[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
INTEROPERABILITY IN THE NEXT ADMINISTRATION: ASSESSING THE DERAILED 700
MHz D BLOCK PUBLIC SAFETY SPECTRUM AUCTION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS,
PREPAREDNESS, AND RESPONSE
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 16, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-137
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
47-669 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi, Chairman
Loretta Sanchez, California Peter T. King, New York
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Lamar Smith, Texas
Norman D. Dicks, Washington Christopher Shays, Connecticut
Jane Harman, California Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Tom Davis, Virginia
Nita M. Lowey, New York Daniel E. Lungren, California
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Mike Rogers, Alabama
Columbia David G. Reichert, Washington
Zoe Lofgren, California Michael T. McCaul, Texas
Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas Charles W. Dent, Pennsylvania
Donna M. Christensen, U.S. Virgin Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida
Islands Gus M. Bilirakis, Florida
Bob Etheridge, North Carolina David Davis, Tennessee
James R. Langevin, Rhode Island Paul C. Broun, Georgia
Henry Cuellar, Texas Candice S. Miller, Michigan
Christopher P. Carney, Pennsylvania
Yvette D. Clarke, New York
Al Green, Texas
Ed Perlmutter, Colorado
Bill Pascrell, Jr., New Jersey
I. Lanier Lavant, Staff Director
Rosaline Cohen, Chief Counsel
Michael Twinchek, Chief Clerk
Robert O'Connor, Minority Staff Director
______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS, PREPAREDNESS, AND RESPONSE
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas, Chairman
Loretta Sanchez, California Charles W. Dent, Pennsylvania
Norman D. Dicks, Washington Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Nita M. Lowey, New York David Davis, Tennessee
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Tom Davis, Virginia
Columbia Candice S. Miller, Michigan
Donna M. Christensen, U.S. Virgin Peter T. King, New York (Ex
Islands Officio)
Bob Etheridge, North Carolina
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi (Ex
Officio)
Veronique Pluviose-Fenton, Director
Nichole Francis, Counsel
Daniel Wilkins, Clerk
Heather Hogg, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member
(II)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable Henry Cuellar, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Texas, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Emergency
Communications, Preparedness, and Response..................... 1
The Honorable Charles W. Dent, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Pennsylvania, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response........... 5
Witnesses
Mr. Derek K. Poarch, Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission:
Oral Statement................................................. 5
Prepared Statement............................................. 8
Mr. Chris Essid, Director, Office of Emergency Communications,
Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 10
Prepared Statement............................................. 11
Dr. David Boyd, Director, Command, Control, and Interoperability
Division, Science and Technology Directorate, Department of
Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 14
Prepared Statement............................................. 11
Mr. Richard Mirgon, First Vice President, Association of Public-
Safety Communications Organization (APCO) International:
Oral Statement................................................. 29
Prepared Statement............................................. 31
Mr. John M. Contestabile, Board Member, Public Safety Spectrum
Trust:
Oral Statement................................................. 34
Prepared Statement............................................. 36
Mr. LeRoy T. Carlson, Jr., Chairman of the Board, U.S. Cellular:
Oral Statement................................................. 40
Prepared Statement............................................. 41
Mr. Robert LeGrande, II, Former Chief Technology Officer,
District of Columbia:
Oral Statement................................................. 44
Prepared Statement............................................. 47
Mr. Charles F. Dowd, Deputy Chief, City of New York, Police
Department:
Oral Statement................................................. 52
Prepared Statement............................................. 53
Appendix
Questions From Chairman Henry Cuellar for Mr. Derek K. Poarch,
Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Federal
Communications Commission...................................... 63
Questions From Ranking Member Charles W. Dent for Mr. Derek K.
Poarch, Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau,
Federal Communications Commission.............................. 80
Questions From Chairman Henry Cuellar for Mr. Chris Essid,
Director, Office of Emergency Communications, Department of
Homeland Security.............................................. 82
Questions From Ranking Member Charles W. Dent for Mr. Chris
Essid, Director, Office of Emergency Communications, Department
of Homeland Security........................................... 83
Questions From Chairman Henry Cuellar for Dr. David Boyd,
Director, Command, Control, and Interoperability Division,
Science and Technology Directorate, Department of Homeland
Security....................................................... 83
Questions From Ranking Member Charles W. Dent for Dr. David Boyd,
Director, Command, Control, and Interoperability Division,
Science and Technology Directorate, Department of Homeland
Security....................................................... 84
Questions From Chairman Henry Cuellar for Mr. Richard Mirgon,
First Vice President, Association of Public-Safety
Communications Organization (APCO) International............... 85
Questions From Ranking Member Charles W. Dent for Mr. Richard
Mirgon, First Vice President, Association of Public-Safety
Communications Organization (APCO) International............... 86
Questions From Chairman Henry Cuellar for Mr. John M.
Contestabile, Board Member, Public Safety Spectrum Trust....... 86
Questions From Ranking Member Charles W. Dent for Mr. John M.
Contestabile, Board Member, Public Safety Spectrum Trust....... 88
Questions From Chairman Henry Cuellar for Mr. LeRoy T. Carlson,
Jr., Chairman of the Board, U.S. Cellular...................... 90
Questions From Chairman Henry Cuellar for Mr. Robert LeGrande,
II, Former Chief Technology Officer, District of Columbia...... 102
Questions From Ranking Member Charles W. Dent for Mr. Robert
LeGrande, II, Former Chief Technology Officer, District of
Columbia....................................................... 102
Questions From Chairman Henry Cuellar for Mr. Charles F. Dowd,
Deputy Chief, City of New York, Police Department.............. 103
Questions From Ranking Member Charles W. Dent for Mr. Charles F.
Dowd, Deputy Chief, City of New York, Police Department........ 104
INTEROPERABILITY IN THE NEXT ADMINISTRATION: HEARING ON ASSESSING THE
DERAILED 700 MHz D BLOCK PUBLIC SAFETY SPECTRUM AUCTION
----------
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and
Response,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
Room 311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Henry Cuellar
[Chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Cuellar, Dicks, Lowey,
Christensen, Thompson (ex officio), and Dent.
Mr. Cuellar. The House Committee on Homeland Security
Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness and
Response will come to order. The subcommittee is meeting today
to receive testimony regarding ``Interoperability in the Next
Administration, Assessing the Detailed 700 MHz D Block Public
Safety Spectrum Auction.''
Again, good morning. On behalf of the Members of the
subcommittee, let me welcome all the witnesses that we have
from the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal
Communications Commission, and representatives of the public
safety community, the private sector and the State and local
governments.
The need for emergency communications is not new.
Interoperability communications is the ability of emergency
response providers in relevant Federal, State and local
government agencies to communicate with each other as necessary
through a dedicated public safety network, utilizing
information technology systems and radio communications
systems, and to exchange voice data and video with one another
on demand in real time as necessary.
By the way of history, the Communications Act of 1934, as
enacted, recognized that the regulations of communications must
promote the national defense and the safety of life and
property. As we know, the spectrum is managed by the Federal
Communications Commission, which provides a license to a
private entity, local government or a public safety agency to
use specific channels for communication purposes. But since the
late 1960's the spectrum available has become increasingly
crowded. That crowding has led to interference on the channels
that first responders rely to talk on during times of
emergency.
In 1996, the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee, a
blue ribbon committee created by Congress to examine the issues
of emergency communications, concludes that public safety
agencies did not have the sufficient radio spectrum to
communicate with each other when they responded in emergencies.
In fact, this blue ribbon panel released its report to Congress
in 1996 and called for the congested spectrum to be cleared by
September 11, 2001.
In 2002, the 9/11 Commission called on Congress to support
pending legislation, which provides for the expedited increased
assignment of radio spectrum for public safety purposes.
In 2006, Congress finally set up a firm date of February
17, 2009, to set aside portions of the 700 MHz spectrum to
public safety. However, the auction of the spectrum channels
earlier this year fell far short than the expected $1.33
billion reserved price set by the FCC. As a result, many are
saying that the D Block on the 700 MHz is dead, done, delayed
or derailed.
The reality of the situation is that the Nation must clear
the spectrum and promote a public safety communications
network. Simply put, we must invest in the communications
systems that have the substantial participation of public
safety. That is why the public-private partnership of the D
Block would truly reflect how the spectrum can be shared among
commercial and public safety users on a network that meets the
needs of the first responder communities. The bottom line is
that we must have the commitment of all key players to make the
public safety network build-out on the 700 MHz more than just a
concept.
So to move along with this hearing, I will look forward to
hearing from Chief Derek Poarch of the Public Safety and
Homeland Security Bureau of the FCC. Specifically, this
subcommittee wants to better understand the FCC's concrete
plans for making sure that all key players are faithfully
participating in the development of a national system or at the
very least a regional system that is built upon a national
framework.
Mr. Essid, this committee wants to know how the Office of
Emergency Communications in the Department of Homeland Security
through the emergency communications preparedness spectrum is
coordinating efforts to facilitate the D Block auction as well
as its impact on the national emergency communication plan.
Dr. Boyd, the subcommittee would like to understand the
technological challenges and opportunities that exist as it
relates to the D Block.
On the second panel, we will have Mr. Mirgon and Deputy
Chief Dowd give us the public safety perspective on the status
of and the future implications of the 700 MHz D Block. Mr.
Contestabile and Mr. LeGrande will discuss the State and local
governments' concern regarding the national or regional
approach to building out the public safety network of the 700
MHz. Finally, Mr. Carlson of U.S. Cellular will give us the
private sector's perspective on the status of the D Block
auction.
With that, I thank the witnesses for coming. I look forward
to our robust discussion about how we will recommit ourselves
to ensure a public-private partnership plan that promotes
public safety on the 700 MHz.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of the
subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Dent, for an
opening statement.
Mr. Dent. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased that
we are holding this hearing today to talk about the status of
efforts to build a Nation-wide wireless network for public
safety communications. All our witnesses today understand how
critically important this issue is and understand the
challenges it poses to the first responders and government
officials at all levels.
Since March of this year when the Federal Communications
Commission, the FCC, began reconsidering how to proceed in
auctioning the D Block, many public safety advocates,
technology experts, and commercial providers have offered
varying recommendations to structure the second auction. One of
the key issues I would like to discuss today is whether the FCC
should proceed with a national approach to developing the
network through a public-private partnership or whether the
license for the spectrum should be broken down and auctioned on
a regional basis. I look forward to examining the benefits and
challenges of both approaches with our panel of witnesses
today.
In particular, if the license is sold on a regional basis,
I would like to discuss how the FCC can ensure that the
communications systems put in place will facilitate
interoperability and avoid the current patchwork of systems
faced by our Nation's first responders.
Another important issue is that of universal technology
throughout the network. The deployment of common technology
will be critically important to fully achieving interoperable
communications. I look forward to hearing from Dr. Boyd on his
office's efforts in this particular area.
I also look forward to discussing with Mr. Essid, Director
of the Office of Emergency Communications, how the development
of the new 700 MHz network will impact other communications
work underway, such as the implementation of State-wide
communications interoperability plans.
Also, areas such as the National Capital Region and New
York City have invested millions of dollars on their own to
improve the interoperability of voice and data networks. I
would like to discuss with our witnesses how the work of areas
such as these can be leveraged in the development of a new
Nation-wide network.
Again, I would like to thank our witnesses for joining us
today, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
important hearing. I yield back at this time.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Dent.
The Chair now recognizes the Chairman of the House
Committee on Homeland Security, the gentleman from Mississippi,
Mr. Thompson, for his opening remarks. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Mr. Cuellar. Thank you
for holding this hearing. Your leadership on this subcommittee
is vitally needed for such an important issue as we hear today;
namely, interoperability. Interoperability emergency
communications challenges are not a new issue. As a former
volunteer firefighter, I know first-hand how heavily reliant
first responders are on sharing a network that allows them to
relay life-saving information on the scene and in real time. In
the 7 years that have passed since the terrible attacks on 9/
11, I remain very concerned about the slowness of progress made
to provide first responders with the resources necessary to be
fully operable and interoperable during a time of disaster.
This committee has authorized billions of Federal dollars
to improve our first responders' ability to protect, defend and
secure the homeland. Congress has set aside the date of
February 19, 2009, to provide first responders with the
additional spectrum that they need to carry out their day-to-
day tasks. We are here today to work together and provide
recommendations for the future of the 700 MHz D Block public
safety spectrum.
As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, we are confronted
with the fierce urgency of now. Our first responders and
American public cannot afford another delay in the process of
the D Block auction.
I am pleased that we have a panel of witnesses with broad
representation from Federal, State and local public safety
entities as well as industry stakeholders that will present
future steps on how to implement a Nation-wide interoperable
broadband network. I look forward to receiving your explanation
on how a regional report or national licensing build-out will
impact the public safety community.
While the first auction of the D Block is commonly referred
to as dead or derailed, this does not mean the D Block is
doomed. As I have mentioned in the past, the public-private
partnership is crucial in a successful reauction of the public
safety spectrum. Congress expects that Government, public
safety and commercial entities will cooperate fully to give
first responders the additional spectrum that is needed to
facilitate emergency communications.
Thank you for joining us today. Mr. Chairman, I look
forward to the testimony of these individuals and a successful
reauction.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Other Members of the
subcommittee are reminded that under the committee rules
opening statements may be submitted for the record. I now
welcome today's panel of witnesses.
Our first witness, Mr. Derek Poarch, is the Chief of
Federal Communications Commission's Public Safety and Homeland
Security Bureau. The bureau is responsible for the FCC
activities pertaining to public safety, homeland security,
emergency management and disaster preparedness and represents
the Commission on these issues before Federal, State and
industry organizations. Prior to his position at the FCC, Mr.
Poarch served in various law enforcement capacities and as a
Director of Public Safety and Chief of Police at the University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Welcome.
Our second witness is Mr. Chris Essid. Mr. Essid is the
Director of the Department of Homeland Security Office of
Emergency Communications. Prior to this, he served as the first
interoperability coordinator for the Commonwealth of Virginia.
He aided in the development of the Nation's first State-wide
communications interoperability plan. Prior to this noteworthy
achievement, Mr. Essid served for 5 years in the U.S. Army
followed by 4 years with the Virginia Department of
Transportation and Taxation. Welcome, Mr. Essid.
Our third witness is Dr. David Boyd, who currently serves
as the Director of the Command, Control, and Interoperability
Division of the Science and Technology Directorate within the
Department of Homeland Security. Before joining DHS, Dr. Boyd
served as the Director of Science and Technology for the
National Institute of Justice, where he managed R&D programs
affecting law enforcement. Dr. Boyd is also a retired Army
officer. Dr. Boyd, welcome.
Our second panel, if I can go ahead and just introduce them
so we can move quickly to the second panel, that we will hear
right after the first panel, the fourth witness is Mr. Richard
Mirgon, President-Elect of the Association of Public-Safety
Communications Officials. He has recently retired from the
position of Director of Technology Services for Douglas County
in Nevada. Mr. Mirgon served 4 years in the United States Air
Force as an intelligence analyst. Can you wave so we can--there
you are. Okay. Thanks.
Our fifth witness is Mr. John Contestabile. Mr.
Contestabile is currently the Director of the Office of
Engineering and Emergency Services in the Secretary's office of
Maryland's Department of Transportation, where he has served
for nearly 30 years. He is a board member of the Public Safety
Spectrum Trust, which holds the national license for the
proposed 700 MHz broadband system. Thank you.
Our sixth witness is Mr. LeRoy Carlson. He is the Chairman
of the Board of U.S. Cellular. Mr. Carlson is President and CEO
of the telephone and data system and has been with the company
since 1974. Okay.
Our seventh witness is Mr. Robert LeGrande, the former
Chief Technology Officer for the District of Columbia, where he
provided leadership for the city's wireless network operations,
human services modernization program, the city-wide credential
project and the National Capital Region's interoperability
communications program. He is now the President and CEO of
LeGrande Technical and Social Services, where he utilizes his
experience with the District to provide similar high-quality
technology solutions and services to the Government and
commercial clients.
Our final witness is Deputy Chief Charles Dowd, the
commanding officer of the New York City Police Department
Communications Divisions. Chief Dowd has a special appreciation
of the importance of interoperability in that he has served 27
years in the New York Police Department.
We are pleased to have all of you present and greatly
appreciate the testimony today. Without objection, the
witnesses' full statements will be inserted in the record. I
now ask each witness to summarize his statement for 5 minutes,
beginning with Chief Poarch.
STATEMENT OF DEREK K. POARCH, CHIEF, PUBLIC SAFETY AND HOMELAND
SECURITY BUREAU, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Mr. Poarch. Good morning, Chairman Cuellar, Ranking Member
Dent, Chairman Thompson and Members of the subcommittee. My
name is Derek Poarch, and I am Chief of the Public Safety and
Homeland Security Bureau at the Federal Communications
Commission. Thank you for inviting me to appear before you on
behalf of the Commission to discuss on-going efforts to develop
a Nation-wide interoperable broadband network in the 700 MHz
band for the benefit of public safety throughout the country.
As you may be aware, prior to joining the Commission I
spent three decades in law enforcement in North Carolina. I
retired as Chief of Police and Director of Public Safety at the
University of North Carolina just prior to joining the
Commission. I remain a sworn police officer in the State of
North Carolina today. Because of this experience, I have first-
hand knowledge of the critical role that emergency
communications play in the arena of public safety and homeland
security.
The 700 MHz proceeding addresses some of the most critical
issues facing the Commission. Through this proceeding, we seek
to foster development of a Nation-wide broadband network that
can meet public safety requirements while also providing state-
of-the-art commercial technologies. We also seek to ensure that
public safety will have access to broadband applications,
including off-the-shelf radios and newly designed equipment at
more affordable prices.
Last year, the Commission adopted the second 700 MHz report
and order which set forth the regulatory framework for the
creation of such a network for public safety. The order
provided for the Nation-wide licensing of 10 MHz of the 700 MHz
public safety spectrum block to a single entity, the public
safety broadband licensee, or PSBL, and established rules for a
public-private partnership that would bring together the PSBL
and the eventual winner of the commercial D Block spectrum.
Subsequently, the Commission approved the Public Safety
Spectrum Trust Corporation to serve as the PSBL.
As you know, the D Block auction earlier this year did not
result in the successful bidder to fulfill the commercial half
of the partnership. Following the auction, the Commission
issued a second further notice of proposed rulemaking in which
the Commission sought comment on a variety of options for
successfully reauctioning the D Block. The Commission
emphasized that its aim was to identify ways to improve the
existing public-private partnership while meeting the broadband
needs of the public safety community in a commercially viable
manner.
The Commission also stated that it would issue a subsequent
further notice that presented a detailed proposal for an
additional round of comments from all interested parties. We
received numerous comments in response to the second further
notice. While the comments were wide-ranging, we found that
most commenters expressed continued support for the public-
private partnership concept reauction of the D Block license
and a network sharing agreement between the D Block licensee
and the PSBL. Many commenters also noted the absence of any
alternative funding source that could ensure access by public
safety agencies to an interoperable public safety network.
Based on the comments, the Commission staff has developed a
draft third further notice which is scheduled to be considered
and voted on by the Commission at its upcoming agenda meeting
on September 25. Because the draft further notice is currently
under consideration by the Commission, I cannot provide
specific detail on its content. Indeed, because the Commission
has not made any final decision on the draft notice, elements
of the proposal as currently drafted could change. However, I
would like to give you a broad overview of the current proposal
under consideration.
The current draft sets forth in detail a new proposal for
reauction of the D Block and reconfiguring the public-private
partnership. This would include offering at auction both a
Nation-wide license and two sets of regional licenses, one
using the LTE or Long-Term Evolution Standard and one using the
WiMAX standard. The regional licenses would be auctioned on the
basis of the 55 public safety regional planning areas with
three additional areas auctioned for Guam and the Northern
Mariana Islands, American Samoa and the Gulf of Mexico, for a
total of 58 regional licenses. The auction itself will be
utilized to determine which set of licenses will be awarded in
this regard so long as there are bids on licenses that cover at
least half of the U.S. population. The set of licenses yielding
the highest population coverage would be the winning set.
The current proposal would set the minimum opening bid for
each set of licenses at $750 million, with the minimum bid for
each individual region established according to the region's
population density.
The current proposal extends the license term from 10 to 15
years and adjusts the build-out obligations for the commercial
entity, including benchmarks at the 4-year, 10-year and 15-year
marks. The final 15-year build-out benchmark would vary
according to population density from the least densely
populated areas required to reach 90 percent population
coverage to the highest density areas required to reach 98
percent population coverage.
The proposal includes specific technical and operational
parameters to ensure interoperability, quality of service and
hardening. For example, public safety would be allowed to
designate up to 35 percent of the network sites as critical,
which would trigger enhanced backup power obligations,
including 8 hours of battery backup and 48 hours of generator
backup.
With respect to the public safety broadband licensee, the
proposal contains additional requirements that would increase
transparency and eliminate conflicts of interest. This includes
more clearly defining the role of the PSBL, prohibiting the
PSBL from acting as a mobile virtual network operator and
requiring certain structural safeguards related to the
licensee's management and advisers. A minimum term sheet is
also proposed that will be a mandatory part of the network
sharing agreement between the PSBL and the commercial D Block
license. This would include specific monthly pricing for public
safety users and an annual $5 million cap on the lease payment
that the D Block license would pay the public safety licensee
for use of the spectrum.
Finally, to provide further certainty, the draft further
notice includes a full set of proposed rules as was requested
by many in Congress, the public safety community and commercial
industry. Following receipt of comments on the third further
notice, the Commission will work as quickly as possible to
reach a decision on final rules. Chairman Martin has stated his
desire to have final rules adopted by the end of the year so
that a reauction of the D Block could take place by the middle
of next year.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I
would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
[The statement of Mr. Poarch follows:]
Prepared Statement of Derek K. Poarch
September 16, 2008
Good Morning Chairman Cuellar, Ranking Member Dent, and Members of
the subcommittee. My name is Derek Poarch, and I am Chief of the Public
Safety and Homeland Security Bureau at the Federal Communications
Commission. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you on
behalf of the Commission to discuss our ongoing efforts to develop a
Nation-wide interoperable broadband network in the 700 MHz band for the
benefit of public safety agencies and first responders throughout the
United States.
As you may be aware, prior to joining the Commission, I spent three
decades in law enforcement in North Carolina. I spent 21 years of my
career in the Lenoir, North Carolina Police Department, after which I
served for 9 years as Chief of Police and Director of Public Safety at
the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I remain a sworn
police officer in the State of North Carolina. Because of this
experience, I have first-hand knowledge of the critical role that
emergency communications play in the arena of public safety and
homeland security. After retiring from law enforcement, I accepted the
position as Chief of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau
with a purpose and vision in mind--to help shape and advance
initiatives that will provide the public safety community with the
communications tools they need to do their jobs and save lives.
The 700 MHz proceeding addresses some of the most critical issues
facing the Commission and the Bureau. Through this proceeding, we seek
to foster development of a Nation-wide broadband network that can meet
public safety requirements while also keeping pace with state-of-the-
art commercial technologies. We also seek to ensure that public safety
will have access to a number of applications including off-the-shelf
radios and newly designed equipment at more affordable prices.
Development of a Nation-wide broadband public safety network is
essential to meeting the communications and information needs of first
responders in the 21st century.
Last year, the Commission adopted the Second Report and Order in
the 700 MHz band rulemaking, which set forth the regulatory framework
for the creation of a Nation-wide, interoperable, broadband
communications network for public safety. The order provided for the
Nation-wide licensing of 10 MHz of the 700 MHz public safety broadband
spectrum block to a single entity, the Public Safety Broadband
Licensee, and established rules for a public/private partnership that
would bring together the Public Safety Broadband Licensee and the
eventual winner of the commercial D Block spectrum in the upper 700 MHz
Band. Subsequently, the Commission approved the Public Safety Spectrum
Trust Corporation (PSST) to serve as the Public Safety Broadband
Licensee.
As you know, the D Block auction earlier this year did not result
in a successful bidder to fulfill the commercial half of the
partnership. Following the auction, the Commission issued a Second
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in May of this year, in which the
Commission sought comment on a broad variety of options for
reauctioning the D Block and potentially reconfiguring the public/
private partnership. The Commission emphasized that its aim was to
identify ways to improve upon the existing public/private partnership
concept while meeting the broadband communications needs of the public
safety community in a commercially viable manner. The Commission also
stated that before ultimately adopting final rules in response to the
Second Further Notice, it would issue a subsequent Further Notice that
presented a detailed proposal for an additional round of comments from
all interested parties.
