (and receive
responses) in a number of different languages. As a result, broad
utilization of TSN providers would help address the concern raised
by the Katrina Panel regarding the need to improve the provision
of multilingual emergency communications in areas in which
languages other than English are of primary fluency.
TSN technology can manage increased scalability. Predecessor
notification systems are not scalable because they are limited by
the number of phone lines to which they are connected. For
example, implementing a standard auto-dialer system typically
involved the deployment of pieces of equipment supported by
between 24 and 96 phone lines. And while it was possible for such
a system to increase capacity by adding additional phone lines,
doing so would risk overloading the local network as discussed
above. In short, the types of automated notification systems that
pre-date advanced TSN technology simultaneously are too large, in
terms of costs, equipment and maintenance, and too small, in terms
of their ability to send vast amounts of messages quickly.
In contrast, the users of TSN technology face far fewer
limitations, as the systems on which they rely are built to scale and
can send outbound calls through a number of different
telecommunications carriers' networks, assuming that they have
entered into the necessary agreements to do so. This carrier
redundancy allows TSN systems to far exceed the volume of calls
of a predecessor system.
TSN systems are reliable and user-friendly. TSN providers'
use of multiple power interconnects and multiple
telecommunications carriers means that an outage at one point of
the network will not terminate a user's ability to send messages.
Predecessor systems are susceptible to a single point of failure,
which can occur at many points of the message's path - such as an
operational problem with the predecessor system's machines or a
flood, fire, or electrical outage at the site of the predecessor
system's equipment center. Due to cost constraints, most users of
predecessor notification systems do not add redundant equipment
or back-up power to their systems. Thus, these systems remain
prone to the "single point of failure" problem.
TSN systems, on the other hand, use their power and carrier
redundancies to send hundreds of thousands of calls each day,
compiling a reliability record that far exceeds that of predecessor
systems. TSN systems also enjoy a higher success rate in
recognizing answering machines than most predecessor systems.
Using its advanced TSN technology, NTI successfully placed more
than 54 million time-sensitive calls in 2005, and is currently
delivering more than ten million time-sensitive calls per month.
TSN systems are well-suited for use in rural areas. Rural users
of TSN technology (including local and state governments) can
obtain a reliable means by which to communicate more quickly
with the general public for less cost than predecessor systems.
Because TSN systems utilize a "hosted" application, TSN system
users, including those in rural areas, do not have to pay for
maintenance of equipment, as they would with predecessor
systems. In addition to offering the advantage of a lower cost
structure, TSN technology has proven reliable in completing a
large number of calls in a concentrated geographic area which are
the conditions that would face a rural community during an urgent
situation. Most importantly, the ubiquity of land-lines, coupled
with the rapid adoption rate of cell phones, ensures that residents
of rural areas will have access to up-to-date information relevant to
their specific geographic location.
Operationally, TSN providers' geographic and carrier
redundancies facilitate least-cost routing of calls. Should a
user/owner of a predecessor system wish to repeat the same level
of redundancy at the data center and call origination center level,
significant costs would be incurred to establish and maintain such
facilities. TSN providers are able to defray the costs of
redundancies, SLAs, insurance, customer service maintenance, and
upgrades across thousands of users rather than just one making
them the best choice given current available options.
TSN technology is compatible with other alerting standards.
The FCC has long recognized the importance of compatible
alerting technologies to inform and safeguard the American public
during emergencies. TSN systems are compatible with other
alerting standards, such as Common Alerting Protocol ("CAP"). If
the FCC was to choose CAP a baseline alerting architecture, most
TSN systems would be able to communicate seamlessly with the
rest of the Commission's EAS network.
Examples of Emergency Communications via TSN Systems
As noted, the Katrina Panel identified a number of
shortcomings in the performance of emergency communications
systems before, during, and after last summer's catastrophic
storms. However, the Panel also cited some success stories. One
of the bright spots noted by the Panel was the performance of new
technologies, such as TSN technology. Indeed, NTI's Connect-
EDr TSN system was used by school systems in the areas affected
by the storms to deliver over 2.3 million hurricane-focused
messages to members of the public. Examples of how TSN
technology supplemented and enhanced information provided by
traditional EAS means include the following:
Before and after both Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane
Rita, the East Baton Rouge Parish School district used the
Connect-ED system to send urgent messages to more than
34,000 phone numbers to inform families and employees
about school closings. In all, the district sent over 11
hurricane-related messages to their constituents.
After Hurricane Katrina made landfall, the Lafayette Parish
School District sent messages to nearly 300 transportation
employees to request that they volunteer their assistance in
a city-wide rescue operation. The parish also delivered
several messages to over 56,000 phone numbers regarding
pre- and post-Katrina school closings and reached over
61,000 phone numbers with advance information regarding
Hurricane Rita.
I could give you numerous other examples. However, there is
one particular example that merits a more detailed description. In
advance of Hurricane Katrina, the St. Charles Parish school district
used TSN technology to send out an evacuation message to over
21,000 phone numbers. Moreover, the use of TSN to provide
information to the residents of the parish did not end with the pre-
storm notices. The school district's communications director,
Rochelle Cancienne, continued to send TSN messages in the
storm's aftermath in order to assist the parish's Emergency
Operations Center in communicating with a community that was
largely un-served by television or radio due to power outages and
other service disruptions. Working with NTI's client care center -
sometimes in the middle of the night or pre-dawn hours - Ms.
Cancienne was able to use her cell phone to send TSN messages
reassuring residents that the reports that were being circulated by
the media regarding the extreme devastation wrought by the storm
were not reflective of the conditions in their particular parish.
Specific examples of the kinds of information sent out using TSN
technology included:
information regarding the extent and location of damage
within the parish and the reconstruction and reopening of
the parish's schools;
job-related information targeted to school district
employees (the largest employee base in the parish); and
information targeted specifically to the families of the
additional students re-located to the parish from other
school districts in the greater New Orleans area.
In total, the school district successfully completed more than
114,000 calls to some 21,000 residents over a 27 day period, a
remarkable achievement given that the local telephone
infrastructure was greatly distressed due to the hurricane.
The use of TSN technology before, during, and after Hurricane
Katrina played a key role in holding the St. Charles Parish
community together in a time of extraordinary crisis. As Ms.
Cancienne has noted, prior to deploying NTI's TSN system, the
school system's most effective means of mass communications was
over the PA system at Friday night football games
The use of TSN technology also provided ancillary benefits by
helping the Parish's Emergency Operations Center to monitor the
capacity of the local telephone lines by constantly analyzing their
call delivery reports. Message delivery success rates in the school
district dipped as low as 8% on August 29th but climbed back up to
28% just seven days later. Within a month, the district was back to
a standard +80% success rate. In the future, the district has
proposed working with the phone company to overlay data to
determine where outages have been repaired.
As a result of its experience in using TSN technology during a
major crisis, St. Charles Parish School District is now collecting
contact information from all staff members and the parents of
children enrolled in its schools three (3) times per year rather than
once per year in order to ensure that data is up-to-date.
Furthermore, the district is accepting relocation contact
information so that they can communicate with staff and families
who have evacuated - improving the likelihood that local citizens
will receive important information from community officials even
when local telephone lines might be impacted within the parish
itself.
TSN Technology and the WARN Act
The examples given above all involve the use of TSN
technology by school officials to communicate with parents and
staff. This reflects the fact that TSN services (such as NTI's
Connect-ED service) principally have been targeted to educators as
a tool not only for use in emergency communications (such as
school lock downs, weather closings, etc.), but also on a daily basis
for parent-teacher outreach and attendance monitoring. However,
in light of the significant role that TSN systems were able to play
in providing essential information during last year's storms, a
growing number of municipalities are expressing interest in
utilizing the technology as a key component of their community-
wide emergency response programs. NTI has recently launched a
new service, called the Connect-CTYT service, in response to this
demand.
The best way for local communities to enhance their
emergency communications capabilities to incorporate
technological advances such as TSN technology is through
voluntary public/private efforts. For example, in comments filed
in the FCC's ongoing EAS proceeding, NTI has urged that the
agency include TSN services in funded pilot programs. NTI also
has urged the FCC to recognize TSN systems as "eligible services"
under the E-rate program.