We received numerous comments in response to the Second Further
Notice from the public safety community, commercial wireless providers,
equipment manufacturers, and many other interested parties. While the
comments were wide-ranging, we found that most commenters expressed
continued support for the public/private partnership concept, reauction
of the D Block license, and a network sharing agreement between the D
Block licensee and the Public Safety Broadband Licensee. Many
commenters also noted the absence of any alternative funding mechanism
that could ensure access by individual public safety agencies to an
advanced, Nation-wide, interoperable broadband network over spectrum
dedicated for public safety use. At the same time, we received many
thoughtful and detailed comments suggesting ways in which the
Commission could refine and improve the rules governing the prospective
D Block licensee, the Public Safety Broadband Licensee, and the
partnership relationship between them.
Based on the comments we received, the Commission staff has
developed a draft Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which is
scheduled to be considered and voted on by the Commission at its
upcoming agenda meeting on September 25, 2008. Because the draft
Further Notice is currently under consideration by the Commission, I
cannot provide specific detail on its content. Indeed, because the
Commission has not made any final decision on the draft notice,
elements of the proposal as currently drafted could change. However, I
would like to give you a broad overview of the current proposal under
consideration.
The current draft Third Further Notice sets forth in detail a new
proposal for reauctioning the D Block and reconfiguring the public/
private partnership. This would include offering at auction both a
Nation-wide license and two set of regional licenses, one using the LTE
or Long Term Evolution standard, and one using the WiMAX standard. The
regional licenses would be auctioned on the basis of the 55 public
safety regional planning areas, with three additional areas auctioned
for Guam, the Northern Marianas islands, and the Gulf of Mexico for a
total of 58 regional licenses. The auction mechanism itself would be
utilized to determine which set of licenses would be awarded. In this
regard, so long as there are bids on licenses that cover at least half
of the U.S. population, the set of licenses yielding the highest
population coverage would be the winning set. The current proposal
would also set the minimum opening bid for each set of licenses at $750
million, with the minimum opening bid for each individual region
established according to the population density of the region.
The current proposal would also extend the license term from 10 to
15 years, and adjust the build-out obligations for the commercial
entity, including benchmarks at the 4-year, 10-year, and 15-year marks.
The final 15-year build-out benchmark would vary according to
population density, with the least densely populated areas required to
reach 90 percent population coverage, the medium density areas required
to reach 94 percent population coverage, and the highest density areas
required to reach 98 percent population coverage.
The proposal also includes specific technical and operational
parameters that the network would be required to meet, such as
mandatory roaming for regional licenses to ensure interoperability,
minimum standards for throughput, quality of service and hardening. For
example, public safety would be allowed to designate up to 35 percent
of the network sites as ``critical,'' which would trigger enhanced back
up power obligations including 8 hours of battery back up and 48 hours
of generator back up.
With respect to the Public Safety Broadband Licensee, the proposal
contains additional requirements that would increase transparency and
eliminate conflicts of interest. This includes more clearly defining
the role of the Public Safety Broadband Licensee, prohibiting the
Public Safety Broadband Licensee from acting as a mobile virtual
network operator, and requiring certain structural safeguards related
to the licensee's management and advisors. A minimum term sheet is also
proposed that will be a mandatory part of the Network Sharing Agreement
between the Public Safety Broadband Licensee and the commercial D Block
licensee(s). This would include specific monthly pricing for public
safety users and an annual $5 million cap on the lease payment that the
D Block licensee would be obligated to pay the public safety licensee
for use of the public safety spectrum.
Finally, to provide further certainty, the draft Third Further
Notice includes a full set of proposed rules, as was requested by many
in Congress, the public safety community, and commercial industry. As I
noted earlier, the purpose of the Third Further Notice is to solicit a
final round of public comment on the Commission's detailed proposal
before the Commission adopts final rules. Therefore, upon release of
the Third Further Notice, interested parties will have the opportunity
to review and comment on the proposal and proposed rules.
Following receipt of comments on the Third Further Notice, the
Commission will work as quickly as possible to reach a decision on
final rules for the D Block, the public safety broadband spectrum, and
the public/private partnership. Chairman Martin has stated his desire
to have final rules adopted by the end of the year, so that a reauction
of D Block could take place by the middle of next year. I can assure
you that I and my staff will work tirelessly to help the Commission
achieve this goal.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. This
concludes my testimony and I would be pleased to answer any questions
you may have.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you for your testimony. I now recognize
Mr. Essid to summarize his statement for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS ESSID, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF EMERGENCY
COMMUNICATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Essid. Thank you, Chairman Cuellar, Congressman Dent,
Chairman Thompson and Members of the subcommittee. I am pleased
to appear today to discuss the importance of this Nation-wide
public safety broadband interoperable network and how it stands
to improve communications for emergency responders.
In recent weeks we have all seen vivid reminders of the
role emergency responders play in the safety and security of
our Nation. Real life events such as Hurricanes Gustav, Hanna
and Ike as well as the seventh anniversary of the September 11
terrorist attacks underscore the need for a coordinated
interoperable response during natural disasters and man-made
incidents.
Congress created the Office of Emergency Communications to
ensure the Nation's emergency responders have the necessary
capabilities to communicate during major disasters and their
day-to-day operations. This is the focus of everything OEC does
as an office from providing technical assistance to the
development of Federal grant policies and strategic planning
with State, Federal and local officials.
A number of OEC's key initiatives have shaped our
perspective on the FCC's 700 MHz proceeding. The most
significant of these is the National Emergency Communications
Plan, which we delivered to Congress in July. We worked with
over 150 practitioners from all levels of government and the
private sector to develop the strategies and solutions to drive
operability and interoperability Nation-wide. In addition, the
plan builds on the work of all 56 States and Territories, which
now for the first time in history have State-wide
communications interoperability plans. Our collective efforts
have resulted in a Nation-wide strategic document that will
guide decisionmaking, better target our resources for emergency
communications and further coordinate Federal, State, local and
private sector emergency communication efforts.
The NECP emphasizes the benefits of getting advanced
broadband services into the hands of our Nation's first
responders and proposes solutions to spur the development of
emerging communications technologies. Furthermore, it is clear
from OEC's work with the emergency responders at all levels of
government that it will be critical for responders to have
access to advanced voice data video capabilities to perform
their missions, and there is a recognition that the 700 MHz
band offers an invaluable opportunity to deploy these
capabilities on a Nation-wide basis.
In conclusion, I appreciate the opportunity to appear today
and I applaud the committee's on-going leadership in ensuring
that our Nation's emergency communications are efficient and
effective regardless of the nature of the scope of any given
incident. OEC is committed to supporting our first responders
and incident managers through a coordinated practitioner-driven
national policy framework, and we offer our on-going support
toward a successful conclusion to these critical rulemakings
regarding the 700 MHz band.
I will be happy to answer any questions you have.
[The statement of Messrs. Essid and Boyd follows:]
Joint Prepared Statement of David Boyd and Chris Essid
September 16, 2008
introduction
Good afternoon Chairman Cuellar, Ranking Member Dent, and Members
of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting us to speak to you today.
The Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate's Command, Control and
Interoperability Division (CID), within the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), uses a practitioner-driven approach to create and
deploy information resources that enable seamless and secure
interactions among homeland security stakeholders. Our goal is to
ensure that stakeholders have comprehensive, real-time, and relevant
information to protect the Nation.
The Office of Emergency Communications (OEC) was established by
Congress to serve as the departmental focal point for emergency
communications policy, planning, technical assistance, and
coordination. On July 31, 2008, OEC completed the first-ever National
Emergency Communications Plan (NECP), which provides a framework for
emergency communications users across all levels of Government. The
NECP was developed with significant stakeholder input from Federal
partners, private sector stakeholders, and public safety officials at
the State and local level. Moving forward, OEC will continue to assess
the emergency communications landscape and to identify what is and what
is not working; develop plans to reverse deficiencies in emergency
responders' communications capabilities; collaborate on initiatives
with our Federal, State, and local partners; and work with our partners
to implement programs and activities that target gaps and make
measurable improvements in emergency communications.
As the Members of this subcommittee are well aware, the ability to
communicate is essential to the success of any emergency response
operation. Emergency responders need to share vital data and voice
information across disciplines and jurisdictions to successfully
respond to day-to-day incidents and large-scale emergencies. A key
mission of CID's Office for Interoperability and Compatibility (OIC) is
to strengthen interoperability by developing technologies and tools--
reports, best practices, frameworks, and methodologies--that emergency
response agencies can use immediately. We are also developing data and
voice messaging standards and testing communications equipment to those
standards. Though testing proves useful, the key to improving
interoperable communications requires a focus on user needs and
requirements. As a result, we rely on both practitioners and
policymakers across disciplines, jurisdictions, and levels of
government to ensure that our work is aligned with responders' needs.
Our focus on the practitioner level has done much to improve
interoperability since the attacks of September 11, 2001. Also within
DHS, OIC and OEC are working closely to ensure coordination and
consistency among our programs, services, policies, and activities. A
few examples of ways that DHS has improved and is working to improve
interoperability include the following:
In 2004, OIC developed the Interoperability Continuum to
help policymakers understand what it takes to achieve
interoperability: effective and collaborative governance, well-
designed standard operating procedures, well-implemented
technology solutions, meaningful training and exercises, and
the integration of all of these elements into day-to-day
operations.
In 2006, OIC conducted the landmark National
Interoperability Baseline Survey, which revealed that
approximately two-thirds of emergency response agencies use
interoperability to some degree in their operations.
In 2007, each of the Nation's major urban/metropolitan areas
developed a Tactical Interoperable Communications Plan.
In 2008, 56 States and territories developed Statewide
Communications Interoperability Plans (SCIPs); OEC's
Interoperable Communications Technical Assistance Program
(ICTAP) is working closely with the States to help them
implement the SCIPs and align them with the goals and
objectives of the NECP.
Later this year and continuing into 2009, OIC will complete
laboratory testing, demonstrate, and pilot a multi-band radio
that is capable of operating across different radio bands,
across different modes--including digital and analog--and with
radios developed by different manufacturers.
OEC is establishing the Emergency Communications
Preparedness Center (ECPC) to improve the coordination of
interoperability programs and activities across the Federal
Government; later this year, the ECPC plans to finalize its
operating charter and submit a strategic assessment to Congress
on progress to date and remaining challenges to
interoperability.
OEC is working with Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) to establish Regional Emergency Communications
Coordination Working Groups (RECCWG) to coordinate multi-State
efforts to improve the survivability and interoperability of
communication systems; beginning next year, OEC plans to hire
ten regional coordinators that will be collocated in the FEMA
regional offices to serve as senior points of contact for OEC
in that region.
system of systems approach
With emergency response practitioner input, OIC developed a core
strategy for improving interoperability for the Nation's emergency
response community. This strategy promotes a ``system of systems''
approach using standards-based communications equipment. This approach
grants emergency response agencies the flexibility to select equipment
that best meets their unique technical requirements and budget
constraints. It also allows systems operated by different emergency
response agencies to communicate, regardless of their manufacturer. The
long-term strategy aims at building a system of systems so that
separate agencies can join together using interface standards,
compatible procedures, and training exercises without having to discard
major investments in their existing systems.
Ultimately, emergency responders operating on a system of systems
will be able to respond to an incident anywhere in the Nation, using
their own equipment, on any communications system, and on dedicated
public safety spectrum as needed and authorized. OIC is working on
identifying solutions that advance the emergency response community
toward a reliable system of systems--one that is not dependent on any
single technology but instead allows for maximum flexibility within and
among numerous technologies.
research, development, testing, and evaluation efforts
OIC is improving interoperable communications through multiple
research, development, testing, and evaluation (RDT&E) efforts related
to land mobile radio (LMR) communications, public safety grade
communications networks, and interoperable applications. Access to the
700 MHz (MHz) band will have a positive impact on the spectrum needs of
the emergency response community which will continue to evolve beyond
voice communications. Examples of OIC's ongoing efforts in this area
include:
Multi-Band Radio
The advent of two-way radio communications in the early 1930's
generated a need for public safety radio channels, or spectrum. To
support emergency response radio communications, the Federal
Communications Commission reserved radio spectrum within several
different frequency bands for public safety use. Until recently,
emergency response radios were built to operate within a single radio
band. As a result, local, tribal, State, and Federal emergency response
agencies had to rely on the use of several single-band portable or
mobile radios to maintain a level of interoperability with partner
agencies. While some agencies swapped or shared radios, others employed
time-consuming methods to exchange information, including relaying
messages through dispatchers or using runners to hand-carry messages.
To address these challenges, OIC worked with the emergency response
community and its partners in the Federal Emergency Management Agency
and OEC to identify requirements for a multi-band radio. OIC is in the
process of further developing and testing a prototype multi-band,
multi-mode portable radio capable of providing uninterrupted
communications between local, tribal, State, and Federal emergency
response agencies operating in the various public safety radio bands.
The radio is capable of operating in the primary State and local public
safety bands between 150-162 MHz and 470-512 MHz as well as in the 700
MHz and 800 MHz bands. Additionally, when authorized, the multi-band
radio will be capable of operating within the Federal public safety
bands 162-174 MHz, 406.1-420 MHz; and in the 138-144 MHz, and 380-400
MHz bands which are used primarily by the Department of Defense.
This capability represents a significant step for Federal agencies
that need to interoperate with their local, tribal, regional, and State
counterparts. This multi-band radio is equal in form, factor, and cost
to existing high-end portable radios. However, a significant difference
is that this multi-band radio equips emergency responders with the
unprecedented capability of operating across the entire range of public
safety radio bands. To communicate with another agency, users simply
select the assigned channel.
OIC will test and evaluate this multi-band radio through pilots
Nation-wide. These pilots will focus on testing the radio's operation
across multiple systems--analog, conventional, digital, and Project 25
(P25) trunked--and multiple agencies, including local, tribal, State,
Federal, and military. During these field tests, the primary users of
the new technology will likely be emergency responders in a command and
control role or those involved in special operations that need to
interoperate with multiple entities.
OIC is in the pre-planning stages for an initial pilot in New York
City. The pilot will involve emergency responders at the local,
regional, and State levels. The pilot will thoroughly evaluate the
radios and the results will provide vendor-agnostic best practices for
integrating multi-band radio technology into agencies across the
Nation.
To successfully support emergency response communications and
operations, it is essential that technologies align with user
requirements. In keeping with its user-driven approach, OIC is working
closely with DHS customers to ensure that the multi-band radio meets
current and future operational requirements, such as personnel
tracking, usage in locations where there is a danger of explosion, and
responder health and well-being monitoring. OIC and S&T are encouraging
private industry to continue developing similar technologies that meet
emergency responders' diverse needs and requirements. The principal
reason for OIC's undertaking of multi-band radios is to pressure
industry to do what has always been technologically feasible. Results
are already evident--multiple companies have entered the competition
and others are likely to join in the near future.
Radio Over Wireless-Broadband
As demonstrated recently on Capitol Hill, OIC--in partnership with
the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the
Institute for Telecommunication Sciences (ITS)--is leading the Radio
Over Wireless-Broadband (ROW-B) project to research how to connect
existing LMR systems with advanced wireless broadband technologies,
such as Push-To-Talk over Cellular, while also leveraging Geographic
Information System (GIS) technology. Push-To-Talk over Cellular
technology allows for walkie-talkie-type communication over a cellular
phone network. This smart phone technology effectively allows a single
user to reach multiple users through talk groups on the cellular
network. By reducing the need to place several calls to coordinate a
group, this technology saves critical response time.
GIS technology refers to a host of applications that identify the
location (based on a map) of other vehicles, equipment, and emergency
responders. GIS databases display these locations on maps that include
important information such as roads, buildings, and fire hydrants. This
technology enables emergency responders to access the locations of
critical resources--such as equipment and personnel--in real time and
to form dynamic talk groups based on the proximity of resources.
ROW-B will enable emergency responders and agencies working on
interoperable communications to evaluate the benefits and limitations
of providing interoperability between previously incompatible systems.
By documenting lessons learned and best practices, ROW-B will assist
localities Nation-wide in the integration of existing and emerging
communications systems. The impact of the ROW-B project reaches beyond
technology. Emergency response agencies will have an opportunity to
create new standard operating procedures as well as new governance
structures for managing incident communications.
Voice Over Internet Protocol
OIC is also working to improve the bridging devices that emergency
responders rely to connect radio systems creating networks. Computer
networks are increasingly being used to transmit voice communications
among radio systems. This is done using a technology known as Voice
over Internet Protocol (VoIP). OIC is working with emergency
responders, NIST, and ITS to define a common connection for bridging
devices that use VoIP. This connection allows one vendor's bridge to
pass a voice call to another vendor's bridge. In support of these
efforts, OIC has held multiple VoIP PlugFests to test interoperability
between different VoIP-based radio bridges.
700 MHz Statement of Requirements
OIC continues to support efforts to fully define the emergency
response community's communications requirements. In that regard, OIC--
through the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council--led the
creation of the Public Safety 700 MHz Broadband Statement of
Requirements that was published in November 2007. OIC brought together
many of the stakeholders involved in developing this document,
including emergency responders, equipment manufacturers, and service
providers. Through a practitioner-led process, the emergency response
community clearly and articulately provided their requirements for a
broadband network.
Project 25 Compliance Assessment Program
P25 is focused on developing standards that allow radios and other
components to interoperate regardless of the manufacturer from which
they are made. This Project's efforts enable emergency responders to
exchange critical communications. The goal of P25 is to specify formal
standards for interfaces between the various components of an LMR
system.
In order to better address the needs of emergency responders,
Congress passed legislation calling for the creation of the P25
Compliance Assessment Program (CAP). P25 CAP is a partnership of CID,
NIST, ITS, industry, and the emergency response community. P25 CAP
establishes a process for ensuring that equipment complies with P25
standards and is capable of interoperating across manufacturers. P25
CAP is providing manufacturers with a method for testing their
equipment for compliance with P25 standards. With results publicly
posted, P25 CAP is helping emergency response officials make more
informed purchasing decisions.
Wireless Broadband Productization Project
Starting in fiscal year 2009, this project plans to test and
evaluate commercially available and emergent wireless broadband
products. The overall goal of the project is to ensure that
technologies developed in a laboratory work in a real-world
environment. The testing and evaluation will reveal capability gaps, if
they exist. Ultimately, emergency response agencies will be able to
purchase solutions that meet their needs and maintain interoperability
as future networks are deployed.
conclusion
The emergency response community has long sought additional
spectrum for mission-critical activities. The additional spectrum in
the 700 MHz band is essential to the emergency response community's
requirements and helps to satisfy this shortfall. The 700 MHz band can
support functions that many existing bands cannot. In addition to voice
communications, 700 MHz will allow emergency responders to exchange
critical text, imagery, and other data. OIC will continue to work with
local, tribal, State, and Federal emergency response agencies on these
RDT&E efforts to strengthen interoperable communications across the
various public safety bands.
Ultimately, interoperability is not solely a technology problem
that can be solved with just the ``right'' equipment or the ``right''
communications system. All of the critical factors for a successful
interoperability solution--governance, standard operating procedures,
training and exercises, and integration of systems into daily
operations as well as technology--must be addressed.
We appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today and would
be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you for your testimony. I now recognize
Dr. Boyd to summarize his statement for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DAVID BOYD, DIRECTOR, COMMAND, CONTROL, AND
INTEROPERABILITY DIVISION, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DIRECTORATE,
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Boyd. Good morning, Chairman Cuellar, Ranking Member
Dent, Chairman Thompson and Members of the subcommittee. As
Chairman Thompson has already observed, effective wireless
communications are essential to the success of any emergency
response operation. For that reason a key mission of my office
for operability and compatibility is to strengthen
interoperability by developing technologies, tools and
standards and by testing communications equipment to those
standards. But any successful solution requires a focus of user
needs and requirements. So we rely on both practitioners and
policymakers across disciplines, jurisdictions, and all levels
of government to ensure that our work is aligned with actual
responder needs.
To this end, we developed the interoperability continuum to
outline for policymakers and response agencies what was
required to ensure interoperability. House Homeland Security
Committee staff have told us they have seen this continuum
posted in every public safety communications center they
visited. Canadian Public Safety has also adopted most of our
tools, including the continuum, which they have also translated
into French.
We have completed the first national interoperability
baseline on-line survey, which revealed that approximately two-
thirds of emergency response agencies are now capable of
establishing command-level interoperability for emergency
operations. We also published the first national statement of
requirements for public safety wireless communications and
interoperability to serve as a guide for agencies developing
their own requirements and for industry to use in developing
systems to respond to those requirements. Each major urban
metropolitan area now has a tactical interoperable
communications plan scored by the Department of Homeland
Security, while all 56 States and territories now have State-
wide communications interoperability plans.
The Department has released the first National Emergency
Communications Plan, which is informed by national principles
developed by practitioners at every level of government. Our
core strategy aims at building a system of systems so that
separate agencies can join together using interfaced standards,
compatible procedures, and training exercises without having to
discard major investments in their existing systems.
Until recently, emergency response radios were built to
operate within a single radio band. As a result local tribal,
State and Federal emergency response agencies had to rely on
the use of several single-band portable or mobile radios to
maintain a level of interoperability with partner agencies. To
address these challenges, we worked with the emergency response
community to identify requirements for a multi-band radio
capable of providing uninterrupted communications among local
tribal, State and Federal emergency response agencies at a cost
roughly equal to that of a current single-band radio. This
multi-band radio equips emergency responders with an
unprecedented ability to operate across the entire range of
public safety radio bands. To communicate with another agency,
users simply select the assigned channel. We are evaluating
this radio through pilots Nation-wide to demonstrate
communications across multiple agencies, including local,
tribal, State, Federal, and military.
We are also encouraging private industry to continue
developing similar technologies and, quite frankly, a principal
reason for undertaking the multi-band radio project was to
pressure industry to deploy affordable multi-mode, multi-band
radios, something that has been technologically feasible for
several decades. The results are already evident. Multiple
companies have entered the competition and others are likely to
join in the near future.
Since the multi-band radio addresses only part of the
interoperability problem, we recently demonstrated with our
District of Columbia partners the Radio Over Wireless-Broadband
Project--we call it ROW-B. It was initiated with Rob LeGrande,
who you will hear from later--to develop ways to connect
existing land mobile radio systems with advanced wireless
broadband technologies, such as push-to-talk over cellular
while also leveraging geographic information system technology.
The multi-band radio and ROW-B, however, represent only two
of the initiatives we are undertaking with our emergency
responder partners. Because your time is limited I have briefly
described several others in my statement for the record.
The emergency response community has long sought additional
spectrum for mission-critical activities. The additional
spectrum in the 700 MHz band is essential to the emergency
response community's requirements and helps to satisfy this
shortfall. The 700 MHz band can support functions that many
existing bands cannot. In addition to voice communications, 700
MHz will allow emergency responders to exchange critical text
imagery and other data. The multi-band radio will bridge both
existing bands and this new band and, most importantly, will be
valuable in maintaining interoperability during the
implementation of new systems on this new band.
Ultimately, interoperability is not solely a technology
problem that can be solved with just the right equipment or the
right communications system. All of the critical factors for a
successful interoperability solution, Government standard
operating procedures, training and exercises and integration of
systems into daily operations as well as technology must be
addressed.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today,
and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you for your testimony. I want to thank
all the witnesses for being here with us. I will remind each
Member that he or she will have 5 minutes to recognize the
panel. I now recognize myself for questions.
The first question to Chief Poarch. According to your
testimony, the FCC will consider a new proposal for the
reauctioning of the D Block at the meeting next week. At issue
is whether the public safety networks will be built out
nationally or within the 58 FCC public safety planning areas.
As Hurricanes Ike, Gustav, Katrina and Rita demonstrated,
emergency communications plans need to entail a local regional
and sometimes a national component. As we all know, DHS, FEMA
and regional offices play a critical role in assisting States
during an emergency. My question is, has the FCC worked with
DHS to examine how the 58 FCC regions tie to the existing 10
FEMA regional offices?
Mr. Poarch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is
important to note that we are not proposing that we change the
Nation-wide public safety spectrum that is currently 10 MHz. As
it was in the previous auction, it will remain issued as one
single Nation-wide 10-block MHz to public safety assigned to
the public safety broadband licensee or the PSST. So there is
no change in the public safety spectrum from the previous
auction. The only change that we are proposing is regarding the
commercial spectrum. That is being done in an attempt to try to
develop more interest in partnering with the public safety
community. So while we collaborate regularly with DHS and OEC,
we are proposing no changes whatsoever in how this operates
from the public safety community standpoint that would impact
DHS, those types of operations.