The WARN Act is of crucial importance because it reflects a
clear recognition of the limitations of current emergency
notification systems. The Act provides for the establishment of a
National Alert System ("NAS") whose functions already are
achievable with TSN technology. For example, the Act calls for
an NAS that:
will "supplement existing Federal, state, or local
emergency warning and alert systems";
will "be designed to provide alerts to the largest portion of
the affected population feasible" and to "improve the
ability of remote areas to receive alerts";
will be "flexible enough in its application to permit
narrowly targeted alerts";
will "not require members of the public to activate a
particular device"; and
will provide "secure widely dispersed multiple access
points" and "system redundancies to ensure functionality in
the event of power system failures" or other interruptive
events.
As described above, TSN technology meets these statutory
goals today. TSN systems already are being used to supplement
the existing EAS and for providing alerts to the affected
population, including targeted alerts to specific at-risk groups. It is
well-suited for use in rural areas and does not require the activation
of a particular device. Finally, multiple access points and
redundancies that ensure the system's functionality are inherent in
the design of enhanced TSN services.
There is no question that we, as a nation, need to be forward-
looking in our thinking about emergency communications and we
simply cannot wait another four or five years before upgrading our
alert capabilities to take advantage of advanced technologies. In
particular, we believe there is an immediate need for pilot
programs that will demonstrate the feasibility of incorporating
existing enhanced technologies into an improved national alert
system. As the provider of one such advanced alerting system, we
heartily endorse the WARN Act and look forward to working with
members of the Subcommittee as the bill moves forward.
MR. UPTON. Thank you. Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON. Good morning, Chairman Upton, Mr. Markey,
and members of the subcommittee. My name is Michael Jackson.
I am the Sheriff of Prince George's County, Maryland. I appear
before you today on behalf of one of the largest counties in the
National Capital Region. Currently, I also serve as the First Vice
President of the Maryland Sheriffs' Association and the
Secretary/Treasurer for the National Sheriffs' Court Officers &
Deputies Association. Before I begin, I would also like to take this
time to thank Congressman Albert Wynn for his leadership on the
critical issue of national alert communications and for
recommending that I appear here today.
First, I want to applaud the original co sponsors of H.R. 5785,
the WARN Act, for their vision and foresight in realizing the need
for updating the Nation's Emergency Alert System.
Modernization of emergency communications for the public is
essential for a sound homeland security policy. Even more
important is that a new system incorporate new forms of
communication such as cell phone and Blackberries. I am pleased
to say the WARN Act does just that. I would like to commend the
wireless industry for combining their efforts with the National
Center for Missing and Endangered Children, NCMEC, and law
enforcement agencies. The wireless Amber Alerts initiative will
be a catalyst for the wireless industry's more than 200 million
wireless subscribers to aid in the return of an abducted child. The
NCMEC is solely responsible for creating the content for an alert
distributed to wireless carriers through Syniverse Technologies.
Prince George's County, Maryland, is located in the heart of
the Baltimore/Washington corridor. The county borders
Washington, D.C., and is just 37 miles south of the City of
Baltimore. The population exceeds 820,000 with a daily work
population of over one million. Covering an area of close to 500
square miles, the county is home to many businesses, as well as
State and Federal agencies. Some of the Federal agencies include
NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Andrew's Air Force Base,
which is home to Air Force One, several Smithsonian support
centers, the Federal Census Bureau, U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Beltsville facility, the Federal Records Center, a
large IRS office complex, and the NOAA Center for Weather and
Climate Prediction, a critical partner in building and maintaining
the national alert system. Additionally, a large part of the region's
Metro system and Interstate 95 will pass through Prince George's
County.
For most communities in America, the threat of terrorism
remains just that, a threat. Only two areas in the United States
have experienced the heinous acts of foreign-born terrorism and
understand the need to support public alertness as well as first
responder emergency communications interoperability. Therefore,
Prince George's County is in a prime position to offer perspectives
on how to address the need, impact, and practicality of a new
public alert system. Prince George's County is a prime target for a
terrorist attack because of its close proximity to the District of
Columbia.
What I have just explained is the grim reality facing the
National Capital Region. A modern national alert system could
have helped the public during 9/11. However, H.R. 5785 is only
the first step in a long road ahead toward not just notifying the
public, but our first responders as well. One of the best provisions
of the bill is that the Federal, State, and local emergency managers
can input alerts into the system and have them directed out to a
geographically targeted section of the population. As public safety
officers, we have been watching our Nation grapple with homeland
security implementation issues highlighting how critical
congressional oversight is to the process.
To that end, I urge that the lawmakers use this system as a
platform to draw attention to not just a well-informed public, but a
well-wired first responder community. It is almost ironic that we
are discussing the system now in the face of dangerous cuts to
Urban Areas Security Initiatives, UASI, and constant reductions in
funding for the Nation's first responder grant programs. Just last
month, Maryland officials testified to the House Government
Reform Subcommittee on national security stating how much the
cuts to UASI would devastate State homeland security
preparedness operations. My Sate sustained more than a 50
percent cut to UASI for the National Capital Region. Maryland
officials testified to House Members that they thought if they had
done nothing and not even filled out the UASI application for
2006, they would have received around $10 million. In reality,
Maryland received $8 million.
Prince George's County is in a unique position when it comes
to emergency communications, as we are the only county in the
National Capital Region that does not have an interoperable radio
system. We are the hole in the communications net that covers the
Capital Region. The County Executive is committed to fixing this
problem and fast. But a $75 million plus pricetag makes this a
daunting task. This is not a county need; this is a regional need
with national implications.
We would recommend that the National Alert System Working
Group have at least one public safety official and/or local
government executive from a locality with the National Capital
Region, ensure that the National Alert Office in the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration coordinate
with the appropriate Federal agencies to provide expertise on the
best methods to assess the government's disaster preparedness,
consider an advance alert and local government participation
requirement for county executives and mayors so that they are
notified in advance if an emergency alert is going to be broadcast
in their jurisdictions.
Challenges ahead include what 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina
have taught us that the local alerts are not enough. Perhaps with a
regional warning system in place, the jurisdictions in surrounding
areas directly affected could have provided a quicker and more
efficient response, allowing more time for agencies such as FEMA
and the Red Cross to properly implement their aid and service
plans. I can say confidently that local public safety officials are
ready to work with you in making a modern national alert system a
reality. I thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Michael Jackson follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SHERIFF MICHAEL JACKSON, VICE
PRESIDENT, MARYLAND SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION
I. INTRODUCTION
Good morning, Chairman Upton, Congressman Markey, and
Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Michael A. Jackson. I
am the Sheriff of Prince George's County, Maryland. I appear
before you today on behalf of one of the largest Counties in the
National Capitol Region. Currently, I also serve as the 1st Vice-
President of the Maryland Sheriff's Association and the
Secretary/Treasurer of the Court Officers Board Association.
Before I begin, I also want to take this time to thank
Congressman Albert Wynn for his leadership on the critical issue
of national alert communications and for recommending that I
appear before you today.
II. The WARN Act and the realities facing the National Capitol
Region
First, I want to applaud the original co-sponsors of HR 5785,
the Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act for their vision and
foresight in realizing the need for updating our Nation's
emergency alert system. Modernization of emergency
communications for the public is essential for a sound homeland
security policy. Even more important is that a new system
incorporate new forms of communication such as cell phone and
Blackberries; I'm pleased to say the WARN Act does just that.
I would also like to commend the wireless industry for
combining their efforts with the National Center for Missing and
Endangered Children (NCMEC) and law enforcement agencies.
The wireless AMBER Alerts Initiative will be a catalyst for the
wireless industry's more than 200-million wireless subscribers to
aid in the return of an abducted child. The NCMEC is solely
responsible for creating the content for an alert distributed to
wireless carriers through Syniverse Technologies.
Prince George's County, Maryland is located in the heart of
the Baltimore/Washington corridor. The county borders
Washington, DC and is just 37 miles south of the City of
Baltimore. The County's population exceeds 820,000 with a daily
work population of well over one million. Covering an area of
close to 500 square miles, the County is home to many businesses,
as well as state and federal agencies. Some of the Federal agencies
include NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Andrew's Air
Force Base, several Smithsonian support centers, the Census
Bureau, U.S. Department of Agriculture's Beltsville facility, a
Federal Records Center, a large Internal Revenue Service office
complex, and the NOAA Center for Weather and Climate
Prediction - a critical partner in building and maintaining the
National Alert System. Additionally, a large portion of the
region's Metro system and Interstate 95 pass through Prince
George's County.
For most communities in America, the threat of terrorism
remains just that; a threat. Only two areas of the United States
have experienced the heinous acts of foreign-born terrorism and
have led all of us to understand the need to support public alertness
as well as first responder emergency communications
interoperability. Prince George's County is a prime target for a
terrorist attack because of its close proximity to the District of
Columbia. Therefore, Prince George's County is in a prime
position to offer perspectives on how to address the need, impact,
and practicality of a new public alert system.
III. The WARN Act, a good first step in a long journey ahead
What I have just explained is the grim reality facing the
National Capitol Region. As I have stated, a modern national alert
system could have helped the public during 9/11. However, HR
5785 is only the first step in a long road ahead toward not just
notifying the public, but our first responders as well. One of the
best provisions of the bill is that federal, state and local emergency
managers can input alerts into the system and have them directed
out to a geographically targeted section of the population.
However, as a local official, I can not help but reflect on the
complete bureaucratic paralysis that crippled an effective response
to Hurricane Katrina. As public safety officers, we have been
watching our national government grapple with control and
oversight problems with the vast management challenges involved
in homeland security.
To that end, I urge that lawmakers use this system as a
platform to draw attention to not just a well informed public, but a
well wired first responder community. It is almost ironic that we
are discussing this system now in the face of dangerous cuts to
Urban Areas Security Initiatives and constant reductions in funding
for the Nation's first responder grant programs. Just last month,
Maryland officials testified to the House Government Reform
Subcommittee on National Security stating how much the cuts to
UASI would devastate State homeland security preparedness
operations. My state sustained more than a 50% cut to UASI for
the National Capitol Region. Maryland officials testified to House
members that they thought if they had done nothing and not even
filled-out the UASI application for 2006, they would have received
around $10 million. In reality, Maryland received $8 million.
Prince George's County is in a unique position when it comes
to emergency communications, as we are the only county in the
NCR that does not have an interoperable radio system. We are the
hole in the communications net that covers the Capitol Region.
The County Executive is committed to fixing this problem and
fast. But, a $75 million plus price tag makes this a daunting task.
This is not a County need; this is a regional need with national
implications. We have been working hard to secure Federal
assistance in plugging the only hole in the net.
IV. Recommendations
In looking at the WARN Act, we would make the following
recommendations:
We would recommend the "National Alert System Working
Group" have at least one public safety official and/or local
government executive from a locality within the National
Capitol Region.
Ensure that the National Alert Office in the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration
coordinate with the appropriate federal agencies to provide
expertise on the best methods to assess the government's
disaster preparedness.
Consider an advance alert and local government
participation requirement for County Executives and
Mayors so they are notified in advance if an emergency
alert is going to be broadcast in their jurisdiction so they
can take steps to mobilize resources.
V. Challenges Ahead
9/11 and Hurricane Katrina have taught us that local alerts are
not enough. Perhaps with a regional warning in place, the
jurisdictions surrounding areas directly affected could have
provided a quicker and more efficient response, allowing more
time for agencies such as FEMA and the Red Cross to properly
implement their aid and service plans.
I can say confidently that local public safety officials are ready
to work with you in making a modern national alert system a
reality. On the ground, we have seen the terrible consequences of
poor oversight over homeland security initiatives. We have also
seen the great strides made in building a more informed, more
aware public.
When a person receives an alert on their cell phone or
otherwise, they appreciate the information. However, the next
thought that will occur to them will be will be "how can I get to
my family as quick as possible?" At that point our inquiry turns to
transportation and two-way communication built to handle a
disaster volume of interface from the public. Thus, this truly
important first step of many and I thank you for taking it.
I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
MR. UPTON. Thank you. Ms. Allen.
MS. ALLEN. Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Thank you
to the committee, Mr. Chairman, and all of you for inviting me
here today. I am Sara Allen, President and Senior Radio Engineer.
I am also a consultant for KTAO-FM in Taos, and KTAO has
recently celebrated 14 and a 1/2 years of transmitter operations
using only solar energy. I was a member of the Federal
Communication Commission's Media Security and Reliability
Council, and we were tasked with developing disaster recovery
planning tools for all forms of mass media in the United States,
and I am happy to say we accomplished that task.
Today I am here to represent the Prometheus Radio Project. It
is an advocacy group for the low power radio movement, LP-FM
movement, and to present testimony that shows how important the
expansion and protection of low power FM radio is to the
emergency service and communications needs of this country.
Low power FM radio is a popular and important service that
allows churches, schools, and community organizations to operate
locally operated non-commercial radio stations. In 1999, the FCC
created a new class of LP-FM stations, leading to hundreds of new
stations across the country.
While these low power FM stations serve a critical ongoing
role in the communities they serve, I am here to speak specifically
about the important role that local community radio, low power
FM in particular, plays in an emergency and in the recovery of
neighborhoods and towns after a disaster. I hope you will agree
that we must protect these stations and expand possibilities for
communities to build them. Low power radio plays a unique role
in the FM band. While full power stations are designed to serve
entire metropolitan areas, LP-FM stations are, by definition,
focused on very specific geographic targets.
I want to tell you a success story. It is the story of how
Federal, State, and county government, private industry, and
volunteers combined to create a radio station capable of covering a
county-wide area. WQRZ-LP is located in Bay St. Louis,
Mississippi, and is the effort of Brice Phillips, a disabled amateur
radio operator who foresaw disaster and several years ago made
the effort to obtain authorization. His motive is to ensure that the
citizens of Hancock County, Mississippi have a reliable and
continuous Emergency Alert System.
After Katrina made landfall, I offered by sending offers of
assistance to every Gulf Coast broadcaster association, as well as
the Society of Broadcast Engineers. On Tuesday, September 6, I
received a call from John Poray, National Director of the SBE,
requesting assistance for WQRZ. I coordinated an effort to request
an emergency authorization from the Federal Communications
Commission which was granted. I also arranged for the necessary
equipment to be ordered and shipped into Hancock County.
Working closely with Harris Corporation, the necessary equipment
was on its way by Friday evening and began arriving on site by
Saturday morning.
On Sunday morning, September 11, Broadcast Engineer Gary
Sessums and I departed from the Hillsborough County EOC in
Tampa, bound for Bay St. Louis and the Hancock County EOC.
We arrived that evening and joined Gary Minker, also a Floridian,
and planned our work for the following day. On Monday morning
the three of us joined Brice and we began the reconstruction of
WQRZ at Brice's surviving 120 foot tower. Brice's home was
totally destroyed by the storm surge. His transmitter shack, which
had been totally submerged in salt water, and his tower, survived
Katrina. Brice had taken one of the antenna bays, his transmitter,
and some essential studio equipment to the Hancock County EOC
where he continued to broadcast before, during and immediately
after Katrina. He also provided health and welfare radio traffic
using his amateur radio and was the only means of
communications in and out of Hancock County EOC immediately
after Katrina.
Brice climbed the tower several times during the next few days
and by Thursday evening WQRZ-LP went on the air, the signal
strong enough to cover Hancock County and the most affected
areas, Pearlington, Bay St. Louis, Waveland, Diamondhead, Pass
Christian and Kiln, Mississippi. We switched programming from
Brice's low power operation at the old EOC to the studio we had
set up at the New Hancock County EOC, located near the Stennis
International Airport. I was making plans to return to Tampa.
Tools were put away and the studio was organized and ready for
use. I overheard someone in the Public Information Office
mention a press release requesting assistance to operate WQRZ,
and I volunteered and so it began.
You are listening to WQRZ-LP 103.5 FM, the voice of Bay St.
Louis, Waveland, Diamondhead and the Kiln, broadcasting live
from the Hancock County Emergency Operations Center, your
source for information. I reported for duty Friday morning and
went about developing a program strategy with the Public
Information Office. The first day was a bit loose. I played music
and broadcast news and information updates as frequently as the
PIO made them available. I overheard talk that the Secretary of
Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, would be visiting the EOC,
and as I was passing by the FEMA office, I noticed that he was
there and he offered me his hand. I shook it. The broadcaster in
me took over, I didn't let go and I followed it back to him and said,
sir, I would like to put you on the radio to address the people of
Hancock County.