Mr. Cuellar. Okay. Next question to Mr. Essid. As the
Director of the Office of Emergency Communications, do you
advocate a public safety network on a national or regional
basis? What challenges do you see with either approach?
Mr. Essid. Well, right now, sir, we are just waiting to see
how the proceedings go. Our perspective is this issue is very
important to public safety to have the capabilities that they
need to use these advanced features. So you know we have got
some things in the national plan about these advanced
technologies and how critical they are to the future of our
Nation's first responders' ability to have the capabilities
necessary to do their job. So right now we are not advocating
one or the other. We just know that public safety needs this
capability.
Mr. Cuellar. Okay. Dr. Boyd, in your capacity and given
your many years of experience in the field, do you advocate a
public safety network on a national or regional basis? Same
thing, what challenges do you see with each approach?
Mr. Boyd. We have always suggested that interoperable
communications should be addressed on a system-to-system basis;
that is, that you take existing infrastructure that exists and
then figure out how you tie it in as you move upward to a
regional and, if there is a national network, into a national
network. But the most important thing to remember about public
safety communications is that they are all local, that the
emergency communications are predominantly local. That is where
they normally will start. They will start with a local
community, its surrounding communities and maybe some of the
surrounding counties as well. They are going to have to start
with the equipment that they have. No matter what we put in
place, we will still have to make sure that we can interoperate
with the systems that are in place right now because it will
take some time to build out any system.
Mr. Cuellar. Okay. I now recognize the Ranking Member of
the subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Dent,
for questions.
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen.
For Mr. Poarch and Mr. Essid, I have a question. As you know,
this year all States and territories were required to submit
Statewide Communication Interoperability Plans in order to
receive homeland security grant funds. These plans chart a path
toward achieving interoperable emergency communications State-
wide. Maybe States, including my own, the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, are beginning to develop and implement their own
interoperable communications networks State-wide. How do you
see these networks being coordinated with the new 700 MHz
network that will be developed across the country? Will any of
the work that is being undertaken by these States be leveraged
by the Nation-wide 700 MHz network?
Mr. Essid. That is an excellent question, sir. These State-
wide plans, many of them have, as you can imagine, different
technology investments. The Statewide Communications
Interoperability Plans are all built upon the same criteria so
each plan in every different State has the same criteria. That
being said, a lot of the criteria deals with governance,
training and exercises, SOPs. Then you look at the different
technology projects. Some States are building State-wide
systems. Some States have a lot of regional stuff. Many States
have all of the above. It is in different frequency bands, you
know, that these investments are being made.
I think from what we have seen when we did an analysis of
these State-wide plans, a lot of folks are waiting and seeing
what happens with the auction before moving forward. This is
advanced technology. But right now throughout the Nation we
have billions and billions of dollars worth the land mobile
radio investments that aren't going to be going anywhere that
people are going to be using throughout their life cycle for
the next 10 to 15 years.
So it is kind of a balancing act for a lot of States and
regional entities on how do you integrate this new capability,
new technology with what is there and existing? We don't see it
as hampering any planning efforts. But a lot of folks are
waiting and seeing what happens with the rulemaking before
moving forward with some of these projects.
Mr. Dent. Mr. Poarch.
Mr. Poarch. I would just say from the Commission's
perspective, we certainly recognize the legacy systems that are
in place today. Part of the third further notice that we are
proposing talks about ways to integrate the legacy systems into
the 700 system. We recognize that for many agencies there won't
be immediate transformation over to 700. Some will go quick.
Some will go over time. That is important. Certainly as a
public safety officer, I recognize that many agencies will not
immediately move.
So part of the plan that we are proposing in putting
forward would allow for the integration, as Dr. Boyd has
referred to, of the legacy systems currently in place and to be
able to use the 700 system.
Mr. Dent. For all of you, I have a question too. I
understand that some in the public safety community have
concerns with sharing a communications network with commercial
customers. Would you please address these concerns? Maybe Mr.
Boyd.
Mr. Boyd. Not surprisingly, public safety will tell you
that their experience with commercially provided systems has
not been very good. If you think about Katrina, if you think
about any of the recent hurricanes, if you think about what
happened here at the Pentagon, the reality is that most of--
both the public safety telephone network, the public switch
telephone network, the wired network and the cellular networks
have tended to collapse in the first few seconds of any
emergency.
So one of the things any system is going to have to do is
to build that credibility with public safety. That is not going
to happen over night because it is going to be essential to
these people that they understand they have a system available.
I also think it is important to remember, the function of the
700 MHz spectrum we are talking about now, the national
network, is not to replace all the public safety
communications. It is to augment it with capabilities that they
cannot currently place on their existing systems. So we
shouldn't think of this as an either/or.
Mr. Essid. I would like to just add to that, that we have
looked at this issue. I did so in my former role in Virginia,
and talking with public safety. You know, the commercial
entities that provide wireless services, they deal with a whole
different set of requirements than public safety needs. We have
found out that a 2 percent tolerance for failed calls was
acceptable for most commercial standards. That would be
unacceptable to public safety. So those are the types of things
that you know you would hear public safety voice their concerns
on.
Mr. Dent. Just real quickly, my time has just about
expired. But the Department of Homeland Security submitted
comments to the FCC's previous rules regarding the spectrum
auction. In your view, how should the next auction be
structured to ensure it is successful while also ensuring that
the needs of public safety are met? What do you believe are the
most important factors to consider? Mr. Poarch or Mr. Essid,
either one of you real quick.
Mr. Essid. Well, I mean we submitted comments through NTIA
for the auction. You know we participated in providing comments
to NTIA. You know as of yet, those comments I believe have been
considered by the FCC. We feel that you know again that there
is a lot of things that the FCC has to take into consideration
that we don't. But I think our first and foremost top priority
is to get the emergency communications needs of our first
responders met.
Mr. Poarch. I would just add briefly to echo Mr. Essid's
comments, the Commission is committed to a Nation-wide
interoperable broadband system for public safety users around
the country. That is what we worked on the first time. That is
what we are committed to this time. We are trying to explore
all the different options that are available to make this
option successful this time so we can finally build a network
that is very much needed by the public safety community.
Mr. Dent. Yield back.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Dent. The Chairman will now
recognize other Members for questions they may wish to ask the
witnesses.
In accordance with our committee rules and practice, I will
recognize Members who were present at the start of the hearing
based on seniority on the subcommittee, alternating between the
majority and minority. Those Members coming in later will be
recognized in the order of their arrival. At this time I would
like to recognize Chairman Thompson for his line of
questioning.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Poarch, other than the fact that in the last auction we
didn't get a price that we expected, did you do an analysis as
to why we didn't? Are you prepared to do something different
with the next auction?
Mr. Poarch. Yes, sir. I think we are prepared to do a
number of things appreciably different with this auction as has
been proposed by Members of Congress, the public safety
community and the commercial industry. To begin with, everyone
said to us last time, part of the reason there wasn't a
successful auction on the D Block was the lack of clarity
concerning the roles of the public safety community or the PSST
and the commercial providers. What the Chairman has put forward
for this auction, there is appreciable clarity in the roles of
both the commercial entity, the public safety community, what
we expect of each one of them. There is clarity in terms of the
technical requirements. So those that are interested in bidding
will understand what it is we expect them to bid on. There is a
minimum term sheet that will be included.
So from that standpoint, we have heard what Members of
Congress said to us, what the public safety community said, and
what commercial industry said. We have attempted to balance all
of those comments and put forth in this proposal additional
clarity, additional definition of roles taking all that into
consideration, working toward a successful auction.
Mr. Thompson. Can you share with the committee any
potential incentives that might be offered, either to the
public safety community or the commercial sector? Other than
clarity.
Mr. Poarch. Well, no, I really can't. The items on
circulation, anything that I would talk about today would be
purely speculative. But I will tell you that in terms of
setting, for example, one incentive would be an additional 5
years on the license. The previous license was 10 years. Now
the proposed license term is 15 years to give additional time
to build out the license. There are benchmarks that set in
place at 4 and 10 years. So, for example, that in my mind would
be an incentive for the commercial side to be willing to
undertake this.
So there is a number of those things that are placed
throughout the third further notice that we are seeking comment
on that is under proposal.
Mr. Thompson. Is your testimony that you have for the next
auction made a considerable effort to talk to both the
commercial side and the public sector side in going forward for
the auction?
Mr. Poarch. Yes, sir. There has been an appreciable amount
of communications with all parties involved.
Mr. Thompson. I want to get a question responded to. Mr.
Essid, these State-wide plans for communications: Is there a
requirement that those plans have to cover every part, every
county or parish in a State?
Mr. Essid. Well, sir, I mean, the focus of the State-wide
plans is to not have it just be a State plan. It is a State-
wide plan to focus on localities, on regions throughout that
State. The urban and the rural. That is what we are going for.
Now some States did a great job of doing that. Some States we
are still working with it. But this is the first time many
States have put together such a plan, and it is a huge step
forward for them. But a common misconception with these State-
wide plans is that there would be one system considered for
coverage throughout that whole State. That is not, in fact,
true. Most of these State-wide plans and most States out there,
as Dr. Boyd said, for years have a system of systems. There is
so much communication infrastructure out there all over the
place, and these plans are really creating the forum in the
governance structures that we are creating to, you know,
exchange ideas and come together and coordinate all of those
different systems. So there is a lot of stuff out there
already. It is just in the past many of them did not coordinate
with one another or they are all over different frequency bands
or you have to come up with ways to make them interoperable or
operable.
Mr. Thompson. Well, is the goal rather than taking one
plan, is it to take whatever the infrastructure is there and
allow you to communicate----
Mr. Essid. One of our top priorities, sir, is to utilize as
much as we can the infrastructures that are already out there.
You know, talking with Dr. Boyd here over the years in my role
in Virginia and now in my current role, I mean he has always
explained to me that when you look at what is out there, we
just don't have the funding to rip everything up and start over
again and say put everybody on this frequency band or that.
First, there is not much spectrum in any given frequency band
to handle that. But the cost would just be enormous.
So to answer your question, yes, sir. We try to leverage
existing investments as much as we can.
Mr. Thompson. Well, Mr. Poarch, if we are successful with
the auction, what could we offer States in terms of that State-
wide communication opportunity?
Mr. Poarch. First, our commitment is to a Nation-wide 700
MHz band system that States will have the opportunity to be a
part of if they choose to do that. In addition to that, we
propose and we hope that the system turns out to be one that is
reasonably affordable. The States will not have to put up the
money for the infrastructure. That will be done by the
commercial entity as part of the public-private partnership. So
our goal is a Nation-wide system that States can be a part of,
that is affordable for all of the public safety users out
around the country.
Mr. Thompson. So the two systems that we are discussing
right now, is there a compatibility to the systems? Or are we
going to do one system and then we are going to do a second
one?
Mr. Poarch. No, sir. Part of the proposal that Chairman
Martin has put forward now would require a component to allow
the legacy systems that are in place now to be able through a
system of systems that Dr. Boyd has talked about to be able to
interact with the 700 D Block. It is our intent as a part of
this that the legacy systems would be able to interoperate on
this network.
Mr. Thompson. So interoperability is the key?
Mr. Poarch. Absolutely. Yes, sir.
Mr. Essid. Sir, many of these older systems, they are just
voice only. They don't have the capabilities to do any kind of
broadband, you know, information sharing. So that is important
as well. They are primarily focused on just voice only. We have
got systems out there that could never approach anything like
we are talking about here, the capabilities of broadband.
Mr. Thompson. If the Chairman would indulge me, you know,
my point is we have put in a lot of money----
Mr. Essid. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson [continuing]. Into this effort. I think the
committee is committed to supporting the effort. But we want it
to be an effort that is not on parallel tracks. But we are
trying to put a system in place. The auction is key, obviously.
But if the State-wide plans somehow going in a different
direction, if your testimony to us today that those State-wide
plans long-term can be morphed or connected to the 700 MHz
auction effort, then I think there is support for that concept.
Mr. Boyd. If I may, Mr. Chairman, about I think it was 2 or
3 weeks ago we did a demonstration of what we call ROW-B up
here. I guess we did it in the Rayburn Building. What we did in
that demonstration was to show how you could take the only
existing 700 MHz broadband network at the time, the one here in
the District of Columbia, and we tied into that district
essentially every kind of communication system that any of
public safety uses so that you could make it appear to a user
using one of these as though he was talking on a normal land
mobile radio system or you could have somebody talking on a
cell phone and it would seem as though they were talking on a
standard cell phone. Or if it was a push-to-talk Nextel-like
cell phone, that would work. You also could exchange graphic
information systems, photographs and others.
The reason the broadband capability is essential is, as Mr.
Essid has just explained, the systems we have now were built
for voice communications, what requires what we call a really
narrow pipe. So it is very much like a dial-up modem. That is
the speeds you have to operate there. You need the broadband
capability in order to be able to handle video, in order to be
able to handle imagery, maps, all those kind of high through-
put activities. So you shouldn't think of the 700 MHz broadband
as being a capability we will evolve to. It will be a piece of
the package of things State and local public safety need
because they will still need all of the spectrum they have now
to be able to support their day-to-day voice communications,
and then they will need this to be able to provide all those
other capabilities that on television we assume they already
have.
Mr. Thompson. Okay. Let's go to this, which is the 700. Now
I represent an area that is significantly rural. Is your
testimony that if we are successful with the auction that most
rural areas will have coverage?
Mr. Poarch. I guess I would answer the question by saying
that there is nothing in our proposal that precludes any areas
from having the coverage. Indeed, the part of the proposal
submitted by the Chairman is that we want to do this on a
Nation-wide basis so that everyone has an equal opportunity at
interoperability. We don't think that larger areas deserve to
be interoperable more than smaller areas. I mean, I think we
have seen around the country you can't predict when there is
going to be a bridge collapse, when there is going to be a
flood, when there is going to be a fire, when there is going to
be a hurricane. Those are not unique only to large areas.
Certainly the rural areas of this country and the smaller areas
of the country are prone to those events. We believe every area
should have the same opportunity to this system.
Mr. Thompson. Can you tell me what percent coverage is
required or is being proposed in the auction?
Mr. Poarch. Yes, sir. Under the proposal that is put forth
now, there are benchmarks along the way toward 15 years. At the
4-year benchmark there would be a requirement that there will
be a 40 percent coverage. At the 10-year benchmark there would
be a requirement that there would be a 75 percent coverage. At
the 15-year benchmark, it is based on population coverage. For
populations that have less than 100 persons per square mile,
the requirement would be 90 percent. For populations having
persons between 100 and 500 persons per square mile, the
requirement will be 94 percent and for populations greater than
500 persons per square mile, the requirement would be 98
percent.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman, I will back off after this. You
have a rural area, too. So I think you will need to be a part
of this.
Have you charted out what that would look like on a map?
Mr. Poarch. Yes. Our Wireless Bureau has done charting to
determine which areas would have the largest amount of
information in terms of whether it will be 90 percent or 94
percent or 98 percent, and we can certainly get that
information back to you.
Mr. Thompson. Please get it to the committee.
Mr. Poarch. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cuellar. Before I pass this on to Mrs. Lowey, you said
15 years?
Mr. Poarch. Yes, sir. The ultimate build-out would be 15
years as opposed to 10 years and benchmarks along the way.
Mr. Cuellar. What do we do between now and 15 years?
Mr. Poarch. Well, it starts immediately. Once the license
is awarded, we realize that there is spectrum available
February 2009. Thus we are trying to move through as quickly as
we can to get rules and get to an auction. So there are going
to be some areas that will be built out quicker. There will be
a requirement that there be a network-sharing agreement between
the public safety licensee and the ultimate winner of the D
Block or D Blocks to start this building process.
So it is an evolution that will take some time to do based
on the auction. There has never been an expectation that we
could have this on year 1 or year 2. It will take some time to
ultimately do that. We will continue to use the systems that
are in place and migrate those systems into the new 700 system
as it is being built out.
Mr. Cuellar. Just to emphasize the point, 15 years from
now. What year would that be?
Mr. Poarch. Well, 15 years from now would be 2023.
Mr. Cuellar. 2023. All right. At this time I will recognize
Mrs. Lowey from New York, and then we will go with Mr. Dicks
and then we will move on.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would dare
say to the big Chairman, when we got that--am I on? Okay.
Fifteen years is a long time. Why don't you try giving New
York City the contract directly? I bet that New Yorkers would
not be willing to wait 15 years. It is hard for me to believe
that a city that is No. 1 on threats is going to wait 15 years
for whomever you give the contract to to get their act
together. But I would be interested to know how New York City
responded when you give them this timetable. But going back
to--unless you have a response to that, I will move to another
question.
Mr. Poarch. That is fine. Go ahead.
Mrs. Lowey. Okay. I would like to get back to where the
Chairman started. The non-D Block portions of the digital TV
spectrum auction generated $19.6 billion, substantially more
than many estimates. Given the revenue already generated, some
public safety agencies have proposed that the FCC give the
spectrum directly to public safety agencies and allow cities
and regions to determine how to build a network that best meets
their needs.
So Mr. Poarch, was this proposal considered by the FCC? I
have listened carefully to both Chairmen's questions and I am
not convinced that the second round is going to be any
different from the first round. What is the problem with giving
it--if you are making such a profit on the first auction, why
wouldn't you give it to the public safety agencies? I don't
understand how your expectations are any different than the
first time around.
Why wouldn't you give it to them? Let's do that.
Mr. Poarch. Let's start there. I have been to New York and
visited with Chief Dowd, saw his operation. He has been down to
visit with us. He has been down to visit us. We have taken
certainly his considerations, his suggestions under
consideration. We have actually got another meeting with him
this week for further discussion. But I would say that I think
anyone that thinks it will take 15 years to build out New York
City would probably be wrong. New York City would be one of the
first areas, as would the National Capital Region, those types
of areas would be built out quicker because the infrastructure
is in place.
However, to say why don't you just give the spectrum to the
cities first, we are not sure we have got the authority to give
the spectrum to the cities. We are required by statute to have
a bidding process. So first, I am not sure that we could do
that anyway.
Mrs. Lowey. What would be needed to give it to the cities
or the public safety agencies?
Mr. Poarch. There is certainly some belief that it would
require an act by Congress for us to be able to just give that
spectrum away.
Mrs. Lowey. Have you recommended that?
Mr. Poarch. We have not had a recommendation.
Mrs. Lowey. Have you thought about it?
Mr. Poarch. We have certainly thought about it.
Mrs. Lowey. You think it is a good idea?
Mr. Poarch. I don't know that it is a good idea, and let me
explain why I don't necessarily think that it is; because what
I think you would find, and if you just gave the spectrum to
cities, is that New Yorks and the Chicagos and the National
Capital Regions would build a system. In areas such as where--
--
Mrs. Lowey. In what period of time do you think?
Mr. Poarch. I don't know. I don't know how long it would
take for them to build out. Certainly, I expect they would
build out quicker. But what I think and what the Chairman has
talked about and other commissioners, that is a very key,
important piece of this is, while New York and Chicago and the
capital region would build out quick and they would have the
funding to build out quick, areas such as where Chairman
Thompson comes from, Chairman Cuellar is from, and some other
areas, they may never have the money at all to ever build a
system. I mean it costs millions upon millions, if not more,
depending upon the size of the community you come from, to be
able to build one of these systems. So while if we----
Mrs. Lowey. Well, wait a minute. This doesn't make sense to
me. I realize that some of it may be above my pay grade. But
the threat is in the big communities. Now Chairman Thompson's
community and others need the help as well. So you are
expecting by this other auction, even though you were caught
off guard with the first auction, that you are going to get
enough money to build it in Chairman Thompson's area and other
areas that need it? There is some disconnect here.
Mr. Poarch. Well, we are not going to get money to build it
at all. The public-private partnership----
Mrs. Lowey. Correct.
Mr. Poarch [continuing]. Is going to require that the
winning D Block winner build this network for the public safety
community. That is why it is very important to be able to build
it on a regional or a national basis, so that the entire
country is covered.
Mrs. Lowey. That sounds fine, but when plan A, when it
first failed, and the D Block spectrum did not garner an
acceptable bid, the FCC appeared to be caught off guard, did
not have an immediate backup plan how to proceed. One of the
considerations in putting together the current plan must have
been to set up a reserve price low enough to receive the bid
meeting the reserve, but not so low to essentially give away
prized spectrum.
So I am a little confused as to what the FCC is doing to
create a plan C in case the proposal it is currently working on
fails to attract a sufficient bid. Why is it so attractive that
you expect to have this second round so much better than the
first round?
Mr. Poarch. First, I think----
Mrs. Lowey. At what point, in other words, do you think it
through in advance and say, well, we may have to simply hand
spectrum directly to public safety, make enough profit on the
other, instead of auctioning off at too low a price?
Mr. Poarch. First, I don't know that if we took every bit
of the proceedings from the last auction and gave it to the
public safety communities around this country that they would
be able to build that system. Depending upon the estimates that
you talked about, if you had to build a new system from green
fields starting from scratch, there are estimates of $10-to-15
billion, with a B, to do that on a Nation-wide basis. So this
auction certainly wouldn't garner the funds to do that if we
gave it to the public safety community.
The real emphasis, and the problem for the public safety
community around the country, thinking past just New York City
and the larger areas, the problem has always been that the
public safety community in the United States does not have the
funds with which to do that.
That hasn't changed today. That is why we are proposing an
auction that would have a Nation-wide bidder and regional bids
so we can get as much interest in building this for the public
safety community as we can, because they are not going to be
able it do it themselves. Some areas would. New York, I am
sure, would. But the other smaller areas around this country
that have the opportunities, and the tragic things happen such
as fires and floods and hurricanes, they cannot do this on
their own.
Mrs. Lowey. Now, I get that. I think my time is up. But
with Chairman Thompson, Chairman of this committee, I would
assume that you could figure out a way to give this contract,
public-private contract, to those who think that there is some
excitement, profit to be made, and have them take on the
responsibility of the other areas, too.
But my time is up, so I have a feeling we are going to
figure this out. I just don't see how this second round is
going to produce a greater success than the first round. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cuellar. Yes, ma'am. The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Washington, Mr. Dicks, for his line of questioning.
Mr. Dicks. Let me just continue on this. Only the A, B and
C Blocks of spectrum were sold. The D Block, which we have been
talking about, designed for a public-private partnership for
both public safety officials and private enterprise, received
only one bid as I understand it--and I haven't been here, so I
regret that--of $472 million, far short of the $1.33 billion
reserve price set by the FCC. How could the FCC have so badly
miscalculated what the market would do here?
Mr. Poarch. I wouldn't necessarily say that we badly
miscalculated. I think we set the initial reserve price
consistent with all of the other prices that we normally set.
The difference is that there is such a requirement for a
commercial entity to build a network for public safety that has
requirements such as reliability and robustness and hardening
and security and encryption and those types of things, this is
a tremendous undertaking. Last time we proposed that we do it
on a Nation-wide basis. We didn't provide any alternatives
other than that. We left quite a bit of room for negotiation
between the public safety community that has tremendous needs
and the winner of the D Block after the auction was complete.
Many said to us leaving it until after the auction, and
there not being clarity up front with these tremendous
requirements of the public safety community, made it
unattractive from a financial standpoint for us to bid on this
spectrum. This time we have set a lower minimum bid and reserve
price, we have given them----
Mr. Dicks. That's what, $750 million?
Mr. Poarch. Seven hundred fifty. Yes, sir. In addition to
that, we have given them the clarity that everyone asked for so
that they know going in what it is that they are going to be
bidding on.
In addition, while we are again bidding on a Nation-wide
license, we are also proposing to bid regional licenses on the
Long Term Evolution or the WiMAX standard, either one, so that
commercial entities out here that may not have the wherewithal
to build a Nation-wide license, but they have got the
wherewithal to build regional licenses, that maybe we can put
together a number of regional licenses that will cover the
entire country.
So this proposal that is being put forth by Chairman Martin
at this time is appreciably different, and we believe is the
best effort within the authority that we have at the Commission
in order to be able to try to build this network.
Mr. Dicks. Who made the $472 million bid? Who was that?
Mr. Poarch. I think it was Qualcomm? Qualcomm.
Mr. Dicks. That was to do this Nation-wide?
Mr. Poarch. That was the bid. But obviously it did not meet
the reserve, so it was a pretty safe bid for Qualcomm to bid
$472 million.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cuellar. At this time the gentleman recognizes--I mean
the Chairman recognizes the gentlewoman from the Virgin
Islands, Ms. Christensen.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you. You are a gentleman, too.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you. On good days.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question
would be, I guess, to all three. In its NECP, the Department of
Homeland Security attempts to establish a national framework
for ensuring that first responders have access to effective
interoperable communications systems, noting that, quote, the
emergency response community has sought national guidance to
support a more integrated coordination of emergency
communications, priorities, and investments.