He agreed and became the first of many VIP guests on WQRZ.
This led to ongoing access to VIP interviews, which included a
congressional delegation, Vice Admiral Thad Allen,
Undersecretary Thomas Dorr, and many other locals and
volunteers who shared their stories with WQRZ listeners. By the
end of the week, I had developed programming with regularly
scheduled in-depth updates at 8:00, noon and 5:00. The PIO
developed a daily newsletter which I read in its entirety.
Whenever information was updated, I was able to immediately go
on the air with the new, accurate information.
And then Hurricane Rita arrived. There was a new round of
flooding in Hancock County and the EOC was alerting people to
move to higher ground. Hurricane Rita affected us in many ways.
It put a strain on already compromised systems and the EOC lost
grid power. A damaged air handler motor caused a fire alarm in
the building just as a tornado warning was being broadcast by the
EAS. Brice was on the air and not about to be evacuated by fire
safety personnel, while he was broadcasting the warning which
included the EOC in the tornado's path.
MR. UPTON. Ms. Allen, you exceeded your 5 minutes by 2
minutes, and if you could just summarize. We are having votes on
the floor very shortly.
MS. ALLEN. Okay. I will do that. To summarize, full power
stations should not be allowed to encroach on LP-FM stations.
This will ensure that LP-FM stations will be able to broadcast
accurate local emergency and disaster information without
interference and that the communities don't lose this trusted source
of information when they need it most. There are many other
stories of success and support from low power and community
radio stations licensed to churches, schools, municipalities, and
community groups. Thank you the committee for giving me the
opportunity to speak with you, and I will be happy to answer any
questions regarding low power FM.
[The prepared statement of Sara Allen follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SARA ALLEN, SENIOR RADIO ENGINEER,
CIARA ENTERPRISES, INC., ON BEHALF OF PROMETHEUS RADIO
PROJECT
Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Thank you to the
Committee, the Committee Chair, and to all of you for asking me
here today.
My name is Sara T. Allen, President of Ciara Enterprises, Inc.
and Chief Consultant for KTAO-FM in Taos, NM. KTAO recently
celebrated 14 years of transmitter operations using ONLY Solar
Power!
I am also a member of the Federal Communications
Commission's Media Security and Reliability Council 2, Toolkit
Workgroup Committee, which was tasked with developing
Disaster Recovery Planning Tools for all forms of Mass Media in
the U.S.
Today I am here to represent The Prometheus Radio Project, an
advocacy group for the low power FM radio (LP-FM) movement,
and to present testimony that shows how important the expansion
and protection of low power FM radio is to the emergency service
and communications needs of this country.
Low Power FM radio is an extremely popular and extremely
important tool that allows churches, schools and community
organizations to operate very small, locally operated non-
commercial radio stations. In 1999, the FCC created a new class
of LPFM stations, leading to hundreds of new stations across the
country.
Unfortunately, Congress passed legislation blocking the FCC
from modernizing their interference protection rules pending
further technical study on the impact of placing these tiny stations
between existing full-power stations. Because of this legislation,
hundreds of potential community stations have been blocked from
the airwaves. The FCC commissioned a $2.2 million study from
the Mitre Corporation, and submitted their findings to Congress
three years ago. The Senate Commerce Committee has twice
voted in support of legislation that would allow the FCC to grant
new LPFM licenses in urban markets. We ask that the House of
Representatives also consider this legislation.
While these Low Power FM stations serve a critical ongoing
role in the communities they serve, I'm here to speak about
specifically about the important role that local community radio,
low power FM in particular, plays in an emergency and in the
recovery of neighborhoods and towns after a disaster. I hope you'll
agree that we must protect these stations and expand possibilities
for communities to build them.
Low Power Radio plays a unique role in the FM band. While
full power stations are designed to serve entire metropolitan areas,
LPFM stations are, by definition, focused on very specific
geographic targets.
The first story I want to tell is the story of the attempt to
provide Low Power FM radio services to the displaced citizens,
victims of Hurricane Katrina, who were living in the Houston
Astrodome. People need information. Several Houston community
members developed a plan to build and operate a community radio
station located inside the Astrodome. The proposed station
"Evacuation Radio Services," would broadcast essential
information.
The Prometheus Radio Project was contacted for assistance and
recommended that the Houston group contact the FCC to request
an STA. In very short order the FCC granted authorization.
Despite the quick action from the FCC, the Houston community
group ran into bureaucratic resistance from the local officials at the
Astrodome. Even with the support from the Senate Office of Kay
Bailey Hutchinson, City Council members and the Mayor of
Houston, Harris County officials refused to grant permission to
allow the radio station to proceed.
Eventually, a licensed radio station was set up outside the
Astrodome and did provide essential information to the displaced
residents. FEMA notices, health notices, and vital travel
information were shared with the residents, and the residents were
able to tell their own stories and connect with families and friends
after the disaster.
The bureaucratic delays prevented the timely broadcast of
important information to the residents. The Houston Astrodome
officials' reliance on their "loudspeaker" public address system led
to the confusion and frustration of the residents.
Ladies and Gentlemen, anyone who has ever tried to
understand what is being said over a stadium loudspeaker will
agree that it is a very poor choice for communications of essential
and detailed information. If Congress had already acted to expand
low power FM radio to Houston, there would have been more
potential choices for the residents at the Astrodome and displaced
families across the Gulf to respond quickly and appropriately to
their local needs.
The next story is a success story. It's the story of how Federal,
State, and County Government, private industry and volunteers
combined to create a radio station capable of covering a county
wide area.
WQRZ-LP is located in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi and is the
effort of Brice Phillips, a disabled amateur radio operator who
foresaw disaster and several years ago made the effort to obtain
authorization. His motive is to insure that the citizens of Hancock
County have a reliable and continuous Emergency Alert System.
After Katrina made landfall, I offered my help by sending
offers of assistance to every Gulf Coast Broadcaster Association,
as well as the Society of Broadcast Engineers.
On Tuesday, Sept. 6th I received a call from John Poray,
National Director of the SBE requesting assistance for WQRZ-LP.
I coordinated an effort to request an emergency authorization from
the FCC which was granted. I also arranged for the necessary
equipment to be ordered and shipped into Hancock County.
Working closely with Harris Corp. the necessary equipment was
on its way by Friday evening and began arriving on site Saturday
morning.
On Sunday morning, Sept. 11th, Broadcast Engineer Gary
Sessums and I departed from the Hillsborough County EOC in
Tampa, bound for Bay St. Louis and the Hancock County EOC.
We arrived that evening and joined Gary Minker, also a Floridian,
and planned our work for the following day.
On Monday morning the three of us joined Brice and we began
the reconstruction of WQRZ-LP at Brice's surviving 120 foot
tower. Brice's home was destroyed by the storm surge. His
transmitter shack, which had been totally submerged in salt water,
and his tower, survived Katrina. Brice had taken one of the antenna
bays, his transmitter and some essential studio equipment to the
Hancock County EOC where he continued to broadcast before,
during and immediately after Katrina. He also provided health and
welfare radio traffic using his amateur radio and was the only
means of communication in and out of the Hancock County EOC
immediately after Katrina.
Brice climbed the tower several times during the next few days
and by Thursday evening WQRZ-LP went on the air, the signal
strong enough to cover Hancock County and the most affected
areas, Pearlington, Bay St. Louis, Waveland, Diamondhead, Pass
Christian and Kiln, Mississippi.
We switched programming from Brice's low power operation
at the old EOC to the studio we had set up at the new Hancock
County EOC located near the Stennis International Airport.
I was making plans to return to Tampa. Tools were put away
and the studio was organized and ready for use. I overheard
someone in the Public Information Office mention a press release
requesting assistance to operate WQRZ-LP.
I volunteered. So it began.
"You're listening to WQRZ-LP 103.5 FM - The Voice of Bay
St. Louis, Waveland, Diamondhead and the Kiln - Broadcasting
live from the Hancock County Emergency Operations Center -
Your Source for Information"
I reported for duty Friday morning and went about developing
a program strategy with the Public Information Office. The first
day was a bit loose. I played music and broadcast news and
information updates as frequently as the PIO made them available.
I overheard talk that the Secretary of Homeland Security,
Michael Chertoff, would be visiting the EOC and as I was passing
by the FEMA office I noticed that the he was there and he offered
me his hand which I shook, and then the broadcaster in me took
over, I didn't let go of his hand and followed it back to him and
said "Sir, I would like to put you on the radio station to address the
people of Hancock County."
He agreed and became the first of many VIP guests on WQRZ-
LP. I hadn't realized at the time that I was bucking protocol and I
was informed later that day that I was lucky that I hadn't been
"secured" by the Secret Service. I did, however, gain the notoriety
and respect of the EOC leadership which led to ongoing access to
VIP interviews which included a Congressional Delegation, Vice
Admiral Thad Allen, Undersecretary Thomas Dorr, and many
other locals and volunteers who shared their stories with the
WQRZ-LP listeners.
By the end of the first week I had developed programming with
regularly scheduled in-depth updates at 8, noon and 5. The PIO
developed a daily newsletter which I read in its entirety. Whenever
information was updated I was able to immediately go on the air
with the new, accurate information.
Hurricane Rita arrived. There was a new round of flooding in
Hancock County and the EOC was alerting people to move to
higher ground.
Hurricane Rita affected us in many ways. It put a strain on
already compromised systems and the EOC lost grid power. A
damaged air handler motor caused a fire alarm in the building just
as a Tornado Warning was being broadcast by the EAS. Brice was
on the air and not about to be evacuated by fire safety personnel
while he was broadcasting the warning which included the EOC in
the tornados' path. That was an exciting moment.
WQRZ-LP was off the air. Flood waters had prevented easy
access to the transmitter site and logistics was unable to refuel the
generator. Brice decided to take matters into his own hands and
floated 10 gallons of diesel fuel wading several hundred yards
through the flood waters to make sure the citizens of Hancock
County had access to important EOC and EAS information.
Thanks to his efforts WQRZ-LP was back on the air, but as a
consequence, Brice came down with bronchitis and pneumonia and
I stayed at the radio station for another week while he recuperated.
I insisted that he take the time to recover so that he wouldn't
relapse and I could return home. Brice took my advice and rested
until he had recovered and he was able to once again take over the
controls at WQRZ-LP. Brice continues to bring the residents of
Hancock County essential news and information directly from the
EOC and will continue to do so as long as necessary. As you will
read about in the packet of information I've brought, WQRZ-LP
served and continues to serve as a lifeline for the residents of Bay
St. Louis and Hancock County, Mississippi. With a new
amendment to expand low power FM on H. R. 5785, this
committee can bring stations like WQRZ-LP to hundreds, if not
thousands, of communities that need them.
I lived and worked at the Hancock County EOC for 28 days.
Bay St. Louis, Waveland, Diamondhead and the Kill will no longer
be just a place on the map, but for me, a place that I called home.
LP-FM radio stations have proven to be a valuable resource
before, during and after disaster. To continue this service and
improve upon it, organizers from the Low Power FM community
make the following recommendations to Congress:
To ensure that the greatest numbers of LP-FM stations are
available and able to provide service and information in times of
emergency and disaster, this Committee can amend the language of
Senate Bill 312, sponsored by Senators John McCain, Maria
Cantwell, and Patrick Leahy, onto House Bill 5785. This same
language was recently amended to Senator Stevens'
telecommunications bill, SB 2686, with a vote of 14 for, and 7
against. Senate Bill 312 would expand low power FM radio to
frequencies that were restricted for five years, while the FCC
studied whether or not there would be interference to existing
stations from new LPFM stations. Now that the Commission has
proven with a 2.2 million dollar study that there is room for these
essential stations on the dial, we hope you will move quickly to
amend this bill to expand low power FM radio.
Furthermore, this Committee can move to protect those low
power FM stations on the air. As you can read in Congresswoman
Slaughter's recent bill, HB 3731, many current LP-FM stations are
under threat of being knocked off the air by full power
broadcasters, leaving hundreds of communities without the local
service they need in safety or in disaster.
Full power stations should not be allowed to encroach upon
LP-FM stations. This will ensure that LP-FM stations will be able
to broadcast accurate local emergency and disaster information
without interference and that the communities don't lose this
trusted source of information when they need it most.
There are many other stories of success and support from low
power and community radio stations, licensed to churches, schools,
municipalities, and community groups, included in the packet I've
brought. To reiterate, it is community radio which is so vitally
placed to provide information, relief and communications before,
during and after an emergency. Thousands of volunteers and
potential community broadcasters stand by ready to help.
Finally, as an experienced engineer and someone who has
worked with stations who use the Emergency Alert System (EAS),
I see a great opportunity with HB 5785 to diversify and specify the
alerts broadcast to new communities and for new situations. With
EAS, a radio station has the option of selecting which alerts it uses,
for example -- nuclear attack, weather, child abduction, etcetera.
Some alerts are mandatory for the station to broadcast, but others
may be selected by the broadcaster when the alert system is first
set up.
Low power FM stations broadcast in particular communities
may broadcast in many languages, from Hmong to Spanish to
Zapotec. It would be ironic and tragic if some listeners could not
understand an emergency alert with life saving alert because their
English was not yet strong enough to comprehend detailed
emergency instructions. It would greatly enhance the efficacy of
EAS if it had multiple language capabilities. As I see it this would
not require hardware changes or new equipment, just an update of
software that seems well worth it, in the service of our
communities.
Thank you to the Committee for giving community radio this
opportunity to speak.
MR. UPTON. Great. Thank you all for your testimony. I know
that we all have a number of questions, and I just would like to
relate a story this morning that happened in Michigan. I talked to
my dad on the phone this morning, and he said a big storm just
came through. It was unbelievable. I don't think it was the same
storm that went through St. Louis, but it was a big major
thunderstorm that came off of Lake Michigan. And I can
remember well about 2 years ago we had one of those microburst
storms. It was literally hurricane winds. It was almost unheard of
that came across the lake, and it decimated a small area, probably
no more than a quarter of a mile, and it went in about a quarter of a
mile. It actually moved a 100-foot cement smoke stack an inch off
the base in terms of the storm that went through.
It goes back to Mr. Pitts' story about being able to alert folks
within a bus stop area or maybe a five-block area in terms of a
major storm or an emergency that came through, and I guess, Mr.
Pitts, it is difficult to call you that because it is Billy, as you
described your system that in essence can be put into place now,
you would be able to inform folks within that area based on their
telephone number. Is that correct?
MR. PITTS. Yes, sir.
MR. UPTON. And in this specific example what if it was
someone--I mean are you able to beam a signal to that specific cell
phone or are you able to say that individual lives in Maryland and
they are in Washington, D.C., and therefore that is the five-block
area that is going to be picked or what if your cell phone number or
your residence number or business originates someplace else and
you happen to be there, how does that work? How are you able to
funnel it to the people that are in the path of that storm or the path
of that emergency? Are you able to do that?
MR. PITTS. There is a difference right now in the technology
between landline phones and cell phones.
MR. UPTON. Let us say it is a cell phone or a PDA. I guess
yours is just a phone, right, it is not even though I've got both on
my Blackberry?
MR. PITTS. The current technology that we are using with
respect to municipalities uses primarily landline phones because
we have got the latitude, longitude of each, so you could literally
go to a map, draw a ring or a polygon around whatever area you
wanted to call. Immediately all the residence and business phones
would be available to call immediately. We don't quite have the
technology now to do that with all cell phones. As was discussed
earlier, that is the problem with the E911. I know there are new
software developments coming forward. We are working with
people on that. So the cell phone technology is currently a
problem.
The municipalities input the cell phone numbers in with the
residents. We will take up to three different numbers for each
residence, two for each business, so they input them. But if the
person has the cell phone and is outside the area they would be
getting it outside the area.
MR. UPTON. And, Mr. Lawson, the system that you
demonstrated a little while ago, is that able to in essence get a
small localized area as well to be alerted versus an entire--how
does that work?
MR. LAWSON. Right now our job is to give the signal to the
other media and communications carriers and they redistribute. If
they can localize it, fine. We can certainly send information that is
designed for a geographically targeted region. In the future,
because our system is addressable in place, DTV receivers could
be individually accessed. Everybody would receive the signal
through their antennas, but only certain receivers could decode the
data. So eventually, yes, we could geographically target.