The FCC, through its D Block partnership proposal, has also
stressed the importance of establishing a national framework to
address public safety communication needs. Yet the approaches
taken by the two agencies are different. DHS has input a
bottom-up approach that relies on local practitioners and local
needs to drive the deployment of new private systems for public
safety's use. As I understand it the FCC's model is a top-down
approach that relies on a single public-private partnership to
implement a national system that would be shared with
commercial users.
So my question is what coordination has taken place between
DHS and the FCC to ensure that there is consistent national
guidance to addressing public safety needs? What steps do
either the Department or the Commission plan to take to ensure
that their respective approaches can be integrated into a
single national framework?
Mr. Essid. Well, the national plan, which we had a lot of
stakeholder involvement, and we used the State plans to
develop, really lays out how important the capabilities that
the 700 MHz broadband network are to public safety. We don't
specifically call out in the national plan the 700 MHz
spectrum, but we do basically say, under objective 4, that we
put this as an emerging technology that will change everything,
as Dr. Boyd alluded to earlier, with the demonstration that was
done here at the Capitol, bringing in a lot of the existing
legacy systems to this newer technology.
You know, the national plan doesn't really have in it one
system. We are talking about increasing the level of
coordination amongst the local, State and Federal partners,
with all the different systems they have. So, you know, the
bottom-up approach that we used is just to make sure that all
the first responders and emergency personnel are involved when
we are doing whatever it is we are doing, coming up with SOPs,
training and exercises, plans, et cetera. So that is our
bottom-up approach.
We do coordinate with the FCC. In fact, you know, I am
standing up a new office, the Office of Emergency
Communications when we had no staff. I mean, Dr. Boyd lent me
one of his guys. I have got three detailees in the FCC in Derek
Poarch's shop right now that helped us until we could hire more
personnel, being a new office, keep our feet on the ground with
everything that is going on. So I am very thankful to them. So
we do coordinate a lot. You know, they have been pretty
receptive, in my opinion, to the feedback and input we have
been giving the FCC on what the first responders need and how
critical this is for them.
Mrs. Christensen. So the national guidance that States and
territories, cities, receive is consistent and coordinated.
They are not getting two different messages from----
Mr. Essid. I don't think so. As I said earlier, I think a
lot of the State and local folks as well as the Federal folks
are watching to see what happens in this auction. When we were
crafting the national plan, for example, we were watching
because we don't want to be bold enough to make a prediction
and put something in the plan and then it not come to fruition.
So we are kind of taking a wait-and-see approach. The one thing
we all resound on is public safety needs this type of a
capability out there.
Mr. Boyd. If I may add to that, it is important, as I keep
saying, to remember that this is an added capability for public
safety. It is not going to replace all of the existing systems.
There simply isn't enough spectrum in the D Block to be able to
do that. It is going to provide that broadband capability so at
the end of the day the public safety view, I think, inevitably
is going to be whatever form this takes, it is essential that
this spectrum remain available to State and local public
safety.
Mrs. Christensen. I guess I would ask this to Mr. Essid and
Dr. Boyd. As you know from the make-up of the PSST Board,
public safety entities are understandably protective of their
spectrum. So how does EOC or the PSST Board plan to--or
Department of Homeland Security plan to coordinate with the
public safety entities to turn over their spectrum to the PSST?
Or is that not a problem?
Mr. Boyd. Well, this spectrum is not--public safety is not
going to be turning over its existing spectrum. The D Block
spectrum is separate. It would just be PSST.
Mrs. Christensen. Right. I think you kind of had answered
that in your first answer. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Thanks.
Mr. Cuellar. Before we move on, Mr. Poarch, let me ask you
one question about the State of Texas coverage. The D Block
licensee, the rules that you all put out would be required to
build out 79 of 254 counties in the State of Texas, which
means--does that mean that the rest of the other counties would
have no service? Does that include also areas that FEMA has
identified that are most affected by severe hurricanes?
Mr. Poarch. I am just not familiar with the 79 of 254
counties. The proposal that puts forth from Chairman Martin
would require a Nation-wide system, build out for the entire
State of Texas and the entire Nation if we can get a Nation-
wide bidder. Or it would be done on a regional basis, and the
regional licenses, if successful, would be required in
populations, as I alluded to earlier, based upon the density of
the area, to build between 90 to 98 percent.
So we can certainly get back to you and talk specifically
about Texas, but I am not familiar with the 79 of 254. Our
proposal is for a Nation-wide licensee to build for the entire
country.
Mr. Cuellar. Okay. I can understand when you have those
general concepts. But when you go down to the details, unless
this information is wrong, and I am looking at the map of the
State of Texas with only the counties that are included, you
would have a lot of blank areas, if I can use that.
Mr. Poarch. Yeah. We would be happy to talk to staff about
the map that you are using. I haven't seen it, so I am not
really familiar with the data, but we will be happy to interact
with the staff and get you an answer on that.
Mr. Cuellar. Okay. Why don't we do this? Do that with the
State of Texas and the Members that are here--including Mr.
Dent--States so you can give them an idea, so the Members of
the committee have an idea what this means also. The rest of
the Members of this subcommittee also.
Mr. Poarch. Sure.
Mr. Cuellar. Okay. Thank you. If there are no other
questions, we are going to move onto the second panel. I would
ask, I usually do this with the first panel, I would ask you
not to leave. If you want to take a chair in the front row, Mr.
Poarch, Mr. Essid, Dr. Boyd. The reason I do that is so you can
listen to the second panel, and hopefully we can have a little
interaction.
At this time I want to thank all the three witnesses, the
three witnesses for being here. Thank you very, very much. I
know there are questions, a lot more questions. I know it is a
difficult issue, but it is one that we need to work together.
Thank you very much.
If I could have the second panel. For the second panel, as
you are coming in, there are two audiences here. One is the
legislative audience, the ones that will be asking you
questions; but I have also asked, as you know, Mr. Poarch, Mr.
Essid, and Dr. Boyd to stay here. That is your secondary
audience, if you know what I mean. As the witnesses are coming
in here, we have given the background on the testimony, so we
are going to go directly into the testimony.
I want to thank the witnesses for their presence here. I
look forward to your testimonies. I now ask each witness to
summarize his statement for 5 minutes. We will begin with Mr.
Mirgon. So we would like to recognize you at this time.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD MIRGON, FIRST VICE PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION
OF PUBLIC-SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS ORGANIZATION (APCO)
INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Mirgon. Good morning, Chairman Cuellar, Ranking Member
Dent, and Members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to
appear before you today on behalf of the Association of Public
Safety Communications Officials, APCO. My name is Richard
Mirgon. I have over 30 years of public safety experience. I
currently serve as president-elect of APCO, and I would like to
offer a synopsis of my written comments.
APCO was established in 1935, and is the largest public
safety communications organization, representing nearly 16,000
public safety communications officials. Wireless broadband
provide excellent--excuse me, wireless broadband has provided
exciting new opportunities for improved public safety in an
interoperable, all-risk environment. However, many of those
benefits would be lost if public safety broadband systems are
deployed in a proprietary, stovepipe manner, as most land
mobile systems have been deployed over the last 70 years.
I would like to highlight three of our six principles that
have guided our policies on this issue. One, we support the
development of a national interoperable broadband network. A
national broadband network would ensure that all public safety
agencies would have the same opportunities to take advantage of
broadband communications.
Two, we strongly believe that this network has to be built
to national standards, and must be interoperable with all
broadband networks in 700.
Three, a successful D Block auction requires that the FCC
establish more specific network requirements and D Block
licensee obligations prior to the auction. While I understand
that at times we may appear to be divided on how the system
should be built and managed, we are united in the belief that
there is an immediate and dire need to establish a public
safety broadband network.
A national network would provide users with a single
technology standard, giving them the ability to acquire off-
the-shelf technologies at substantially less cost than today's
land mobile radios, and freeing them from constructing costly
and duplicative broadband infrastructure.
Currently, there are local public safety agencies that are
eager to deploy systems in 700 MHz spectrum. These agencies
have the resources to deploy and manage their own broadband
networks, and they should be allowed to begin broadband
deployment in their areas, subject to national network and data
standards that are fully integrated and interoperable with the
proposed broadband networks, and that they have coordinated
with and received approval by the FCC and public safety
broadband licensee.
On September 25, the FCC is expected to release the third
and final notice of proposed rulemaking on the 700 MHz auction.
APCO believes that before the FCC issues its orders to set a
new date for the Commission, the Commission should begin
working on creating technical and operational standards for the
shared network. APCO helped to create the Public Safety
Spectrum Trust, the PSST, and has devoted substantial time,
money, and resources to its formation and activities. We
greatly appreciate the tremendous dedication of the PSST board
members and the organizations they represent.
However, APCO strongly supports the FCC's reexamination of
the public safety broadband licensee requirements, and believes
that fundamental changes are necessary to ensure that the
public safety broadband licensee is a more effective and
efficient organization. Organizations identified by the FCC
have a right, pursuant to the PSST bylaws, to name individuals
to serve on the board. APCO believes that the FCC needs to
clarify that the organizations must be the actual members of
the board. We hope that this minor distinction would prevent
some organizations from becoming disenfranchised, and encourage
them to provide organizational input into matters being voted
upon by the PSST Board.
APCO believes that the public safety broadband licensee
would be well-served to include in its board member composition
the direct expertise needed to undertake this extraordinary
task at hand. This should include experience in designing and
operating public safety communications systems, expertise from
the fields of business, finance, communications technology, all
of which are critical to the function of the broadband
licensee. We believe that this experience will lead the PSST to
rely less on the advice of the agent adviser, and improve its
ability to engage in a thorough critique of all business
functions.
None of these recommendations should be construed as
negative toward any of the current members of the PSST. As one
of the three founding members, we have been at the table from
the beginning, and we wish to simply recognize, after almost a
full year of experience, that there needs to be some positive
and beneficial changes to the structure. This should be viewed
as an opportunity for improvement.
Recent trade press has misrepresented APCO's policies by
stating that APCO is looking to sever ties with the PSST. I
want to make it very clear, in no way is APCO looking to sever
ties with the PSST. We are working to make it stronger. Our
commitment to building a national broadband network stands
firm. We would like to thank the leadership of Chief Harlin
McEwen, chairman of the PSST board, for his hard work and
attention to addressing our concerns, and working with us
toward a positive outcome.
In conclusion, APCO International remains committed to
working with all the interested parties to make sure the
construction, maintenance, and management of such a national
broadband network of 700 spectrum meets the needs of public
safety today and into the distant future. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Mirgon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Richard Mirgon
September 16, 2008
Thank you Chairman Cuellar, Ranking Member Dent, and Members of the
Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response
for this opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the
Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO)
International.
My name is Richard Mirgon and I currently serve as the President
Elect of APCO International. I have recently retired with over 30 years
of public safety experience. Most recently I served as the Director of
Technology Services/911 for Douglas County Nevada where as a department
head I managed all public safety communications, information technology
and emergency management. Prior to that I work as a deputy sheriff for
Jefferson County Colorado which encompasses the western metropolitan
area of Denver.
APCO International was established in 1935 and today it is the
Nation's largest public safety communications organization,
representing nearly 16,000 members worldwide who build, supply, manage
and operate communications systems and facilities for police, fire,
emergency medical services and other State and local government public
safety agencies. APCO International also serves the needs of more than
100,000 professionals in the public safety communications industry by
providing training, frequency coordination, engineering, licensing,
advocacy and networking opportunities. APCO International is the
largest Federal Communications Commission (FCC)-certified frequency
coordinator for Part 90, Public Safety Pool channels, and appears
regularly before the FCC on a wide variety of public safety
communications issues.
APCO International has been a major player in the Commission's
numerous proceedings regarding the 700 MHz Public Safety Band,
including the development of the public-private partnership approach to
the D Block auction and the creation of a national public safety
broadband licensee (PSBL) and is among the organizations that the FCC
designated in the Second Report and Order for representation on the
PSBL board of directors.
We applaud the committee for holding this very important and timely
hearing on the auction of the 700 MHz D Block spectrum.
Wireless broadband communications provide exciting new
opportunities for improved public safety operations. Broadband video,
high speed images, Internet access, and data of an endless variety
would greatly enhance the ability of police, fire, EMS and other
personnel to protect the public and respond to emergencies. However,
many of those benefits could be lost if public safety broadband systems
are deployed in a proprietary and stovepipe manner as most land mobile
systems have been deployed over the last 70 years.
guiding principles
I would like to highlight six basic principles that guide APCO
International's policies in working to build a national public safety
broadband network.
1. APCO International believes that new and emerging technologies
will greatly improve the way emergency services are able to
protect and serve the public.
2. APCO International continues to support the development of a
national, interoperable, broadband network that is designed,
maintained, and operated to meet the requirements of public
safety communications to the maximum extent feasible. A
national broadband network would ensure that all public safety
agencies, regardless of their size, location, expertise, or
financial resources, would have the same opportunities to take
advantage of the new world of broadband communications. Absent
a national network, only those few agencies with substantial
resources and expertise will be able to provide their first
responders with state-of-the-art broadband communications. The
result would be islands of robust, and probably incompatible,
public safety broadband networks, surrounded by vast un-served
areas.
3. APCO International strongly believes that this network has to be
built to national standards and must be interoperable with all
broadband networks built on the 700 MHz spectrum band.
4. APCO International strongly believes that the Federal
Communications Commission must retain the public-private
partnership model in the D Block auction, as it is the only
approach likely to lead to the deployment of a national,
interoperable, public safety broadband network.
5. APCO International believes that it is unrealistic to expect
that the national broadband network will be able to provide
sufficient coverage or reliability to replace ``mission-
critical'' voice communications now provided over land mobile
radio systems. The voice component of a broadband network is
likely to eventually reduce the need for some public safety
personnel to carry both a cell phone (generally used for
routine, non-emergency communications) and a land mobile radio.
However, land mobile radio will likely remain the principal
means of providing mission-critical communications for the time
being.
6. A successful D Block auction requires that the FCC establish
more specific network requirements and D Block licensee
obligations prior to the auction.
where are we today?
Again, APCO International strongly supports the formation of a
national, interoperable, broadband public safety communications
network. We firmly believe that the most viable means of creating such
a system is through a network-sharing agreement between a national
public safety broadband licensee for the 700 MHz public safety
broadband spectrum and the winner of the adjacent D Block of commercial
spectrum. Absent extraordinary and unprecedented Federal grants, no
other available approach can provide the funding for a Nation-wide
public safety broadband network.
Recent articles in the press continue to highlight the failure of
the previous D Block auction and question the potential for creating a
private-public partnership that will build out a national broadband
network to be used for public safety communications. It is unfortunate
that the D Block did not receive a winning bidder, but the failure of
the auction provides us with a new opportunity to make sure we create a
balanced plan that will provide the building blocks for a truly robust
and secure national public safety broadband network.
what are the challenges?
Public Safety has specific requirements that cannot be met by a
purely commercial service provider. In general, public safety agencies
need priority access, comprehensive coverage, high-capacity throughput
levels to prevent delays in transmission of critical information,
extremely low outage rates, hardened facilities, and redundancy to
ensure service during emergencies. The challenge is to develop
specifications for those requirements that are sufficient to meet
public safety needs, but that are also economically viable for a
shared, public/private network.
With more than 19,000 municipal governments, 16,000 town or
township governments, 3,000 county governments, and 35,000 special
district governments that have their individual public safety needs, I
can assure you the task of building a national broadband network is not
going to be easy and the solution is not going to be one-size-fits-all.
While I understand that at times we may appear to be divided on how
the system should be built and managed, we are united in the belief
that there is an immediate and dire need to establish a public safety
broadband network that meets the needs of first responders during
mission critical incidents.
A national network would provide users with a single technology
standard, giving them the ability to acquire off-the-shelf technologies
at substantially less cost than today's land mobile radios. They would
also be freed of the obligation to construct a costly and duplicative
broadband infrastructure. A national broadband network might also
provide a common link to improve interoperability among all types of
public safety communications systems.
One of the challenges in designing a broadband network is that we
will not know exactly how the network will be used until it is
deployed. Just as even the most visionary of technologists could not
have predicted 10 years ago the extraordinary array of Internet
applications available today, we cannot predict with certainty how
public safety personnel will use wireless broadband capability in the
future. A clear deduction would be that the network will be used to
transport video input and output, high-speed data services, complex
engineering and building plans, schematics for electrical and gas
service, multifaceted medical information, engineering drawings,
geographical data, fire hot spot locations, firefighter monitoring,
undercover services, chemical analysis, robotic control, and much more.
Whatever the results we believe they will not only be meaningful but
amazing.
What is clear is that public safety agencies will use the network
only if it provides fast, reliable coverage when and where they need it
at a cost they can afford. In a shared network environment, priority
access will be especially important. APCO International's comments in
response to the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking describes
our recommendation that 50 percent of the capacity of the shared
network should be subject to ``ruthless preemption'' for public safety
use, and that 50 percent of the capacity should be available
exclusively for commercial services, absent a catastrophic event
requiring additional public safety capacity. This approach should give
the D-Block licensee(s) and its customers sufficient certainty
regarding network availability. With careful capacity management, the
network will also be able to satisfy public safety service demands.
what is being done to find solutions?
On September 25, the FCC is expected to release the Third Final
Notice of Proposed Rule Making on the 700 MHz auction. APCO
International believes that before the FCC issues its Order to set a
new date for the D Block auction the Commission should begin work on
creating technical and operational standards for the shared network.
Let there be no doubt that there are local public safety agencies
that are eager to begin deploying systems in the 700 MHz public safety
spectrum. These agencies have the resources to deploy and manage their
own broadband networks. The National Capitol Region has already
deployed a system in the 700 MHz band and this system is in operation
today. There are other States and local government that are also eager
to start building out their own networks.
APCO International believes that local and State governments should
be allowed to begin broadband deployment in their areas, subject to
national network and data standards. All deployments of local and
regional broadband networks must be able to fully integrate and become
interoperable with the proposed national broadband network. Such
localized efforts need to be coordinated with and approved by the FCC
and the PSBL. These systems must also comply with all network sharing
agreements between the national public safety broadband licensee and
auction winner(s) of the D Block.
APCO International also believes that the FCC should strengthen its
formal relationship with the FCC and the PSBL.
APCO International helped to create the Public Safety Spectrum
Trust (PSST) and has devoted substantial time, money and resources to
its formation and activities. APCO International also greatly
appreciates the tremendous dedication of the PSST board members and the
organizations they represent. However, APCO International strongly
supports the FCC's re-examination of the PSBL requirements and believes
that fundamental changes are necessary to ensure that the PSBL is a
more effective and efficient entity.
Organizations identified by the FCC have the right pursuant to the
PSST's bylaws to name individuals to serve on the board. APCO
International believes that the FCC needs to clarify that the
organizations it names must be the actual members of the PSBL board. We
hope that this minor distinction would prevent some organizations from
becoming disenfranchised and encourage them to provide organizational
input into matters being voted upon by the PSST Board.
APCO International believes that the PSBL would be well-served by
including in its board member composition, the direct expertise needed
to undertake the extraordinary tasks at hand. Such proficiency should
include experience in designing or operating public safety
communications systems, and expertise from the fields of business,
finance, or communications technology, all of which are critical to the
functions of the PSBL. We believe also that this experience will lead
the PSST to rely less on the advice of its agent/advisor and improve
its ability to engage in a thorough critique of all business functions.
APCO International has suggested that the FCC change the required
composition of the PSBL board. We recommend a board of 8 to 12 members,
with approximately half of the members being diverse organizations that
represent potential users of the network and those with expertise in
public safety communications matters. The organizations, not their
individual representatives, should be members to the extent necessary
to ensure input from the relevant organizations. The remaining PSBL
board members should be individuals selected by the Commission who do
not represent any particular organization but who would add critical
knowledge and expertise to the PSBL's decisionmaking. Of course, the
Commission must ensure that a clear majority of the board members
directly or indirectly represent public safety entities. We also
recommend that an FCC commissioner or high-level Commission official,
such as the chief of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau,
should also serve as an ex-officio member of the PSBL board.
None of these recommendations should be construed as negative
toward any of the current members of the PSST. As one of the three
founding members who have been ``at the table'' from the beginning we
wish to simply recognize after almost a full year of experience that
there needs to be some positive and beneficial changes to the
structure. This should be viewed as an opportunity for improvement.
Recent trade press has published articles that misrepresented APCO
International's policies by stating that APCO International is looking
to sever ties with the PSST. I want to make it very clear that in no
way is APCO International looking to sever ties with the PSST. We are
working to make it stronger. Our commitment to building a national
broadband network stands resolute.
We believe that by continuing to work together we can make the PSST
stronger and better. We would like to thank the leadership of Chief
Harlin McEwen, chairman of the PSST board, for his hard work and
attention to addressing our concerns and working with us toward a
positive outcome.
In conclusion, APCO International remains committed to working with
all the interested parties to make sure that the construction,
maintenance, and management of such a national broadband network in the
700 MHz spectrum meets the needs of public safety today and into
distant future.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you for your testimony.
At this time I would recognize Mr. Contestabile to
summarize his statement for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOHN M. CONTESTABILE, BOARD MEMBER, PUBLIC SAFETY
SPECTRUM TRUST
Mr. Contestabile. Thank you, Chairman Cuellar, Ranking
Member Dent, and distinguished Members of the subcommittee for
the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is John
Contestabile. I am employed as the Director of the Office of
Engineering and Emergency Services for the State of Maryland
Department of Transportation.
I appear before you today as a member of the Board of
Directors of the Public Safety Spectrum Trust Corporation. I
serve on the Board as a representative of the National
Governors Association. The Public Safety Spectrum Trust, or the
PSST, is a nonprofit corporation that was formed in June of
2007, and consists of a board of directors representing 15
national public safety organizations.
In November 2007, the PSST was awarded the license for the
700 MHz public safety broadband by the Federal Communications
Commission. That license is for 10 MHz of radio spectrum in the
700 MHz band that has been allocated by the FCC for public
safety broadband purposes, and is intended to be half of the
spectrum that will be used to develop a shared commercial
public safety network. The other half will come from the 700 D
block auction. The mission of the PSST is to represent the
interests our Nation's first responders in the development of
this shared network.
The proposed network is tremendously important to the
public safety community, as it can give emergency responders
the ability to do such innovative things as monitor vital signs
of firefighters on scene of an incident, monitor patients'
vital signs en route to emergency rooms, getting criminals off
the street with real-time fingerprint scanning, streaming video
on demand from emergency personnel and command centers, from
fixed traffic cameras as well as mobile cameras in emergency
vehicles.
Building a Nation-wide broadband wireless network will also
permit interoperable voice communications, and we have talked
about that in the earlier panel. We will ensure we will never
have to repeat the challenges faced during 9/11 and Hurricane
Katrina. Of course, we sit before you almost to the day from
September 11, 2001. Following that event, there was significant
outcry about the failures of public safety communications and
the need to improve them throughout the country.
While there have been pockets of improvement, most of the
rhetoric has not resulted in action. Today there is still no
comprehensive next-generation wireless public safety solution
that improves public safety communications Nation-wide.
Fortunately, the FCC has proposed an innovative model, a public
safety commercial partnership between the D Block licensee, and
with the PSST serving as the licensee, that will join the
interests of the business and public safety communities.
Just like consumers, public safety can benefit from the
broadband technology. But we need a network that is hardened to
withstand catastrophes, has power support, satellite backup,
has other important features to make it available and reliable
in a crisis. We also need a network that uses a common
technological standard so that we can achieve interoperability
across the dozens of separate groups that make up our first
responders.
We also commend the city of New York for putting together
the essential ingredients that have allowed it to deploy an
advanced wireless broadband network. Unfortunately, the access
to broadband funding that New York City has achieved is lacking
for almost all of the other jurisdictions across the country.
We believe a new public safety wireless broadband network is an
important tool in rural America, just as it will be in major
metropolitan areas.
We are disappointed that the earlier round of the D Block
auction did not attract a winning bid, but we are pleased that
the FCC chairman indicated he had circulated to the
commissioners a draft Third Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, which will be taken up on September 25, 2008.
We would also be remiss in not mentioning that in order to
meet our responsibilities as the PSST, we need a clear and
appropriate source of funding. The FCC orders have not
identified funding for the PSST, the nonprofit entity selected
by the FCC to serve as the licensee. There is no allocation in
existing law for funding to meet the PSST's needs.
In conclusion, we in the public safety community wish to
applaud the efforts of the Members of this subcommittee and of
Congress, and of the FCC commissioners and staff, for their
support of the public safety broadband network and the public
safety commercial partnership approach. We ask for your
continued help and support to make the public safety broadband
network a reality in the near future. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Contestabile follows:]
Prepared Statement of John M. Contestabile
September 16, 2008
Thank you, Chairman Cuellar, Ranking Member Dent and distinguished
Members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to appear before you
today.
My name is John Contestabile. I appear before you today as a member
of the board of directors of the Public Safety Spectrum Trust
Corporation (PSST) and representing Chief Harlin McEwen who is the
chairman of the board of directors and who had a scheduling conflict
with this hearing. I serve on the board as a representative of the
National Governors Association.
I currently serve on a number of national committees including Vice
Chair of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) Security Committee, the Transportation Research
Board's Security Oversight Panel, the Department of Homeland Security's
SAFECOM Interoperable Communications Advisory Committee, and I chair
the Maryland State Interoperability Executive Committee (SIEC) Working
Group, which developed the Maryland State-wide plan for public safety
voice and data communications.
The Public Safety Spectrum Trust Corporation is a non-profit
corporation that was formed in June 2007 and consists of a board of
directors representing 15 national public safety organizations.
In November 2007, the PSST was awarded the Nation-wide 700 MHz
Public Safety Broadband License (PSBL) by the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC). The license is for the 10 MHz of radio spectrum in
the 700 MHz band that has been allocated by the FCC for public safety
broadband purposes and is intended to be one-half of the spectrum that
will be used to develop a shared commercial/public safety network. The
other half of the spectrum will come from the 700 MHz D Block. The
mission of the PSST is to represent the interests of the local, State
and Federal public safety community. I and the other members of the
PSST board of directors take this duty very seriously, and I appear
today on behalf of not only the PSST, but also the public safety
community we serve.
Advances in broadband telecommunications can give emergency
responders the ability to do such things as monitor vital signs of
firefighters on-site, monitor patients' vital signs on their way to
emergency rooms, get criminals off the street with real-time
fingerprint scanning and stream video on demand to emergency personnel
and command centers from fixed traffic monitoring cameras and mobile
cameras in emergency vehicles at the scene of incidents. These are only
a few of the almost limitless number of innovative applications that
can help public safety officials protect our lives and property and
increase their personal safety. At the same time, these new
capabilities can permit interoperability among first responders that we
do not have today and will ensure that we never have to repeat the
terrible communications deficiencies that we faced in events like 9/11
and Hurricane Katrina.
We sit before you almost 7 years to the day of one of the most
tragic events on American soil: September 11, 2001. Following that
event there was significant rhetoric about the failures of public
safety communications systems and the need to improve them throughout
the country. While there may have been small pockets of improvement in
limited areas throughout the country, most of the rhetoric has not
resulted in action. Today, there is still no comprehensive, next-
generation, wireless public safety solution that improves public safety
communications Nation-wide.
I am sure each of you can appreciate why having a secure, wireless,
national public safety broadband network is so important. We applaud
the willingness of the FCC to adopt this innovative approach in seeking
a solution that does not require Federal or local government funding
and we strongly support the creation of this network. Any review of
major crises such as 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina shows how much the
personal efforts and effectiveness of our Nation's first responders--
police, firefighters, emergency medical personnel, and others--are
diminished or undermined when the communications infrastructure that
supports our efforts fails or is insufficient for the needs of the
public safety professionals. Just like consumers, public safety can
benefit from wireless broadband technology, but we also need a network
that is hardened to withstand catastrophes, that has power support for
individual communications sites, satellite back-up and other important
features so that it will be available and reliable in a crisis. And it
must be available wherever we ask our first responders to go. We also
need a network that uses one common technology standard so the dozens
of separate groups making up our Nation's first responders in any area
at any given time can communicate with each other. Establishing and
building out the public safety broadband network will be a significant
challenge, but it is one that very much needs to be done to meet our
national security and public safety needs for years to come.
The PSST commends the city of New York for putting together the
essential ingredients that have permitted it to deploy an advanced
broadband network. If New York's access to funding could be replicated
throughout the rest of the country, we would be facing a much less
challenging future. Unfortunately broadband funding is lacking for
almost all other local and State jurisdictions and history has proven
that it will take a national effort to create Nation-wide seamless
interoperability. We also know that an approach other than reliance on
public financing is the only way to ensure sufficient, sustainable
funding for a Nation-wide, broadband public safety-grade network and to
keep it refreshed and continually updated. Indeed, the public safety
broadband network will be an important tool in rural America just as it
will be in major metropolitan areas.
Fortunately, the FCC has proposed an innovative model--a public
safety/commercial partnership between the D Block licensee and the PSST
serving as the Public Safety Broadband Licensee, that will join the
interests of business and public safety. This partnership will permit
emergency responders in metropolitan, suburban and rural areas to take
full advantage of current and future telecommunications discoveries
that otherwise would be limited to commercial applications. It will
mean that, finally, we will have the communications capabilities and
interoperability needed to protect our communities no matter the scale
of the disaster.
For a public servant like me, who has been focused on improving
emergency responder communications and preparing for disasters, I am
convinced this partnership promises to deliver the network and
communication capabilities the public safety community has long needed.
But this kind of network requires a serious commitment from both a
public and private partner if it is to be financed, built, operated,
maintained and upgraded over time. Both sides--public safety and
commercial--must be flexible as we embark together on this entirely
new, historic undertaking.
The recent comments filed at the FCC on the D Block from companies
like U.S. Cellular, Ericsson, Sprint Nextel and others are a very
promising sign that those who know what is needed to make a wireless
network commercially viable believe that the D Block/PSST partnership
can succeed. They have proposed some intriguing concepts that deserve
further investigation by the FCC. These ideas recognize that our old
model for building public safety systems, individually and relying on
Government funding, will not work for a network of this scale and
ambition. The PSST will continue to work with them and with others who
have a genuine commitment to the public safety/commercial partnership
in exploring creative approaches to this challenging, but absolutely
essential, endeavor.
The PSST is working very closely with the organizations that come
under the umbrella of the National Public Safety Telecommunications
Council and others to take a hard look at public safety requirements. A
broadband network that doesn't go beyond what is available commercially
today, in terms of coverage, capability, and reliability, would be a
poor use of public safety's 10 MHz of broadband spectrum. On the other
hand, we understand that we need to weigh our vision of an ideal
network against the ultimate reality test--that there may be no Nation-
wide interoperable broadband network unless commercial and public
safety interests come into alignment. The technical standards the PSST
proposed in its last FCC filing represented our best thinking at that
time, but we remain open to discussing the right balance of technical,
operational and, indeed, economic elements for public safety and for
commercial users.
The FCC, the PSST and others who are committed to the success of
this partnership have the dedication and the knowledge to make it work.
What we do not have is the luxury of time. The D Block spectrum and the
FCC's vision of a public safety/ commercial partnership that delivers
mobile interoperable broadband communications for public safety users--
and also brings increased broadband capabilities to commercial users
throughout the country--is the right idea at the right time. We cannot
come this close and let slip away what is a once in a lifetime
opportunity to address the communications requirements of the Nation's
emergency responders.
We were disappointed that the D Block did not attract a winning bid
in the 700 MHz auction concluded earlier this year. We had hoped by
this time to have concluded the negotiation of a Network Sharing
Agreement (NSA) with the winning D Block bidder and be embarking on the
network deployment. Instead, we find ourselves in the midst of working
toward a re-auction of the D Block spectrum, trying to find the
approach that will enable the auction to be successful and also
preserve requirements that will result in a network designed to deliver
genuinely needed up-to-date, affordable and interoperable broadband
communications capabilities to our country's first responders. The PSST
has been working with the FCC as the FCC develops the rules for a
follow-on D Block auction which will result in a winning bidder and
furthermore meet the critical communications needs of the public safety
community. The PSST intends to take advantage of the opportunity
offered by the new auction to continue to make information available,
to engage in a dialog with interested bidders, and to make sure its
goals are consistent with the public policy objectives of the Congress
and the FCC.
We cannot let this re-auction fail. If it does, then the individual
Federal, State and/or local government agencies will be the only
remaining source of the substantial funding needed to construct and
operate a modern, dedicated, Nation-wide broadband communications
network for public safety use. In today's economic climate, that would
likely pose overwhelming challenges and no doubt result in
balkanization of first responder communications capabilities around the
country. I respectfully ask the members of this subcommittee to help us
ensure that failure is not an option in a D Block re-auction.
As you may know, the 700 MHz auction far exceeded expectations in
terms of revenue raised, netting nearly $20 billion for the Treasury,
well above the $10.2 billion revenue target reflected in the Deficit
Reduction Act of 2005. That performance should set to rest concerns
regarding the possible undesirable budgetary impacts that could be
associated with setting aside spectrum to craft a solution for public
safety's critical communications needs.
We in the public safety community have come a long way in the last
year--with the help of many of you here in Congress and of the FCC--to
be in a position to play a constructive role in crafting a viable
solution to our long-standing mobile communications problems. In June
2007, the Public Safety Spectrum Trust was formed and now holds the
Public Safety Broadband License. The Trust has accomplished a lot
without any Government funding and we have embraced the concept of
sharing the use of spectrum, and sharing a network, with a commercial
provider, with the understanding as set forth in the FCC's order that
public safety portions of the network will be under public safety's
control.
The FCC's Second Report and Order assigns important tasks to the
PSST as the public safety broadband licensee to ensure that the needs
of first responders are met. These tasks include working with the D
Block auction winner(s) to develop and construct a seamless network
that meets public safety's critical communications needs, both at the
outset, over the entire term of the license, and into the future. For
example, the FCC specifically assigned the PSBL responsibility to
approve, in consultation with the commercial operator(s), equipment and
applications used by public safety entities on the shared network.
Public safety's needs, and technology available to meet those needs,
will not remain static. There will be a continuing need for input from
the public safety community with regard to network upgrades being
implemented by the commercial operator(s) (as all commercial operators
know, networks must be continually maintained and upgraded). We see the
PSST in an on-going role as the public safety Ambassador and united
voice in these matters.
There is also a very important role to be played with respect to
the public safety community itself, to educate first responders and
assist them in making the transition from the old reliance on voice-
only communications to the broadband future. There are hundreds of
public safety organizations around the country, and many have a strong
need for support by someone who understands public safety and can
explain how and why to embrace this new network. Additional FCC-
assigned responsibilities include oversight and implementation of the
relocation of narrowband public safety operations and reviewing
requests for wideband waivers.
Finally, priority communications for public safety--expressed in
the concept adopted by the FCC of preemption of spectrum on the network
when public safety needs require it--has to be implemented in an
effective and responsible manner by an organization rooted in public
safety. No priority system of the type envisioned by the FCC order
exists today, and a lot of effort is being devoted by the PSST to
develop this priority system and adopt procedures dedicated to it being
used effectively and appropriately by public safety.
To meet these responsibilities, the Public Safety Broadband
Licensee needs a clear and appropriate source of funding. The FCC order
did not identify funding for the non-profit entity selected by it to
serve as the Public Safety Broadband Licensee. There is no allocation
in existing law for the funding to meet the PSST's needs. Although many
core public safety organizations have contributed the time and
knowledge of their executives and managers to assist the PSST, those
organizations are challenged to meet their own budgetary needs, and
cannot provide meaningful financial support to the PSST.
In the total absence of conventional funding alternatives, the PSST
has made the suggestion that the commercial D Block operator(s), which
will be using for its/their own commercial purposes and profit a
significant portion of the spectrum allocated to public safety, be the
primary source of that support by making a lease payment to the PSST
for the spectrum it will be leasing from the PSST. The FCC order
envisions that the use of public safety spectrum by the commercial D
Block operator will be under a lease, and we have suggested that there
be a lease payment, as there would be for any lease, that is reflective
of the value of the public safety spectrum the commercial D Block
operator will be using. The PSST is concerned by recent media reports
that the FCC plans to cap funding for the PSST at $5 million per year
in the forthcoming proposed rules. As we have repeatedly pointed out,
since it was organized, the PSST has been hampered with a lack of
funding. While the PSST does not object to the FCC considering a cap,
we believe it is premature to determine the amount of the cap until it
is known how many private partners we may face following the auction
and to more fully understand the complexity of the role of the PSST and
the tasks before it.
We also understand that it is our role in the process to be the
advocate for the needs of the public safety community. Public safety
users need broader network coverage than is commercially available and
they need ``higher than commercial'' levels of network reliability,
survivability and redundancy. All of these things cost money that a
commercial wireless operator would just as soon not spend, and it is
the reason these things are not available to the public safety
community today. Striking that right balance is the challenge we are
faced with today.
So where do we go from here? We agree with the conclusions
expressed by many Members of Congress and FCC Commissioners that the D
Block auction rules need to be modified in ways that should produce a
successful re-auction. We are grateful that the position of the FCC and
Congress recognizes public safety's needs for a modern, Nation-wide,
interoperable communications solution as in the best interests of our
Nation, and a step that is long overdue. We continue to support the
FCC's conclusion that a public safety/commercial partnership, shared
network approach, in the absence of significant Federal funding,
presents the best near-term potential solution.
Certain aspects of the rules that were applicable to the D Block
have been cited as possible reasons for the absence of a satisfactory
auction outcome. Among them was the possible forfeiture of the down
payment amount if no mutually acceptable Network Sharing Agreement
(NSA) is reached, the perception that the D Block's reserve price was
set too high, and the claim that the PSST's intention to seek an annual
spectrum lease payment drove potential bidders away. Let me be clear on
these issues:
(1) The PSST supports the elimination of a forfeiture penalty
absent an FCC finding of bad faith. We did not seek a penalty
to tip the negotiating balance in our favor and we have no
desire to create undue risk for D Block bidders.
(2) With regard to the reserve price, the PSST believes the focus
should be on making long-term mission critical communications
capabilities available to members of the public safety
community Nation-wide. We realize that the public safety
objective needs to be balanced with charging a fair price for
the D Block spectrum, but we strongly support a mechanism for
ensuring that the next auction does not fail, and that whatever
reserve price is established for the D Block should reflect
that most important public interest objective.
(3) Now, it is a fact that the PSST needs a source of funding to
fulfill its responsibilities. Any source of funding--so long as
the amounts are adequate, committed and available on a timely
basis--will do, whether Federal grant, lease payment or
otherwise. What is not acceptable is that we are not provided
the resources to discharge our responsibilities to the public
safety community. Indeed, the PSST would welcome a Federal
grant that would assist us in conducting the important work we
are doing on behalf of the public safety community and the
citizens we serve.
In conclusion, we in the public safety community wish to applaud
the efforts of the Members of this subcommittee and of the Congress and
of the FCC Commissioners and staff for their support of the public
safety broadband network and the public safety/commercial partnership
approach. We solicit your help and support in transforming FCC Chairman
Kevin Martin's statement ``My [D Block] proposal will help the
Commission ensure that public safety keeps pace with the advances in
communications and gives first responders the broadband capabilities
they need to protect safety of life and property of the American
public,'' into a reality. Commissioner Michael Copps echoed Chairman
Martin's policy sentiments on this topic, supplying the sense of
urgency as well: ``The challenge is to make sure that this network
actually works for public safety. To me, this means it is built to
public safety standards and that its effectiveness cannot be curtailed
by commercial decisions. We cannot--we simply cannot--fail.''
We look forward to working with this subcommittee to make the
public safety broadband network a reality in the near future. You can
count on us for flexibility, focus on solutions and dedication to our
one goal--an effective broadband communications network available to
meet the needs of public safety in providing critical first responder
services to our Nation.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you very much for your testimony.
I now recognize Mr. Carlson to summarize his statement for
5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF LE ROY T. CARLSON, JR., CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD,
U.S. CELLULAR
Mr. Carlson. Thank you, Chairman Cuellar, Ranking Member
Dent, Chairman Thompson, and the distinguished Members of the
subcommittee for inviting me to appear here today. I am Ted
Carlson, chairman of the board of the United States Cellular
Corp.
Under a reasonable approach to the 700 MHz D Block, U.S.
Cellular would be ready, willing and able to provide parts of
the next-generation Nation-wide interoperable broadband network
under a partnership of public safety agencies and commercial
operators.
The Auction 73 rules were a barrier against bidding on the
D Block license for our company and for many others. License
areas based on States or existing public safety planning areas
will help meet the goals of Congress and the FCC. U.S. Cellular
today operates as part of a national interoperable network of
networks.
We offer national service plans through roaming
arrangements with other carriers, we coordinate call handoffs
with many neighboring carriers, and our engineers participate
in industry standard-setting bodies. We are prepared to play a
significant role by operating part of a shared wireless
broadband network meeting the needs of public safety for
Nation-wide interoperable services.
Auction 73 showed that there is large unmet demand for 700
MHz spectrum. Future competition in broadband services depends
on making the D Block available to a variety of commercial
operators. In conjunction with partners, U.S. Cellular has been
an active participant in recent spectrum auctions, yet with our
own networks covering only about 15 percent of the Nation's
population, a national license for the D Block was beyond our
reach financially and operationally.
In the reauction of this spectrum, a national license would
again be a bridge too far for us and for many other wireless
operators. Instead, license areas corresponding to State
boundaries, or the 55 public safety regional planning committee
areas, offer a much better fit to our capabilities. The FCC's
technical framework and the network-sharing agreement will
ensure that area licensees provide Nation-wide
interoperability.
A common interface standard and Nation-wide technology
platforms will coordinate and integrate the networks. Area
licenses, we believe, offer several important advantages.
First, they will draw the interest of many more operators. As
shown in the 700 MHz auction held earlier this year, demand for
smaller area licenses of the A and B blocks was far more
intense and involved many diverse bidders compared to the mega
regions of the C and D blocks. Greater demand for small area
licenses will result in greater willingness of commercial
operators to meet the network and service needs of public
safety agencies, and will also result in more active bidding.
With smaller area licenses, operators already serving part
of a license area can build on their existing network
infrastructure and operations, making commercial opportunities
to partner with public safety more attractive. Existing
operators can also build on their current relationships with
public safety agencies in such areas.
Second, smaller area licensees we believe will be more
responsive to the varying needs of public safety agencies.
State agencies and many public safety regional planning
committees have been actively coordinating wireless services to
their local public safety users for several years. Having
licenses correspond to these existing public safety
coordinators will promote effective uses of the newly available
700 MHz spectrum.
Third, with multiple operators building smaller area
networks, network deployment will be faster and more extensive
than under a Nation-wide licensee approach. More areas will be
constructed simultaneously, as the financial strength of many
operators is harnessed to get the job done.
Other advantages of area licenses include more innovation
and services in operations, less risk from failure of a single
operator, and more competition in commercial services. We
believe that each smaller area license can be successfully
auctioned. The auction rules must, however, not undermine
bidders who prefer smaller area licenses. If the FCC offers a
Nation-wide license as well as area licenses, the FCC's method
for comparing bids in its rule on coverage requirements must
not create a bias favoring a Nation-wide bidder.
We believe the area licensing approach is manageable. We
have suggested a committee that would coordinate with the FCC
and the Public Safety Spectrum Trust, a national committee of
the licensees. Thank you for this opportunity to appear.
[The statement of Mr. Carlson follows:]
Prepared Statement of LeRoy T. Carlson, Jr.
September 16, 2008
introduction
I am Ted Carlson, chairman of the board of United States Cellular
Corp. Under a reasonable approach to the 700 MHz D Block, U.S. Cellular
would be ready, willing and able to provide parts of the next-
generation Nation-wide, interoperable broadband wireless network under
a partnership of public safety agencies and commercial operators. The
Auction 73 rules were a barrier against bidding on the D Block license
for our company and many others. We hope that the rules for re-auction
of this spectrum will allow us to play a role in this important and
challenging opportunity by providing fair bidding on area licenses. A
network of area networks, with license areas based on States or
existing public safety planning areas,\1\ will help meet the goals of
Congress and the FCC for this partnership with manageable roles for
Government, public safety agencies and commercial operators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For over two decades, the FCC has used 55 public safety
regional planning committee areas to coordinate State and local public
safety wireless communications, initially in the 800 MHz band and then
also for 700 MHz narrowband spectrum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Cellular is the sixth-largest mobile operator in the United
States, serving over 6.2 million customers in urban, suburban, and
rural markets in 26 States. We provide award-winning call quality as
recognized in six consecutive J.D. Power awards. U.S. Cellular is proud
to satisfy many public safety needs currently--hundreds of State and
local public safety agencies subscribe to our services, we have
deployed E911 service to over 1,000 PSAPs, and we participate in the
Wireless AMBER Alerts Initiative. Also, U.S. Cellular operates as part
of a national, interoperable network of networks--we offer national
service plans through roaming arrangements with other carriers, we
coordinate call handoffs with many neighboring carriers, and our
engineers participate in industry standards bodies.
We are prepared to play a significant role by operating part of a
shared wireless broadband network meeting the needs of public safety
for Nation-wide, interoperable services. This approach to the D Block
will serve the public interest. Competitive operators will efficiently
use the D Block as well as excess capacity in the public safety
spectrum. A shared network will benefit public safety agencies through
economies in network infrastructure and operations, while providing
added capacity in emergencies. Moreover, Auction 73 showed that there
is large unmet demand for 700 MHz spectrum; future competition in
broadband services depends on making the D Block available to a variety
of commercial operators. Finally, while not a decisive factor,
auctioning the D Block auction may yield substantial revenues to the
U.S. Treasury.
In conjunction with partners, U.S. Cellular has been an active
participant in recent spectrum auctions. Yet, with our own networks
covering only about 15 percent of the Nation's population, a national
license for the D Block was beyond our reach financially and
operationally. In the re-auction of this spectrum, a national license
or even one of the mega-regions would again be a ``bridge too far'' for
us and many other wireless operators. Instead, license areas
corresponding to State boundaries or the 55 public safety regional
planning committee areas offer a much better fit to our capabilities
and the public safety goals of the D Block.
area licensing for the d block
The FCC's technical framework and the Network Sharing Agreement
(NSA) will ensure that area licensees provide Nation-wide
interoperability. A common air interface standard and Nation-wide
technology platforms will coordinate and integrate the networks.
Area licenses will offer several important advantages. First, they
will draw the interest of many more operators. As shown in the 700 MHz
auction held earlier this year, demand for smaller area licenses of the
A and B Blocks was far more intense, and involved many diverse bidders,
compared to the mega-regions of the C and D Blocks. Greater demand for
smaller area licenses will result in greater willingness of commercial
operators to meet the network and service needs of public safety
agencies, and will also result in more active bidding. With smaller
area licenses, operators already serving part of a license area can
build on their existing network infrastructure and operations, making
the commercial opportunities to partner with public safety more
attractive. Existing operators can also build on their current
relationships with public safety agencies in such areas, making the
partnerships more successful for all parties.
Second, smaller area licensees will be more responsive to the
varying needs of public safety agencies. State agencies and many public
safety regional planning committees have been actively coordinating
wireless services to their local public safety users for several years.
Having licenses correspond to these existing public safety coordinators
will promote effective uses of the newly available 700 MHz spectrum for
the public/commercial partnership.
Third, with multiple operators building smaller area networks,
network deployment will be faster and more extensive than under a
Nation-wide or mega-region licensee approach. More, and more diverse,
areas will be constructed simultaneously as the financial strength of
many operators is harnessed to get the job done. Other advantages of
area licenses include more innovation in services and operations, less
risk from failure of a single operator, and more competition in
commercial services.
U.S. Cellular believes that each smaller area license can be
successfully auctioned. The A and B Blocks in Auction 73 attracted
vigorous bidding, including for low-density areas, and there are
carriers with existing networks and operations in each area that would
be attracted to bid.
The auction rules must not undermine the benefits of having
multiple operators by disadvantaging bidders who prefer smaller area
licenses. If the FCC offers a Nation-wide license as well as area
licenses, the FCC's method for comparing bids and its rules on coverage
requirements must not create a bias favoring a Nation-wide bidder.
rules to make the auction successful
We believe the area licensing approach is manageable for the FCC,
the Public Safety Broadband Licensee, public safety agencies and
commercial operators. Regardless of the license size, a successful
auction requires that technology specifications, performance
obligations, spectrum lease payments, principles that would govern the
future establishment of commercially reasonable rates for public safety
users, and additional factors be disclosed to potential bidders before
the auction.
The FCC's rules should address issues such as coverage,
reliability, public safety preemption, back-up power, security, and
major service features. These rules must be in a commercially
reasonable range in order to attract commercial operators to the
partnership. In particular, the standards for population coverage and
reliability should be achieved over the license term, and the rules
should allow reasonable differences in build-out and performance based
on the population density of the various license areas. See the
attached map showing four proposed tiers for population coverage based
on density.