MR. UPTON. Now I would like each of you to answer this
question, and then we will go to Mr. Wynn for some questions.
We have a series of votes so we will have to stop and adjourn for a
short time and then come back. Should the National Alert System
remain a voluntary system or should we mandate it? I will just go
down the panel. Ms. Allen.
MS. ALLEN. It is my belief that it should be mandatory
MR. UPTON. It should be mandatory. Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON. I concur, Mr. Chairman.
MR. UPTON. Mr. Pitts.
MR. PITTS. That is difficult for me, Mr. Chairman, as a former
broadcaster because the broadcasters don't like that but I think it is
about time that we start mandating some kind of emergency alerts.
MR. UPTON. Mr. Kelly.
MR. KELLY. I agree, mandatory. It is critical.
MR. UPTON. Mr. Guttman-McCabe.
MR. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. I would say it should in essence be
voluntary for certain systems. Our system is different. It is not a
point to multi-point. It is a point to point. And I just personally
believe that our industry will respond in its creative manner if it is
not mandated. We have that in Amber Alerts and we have that in
Wireless Priority Service.
MR. UPTON. Mr. Lawson.
MR. LAWSON. Our participation in the current EAS is
mandatory. The WARN bill would make our participation of the
National Alert System mandatory. We support that.
MR. UPTON. Mr. Knapp, I don't know if you can respond.
MR. KNAPP. I am afraid not. We have an open proceeding and
it wouldn't be appropriate.
MR. UPTON. I am just giving you some protection.
MR. KNAPP. That is fine. Much appreciated.
MR. UPTON. Mr. Wynn. By the way, for other members that
are here, after Mr. Wynn has concluded, we will take a brief
adjournment and come back, so Mr. Wynn.
MR. WYNN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think one or more of
you mentioned the concept of multi-lingual capacity. Of those
who I would call the messengers on the panel, and I mean that with
the highest regard, do you have multi-lingual capacity and do you
believe that that is appropriate for a system such as this? Any of
the messengers? Mr. Pitts.
MR. PITTS. Yes, sir. We do have multi-lingual capacity, and
we do think it is appropriate.
MR. WYNN. Anyone else want to volunteer a sentiment? Mr.
Lawson.
MR. LAWSON. Public television definitely has it. In fact, even
on our multicast television, digital television, we are watching a
Spanish language television channel.
MR. WYNN. Anyone else?
MR. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Congressman, I would just add that
we envision the WARN Act coming up with those types of
requirements and through the process, and if that is one of the
requirements that comes out of the process we will address that,
the wireless industry will address that.
MR. WYNN. Thank you. Mr. Knapp, what would be a
reasonable length of time to expect the industry to define necessary
protocols and performance criteria for specific technologies?
MR. KNAPP. It is always hard to predict but it really shouldn't
take that long because I think you have already seen demonstrated
some of the technologies that are available today and so it would
just be a matter of testing them and nailing down the standards.
MR. WYNN. Are we talking about maybe a year?
MR. KNAPP. I don't know.
MR. WYNN. It is kind of adrift in government.
MR. KNAPP. I can't put a number on it.
MR. WYNN. That is fine. Mr. Guttman-McCabe, there is
always a difference between our Government wish list and what
technology can deliver. Would one year be enough time, do you
think, to resolve those type of issues?
MR. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. In terms of sort of setting down the
requirements and then working towards standards, I think we could
sit down the requirements within a year, absolutely. And then we
would work toward setting standards so that we could integrate it
into our networks.
MR. WYNN. I have one final question. A couple of speakers, I
believe, you, Mr. Guttman-McCabe, and also Mr. Kelly mentioned
liability protection. That is always a highly contentious issue here
in the Congress particularly when we try to do good. We are
trying to do good here. Would you comment a little more about
the liability protection issue?
MR. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Certainly. Congress saw fit in 1999
to extend liability protection to the E911 service, and I think that
model would be appropriate here. Our devices at times when you
push send on a signal we work hard to make sure that the
overwhelming majority of the calls go through. But I think it was
Mr. Kelly that said that we want to make sure that the industries
that participate are not subject to frivolous lawsuits. And
unfortunately our industry at times tends to be a target of such
lawsuits so I think it would be in the interest of the country, it
certainly would be in the interest of our industry, to have that type
of liability protection as we do in the 911 space.
MR. WYNN. Mr. Kelly, would you care to comment?
MR. KELLY. Yeah, I agree 100 percent with what he said.
When you are a wireless service provider a lot of things can
happen. You are doing your best to keep the transmitters up, to
keep the network up, but if a storm comes through and knocks over
a tower you have got limited capability in a short period of time to
rectify that, so being sued for something that would be an act of
God or something out of your control is just not going to be
conducive to long-term success in this program.
MR. WYNN. Is the current liability protection, does it cover
even gross negligence as an absolute waiver of liability?
MR. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Currently in your version of the Act,
there is not liability protection.
MR. WYNN. No, I know. I mean you made reference to, what,
the 911 system?
MR. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Right.
MR. WYNN. Is that an absolute waiver or is that--
MR. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. I don't know if it covers gross
negligence, Congressman. We will get back to your office on that.
MR. WYNN. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. I
relinquish the balance of my time.
MR. UPTON. Okay, well, we will stop. We have three votes on
the House floor so we will come back probably around 12:00,
12:05. We will reconvene.
[Recess.]
MR. SHIMKUS. [Presiding] I would like to call the hearing back
into session, and thank you for your patience. We do have a lot of
time now and based upon members returning, and we are just
going to go into their chance to ask their questions. And if I am it,
then we can leave. Let me ask a couple questions. Everybody
understands the intent of the legislation, and it is based upon as
some folks quoted "our ability to make sure that people get
informed." I want to ask, because we have a lot of different
technologies out here, a lot of different ways to deliver, we wanted
to make the legislation technologically neutral. We want to
incentivize.
And I come from an area of the country where I represent 30
counties in southern Illinois. I have got a county that has only
5,000 residents. I have a county that doesn't have dial up landline
911. So when people say mandate, mandate, mandate, guess what,
you can't mandate to areas that don't even have 911 dial up. They
haven't passed the tax. They don't even have the system. So that
is why voluntary incentive market-based competitive products, I
think do a better job of encouraging full deployment, and that is
the intent of what you are doing.
I used to carry three, now I only have two, and the point is the
importance of this getting information out to our citizens, our
loved ones, is debate on redundancy, multiple systems. Now so I
don't miss votes, I carry two. I used to carry three. I used to have
the Blackberry before it was composed with the cell phone. I used
to have a cell phone. I used to have a Blackberry. I used to have a
pager. Now I felt like Batman with a utility belt. Now through the
ability of technology some people would just carry this in hopes
that everything works perfectly.
So can anyone talk--and maybe starting with Mr. Knapp, just
talk about legislation as a response to concerns of the FCC and
moving in a direction that may be focus forced, can you talk about
your focus on redundancy?
MR. KNAPP. Yes. Thank you, Congressman. One of the
objectives of our proceeding was to foster a more redundant robust
system. Today's system just relies--basically it is a branch and
tree. If any key link goes out there are sections of the country that
may not get service. So among the things that we were looking at
are using some other technologies like satellite delivery, the
Internet, and so forth to have a more robust way to distribute these
emergency alert signals.
MR. UPTON. Does anyone else want to mention or talk about
the importance of redundancy?
MR. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Certainly, Congressman. First of
all, I want to thank you for having multiple wireless devices. You
are exactly the type of consumer that we love. As I said in my
opening statement we very much believe that resiliency and
redundancy makes sense. As Julius had mentioned, the
Commission is looking at an alert system across multiple
platforms, and we wholly endorse that. I think the best way that
we view an alert system is sort of in an--I think someone had
mentioned earlier dropping a stone into a pond or almost a viral
sense in that people will be alerted through different mechanisms
whether that be word of mouth or picking up the phone after you
have received your alert.
So from our perspective it clearly makes sense to have
multiple, different types of devices and then as you had said,
Congressman, from the wireless industry's perspective, and as I
said in response to the Chairman's question, we believe that in our
industry competition will result in the best and most capable
product. I know Mr. Kelly mentioned the idea of dropping in a
paging chip set and Mr. Pitts has a product that works to alert
people, and Mr. Lawson has a transmission vehicle. We are
willing to look at and investigate all of those things, but the
solution is not simple.
Mr. Kelly's idea of a chip set would require people to go back
and look at standards and do standards development because you
can't just put a second chip into a phone this big. It would also
require, likely require, shielding of the existing antenna so that you
don't cause interference within the phone from the phone to itself.
It may cause a need for an additional antenna, additional weight,
things like that. It is something we would clearly consider. It is
also along the lines of inserting the NOAA chip, which is what we
looked at. Again, in both those cases there is an existing
infrastructure in place. The question is what makes most sense
from government's perspective and what makes most sense from
the industry's perspective going forward. We are willing to
investigate all of those.
MR. KELLY. I would like to comment on redundancy too, if I
could, please. Having two devices, having a cell phone, having a
pager we think is a good idea from the standpoint of how the
networks operate. If you have a large storm that goes through and
knocks out power in a given area or it knocks off transmitters in a
given area, your mobile phone might go down because it is
communicating with the local transmitter whereas the way paging
works is it simulcasts, so we are sending in a large geographic area
the same signal to multiple towers, and so a tower can go down
very close to you but one 10 or 15 miles away can still be
broadcasting it very high powered, generally 3,500 watts ERP.
You will get the signal. We found that during Hurricane Katrina.
We found that during 9/11.
My written testimony has examples of where that worked.
With respect to integrating pagers into mobile phones, I agree there
are some technological issues that would have to be overcome.
We have met with manufacturers who are willing to take that task
on so the capability is there. It is just a question of from a business
perspective does it make sense, so redundancy is important. And I
guess the last thing I would say on that is when you have situations
and they are going good, it is not so important, but you can't
always put all your eggs in one basket and have the best
probability of success.
If you go to New York and you lose power in a brownout, a lot
of communication systems are going to be down. Pagers happen to
put transmitters on hospitals. Over 30 percent of most paging
companies' base that tap into their emergency power supply so if
you are in Manhattan and power goes off in the city a pager is
likely to work where a mobile phone may not. So there are just, I
think, advantages to having both mobile phones, pagers, and many
other technologies because you never know where the point of
failure is going to be because you never know the type of problem
that you are going to have.
MR. SHIMKUS. Billy.
MR. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I agree with what Mr. Kelly says
and he pointed it out in his remarks that on the Katrina panel we
discussed pagers as a good redundant system. In 1975 I put in the
group alert system, the auto dialer for calling all the Members as
well as what is affectionately known now as the beepers. So you
have to look at what is an effective warning, and it was discussed
in detail by the Partnership for Public Warning. It was a non-profit
group that was in place right after 9/11 through 2005. And the
finding is that people tend to mill around unless they hear the voice
of a credible spokesperson sort of telling them you've got to move,
you've got to act.
And we decided that the beepers would be, from the cloak
room, an actual live voice. And as you now know the Sergeant of
Arms has put annunciators in all the offices with a live voice
saying get out of the building because in many instances even
when I was up here we would be looking at the Blackberry saying
did you get this message saying get out of the building? Yeah, I
got it too. But when you hear that voice saying get out of the
building, there is a plane coming in, you act. So you want to look
at what is effective but you do want to have the redundancy that
you are talking about.
MR. SHIMKUS. And thanks because I think you are reiterating.
One thing that we want to be careful of because there is a lot of
different technology is instead of picking one, we want everybody
at the table--I think that is the benefit of a working group, so in
essence we are moving together. There may be some little friendly
competition also, which is good, because you want to be able to
advertise the services that you render for the consumers to
purchase. And my time has really expired, but I am in the chair
and I want to make sure I ask Mr. Jackson and Ms. Allen a
question.
Ms. Allen, first of all, in your opening statement the basic
question I have do you or do you not support the bill?
MS. ALLEN. Oh, yes, I definitely support the bill.
MR. SHIMKUS. That is really all I wanted to make sure I heard.
Mr. Jackson, in your testimony you talked about the importance of
notifying--I hope it was your testimony, notifying individuals like
elected leaders or people in government positions first before an
overall public broadcast of the alert. Can you tell me why you
think that would be helpful?
MR. JACKSON. Well, I think it is important, for example, in
Prince George's County each of the agencies have an emergency
plan and that way we would be able to notify appropriate staff to
set things in place before the general public to minimize the chaos.
We also have in the county under the leadership of the County
Executive what is termed the family plan so each employee of the
county government is encouraged to establish a family plan.
So I can tell you that during any mission, particularly a mission
during a disaster, the last thing we want to see in a Hurricane
Katrina and possibly a Rita is that the officials who are to help
those in trouble are worried about their families and so therefore
they will concentrate more on that than they will on the mission.
MR. SHIMKUS. Well, you are talking about a short--I mean you
are not talking about an extended period of time?
MR. JACKSON. Oh, no, sir, not at all.
MR. SHIMKUS. And I think the importance of that, again that
would be the working group. That would be what people would
have to discuss. A lot of our experience is September 11 based and
a lot of text messaging that we now use is because that was
working so we all obviously lived in an environment where
everybody was trying to get access to information. People in
senior positions had information; regular rank and file, Members
like me, we had no information, and I am not complaining about
that, but I think the importance is that the folks who have to clear,
make sure that the bridges are open that they mobilize early so that
when the public is notified that there is not a run in a direction in
which you don't want them to run.
And if you are talking about biological, chemical, WMD, and
wind direction, you don't want them to run people in the direction
of where the wind is blowing. That is the critical aspect of more
information if possible, but there are technological limitations.
MR. JACKSON. Well, if I may, for example, I get messages
from the Metro Washington COG when there is a catastrophic
accident or even a weather warning, we get those almost
immediately as soon as they get them and so that allows us to
prepare accordingly.
MR. SHIMKUS. I am going to turn the chair over to Mr. Walden
who is also a rural member, and thank you for your time and I look
forward to working with you.
MR. WALDEN. [Presiding] Good afternoon. My apologies for
not being able to be here earlier. We had a Deputy Whip meeting I
had to be at. In addition to being a rural member, I am one of two
who are actually licensed Ham radio operators, and the only
Member who is a licensed broadcast provider. We own and
operate five radio stations so I have been involved with the
Emergency Alert System over the years and its predecessor, assist
in the Emergency Broadcast System and then as a Ham radio
operator been involved in that respect. And I understand there
hasn't been much discussion yet in terms of these emergency
crises, the role of the amateur radio community and how they
might be able to weigh in and be of assistance. Can any of you
speak to that? Mr. Knapp from the FCC's perspective?
MR. KNAPP. Of course the amateurs have always played a
critical role in providing support in emergencies. I don't know that
this has been a particular focus in our proceeding because we have
been focused on delivering emergency alert messages.
MR. WALDEN. Right. There is some--anybody else on the
amateur side? Mr. Pitts?
MR. PITTS. Yes, sir. During our discussion on the Katrina
panel, the Ham operators played an important role down there in
the coastal States. They were probably the first up and the first
organized to get the message out. And to speak to a discussion that
the sheriff was having earlier, he was describing what is called the
classical cascading of alerts where you go through your command
and control structure and then you get to the public. And as part of
the national response plan there is sort of almost a paradox here
because when we talk about the EAS, we talk about sort of from
the Federal or the State going down, but once there is an incident
declared under the emergency support function number two once
there is an incident then the telecommunications is controlled from
the local up, so we have to make sure that the local authorities like
Sheriff Jackson and others are able to make that communication,
those necessary communications, as well as the outside
communication coming down. And I think we found with the Ham
radio operators performed a lot of that initial function at the local
level.
MR. WALDEN. Well, my own experience from some of the
field days I have heard about and been aware of and I actually
participated in one, they also have the equipment availability and
the portable generators and the ability to go set up quickly a
network, if you will, whether it is to send packet or to do voice
transmission. And I would think as you look at these issues when
everything else goes sideways and law enforcement is trying to
keep people from rioting or whatever they are doing, it is certainly
a resource that is out there that can be very useful.
It seemed to me in our post-9/11 briefings what worked and
didn't. I think I recall the former FCC Chairman saying they
actually asked broadcasters in New York to stop using the EAS
because it in effect was scaring people. Is that correct?