For the shared wireless broadband network, spectrum lease fees
should help support public safety users. Commercial operators must be
allowed to charge public safety users commercially reasonable rates.
The competitive marketplace for wireless voice and data services has
shown that public safety agencies do get commercially justifiable
discounts when they make substantial commitments to use a network. On
the other hand, forcing carriers to charge below-cost rates for public
safety users would create incentives not to attract or satisfy these
customers, and would create economic inefficiencies and controversies
over who qualifies for these below-cost rates. Therefore, broad
principles with regard to commercially reasonable rates must be adopted
before the auction.
After the auction, each licensee would sign the NSA which would
reflect the FCC's rules and principles, and would add any further terms
and conditions that comply with the FCC's order. An area's public
safety agencies and operator could discuss and agree on area-specific
modifications to the NSA consistent with the national technical and
service specifications. These modifications could reflect local
priorities, operating conditions and service needs. Under no
circumstances would modifications be allowed that would undermine
Nation-wide interoperability.
A national committee of all area licensees, or NCAL, would elect a
few national officers to work directly with the FCC and Public Safety
Broadband Licensee in monitoring and, if needed, updating the NSA. This
single point-of-contact with the licensees would facilitate maintenance
of state-of-the-art standards for the network and services. Every
licensee would be required to participate in and be governed by the
decisions of the committee of licensees.
U.S. Cellular believes that this approach to re-auctioning the D
Block is much more likely to succeed than either a national license or
an RFP model. An RFP model would entail delays for use of this spectrum
by public safety and commercial entities. RFPs would involve open-
ended, hugely complex and detailed submissions, and time-consuming
evaluations. Many potential operators would be deterred by the costs,
uncertainty, and low transparency of an RFP model. An RFP approach may
require legislation and generate litigation. The FCC's spectrum
auctions have been widely praised as a huge advance over the
comparative hearings of the first round of cellular licenses. The FCC
should seek to improve on how it auctions the D Block, by adopting pre-
auction specifications and smaller area licenses. The FCC should build
on the clarity and speed of auctions and not return to the morass of
RFPs and comparative hearings.
conclusion
U.S. Cellular has advocated a solution to address many of the goals
and issues of the public/commercial partnership for the 700 MHz D
Block. Commercial operators should be able to use this spectrum to
benefit commercial as well as public safety users. Smaller area
licenses, ideally based on State boundaries or public safety regional
planning committee areas, will help achieve a Nation-wide,
interoperable network of networks that is sensitive to the needs of
public safety. The auction rules should give smaller bidders a fair
opportunity to win these area licenses, which will lead to a stronger
shared broadband network.
The technical and service issues are manageable for the FCC, the
Public Safety Broadband Licensee and commercial carriers. In order to
attract commercial bidders, the FCC's rules must provide certainty
before the auction on key network and service factors. Reasonable
spectrum lease fees should help support public safety users of this
network. By establishing broad principles for the rates charged to
public safety users, the FCC can ensure that the NSA contains
commercially reasonable rates and terms, including discounts reflecting
public safety agencies' commitments to use the network. This approach
will likely lead to a successful auction for licenses in all areas,
followed by rapid deployment of a strong, interoperable shared wireless
broadband network.
Thank you.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Carlson.
At this time I would like to recognize Mr. LeGrande to
summarize his statement for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT LE GRANDE, II, FORMER CHIEF TECHNOLOGY
OFFICER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Mr. LeGrande. Thank you, sir. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman
and Members of the subcommittee. My name is Robert LeGrande,
and I am the former chief technology officer with the District
of Columbia Government and former program executive for the
National Capital Region's interoperability program. In this
role, I led the District's land mobile radio network upgrade,
and as a result the District of Columbia's first responders
have one of the best interoperable land mobile communications
systems in the country.
In addition, I also led the development of the Nation's
first city-wide 700 MHz broadband wireless network for first
responders. This pilot network is considered a model for the
Nation, and serves as a test bed for how applications can be
shared securely among public safety agencies.
I recently resigned from the District of Columbia and
formed LeGrande Technical and Social Services. My firm
leverages lessons learned in the District to deliver similar
high-quality technology solutions and services for governments
and commercial clients throughout the country and abroad. In
this role, I continue to support public safety in the
development of the national 700 MHz broadband wireless network,
and I appreciate the committee's on-going efforts to address
this critical issue.
Thank you for the opportunity present my views on
``Interoperability in the Next Administration: Assessing the
Derailed D Block Public Safety Auction.'' Given the complexity
of this issue and the time allotted, I will keep my comments
brief and focused on three key areas: What can we learn from
what went wrong, what are we doing about it today, and what can
we do today to ensure success tomorrow?
I have noted three lessons learned of what we can learn
from what went wrong. First, as John mentioned earlier, we
really need to fund the PSST. The job of figuring out how to
solve America's most pressing communication problem by
leveraging a complex public-private solution is hard enough.
Trying to accomplish this while finding funding drains the
PSST's resources and reduces their ability to focus on the real
issue, which is public safety communications.
Second, we must as you said earlier, ma'am, you must also
have a backup plan. Thirteen months have passed since the rules
were set in place for the national network, and these rules
prohibited States and local jurisdictions from deploying and
operating their own 700 MHz networks using standard
commercially available technologies. In other words, we put all
of our eggs in one basket. As a result of the failed auction,
we are in a worse place than we were 13 months ago. We are
worse because of the need and the drive toward broadband
communications for first responders has not stopped, and as a
result, States and local jurisdictions are either deploying
non-700 MHz networks or leveraging commercial networks. In
other words, the eggs are leaving the basket.
Third, one size may not fit all. Several large
jurisdictions, such as New York and others, have stated their
desires to build and operate their own private 700 MHz
broadband networks, which would seamlessly interoperate with
the national or regional commercial networks.
Now, it appears that in the proposed forthcoming further
notice for proposed rulemaking that this issue continues to be
ignored. Now, I believe disregarding the views of cities and
jurisdictions hardest hit by terrorists and national disasters
is just simply not sound policy. What are we doing about it
today?
Well, based largely on the reports, and I think we had
heard some testimony earlier, it appears that we are offering
the commercial market the same basic opportunity as we did
before, with a few exceptions.
First, we will allow an option to do a regional commercial
auction option, and continue to offer at the same time a
national licensee option. Second, we are lowering the reserve
price. Third, we are lowering the public safety requirements.
Now, I am confident that someone can take advantage of this
offer, but what will public safety get? In my view, public
safety will either get a national commercial network or
regional commercial networks. Either way, public safety users
will likely pay $48.50 per month per user for commercial
services, with some public safety priority. Public safety will
have given away $2 billion of radio frequency spectrum and will
get what we seemingly already have in return, which is a
commercial network. We will have also disenfranchised several
public safety customers who have already pledged to use
different services. Worse, we would have divided the public
safety marketplace among the commercial carriers.
There is a reason why I say that. Commercial carriers will
likely make priority adjustments in their networks and continue
to compete for that business. If they are successful, which
likely they will be, the Nation's first responder
communications will be split among the carriers. This is not
win, win, win. This is win, win, lose.
Now, the FCC will win because it would have righted the
wrong of the first auction. The commercial industry, however,
will win because they found they were able to purchase some of
the best available spectrum at market value or below market
value. Public safety will lose because it didn't gain the full
return off of its investment of $2 billion of radio frequency
spectrum.
Now, what can we do today to ensure success tomorrow? We
should first fund the PSST. We should fund also State and local
governments to deploy and operate networks using standardly
available technologies in advance of the national and regional
deployments. This will give immediate relief to jurisdictions
who need to start today. In other words, we will be getting
everyone all in the same swim lane, and swimming in the same
direction.
This will also restart the public safety broadband
technology device and applications marketplace. When the
national regional network is prepared to deploy and operate in
an early deployment jurisdiction, the jurisdiction should be
compensated for its network assets and turn over operations to
a national or regional licensee. This acts as a backup plan,
which we mentioned we needed earlier in the event the second
auction fails.
Three, we also are not ready for new rules. In last month's
FCC's En Banc hearing, we had more questions than we had
answers. We should take more time to comprehensively evaluate
the best possible solution, leveraging the capabilities of
investment from the Federal, State, and local government.
Now, one disturbing fact that keeps getting ignored is that
the Federal Government is working on a completely separate
communications solution. Now, during Katrina, the attacks of 9/
11, and most recently the tragic hurricanes of this year, we
deployed comprehensive Federal, State, and local responses.
Shouldn't we empower our responders with a comprehensive
communications system? We have the time to find a better way,
and my recommendation is that we take it. Thank you for your
time.
[The statement of Mr. LeGrande follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert LeGrande, II
September 16, 2008
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee. My
name is Robert LeGrande and I am the former Chief Technology Officer of
the District of Columbia Government and former Program Executive for
the National Capitol Region's Interoperability Program. In this role, I
led the District's Land Mobile Radio (LMR) network upgrade and, as a
result, the District of Columbia's First Responders have one of the
best interoperable LMR communications systems in the country. In
addition, I also led the development of the Nation's first city-wide
700 MHz broadband wireless network for first responders. This pilot
network is considered a model for the Nation (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/
ntiahome/press/2007/WARN_060807.html) and serves as a test bed for how
applications can be shared securely among Public Safety agencies.
I recently resigned from the District of Columbia and formed
LeGrande Technical and Social Services, LLC. My firm is leveraging
lessons learned in the District to deliver similar high-quality
technology solutions and services to Government and commercial clients
throughout the country and abroad. In this role, I continue to support
Public Safety in the development of the national 700 MHz broadband
wireless network.
I appreciate the committee's ongoing efforts to address this
critical issue and thank you for the opportunity to present my views on
``Interoperability in the Next Administration: Assessing the Derailed D
Block Public Safety Spectrum Auction''. Given the complexity of this
issue and time allotted, I will keep my comments brief and focused on
three key areas: What can we learn from what went wrong, what we are
doing about it today, and what can we do today to ensure success
tomorrow?
what can we learn from what went wrong?
I have noted 3 lessons learned:
(1) We must fund the PSST.--The job of figuring out how to solve
America's most pressing communication problem by leveraging a complex
public/private solution is hard enough . . . Trying to accomplish this
while finding funding drains the PSST's resources and reduces their
ability to focus on the real issue: Public Safety Communications.
(2) We must have a backup plan.--Thirteen months have passed since
the rules were set in place for the national network. These rules
prohibited States and local jurisdictions from deploying and operating
their own 700 MHz networks using standard commercially available
technology. We ``Put all of our eggs in one basket'' (reference
LeGrande Testimony 08-16-08 Attachment 1.0), and, as a result of the
failed auction, we are in a worse place then we were 13 months ago. We
are worse because the need and drive toward broadband communications
for first responders has not stopped and, as a result, States and local
jurisdictions are either deploying non-700 MHz broadband networks or
leveraging commercial networks. ``The eggs are leaving the basket''.
(3) One size may not fit all.--Several large jurisdictions have
stated their desires to build and operate a private 700 MHz broadband
network which would be seamlessly interoperable with a national or
regional commercial networks. It appears that in the forthcoming
``Further Notice For Proposed Rule Making'', this issue continues to be
ignored. Disregarding the views of the cities and jurisdictions hit
hardest by terrorist and natural disasters is not sound policy.
what are we doing about it today?
Based largely on press reports, it appears that we are offering the
commercial market the same basic opportunity with a few exceptions. (1)
We will allow a regional commercial auction option and continue to
offer a national licensee option. (2) We are lowering the reserve
price. (3) We are lowering the Public Safety requirements. I'm
confident someone will take advantage of this offer, but what will PS
get? My view: PS will either get a new national commercial network or
new regional commercial networks. Either way PS users will likely pay
$48.50 per user per month for commercial services with some PS
priority. PS will have given $2 billion radio frequency spectrum; and
will get what we already have in return. We will have also
disenfranchised several PS customers, who have already pledged to use
different services, and, worse, we will have divided the PS marketplace
among the commercial carriers. Carriers will likely make PS priority
adjustments in their networks and continue to compete for PS business.
If they are successful, the Nation's first responder's communications
will be split among carriers. This is not win-win-win, this is win-win-
lose, the FCC will win because it has righted the wrong of the first
auction; the commercial industry will win because it will have
purchased some of the best available radio frequency spectrum well
below the market value, and PS will lose because it did not gain a full
return off of its investment of $2 billion in radio frequency spectrum.
what can we do today to ensure success tomorrow?
(1) We should fully fund the PSST. (2) We should fund and allow
State and local governments to deploy and operate networks using
standard commercially available technologies in advance of the
national/regional network deployments. This will give immediate relief
to the jurisdictions who need to start now; while keeping them all in
the same ``swim lane'' and swimming in the same direction. This will
also re-start the PS broadband technology marketplace, and thereby get
us on the path to test and refine PS broadband wireless devices and
applications. When the national or regional network is prepared to
deploy and operate in that ``early deployment'' jurisdiction, the
jurisdiction should be compensated for its network assets and turn over
operations to the national or regional licensee. This also acts as a
backup plan in the event that the second auction fails . . . (3) We are
not ready for new rules . . . In last month's ``FCC En Banc'' hearing,
we had more questions than we had answers. We should take more time to
comprehensively evaluate the best possible solution leveraging the full
capabilities and investment from Federal, State and local governments,
public safety associations as well as private industry. One disturbing
fact that is being ignored is that the Federal Government is working on
a completely separate communications solution.
During Katrina, the attacks of 9-11, and, most recently, the
hurricanes of 2008; we deployed comprehensive Federal, State and local
responses. Shouldn't we empower the responders with a Comprehensive
Communications System? We have time to find a better way, and we should
take it.
In summary, I recommend that:
The FCC:
Grant permission for early deployment operations;
Ensure reimbursement to jurisdictions that deploy early once
the national or regional licensee takes over operations;
Establish an accelerated waiver process;
Take more time to find a comprehensive win-win-win solution
for the national/regional network.
The Congress:
Fully fund the PSST;
Provide funding to help jurisdictions finance early
deployments.
The PSST:
Grant permission for early deployment operations.
I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to share my recommendations
and the committee's continued work on addressing this issue. I'm happy
to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. LeGrande.
At this time I would like to recognize Chief Dowd for his 5
minutes, to summarize his statements in 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES F. DOWD, DEPUTY CHIEF, CITY OF NEW YORK,
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Dowd. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Good to see you
again, and Members of the committee. In listening to the
testimony today, and I am going to leave my prepared statement,
one of the things that glaringly has been left out here is the
fact that the FCC already has an unfunded mandate out there for
every public safety entity or agency in this country to retool
their radio systems for spectrum efficiency, most commonly
referred to as narrow banding. So when you hear comments about,
you know, where is public safety and where is everybody going
to get the funding, well, they have already been required to do
that by the FCC on the voice side of things.
They have to narrow band their systems or find a spectrally
efficient voice solution, mission-critical voice solution, in
order to meet that requirement that the FCC has mandated, by
2013. Rather than doing that, what New York City and every
other major city in the country so far--and by the way, we had
a conference call yesterday with just about every other major
city--I could list them for you if you want--believes that the
solution for both things here, for the data and for voice is a
broadband network. But it needs to be a network of networks.
Now, David Boyd is right when he says, you know, the legacy
systems are not going to go away right away, and you need to
address interoperability concerns. But if you want to be truly
interoperable, the solution is a network of networks on the
same technology, which we believe is broadband, and every other
major city agrees with us, for both data and mission-critical
voice.
So at the end of the day, when you hear comments like, you
know, they can't fund it, where is the little guy going to get
the money, the little guy has to get the money now. They have
to narrow band now. So why invest that money in antiquated
technology when we should be looking toward broadband
technology for a full solution?
The national model, in our view, will not work. When I say
in our view, I am not talking about New York City or the NYPD,
I am talking about every major city that we have had a
conversation with. We don't think, based on the experience of
New York State, which just defaulted a major manufacturer on a
State-wide system, that even a State-wide solution from the top
down will work. This needs to be done from the bottom up. You
have to get buy-in from public safety that these systems will
be reliable and will provide the kind of coverage that they
need.
We predicted in testimony in front of the FCC back in July
that one of the ways that it would be proposed to make this
more palatable to attract commercial entities would be
reduction in coverage requirements. You know, as Derek Poarch
pointed out--who I consider a very good friend and very sincere
in his testimony today--he discussed the fact that you never
know where that problem is going to be. You know, where did
that hurricane hit? Was it going to hit in Louisiana, or did it
hit Texas like it did a couple of days ago?
So at the end of the day, you need coverage that is public
safety-appropriate, not commercial-appropriate. So the notion
that rural areas would need less coverage than urban areas just
does not make sense from a public safety perspective. Why would
we want to do that? The answer is nobody wants to do that that
I have spoken to.
There are concerns. I know APCO is deeply concerned that,
you know, the little guys would get hurt in this scenario. What
we are suggesting as a public safety solution in broadband, the
little guy makes out at least as well as the big cities. If
that spectrum is allotted to us directly, that would allow us
or any other public safety entity to negotiate directly, if we
decided to, to make a public-private partnership, if that is
what you wanted to do. If you wanted to build your own system,
you could. If you wanted a hybrid of it, you could do that.
But to say, as some have in recent weeks, that, you know,
the smaller agencies, public safety agencies would get hurt
under the scenario that New York City and all the other major
cities are proposing is just not the case. So at the end of the
day, what we are asking is let's not rush into another auction
to give away the best opportunity for public safety that has
come along in a long time from a spectrum perspective. You have
this spectrum across the country now that is available to
public safety which would allow us to be interoperable at the
front end.
In other words, police officers or firefighters from New
York City say responding now to Texas in this scenario would be
able to take their devices and be interoperable on a broadband
network over time. The 15-year timeline, too long. You know, we
have already built a system in New York City. We would like to
use that spectrum. What we are proposing this week to the FCC
is that the NYPD and the city of New York be allowed to use the
700 MHz system to make a proof-of-concept pilot project to
build mission-critical voice on broadband.
I thank you for your time, and would be happy to answer any
questions you my might have.
[The statement of Mr. Dowd follows:]
Prepared Statement of Charles F. Dowd
September 16, 2008
Good morning Chairman Thompson and Members of the committee. I am
Deputy Chief Charles F. Dowd of the New York City Police Department and
the Commanding Officer of the Communications Division. My command
includes responsibility for New York City 911 as well as the police
department's radio operations, which is the largest public safety radio
system in our Nation. On behalf of Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly
and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, I would like to thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the 700 MHz. D Block
auction, and the importance of the Federal Communications Commission's
actions going forward.
The City of New York and the metropolitan area public safety
agencies have struggled with spectrum shortages, technology issues and
interference problems for over 30 years. Public safety agencies are
still facing daunting technology challenges as they strive to meet the
FCC's mandate requiring spectral efficiency. The efforts to encourage
public safety to use their limited spectrum more efficiently have
forced us onto a highway that only leads to limited features and
functionality and to technology that is unproven in a complex
environment. Public safety has always been asked to do more with less
while commercial wireless carriers have been encouraged to develop
feature rich systems using large blocks of clear spectrum.
For different reasons, the commercial wireless industry and the FCC
share the common goal of spectrum efficiency. However, the pursuit of
that goal has led the FCC and the commercial wireless industry in
opposite directions. Whereas the FCC has mandated a narrowband
approach, the commercial wireless industry has embraced broadband
technology. We believe that the broadband approach to spectrum
efficiency is the correct approach particularly in an integrated voice
and data network.
Since public safety is adopting broadband technology for critical
data communications, the next logical step is to develop mission-
critical voice capability on the same technology platform. This is the
technology that the wireless industry has embraced. It makes sense to
merge voice and data communications onto a single robust public safety
network rather than to maintain two separate networks, one for mission-
critical voice and another for broadband data. It is neither fiscally
responsible nor technically feasible to continue in the current
direction, we will not be able to stimulate the development of this
technology if the spectrum is not made available to public safety for
this purpose.
Converging voice and data applications onto a single technology
platform in 700 MHz will also allow for greater flexibility and will be
inherently interoperable in much the same manner as today's ubiquitous
cell phone. Public safety should embrace new technology once it has
been proven to meet public safety's stringent requirements, then drive
equipment manufacturers to build feature rich devices that take
advantage of the economies of scale enjoyed by the commercial wireless
industry. This outcome can best be achieved by licensing the 700 MHz
spectrum on a regional basis, and providing local jurisdictions with
the necessary control to determine the appropriate level of public/
private partnership that meets their local needs.
The NYPD prefers a regional direct licensing approach of the 700
MHz spectrum to allow early deployment of systems in regions that are
prepared to move. This encourages the development of regional systems
using common technology to build a Nation-wide network of networks.
Indeed, if the NYPD is not granted the flexibility and control to
deploy new technologies in the public safety 700 MHz in the city of New
York, this spectrum will be unavailable for public safety when the DTV
transition is complete in February 2009. Even if the FCC's proposed
public private partnership auction plan is successful--and there is
significant uncertainty on this point given the failure of the last
auction to generate even a single qualifying bid--it is unlikely that
the commercial partner would be prepared to provide services to public
safety before 2012 at the earliest. Moreover, as I testified before the
FCC at its hearing in New York City, even if this network were built it
is unlikely that the NYPD would use the shared network because it would
not provide us with the mission-critical level of service fundamentally
necessary for first responders.
In the most recent NPRM reply comments from the PSST, they have
proposed reducing the system design and priority access requirements to
make the D Block spectrum more palatable to the commercial wireless
industry. Public safety can not allow that to happen. Weakening of the
standards, priority or coverage requirements will only serve to drive
Public Safety away from the system altogether. Public Safety needs to
maintain its more stringent requirements which cops and firefighters
need and will expect.
If local jurisdictions are not granted direct access to 700 MHz, to
deploy systems now, a unique opportunity to advance public safety
communications will be lost. Rather than utilizing this spectrum in
February 2009, public safety agencies will be required to wait for some
uncertain date many years in the future before they can even evaluate
whether the proposed service meets their needs. Seven years after 9/11,
imposing this delay on jurisdictions that are ready to move now is
simply unacceptable.
It is important to stress that New York is not the only
jurisdiction desiring additional control and flexibility to define the
terms of the public-private partnership in its own geography. The
cities of San Francisco, Philadelphia, and Washington, DC all filed
comments with the FCC seeking a greater degree of local control.
Recently many other city and State public safety technology officials
from around the country have voiced the same concerns to us regarding
the FCC's proposal. Further, we have asked APCO International to assist
us to engage this growing group in order to ensure that every public
safety voice, large or small is heard on this critical issue. It is
important to recognize that local control does not preclude broader
public-private partnerships in jurisdictions that would benefit from a
relationship with a commercial provider. Such an arrangement will be
particularly advantageous in jurisdictions where there is less public
safety demand for spectrum. Regional licensing with local control will
also enable public safety agencies to migrate their networks onto a
single converged voice and date communications network at their own
pace. As different regions build out next generation wireless networks
capable of supporting both broadband data and mission critical voice,
public safety agencies will benefit from a single communications
network that can be accessed using a low cost handset.
To this end, New York City is proposing to conduct a proof of
concept using 20 MHz of 700 MHz spectrum to determine the viability of
next generation wireless technology for mission critical voice
broadband communications. The goal will be to demonstrate the
feasibility of a converged broadband mission critical voice and data
network for first responders. If successful, the results of this effort
could easily be applied to other jurisdictions throughout the Nation.
To do so we need regulatory certainty that the public safety 700 MHz
spectrum in the city of New York will not be encumbered by commercial
carriers. We will be seeking this regulatory certainty from the FCC,
and ask the support of this committee for this relief. Thank you for
this opportunity to address these important issues, I will be pleased
to answer any questions that you may have.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Chief. Again, good seeing you
again.
First of all, I want to thank all the witnesses for their
testimony. I would like to remind each Member that he or she
will have 5 minutes to question the panel. I will now recognize
myself for questions. We have had two panels, and I think you
all heard from Mr. Poarch and Mr. Essid and Dr. Boyd.
What I would like to do is now, because for some of you all
it might be the only time you have an opportunity to ask
questions, I would like for each of you all to give me a
question that you would want to pose to one of the gentlemen
that I mentioned, either a question or an input. I do this,
that you would all be directing the questions to us, and I
would ask you to do this so we can have an opportunity, so you
can have an opportunity to give some input or ask questions.
For the three gentlemen, again I would ask you all or your
staff to take some notes, and hopefully follow up on what the
gentlemen will be asking.