MR. KNAPP. I am sorry, Congressman. I don't know the
answer to that but I can take it for the record.
MR. WALDEN. That would be interesting to know. It seemed
to me--I am just thinking back and a lot was happening in that
period, and I guess while the alert process is important it has
always seemed to me that as a broadcaster who has been through
some local emergency situations, floods and fires and things, that
most just went on the air full time and that was far more productive
than in many cases a fairly garbled EAS message that is being
chained from one station to the next to the next because in these
rural areas it can be a long way in between in a broadcast sense
from one station to another.
Mr. Knapp, I understand the FCC is looking at asking the
wireless industry to utilize cell broadcasts and technology for the
dissemination of emergency alerts. Some of the filings that have
been made in that preceeding indicate the maximum transmittal
number of characters for GSM is 93, and 256 for CDMA. Can
emergency alert really be useful with such a limited ability to
communicate?
MR. KNAPP. We have a fairly voluminous record, and much of
it deals with this issue. And the carriers have said that there are
things that can be done initially through things like short
messaging service, the SMS service, but as the technology
progresses and we move to third generation networks it is going to
have more horsepower, and the messages could be much longer.
MR. WALDEN. What kind of a timeline do you think that is?
MR. KNAPP. I think what we are--some of these technologies
are being rolled out today and there is still debate in the record as
to how quickly that will happen.
MR. WALDEN. Mr. Guttman-McCabe.
MR. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Congressman, on Tuesday I
received an Amber Alert. Sheriff Jackson spoke in his testimony
about the wireless Amber Alerts. On Tuesday I received an Amber
Alert for a pair of children that they thought was abducted in
Virginia. And a little bit north of 100 characters basically on one
screen, I was able to see the make, the model, the color, the license
plate, the look of the two children, the fact that one was an infant
and one was a toddler, that they were both African American, their
weight, their size, what the abductor looked like, it was a woman,
and all of that was in less than 200 characters. So there is a way to
do this, and what we believe is that through the WARN Act if
initially Congress or the FCC or FEMA goes down the path of
requiring something in the short term the industry could respond to
that.
And we very much appreciate the process that is in place
through the WARN Act where you would sit down and establish
what should be in the message and how does that fit within
existing capabilities. But Julius is correct. There will be an
evolution and our goal is to make sure that the evolution matches
up with what is required from government, but first a key
component is figuring out exactly what government wants, what
the requirements are.
MR. WALDEN. If you can do all that with 256 characters
maybe you can help us in writing some of these laws. Mr. Pitts,
congestion is a major issue when it comes to delivering emergency
alerts. How does your product abate the concerns about
congestion in an emergency?
MR. PITTS. Yes, we use multiple LEC, Local Exchange
Carriers, and we essentially are coming from the outside in so you
dial a toll free number, you make your message, and then by using
multiple LECs as well as we have these mathematical algorithms
that essentially can tell what is congested in terms of the central
offices or NOCs, and then moves to another exchange, so we are
able to essentially understand, that is why we call it an intelligent
system, understand what is happening and the message moves to a
freer LEC.
On the question of SMS, we deliver SMS as well. Most of our
clients don't do it because in the seven bit world you are limited to
160 characters and they feel that is a burden. I do believe many
messages could be made and deliver under 160 characters, but I
think in their mind they think that they are limited and they just
don't want to start down that path.
MR. WALDEN. All right. Mr. Guttman-McCabe, if the
wireless industry can transmit Amber Alerts what makes it so
much more difficult to transmit emergency alerts?
MR. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Congressman, I would say it is not
much more difficult. From our perspective, what we would like to
see is a replication of what is happening in the Amber context. In
the Amber context, the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children decided or agreed to be sort of the aggregator for the over
100 entities that can originate an Amber message. They, in turn,
worked with CTIA and the carriers and an integrator was chosen,
Syniverse in the case of the wireless carriers, who would take the
message from the National Center and insert it into all of the
carriers' networks through contracts and memorandums of
understanding.
And the process was pretty quick and straightforward. The
lynchpin, the key element, was the National Center agreeing to be
the conduit. As I am sure you are aware, right now we are working
with the Federal Communications Commission, with FEMA, with
the Administration and the White House executive order, and with
Congress, and you throw in NOAA and the National Weather
Service, and from our perspective, if we can get a sense of who is
going to be the key conduit helping us put together the package,
the industry will deliver the message.
If it is in the short term, it has to be SMS. That is the only
capability that exists. If it is over a longer term, we would hope,
and through the WARN Act there is a process in place, we would
hope that the requirements would match up with the evolution of
the networks so that you are not requiring literally billions of
dollars of upgrades and the changeout of hundreds of millions of
handsets. But we are willing to embrace that. We are fully behind
the WARN Act. We have been engaged with the Commission and
have had a great relationship with Julius and the Chairman's staff,
and we want to continue that. We have worked on the pilot project
with Mr. Lawson and his group and FEMA. It can be done. Make
no bones about it. It can be done. We just need a process in place
to tell us what you want delivered, what the requirements are, and
then we will work from there.
MR. WALDEN. Okay. I am sure Mr. Jackson may well agree
with this but it just seems to me when we have had emergencies
whether here on the East Coast, 9/11, or in our own communities
with a flood or a fire, the first thing that happens you lose power or
you lose communication, phone service, cell service, whatever, and
the more we can build into the system the redundancy for the
absolutely unthinkable because right now we do so much based on
everything working. We can pull it off.
And even in that environment sometimes when you do a test it
doesn't work. Something is lost, some communication link, and it
just seems to me for all of us that continuing to move ahead in a
way that integrates new technologies gives us new options, new
alternatives, so that when something does go wrong and we are all
diverted in many different ways we have got backup systems, and
that is where--
MS. ALLEN. I would like to comment on redundancy.
MR. WALDEN. Yeah.
MS. ALLEN. Redundancy brought to its lowest common
denominator is what happened in Hancock County, Mississippi.
We had an amateur radio operator who owned a low power FM
radio station and during the height of the storm he was taking
batteries out of flooded vehicles to keep the radio on the air using
at the time very low power, but continuously operating. And
within 10 days after the event, that low power radio station became
a higher power radio station and was basically the only
communications that the people down there had. And all of the
infrastructure was destroyed so they no longer had access to cell
phones and Blackberries and televisions and the like.
FEMA handed out several thousand battery-powered radios.
So that brought it back to the lowest common denominator of
redundancy. Broadcasters are first responders.
MR. WALDEN. Some of us think of that as the highest level of
communication.
MS. ALLEN. I agree.
MR. WALDEN. Whether it is a few watts or a lot of watts but in
the end that is the way to mass communicate and all these other
new technologies are great and useful, but as the Chairman said I
had a Blackberry on 9/11 and it worked because of the ability to e-
mail, but it didn't work in terms of being able to conduct much
phone traffic, and that worked well. I don't have any other
questions for you all. Thanks for the good work that you all are
doing to try and help America have a better warning system and
alert system so our citizens can be safer and our communities safer
in these events. We thank you for your testimony and for your
hard work, and we look forward to continuing this process
forward. With that, the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
The United States has a telephone penetration rate of 92.4 percent for landline phones and 62
percent for mobile phones. See Federal State Board on Universal Service, Order, 36 CR 1279, 8
(2005); Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Tenth
Report, FCC 05-173, 5 (rel. Sept. 20, 2005).
Typically, TSN providers will make three (3) to five (5) attempts before considering a notification
process complete. Speed of delivery will vary based on congestion at the local network operations
center.
See "Five Towns Look to Speed Up Reverse 911 System," Ashbury Park Press (Oct. 20, 2005).
See A Guide for Developing Crisis Communications Plans, Michigan Crisis and Emergency Risk
Communications, Michigan Office of Public Health Preparedness,
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Michigan_Crisis_Emergency_and
Risk_Communication3_82364_7.doc (Oct. 2003); "Emergency Management Plans," Kevin Brown,
MD, http://www.gnyha.org/eprc/general/presentations/20030204_Emergency_Plans.pdf.
Interview with Dr. Julie Gerberding, Online NewsHour,
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/july-dec02/gerberding_smallpox.html.
See Amendment of Part 73, Subpart G, of the Commission's Rules Regarding the Emergency
Broadcast System, 10 FCC Rcd 1786, 174 (1994).