Chief, I will start off with you because I think you kind
of did what I was planning to do. I will start off with you. Do
you want to add anything else to Mr. Poarch or any of the
gentlemen? I heard you give some of your suggestions, but I
will ask each of you all to either give me questions to pose to
them or input.
Mr. Dowd. Well, again our belief--again, when I say ``us,''
you know, I am not talking about New York City, I am talking
about a broad range of major public safety agencies and
technology persons around the country. We believe that
broadband technology is where all the technology is going. We
don't see it as, you know, needing to maintain, over time, the
narrow band legacy radio systems. We believe that mission-
critical voice can be done in broadband. We think it can be
done and proved out in a relatively short time. That is what we
are saying.
So at the end of the day, what we are saying is let's not
rush into this auction. Let's take a big step back and let's
listen to the public safety voices that are out there that are
voicing concerns over giving over, you know, this huge chunk of
spectrum to commercial entities that, in our experience, really
don't get or understand what the public safety requirements
are.
Don't forget, you know, when we talk about coverage, you
know, in existing radio systems, you know, the expectation is
that you would get coverage wherever those police or
firefighters would have to operate, not in 90 percent. Over
time, we believe that the data side of things, streaming video,
photos, those things will become as important to public safety
first responders in their initial response as any mission-
critical voice will.
Mr. Cuellar. Are you saying that the Public Safety Trust
doesn't speak on behalf of all the folks in your position?
Mr. Dowd. Well, I would suggest to you that--or just state
the fact, as I already did that, you know, every major city
kind of disagrees with the approach. So if every major city
disagrees with the approach, you know, I guess the question
would be who are they talking to?
Mr. Cuellar. All right. On that note, Mr. LeGrande.
Mr. LeGrande. I would say first a statement and then kind
of a question.
Mr. Dicks. Sound.
Mr. LeGrande. I did that again. I apologize. First a
statement and then a question. I think everyone is working
really hard to find a solution. But I think also that we are so
focused on a successful auction that we may be forgetting that
after that auction we need to make sure that we have a
solution, and a solution that will satisfy major cities and the
rural areas, and that we can depend on for the next generation.
Because frankly, that is what we are talking about, a
generational thing.
So my point that I would make is that within the folks in
this room, and certainly at the FCC and those who are watching
on-line, there are other alternatives to the one that is
currently being proposed. My question would be: Can we take a
step back, as the Chief has asked, and let's get together and
let's try to find the solution that is win, win, win?
I think leveraging the commercial industry is the right
answer. If you put all of the stuff together, all of the
various equipment that exists right now, all the public safety
equipment that exists now, we have already built out a network,
quite frankly, four times over throughout the entire country.
Now we are saying let's put a new network on top of that. I
think the opportunity exists for us to rethink that and come up
with a better proposal.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you. Mr. Carlson.
Mr. Carlson. Yes. I think my comment would be this: that
the Nation has waited since 9/11, all these years, to get a
Nation-wide interoperable system started and moved forward. It
has been my view that the FCC is very serious about moving this
forward. We have done our best to provide detailed
recommendations to them to help the process move forward with a
common technology platform. We have recommended LTE because we
think that will give public safety agencies low-cost equipment
that can be used for big and small cities, small towns across
the country.
Our recommendation has recommended a buildout that would
cover all towns down to 3,000 in size and major highways across
the country. We think it is time to get on with building this
network. The time has passed for talking about it. The time is
now.
Mr. Cuellar. But it would be 7 years from 9/11 plus another
15, we are talking about 22 years since 9/11?
Mr. Carlson. We, with all due respect to the FCC, we
recommended that the network be completed in 10 years rather
than 15.
Mr. Cuellar. Okay. Next question or input.
Mr. Contestabile. I think from the PSST perspective, we
have two overarching issues or concerns, if you will. Our
desire is that we see Nation-wide interoperability. Whether
that can be done under a Nation-wide license or whether that
can be done under a series of regional licenses with the same
technology, I am not sure it matters greatly to us, frankly.
We also would echo Mr. Carlson's comments that we would
like to see an aggressive schedule. We think that we need to
roll this out certainly to the urbanized areas, where the
infrastructure lies, but also to the more rural areas as
quickly as we can. So some incentives or ways to encourage that
would be welcomed in our view.
The third point I would like to make and I mentioned
earlier, is to ensure the PSST has the funds to do its job. We
have been asked by the FCC to fulfill certain functions. There
are about 10 activities in the original rule that the PSST has
to fulfill in terms of approving equipment, improving
applications that are going to run on this network, educating
the first responders as to what is out there and what is
available to them. We need some funding to do that work. So,
taking care of that.
Last, I would mention that Chris Essid, a friend of mine as
well, that I think one of the implications from this discussion
is that future iterations of the State-wide plans, the SCIP
plans need to consider how they will be interoperable with this
national network. I think it is a little unfair perhaps to lay
that at their feet at this juncture, not knowing what
technology and not knowing what the architecture of that system
is. But subsequent updates to the State-wide plans ought to be
looking at how to be interoperable in that space. Thank you.
Mr. Cuellar. All right. Thank you. Mr. Mirgon.
Mr. Mirgon. You know, I sit here kind of amazed at--I mean,
some really bright people sitting in this room. I mean some of
the best in the Nation. There is so much said----
Mr. Cuellar. This includes the Members on this side also,
right?
Mr. Mirgon. Absolutely. Absolutely.
Mr. Cuellar. All right. Go ahead.
Mr. Mirgon. There is so much they say that I agree with.
Before APCO does its next filing on any further comments, we
will be meeting with more of our members. We have got
commitments out there to talk to them to make sure we represent
our 16,000 members fairly and equally.
But with that said, I keep falling back on the one single
fallacy I believe, with some of this debate is, you know,
APCO's been here for 75 years. We were started on the basis of
interoperability issues. We understood this problem, you know,
many times throughout our history. We attempted to create a
standard for radio technology called P 25 because we saw the
problem developing.
What happened was--the part that we are forgetting here is
that manufacturers come up with proprietary equipment and say
here, buy my widget. We don't like the P 25, buy mine. The next
thing you know you have got jurisdictions buying products that
don't talk to each other. As much as I believe if the major
cities can get together and establish the right protocol, there
is clearly some interesting dialog to go on as to how you get
there. But our experience tells us that there are too many
people who want it my way, that there will be engineers within
local jurisdictions that will sit there and say, gee, I like
this guy's product better. It doesn't talk to this person over
here, but I don't really need them.
You know, as time and hurricanes and 9/11 gets behind us,
people tend to forget it. This is about protecting America,
about protecting it in an all-risk environment, from terrorism,
from hurricane, and from all the rest. We need to look at how
we make this equal and usable across America; that when that
policeman is driving from New York City to Houston that he has
got coverage in between. I will tell you, I will take you to
sites in New York City and Washington, DC that will put to
shame some of the cellular companies' technology on how well
they are built, how hardened they are. I will also take you to
places in America that public safety people in America are
mounting stuff on telephone poles, trees, and wouldn't
withstand a strong wind. So I believe the approach we have
taken is the best for America to develop this, based on our
long history of trying other things and they just haven't
worked. Thank you.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Mirgon.
At this time I will recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Dent,
from the State of Pennsylvania.
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LeGrande and Mr. Carlson, my question is directed to
you. What are your thoughts regarding the concerns voiced by
the New York City Police Department, Deputy Chief Dowd,
regarding the spectrum auction and the eventual development of
the network? Based on your work in the field, what approach to
the next auction do you believe will result in the best outcome
for public safety communications? I'm really interested to hear
from Mr. Carlson and Mr. LeGrande.
Mr. LeGrande. First, the goals are the right goals,
national interoperability. Really what we are talking about is
how best to get there. So having built out a 700 MHz network,
or at least led the building of a 700 MHz network here in the
District, I think the way to approach this is in two ways.
First, I believe we should start now, not in a year-and-a-
half after we have auctioned. I think we can start with early
deployments now. As a result of the early deployments in places
like New York and other areas, that will get us all focused on
achieving that goal because guess what, the technology is not
the question, because the technology is already built today
that we can migrate to if we want to go to LT or anything else.
So I think that is an important thing.
I think also when you have such divergent needs, meaning
major cities need to control or have actually a financial
incentive to control their networks, and you say rural areas
don't have as much of an incentive, I think that there are
opportunities and potential proposals that would bring those
two things together that would allow carveouts for major
cities, and at the same time allow for the network to be built
for the rural areas. The good news is the technology, as long
as we stay on the standard technology, it will all work
together.
Mr. Dent. Mr. Carlson.
Mr. Carlson. I would anticipate that in an auction that is
conducted on a regional area basis that the license for New
York City would most likely be won by one of the two largest
national operators, either AT&T or Verizon. It would be my
anticipation that one of those operators, whoever was the
winner, would do their level best to work with Chief Dowd to
create a network that could be integrated with his existing
network. If there were a need for some reason to delay the
build in a big city like New York, that there could be, you
know, a prior build by the New York City agency itself that
then could be contributed to a subsequent build, down the road,
by one of those national carriers. I think that can be made to
work.
Mr. Dent. At this time I would like to yield back the
balance of my time to the Chairman.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Dent. At this time, so we can
have each Member ask at least one question, recognize Mr. Dicks
from the State of Washington and then Ms. Lowey, and then we
will conclude the meeting.
Mr. Dicks. Chief, you talked about an unfunded mandate
here. You think Congress should put up the money for this?
Where should the funding come from? Does there need to be a
national program authorized and money funded through the----
Mr. Dowd. What I am talking about is that there is already
existing and it has been out there for years a requirement and
it still stands with the FCC for public safety spectrum to be
especially more efficient. So they already have the obligation
to spend the money, which is not being mentioned. That is out
there. What we are suggesting is that rather than spend it on
old technology, that the funds that you would have had to spend
anyway should be focused on the new technology, and that is
broadband. Clearly that is where, you know, nationally and
internationally, that is where the technology is going. So why
continue down a road of requiring public safety entities to
build one type of system for voice and then however this shakes
out you are going to have a broadband system built by whoever
for everything else? It doesn't make any sense.
Mr. Dicks. Because you could do both, both voice and data.
Mr. Dowd. That is what we are proposing. You know, to us
and to every other major city that has looked at this, you
know, that has the technology people to look at this kind of
thing and because they have those resources, that is what they
are looking at. Look, the FCC years ago looked to be more
efficient in spectrum and broadband didn't exist. So they did
the next best thing. They tried to suggest that narrow banding,
cutting, continuing to cut thinner slices of spectrum in order
to get more into the spectrum was the way to go. They were
probably right 10 or 15 years ago, but not today. So there
needs to be some real thought on this, and what technology----
Mr. Dicks. Is the problem at the FCC with what they are
proposing? Is that where the problem is?
Mr. Dowd. Look, the FCC has done a wonderful thing by
clearing the spectrum because you know you now have public
safety spectrum across the country that we can use. The problem
is, we don't believe--and neither do any of the major cities--
that the commercial entity will build a network to the types of
requirements that we have. So when you view that--and what I
would point to as a good indicator of that, I think part of the
reason the first auction failed was because there was such a
high public safety requirement for coverage. So what has
happened now--and again, I think I mentioned earlier that what
we have predicted is that they would reduce that for the second
auction, which is we think a very wrong thing to do. You know--
and how you would have different standards for rural versus
urban as far as coverage is a little confusing to me. Only to
the fact that you never know when an emergency is going to
happen.
Now you know from a terrorist perspective, obviously New
York and other major cities are the big targets. But you know a
hurricane doesn't discriminate that way. So you have to look at
this from the perspective of, you know, the little people, the
little agencies need the same type of coverage that the big
cities would. I just don't see--you know and from the comments
we have had, I don't see major cities buying into a commercial
network.
Mr. Dicks. So you think trying to put the commercial and
the public safety together, it should all be public safety, is
that what you are really saying?
Mr. Dowd. You can do the whole solution in broadband on
that public safety spectrum. Now that is going to take time. So
when David Boyd--and he has done tremendous work on
interoperability--when he talks about multi-band radios, for
now, you know those are necessary things. But hopefully as we
progress, they would become less and less necessary, if not
unnecessary, in that, you know, you just don't want to be
connecting systems at the back end to be interoperable. You
want to be interoperable at the front end.
Mr. Dicks. Let me yield back.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you. A minute-and-a-half for questions
and answers and then we will close up.
Mrs. Lowey. Chief Dowd, just to clarify. So if the FCC were
to go forward with the process that created a national network,
No. 1, how would this impact New York City? How much has the
city spent and committed to the wireless data network and the 2
gigahertz band?
Mr. Dowd. The 2.5. The city has already committed $500
million to that. By the way, we are paying for the use of that
spectrum that the City of New York uses on that system. What we
are saying is, you know, for a public safety system, you know,
we would like to use our spectrum, which is the 700 MHz
spectrum. The comment was just made, well, you know, in New
York City, whoever wins it there could then negotiate with the
city and make them happy. Well, we are already happy. We are
building our own system. How about giving us our spectrum, you
know, and let us decide whether we want to partner with
somebody. I think that is the model that the FCC would be more
prudent to follow. Now that I built a system, why do I want to
pay someone to let me use my spectrum? I don't understand why
public safety would want to do that.
Mrs. Lowey. I get it. I just want it on the record. Since
we all have to go vote, thank you. Thank you all for appearing
before us. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cuellar. Again, I want to thank all of the witnesses
for being here today. I would ask you all to spend a little bit
of time with the other witnesses and spread some wisdom to each
other. I want to thank all of you all for being here.
Members of the subcommittee may have additional questions,
and we ask those questions in writing. Please respond as soon
as possible.
Hearing no further business, the hearing is adjourned.
Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Questions From Chairman Henry Cuellar of Texas for Derek K. Poarch,
Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Federal
Communications Commission
Question 1. The initial auction of the D Block in the 700 MHz band
was perceived to have failed due to the lack of clarity concerning the
requirements and standards of the public safety community. Some have
singled out the Public Safety Spectrum Trust (PSST) for failing to
represent the public safety community with one voice and sending mixed
signals during the auction proceedings. As you know from the
organization of the PSST board, public safety entities are
understandably protective of their spectrum.
Please detail with some specificity what the FCC has done and is
doing to encourage more transparency by the PSST.
Answer. In the Commission's recently adopted Third Further Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (Third Further Notice), the Commission proposed
``significant steps to insulate the Public Safety Broadband Licensee
from undue commercial influence, and additional reporting and auditing
requirements to provide greater oversight of the Public Safety
Broadband Licensee's activities.''\1\ Specifically concerning the steps
the FCC is taking to encourage more transparency by the PSST, the FCC
proposed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands;
Implementing a Nationwide, Broadband, Interoperable Public Safety
Network in the 700 MHz Band, WT Docket No. 06-150, PS Docket No. 06-
229, Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 08-230 (rel.
Sept. 25, 2008), 346.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to funding of the PSST's administrative and
operational expenses, the FCC found merit in:
``ensuring that the administrative and operating expenses of the
Public Safety Broadband Licensee are finely tuned to its core
mission and fully transparent to key stakeholders,'' and
tentatively concluded that the PSST, as the Public Safety
Broadband Licensee, ``shall establish an annual budget and
submit this budget to the Chief, [Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau] and Chief, [Public Safety and Homeland Security
Bureau], on delegated authority, for approval.''\2\ The
Commission added that ``the proposed annual budget to be
submitted by the Public Safety Broadband Licensee would enable
the Commission to ensure that the Public Safety Broadband
Licensee is acting in a fiscally responsible manner and not
engaging in activities that exceed the scope of its prescribed
roles and responsibilities. The Public Safety Broadband
Licensee already is required to submit a full financial
accounting on a quarterly basis, which helps serve the same
purpose. As an additional measure, the PSBL also would need to
have an annual audit conducted by an independent auditor. In
addition, we are proposing to provide that the Commission
reserves the right, as delegated to the Chief, PSHSB, to
request an audit of the Public Safety Broadband Licensee's
expenses at any time.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Id. at 359.
\3\ Id. (citation omitted).
Concerning the PSST's organizational structure, the FCC
agreed with comments submitted in the record that it should
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
revise the PSST's:
``organizational structure to enhance the Public Safety Broadband
Licensee's operational efficiency and transparency.''\4\ The
Commission stated that ``[i]n light of the unique
representative nature of the license, which the Public Safety
Broadband Licensee holds on behalf of those public safety
entities eligible to utilize this spectrum, the public interest
favors any changes to the Public Safety Broadband Licensee's
organizational structure that will better ensure that its
actions reflect due consideration of the broad panoply of
public safety interests it represents. We also consider it
important to hold the PSBL to a standard of transparency that
will ensure that its obligations are met in a manner that
instills public confidence in both the process and the outcome
of its actions. We believe improvements in these areas can be
achieved with a few modifications to the Public Safety
Broadband Licensee's current organizational structure, along
with other modifications we are proposing with respect to the
Public Safety Broadband Licensee's Board's meeting and voting
requirements.''\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Id. at 407.
\5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among the measures proposed by the Commission, it agreed that:
``the position of Chairman of the PSBL board of directors should be
separated from the position of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) because of
the very different responsibilities of the two positions.''\6\ Thus,
the Commission tentatively concluded that ``the Public Safety Broadband
Licensee's positions of Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer must be filled by separate individuals,'' noting that
``[s]eparating these positions would allow for a discrete focus on two
very different responsibilities, and thus increased efficiency.''\7\
The Commission also proposed ``to require the PSST board to elect a new
executive committee--i.e., the PSST must elect a new Chairman, Vice-
Chairman, and Secretary/Treasurer within 30 days of adoption of an
Order issuing final rules in this proceeding'' and that ``these
executive committee members: (i) must be limited to a term of 2 years;
and (ii) may not serve consecutive terms in the same position.''\8\ The
FCC further proposed ``that no current executive committee member may
be re-elected to the same position on the committee'' and to ``prohibit
the PSBL from expanding its executive committee beyond these three
offices.''\9\ The Commission also tentatively concluded to ``require
three-fourths supermajority voting on all major decisions by the PSBL
board of directors,'' which it believed ``will further ensure that the
PSBL will only undertake major actions that have the broad support of
the PSBL's representative constituents.''\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Id. at 411.
\7\ Id.
\8\ Id. at 412.
\9\ Id.
\10\ Id. at 413.
Last, with respect to PSST board meetings, the Commission
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
stated:
``We thus tentatively conclude that we will require PSBL board
meetings to be open to the public, except that the board will
have a right to meet in closed session to discuss sensitive
matters. Further, we propose that the PSBL must make the
minutes of each board meeting publicly available, including
portions of meetings held in closed session, but that the
published minutes of closed sessions may be redacted. We
further propose that the PSBL must provide the public with no
less than 30 days advance notice of meetings. Relatedly, we
tentatively propose to require that the PSBL present its
annual, independently audited financial report (which is a new
financial reporting obligation we are proposing elsewhere in
this Third Further Notice) in an open meeting. We expect that
all of these measures will improve the efficiency and
transparency of the PSBL's actions, and seek comment
accordingly.''\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Id. at 414.
Question 1b. What metrics does FCC use to assess PSST's
effectiveness as the public safety licensee? How has the PSST measured
against the specific metrics?
Answer. The Commission's Second Report and Order included a number
of features and requirements intended to provide oversight over the
PSST.\12\ As discussed above, the Third Further Notice contained
additional detailed proposals related to improving the transparency of
the Public Safety Broadband Licensee and increasing oversight. The
Third Further Notice also contained proposals relating to the roles and
responsibilities of the PSST in the use of the 700 MHz broadband
network, eligible users of the public safety broadband spectrum,
clarifications on the PSST's non-profit status, restrictions on the
PSST's business relationships, funding of the PSST's administrative and
operational expenses, budget submission and audit requirements,
restrictions on financing, changes to the PSST's organization structure
including its articles of incorporation and by-laws, and oversight of
the PSST's activities.\13\ Staff from the Bureau have attended the
PSST's board meetings, and otherwise frequently interacted with
representatives of the PSST and its member organizations. The PSST has
been and remains subject to the terms and conditions of its license and
is subject to the Commission's enforcement authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands;
Implementing a Nationwide, Broadband, Interoperable Public Safety
Network in the 700 MHz Band, WT Docket No. 06-150, PS Docket No. 06-
229, Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15289 (2007) at 373-374
establishing baseline criteria for selecting the Public Safety
Broadband Licensee); 375-376 (requiring certain minimum provisions
of the licensee's articles of incorporation and by-laws); 376-377,
506-507, 530 (imposing reporting requirements during and following the
negotiations of the network sharing agreement).
\13\ See Third Further Notice at 175-202, 312-374, 394-419.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 1c. Please detail FCC's plan to collaborate with public
safety entities to turn over control of their spectrum to the PSST? In
your response please list the public safety entities, discuss
timetables, identify milestones and goals, and share corresponding
charts that illustrate the ``turn over'' of the spectrum to the PSST.
Answer. The FCC has no plans to require public safety entities to
turn over control of spectrum they hold to the PSST. Individual public
safety entities have been and remain eligible to hold licenses in the
narrowband portions of the 700 MHz public safety spectrum, as well as
other bands. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission reallocated
700 MHz public safety spectrum from wideband use to broadband use, and
assigned the broadband spectrum as a single Nation-wide license to the
PSST. Neither the prior wideband nor current broadband spectrum was
previously assigned to any other public safety entities.
Question 2. The Homeland Security Act, which first directed the FCC
to study the possibility of a national broadband public safety network,
also directed the Department of Homeland Security and the FCC to work
together to develop State-wide communications interoperability plans
(SCIPs).
Has the FCC considered the possibility of having State-wide
licenses for a 700 MHz broadband network given that SCIPs were the
vehicle by which States had to plan for and justify homeland security
grants?
Answer. With respect to the 700 MHz public safety narrowband
spectrum, the FCC already has allocated and granted licenses for
certain channels on a State-wide basis. In the Third Further Notice,
the Commission further stated:
``we tentatively conclude that the public safety broadband spectrum
should continue to be licensed on a nationwide basis to a single Public
Safety Broadband Licensee. However, we seek comment on whether we
should license the public safety broadband spectrum on a regional basis
rather than a nationwide basis. Further, if we were to license the
public safety broadband spectrum on a regional basis, we seek comment
on the procedures and selection criteria for assigning such licenses,
and how multiple public safety broadband licensees would be able to
ensure a nationwide level of interoperability and otherwise satisfy the
roles and responsibilities of the public safety broadband licensee we
discuss elsewhere.''\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Id. at 426.
Question 3a. Has the FCC assessed whether the delay of the D Block
auction will impact the implementation of the State Communications
Interoperability Plans (SCIPs) and the National Emergency
Communications Plan, released on July 31, 2008?
Answer. In the Second Further Notice and Third Further Notice, the
Commission has sought comment broadly, and then with more specificity,
concerning how it should proceed following the results of the initial D
Block auction. In response to the Second Further Notice, the Commission
received no public comments concerning any impact to SCIPs. With
comments and reply comments due November 3, 2008 and November 12, 2008,
respectively, in response to the Third Further Notice, all interested
parties will have the opportunity to address issues related to the D
Block auction and potential impact on SCIPs or the National Emergency
Communications Plan (NECP).
Question 3b. In your description, please include the specific
collaborations that occurred between the FCC and the Department of
Homeland Security's Office of Emergency Communications as it relates to
the bureau's assessment.
Answer. Now that the Commission has proposed specific rules and
frameworks for the implementation of a Nation-wide, broadband,
interoperable public safety network, and as it evaluates the record
developed in response to the Third Further Notice, the Bureau will
continue its ongoing interactions with the DHS OEC on any and all
issues of mutual interest, including any assessments of the potential
impacts or synergies between the 700 MHz public/private partnership
proceeding and the SCIPs and the NECP.
Question 3c. In your response, please detail how the FCC assessed
that the 58 FCC public safety regions can operate in a manner
consistent with the SCIPS and the NECP.
Answer. As presently proposed, the 700 MHz broadband spectrum will
continue to be held under a single Nation-wide license assigned to the
PSST. Among its roles and responsibilities, the PSST is charged with
being as representative of the public safety community as possible. The
PSST meets this role through its component board members which include,
for example, the National Governors Association, as well as through its
interactions with all State and local levels of public safety entities.
In the Third Further Notice, the Commission recognized that ``since the
auction of the D Block did not result in a winning bid, there has been
an associated delay in the deployment of the nationwide broadband
network, which may impact the extent to which some public safety
agencies may desire to construct their own networks before a new
auction is completed.''\15\ The Commission then sought comment on how
it ``can ensure that a public safety entity engaging in such early
build-out selects a compatible technology that is fully interoperable
with the Shared Wireless Broadband Network(s), meaning consistent with
our tentative conclusions elsewhere concerning interoperability
requirements for all operations in the 700 MHz public safety broadband
spectrum, and thus not via gateways and bridges.''\16\ Accordingly,
interested parties have the opportunity to file comments on how public
safety can operate in a manner consistent with the SCIPs and the NECP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Id. at 297.
\16\ Id. at 302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 4a. The FCC's original proposal for the D Block called for
building out the system to public safety specifications (coverage,
capacity, reliability during disasters, etc.), which exceed those for
the typical commercial network and add costs which are not borne by a
commercial network.
If the FCC plans to relax these requirements, what changes are
under consideration and how will these impact the mission-critical
nature of the proposed network?
Answer. In the Third Further Notice, the Commission has proposed to
modify some elements concerning public safety requirements for
coverage, capacity, and reliability. The FCC tentatively concluded to
``modify the population-based performance requirements and the length
of the license term that we adopted in the Second Report and Order for
the D Block spectrum in order to make this spectrum more commercially
viable while at the same time ensuring that public safety needs are
met.''\17\ Specifically, the Third Further Notice proposes to reduce
the final network coverage benchmark from 99.3 percent to between 90
and 98 percent, depending on the population density of each region, and
proposes to extend the period for achieving full coverage from 10 to 15
years.\18\ Comment is also sought on whether to require a flat 95
percent population coverage as a final benchmark.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Id. at 148.
\18\ Id. at 149.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Third Further Notice also specifically addresses ``requirements
pertaining to: the broadband technology platform; interoperability;
availability, robustness and hardening of the network; capacity,
throughput and quality of service; security and encryption; power
limits/power flux density limits/related notification and coordination
requirements; and the satellite-capable handset requirement.''\19\ In
this regard, the Commission tentatively concluded that it ``should
establish more detailed technical requirements for the shared wireless
broadband network'' which ``will provide additional certainty regarding
the obligations of the D Block licensee(s) and the costs of the shared
wireless broadband network.''\20\ The Commission added that
``specifying the technical requirements as completely as possible at
this time, and reducing the issues that will be left to post auction
negotiation, will provide greater assurance to potential bidders
regarding the commercial viability of the shared wireless broadband
network while ensuring that the network meets public safety's
needs.''\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Id. at 102.
\20\ Id. at 103.
\21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 4b. Please provide the committee a detailed chart that
explains the FCC's coverage proposal and the impact of a national
broadband network build-out on each subcommittee Member's State
(including Chairman Bennie G. Thompson of Mississippi).
Answer. Under the Commission's coverage proposal, a licensee of D
Block spectrum must meet three coverage benchmarks, which apply at the
fourth, tenth, and fifteenth years after the grant of the license, and
which must be met in each Public Safety Region (PSR) in which the
carrier is licensed (regardless of whether it has received a regional
PSR license or a single Nation-wide license). As discussed further
below, PSRs are regions that largely mirror State boundaries. In
addition, there are also a number of PSRs for territories such as the
U.S. Virgin Islands, and one for the Gulf of Mexico.
The three benchmarks are as follows. By the end of the fourth year,
the licensee must cover at least 40 percent of the population. By the
end of the tenth year, it must cover 75 percent. For the final
benchmark at 15 years, the Commission has also proposed to adopt a
``tiered'' approach, applying one of three benchmarks depending on the
population density of the PSR: (1) For PSRs with a population density
equal to or greater than 500 people per square mile (Tier I), the
licensee will be required to cover at least 98 percent of the
population by the end of the fifteenth year; (2) for PSRs with a
population density equal to or greater than 100 people per square mile
and less than 500 people per square mile (Tier II), the licensee will
be required to cover at least 94 percent of the population; and (3) for
PSRs with a population density less than 100 people per square mile
(Tier III), the licensee will be required to cover at least 90 percent
of the population.
The attached chart entitled ``Geographical Boundaries of the 58
Public Safety Regions'' specifies the geographic area covered by each
of the 58 PSRs. These areas correspond to the boundaries of the 700 MHz
Regional Planning Committee Regions, and as the chart indicates, in
most cases, they follow State boundaries. Some States, however,
encompass multiple PSRs and certain PSRs encompass portions of more
than one State.
The second attached chart, entitled ``Performance Tiers by Public
Safety Region,'' details for each PSR the final 15-year benchmark,
whether 98 percent (for ``Tier I'' regions), 94 percent (for ``Tier
II'' regions), or 90 percent (for ``Tier III'' regions), as applicable
to the PSR.
A Nation-wide map of the PSRs entitled ``Public Safety Regions By
Tier,'' is also attached, which depicts the Tiers for each PSR
graphically, with each PSR color-coded to show the applicable final
benchmark. This map also shows where PSR boundaries do and do not
follow State boundaries, by depicting the boundaries of the PSRs in
black and the boundaries of the States in pink. Thus, combined black/
pink lines indicate where the boundaries of PSRs follow State
boundaries, pure black lines indicate PSR boundaries that do not follow
State lines, and pink lines indicate State boundaries that do not
follow PSR lines.
Finally, 13 additional maps are attached, with each map depicting
one of many possible build-out options that may be chosen to meet the
Commission's specific population benchmarks for each one of the 13
States of the Members of the Subcommittee on Emergency Communications,
Preparedness, and Response.\22\ Specifically, these maps show, for each
State, the estimated coverage at the fourth, tenth, and fifteenth
years, assuming that build-out in the relevant PSR proceeds from
counties with higher population density to those with lower population
density. For example, the map of the District of Columbia indicates
complete coverage by year 4, reflecting an estimate that, by the fourth
year, build-out in PSR 20, which includes the District, Maryland, and
Northern Virginia, would have already extended to all of the District's
geographic area. Thus, they illustrate a method that covers maximum
population without regard to geographic coverage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Thus, the maps cover: (1) Texas, (2) California, (3)
Pennsylvania, (4) Washington, (5) Indiana, (6) New York, (7) Tennessee,
(8) Virginia, (9) Michigan, (10) North Carolina, (11) Mississippi, (12)
the District of Columbia, and (13) the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Specifically, these maps show, for each State, the estimated coverage
at the fourth, tenth, and fifteenth years, assuming that build-out in
the relevant PSR proceeds from counties with higher population density
to those with lower population density. For example, the map of the
District of Columbia indicates complete coverage by year 4, reflecting
an estimate that, by the fourth year, build-out in PSR 20, which
includes the District, Maryland, and Northern Virginia, would have
already extended to all of the District's geographic area.
These maps cannot, however, fully reflect the scope of the
Commission's proposed coverage requirements or the coverage choices
that a licensee may make. The Commission has recognized that having D
Block licensees meet the population benchmarks is not by itself
sufficient to satisfy all our public interest objectives in this
proceeding, and that the needs of first responders are also important
in less populous areas. Thus, the Commission has proposed to require
that the Network Sharing Agreement (NSA) negotiated between the Public
Safety Broadband Licensee (PSBL) and D Block licensee(s) include
detailed build-out schedules identifying specific areas to be built out
and the respective time frames. The Commission has also proposed to
require coverage for major highways and interstates, as well as
coverage for all incorporated communities with a population in excess
of 3,000, unless the parties determine, in consultation with a relevant
community, that such additional coverage will not provide significant
public benefit. The NSA, including the build-out schedule, must also be
approved by the Commission.
Thus, a D Block licensee will not be free to build its broadband
network unilaterally along the lines suggested in the maps, but must
move forward with the agreement of the PSBL and subject to additional
coverage requirements. As a result, we would expect that the actual
areas within a PSR that will be built out would in fact differ from the
coverage depicted.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15289 (2007) at 453;
Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at para. 163.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 4c. In your charts, please distinguish how the coverage
would differ under a regional license as compared to a national
license.
Answer. As noted above, within each PSR, the coverage requirements
are the same regardless of whether that PSR has been licensed as a
regional PSR license or as part of a single Nation-wide license.
Regardless of whether the license is Nation-wide or regional (PRS)-
based, coverage requirements must be met on a PSR basis. In other
words, a Nation-wide licensee must cover the specified percentage of
the population within each of the 58 PSRs in its license area, while a
PSR licensee must cover the specified population percentage in the PSR
in which it is licensed.
Question 5. Has the FCC considered providing early deployment and
operation of interoperable broadband networks in the 700 MHz broadband
spectrum prior to the auction and build-out of the network?
How will early deployments positively and negatively impact the
benchmarks that the FCC has proposed in the 15-year build-out?
Answer. In the 700 MHz Second Report and Order, the Commission
adopted rules to provide public safety entities with options for early
build-out of broadband networks in advance or in lieu of build-out of
the Nation-wide broadband network. In general, these rules allow a
local public safety entity to deploy a network early, provided that the
network uses a technology that is fully interoperable with the Nation-
wide broadband network so that the local network can be integrated into
the Nation-wide network when the latter is deployed.
In the Third Further Notice, the Commission has proposed to retain
these early build-out rules, and has sought comment on alternatives.
The Third Further Notice notes that ``unlike our current rules, which
only contemplate the early build-out of systems utilizing the same
technology as the D Block licensee, a public safety entity that engages
in early deployment risks choosing a technology that is not compatible
with the technology that will be deployed later by the D Block
licensee.''\24\ Given the tentative conclusion in the Third Further
Notice that the Nation-wide interoperable network should have the same
air interface technology, the Commission has sought comment on ``how we
can ensure that a public safety entity engaging in such early build-out
selects a compatible technology that is fully interoperable with the
Shared Wireless Broadband Network(s), meaning consistent with our
tentative conclusions elsewhere concerning interoperability
requirements for all operations in the 700 MHz public safety broadband
spectrum, and thus not via gateways and bridges.''\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Id. at 302.
\25\ Id.
GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES OF THE 58 PUBLIC SAFETY REGIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
States, Counties & Territories
Number Included In Regions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................... ALABAMA
2...................................... ALASKA
3...................................... ARIZONA
4...................................... ARKANSAS
5...................................... CALIFORNIA--SOUTH (to the
northernmost borders of San
Luis Obispo, Kern, and San
Bernardino Counties)
6...................................... CALIFORNIA--NORTH (that part of
California not included in
California--South)
7...................................... COLORADO
8...................................... NEW YORK--METROPOLITAN--NEW
YORK: Bronx, Kings, Nassau,
New York, Orange, Putnam,
Queens, Richmond, Rockland,
Suffolk, Sullivan, Ulster,
Dutchess, and Westchester
Counties; NEW JERSEY: Bergen,
Essex, Hudson, Morris,
Passaic, Sussex, Union,
Warren, Middlesex, Somerset,
Hunterdon, Mercer, and
Monmouth Counties
9...................................... FLORIDA
10..................................... GEORGIA
11..................................... HAWAII
12..................................... IDAHO
13..................................... ILLINOIS (all except area in
Region 54)
14..................................... INDIANA (all except area in
Region 54)
15..................................... IOWA
16..................................... KANSAS
17..................................... KENTUCKY
18..................................... LOUISIANA
19..................................... NEW ENGLAND--MAINE; NEW
HAMPSHIRE; VERMONT;
MASSACHUSETTS; RHODE ISLAND;
CONNECTICUT
20..................................... MARYLAND; WASHINGTON, DC;
VIRGINIA--NORTHERN (Arlington,
Fairfax, Fauquier, Loudoun,
Prince William and Stafford
Counties; and Alexandria,
Fairfax, Falls Church,
Manassas and Manassas Park
Cities)
21..................................... MICHIGAN
22..................................... MINNESOTA
23..................................... MISSISSIPPI
24..................................... MISSOURI
25..................................... MONTANA
26..................................... NEBRASKA
27..................................... NEVADA
28..................................... NEW JERSEY (except for counties
included in the New York--
Metropolitan, Region 8, above)
PENNSYLVANIA (Bucks, Chester,
Montgomery, Philadelphia,
Berks, Delaware, Lehigh,
Northampton, Bradford, Carbon,
Columbia, Dauphin, Lackawanna,
Lancaster, Lebanon, Luzerne,
Lycoming, Monroe, Montour,
Northumberland, Pike,
Schuylkill, Sullivan,
Susquehanna, Tioga, Wayne,
Wyoming and York Counties);
DELAWARE
29..................................... NEW MEXICO
30..................................... NEW YORK--ALBANY (all except
area in New York--
Metropolitan, Region 8, and
New York--Buffalo, Region 55)
31..................................... NORTH CAROLINA
32..................................... NORTH DAKOTA
33..................................... OHIO
34..................................... OKLAHOMA
35..................................... OREGON
36..................................... PENNSYLVANIA (all except area
in Region 28, above)
37..................................... SOUTH CAROLINA
38..................................... SOUTH DAKOTA
39..................................... TENNESSEE
40..................................... TEXAS--DALLAS (including the
counties of Cooke, Grayson,
Fannin, Lamar, Red River,
Bowie, Wise, Denton, Collin,
Hunt, Delta, Hopkins,
Franklin, Titus, Morris, Cass,
Tarrant, Dallas, Palo Pinto,
Parker, Rockwall, Kaufman,
Rains, VanZandt, Wood, Smith,
Camp, Upshur, Gregg, Marion,
Harrison, Panola, Rusk,
Cherokee, Anderson, Henderson,
Navarro, Ellis, Johnson, Hood,
Somervell and Erath)
41..................................... UTAH
42..................................... VIRGINIA (all except area in
Region 20, above)
43..................................... WASHINGTON
44..................................... WEST VIRGINIA
45..................................... WISCONSIN (all except area in
Region 54)
46..................................... WYOMING
47..................................... PUERTO RICO
48..................................... U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
49..................................... TEXAS--AUSTIN (including the
counties of Bosque, Hill,
Hamilton, McLennan, Limestone,
Freestone, Mills, Coryell,
Falls, Robertson, Leon, San
Saba, Lampasas, Bell, Milam,
Brazos, Madison, Grimes,
Llano, Burnet, Williamson,
Burleson, Lee, Washington,
Blanco, Hays, Travis,
Caldwell, Bastrop, and
Fayette)
50..................................... TEXAS--EL PASO (including the
counties of Knox, Kent,
Stonewall, Haskell,
Throckmorton, Gaines, Dawson,
Borden, Scurry, Fisher, Jones,
Shackelford, Stephens,
Andrews, Martin, Howard,
Mitchell, Nolan, Taylor,
Callahan, Eastland, Loving,
Winkler, Ector, Midland,
Glasscock, Sterling, Coke,
Runnels, Coleman, Brown,
Comanche, Culberson, Reeves,
Ward, Crane, Upton, Reagan,
Irion, Tom Green, Concho,
McCulloch, Jeff Davis,
Hudspeth, El Paso, Pecos,
Crockett, Schleicher, Menard,
Mason, Presidio, Brewster,
Terrell, Sutton, and Kimble)
51..................................... TEXAS--HOUSTON (including the
counties of Shelby,
Nacogdoches, San Augustine,
Sabine, Houston, Trinity,
Angelina, Walker, San Jacinto,
Polk, Tyler, Jasper, Newton,
Montgomery, Liberty, Hardin,
Orange, Waller, Harris,
Chambers, Jefferson,
Galveston, Brazoria, Fort
Bend, Austin, Colorado,
Wharton, and Matagorda)
52..................................... TEXAS--LUBBOCK (including the
counties of Dallam, Sherman,
Hansford, Ochiltree, Lipscomb,
Hartley, Moore, Hutchinson,
Roberts, Hemphill, Oldham,
Potter, Carson, Grey, Wheeler,
Deaf Smith, Randall,
Armstrong, Donley,
Collingsworth, Parmer, Castro,
Swisher, Briscoe, Hall,
Childress, Bailey, Lamb, Hale,
Floyd, Motley, Cottle,
Hardeman, Foard, Wilbarger,
Witchita, Clay, Montague,
Jack, Young, Archer, Baylor,
King, Dickens, Crosby,
Lubbock, Kockley, Cochran,
Yoakum, Terry, Lynn, and
Garza)
53..................................... TEXAS--SAN ANTONIO (including
the counties of Val Verde,
Edwards, Kerr, Gillespie,
Real, Bandera, Kendall,
Kinney, Uvalde, Medina, Bexar,
Comal, Guadalupe, Gonzales,
Lavaca, Dewitt, Karnes,
Wilson, Atascosa, Frio,
Zavala, Maverick, Dimmit,
LaSalle, McMullen, Live Oak,
Bee, Goliad, Victoria,
Jackson, Calhoun, Refugio,
Aransas, San Patricio, Nueces,
Jim Wells, Duval, Webb,
Kleberg, Kenedy, Brooks, Jim
Hogg, Zapata, Starr, Hidalgo,
Willacy, and Cameron)
54..................................... CHICAGO--METROPOLITAN--ILLINOIS
: Winnebago, McHenry, Cook,
Kane, Kendall, Grundy, Boone,
Lake, DuPage, DeKalb, Will,
and Kankakee Counties;
INDIANA: Lake, LaPorte,
Jasper, Starke, St. Joseph,
Porter, Newton, Pulaski,
Marshall, and Elkart Counties;
WISCONSIN: Kenosha, Milwaukee,
Washington, Dodge, Walworth,
Jefferson, Racine, Ozaukee,
Waukesha, Dane, and Rock
Counties
55..................................... NEW YORK--BUFFALO (including
the counties of Niagara,
Chemung, Schuyler, Seneca,
Erie, Chautauqua, Cattaraugus,
Allegany, Wyoming, Genesee,
Orleans, Monroe, Livingston,
Steuben, Ontario, Wayne, and
Yates)
56..................................... GUAM AND THE NORTHERN MARIANA
ISLANDS
57..................................... AMERICAN SAMOA
58..................................... GULF OF MEXICO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PERFORMANCE TIERS BY PUBLIC SAFETY REGION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Area Coverage Required at End of 15th Year of
PSR PSR Name Total Pops* (SqM)* Density License Term
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8...................................... New York--Metropolitan........ 19,092,214 9,841 1,940.1 Tier 1: 98 percent coverage required for
PSRs with a population density equal to
or greater than 500 pops per square
mile
47..................................... Puerto Rico................... 3,808,610 3,425 1,112.1
48..................................... U.S. Virgin Islands........... 108,612 134 810.5
57..................................... American Samoa................ 57,291 77 744.0
54..................................... Chicago--Metropolitan......... 12,685,330 17,100 741.8
20..................................... Maryland; Washington, DC; 7,831,327 12,070 648.8
Virginia--Northern.
56..................................... Guam and the Northern Mariana 224,026 389 575.9
Islands.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
28..................................... New Jersey, Pennsylvania, 10,526,480 22,729 463.1 Tier 2: 94 percent coverage required for
Delaware. PSRs with a population density equal to
or greater than 100 pops per square
mile and less than 500 pops per square
mile
5...................................... California--South............. 20,637,512 56,512 365.2
9...................................... Florida....................... 15,982,378 53,927 296.4
33..................................... Ohio.......................... 11,353,140 40,948 277.3
55..................................... New York--Buffalo............. 2,852,351 11,780 242.1
51..................................... Texas--Houston................ 5,618,958 25,166 223.3
19..................................... Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, 13,922,517 62,809 221.7
Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
Connecticut.
40..................................... Texas--Dallas................. 6,503,125 30,589 212.6
11..................................... Hawaii........................ 1,211,537 6,423 188.6
21..................................... Michigan...................... 9,938,444 56,804 175.0
36..................................... Pennsylvania.................. 4,801,690 27,672 173.5
31..................................... North Carolina................ 8,049,313 48,711 165.2
14..................................... Indiana....................... 4,763,619 31,283 152.3
10..................................... Georgia....................... 8,186,453 57,906 141.4
39..................................... Tennessee..................... 5,689,283 41,217 138.0
42..................................... Virginia...................... 5,115,733 37,360 136.9
37..................................... South Carolina................ 4,012,012 30,109 133.2
6...................................... California--North............. 13,234,136 99,447 133.1
30..................................... New York--Albany.............. 3,182,726 29,379 108.3
18..................................... Louisiana..................... 4,468,976 43,562 102.6
17..................................... Kentucky...................... 4,041,769 39,728 101.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
49..................................... Texas--Austin................. 2,254,226 24,263 92.9 Tier 3: 90 percent coverage required for
PSRs with a population density less
than 100 pops per square mile
43..................................... Washington.................... 5,894,121 66,544 88.6
1...................................... Alabama....................... 4,447,100 50,744 87.6
24..................................... Missouri...................... 5,595,211 68,886 81.2
13..................................... Illinois...................... 3,722,488 49,049 75.9
44..................................... West Virginia................. 1,808,344 24,078 75.1
53..................................... Texas--San Antonio............ 3,916,309 53,562 73.1
22..................................... Minnesota..................... 4,919,479 79,610 61.8
23..................................... Mississippi................... 2,844,658 46,907 60.6
45..................................... Wisconsin..................... 2,692,016 48,327 55.7
15..................................... Iowa.......................... 2,926,324 55,869 52.4
4...................................... Arkansas...................... 2,673,400 52,068 51.3
34..................................... Oklahoma...................... 3,450,654 68,667 50.3
3...................................... Arizona....................... 5,130,632 113,635 45.2
7...................................... Colorado...................... 4,301,261 103,718 41.5
35..................................... Oregon........................ 3,421,399 95,997 35.6
16..................................... Kansas........................ 2,688,418 81,815 32.9
41..................................... Utah.......................... 2,233,169 82,144 27.2
26..................................... Nebraska...................... 1,711,263 76,872 22.3
50..................................... Texas--El Paso................ 1,472,545 72,617 20.3
52..................................... Texas--Lubbock................ 1,086,657 55,600 19.5
27..................................... Nevada........................ 1,998,257 109,826 18.2
12..................................... Idaho......................... 1,293,953 82,747 15.6
29..................................... New Mexico.................... 1,819,046 121,356 15.0
38..................................... South Dakota.................. 754,844 75,885 9.9
32..................................... North Dakota.................. 642,200 68,976 9.3
25..................................... Montana....................... 902,195 145,552 6.2
46..................................... Wyoming....................... 493,782 97,100 5.1
2...................................... Alaska........................ 626,932 571,951 1.1
58..................................... Gulf of Mexico................ ............ 250,922
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Based on 2000 U.S. Census Data.
Questions From Ranking Member Charles W. Dent of Pennsylvania for Derek
K. Poarch, Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Federal
Communications Commission
Question 1. If the D Block auction proceeds in auctioning the
spectrum licenses on a regional basis, how will the FCC ensure that
there is consistent national guidance to provide uniformity among
communications systems across the country?
Answer. If the D Block is licensed on a regional basis, the Third
Further Notice proposes a number of measures to ensure that all
regional D Block licensees will deploy their networks in a manner that
is consistent with the Commission's goal of establishing a fully
interoperable Nation-wide broadband public safety network.
First, the Commission has proposed ``to offer simultaneously three
alternative sets of licenses that vary by geographic license area and
by conditions regarding the technology platform that must be used by
the licensee(s). Specifically, under this proposal, the Commission
would offer: (1) A single license for service Nation-wide with the
technology platform to be determined by the licensee; (2) a Nation-wide
set of PSR licenses conditioned on the use of Long Term Evolution (LTE)
by the licensees; and (3) a Nation-wide set of PSR licenses conditioned
on the use of Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access (WiMAX)
by the licensees.''\26\ Thus, a regional auction will result in the
selection of a common air interface technology (either Wi-Max or LTE-
based) that all regional licensees will be required to deploy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the Commission has proposed detailed performance
requirements and technical standards that will uniformly govern
construction and operation of the shared wireless broadband network by
all regional D Block licensees. These clarifications and revisions
address: ``(1) the use of spectrum in the shared wireless broadband
network, including requirements regarding public safety priority access
to commercial capacity in emergencies; (2) the technical requirements
of the shared wireless broadband network; (3) the performance
requirements of the D Block licensee(s); and (4) the respective
operational roles of the D Block licensee(s) and the Public Safety
Broadband Licensee.''\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Id. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the technical requirements of the network, the
Commission has stated that ``in addition to our proposal regarding the
broadband technology platform, we make detailed proposals regarding (1)
interoperability and public safety roaming; (2) availability,
robustness, and hardening of the network; (3) capacity, throughput, and
quality of service; (4) security and encryption; (5) power limits,
power flux density limits, and related notification and coordination
requirements; and (6) ensuring the availability of a satellite-capable
handset.''\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Id. at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 2. It is not uncommon for some licenses in an auction to
remain unsold. If the auction proceeds on a regional basis, how will
the FCC ensure that all areas of the country are eventually covered by
the 700 MHz network?
Answer. In the Third Further Notice, the Commission has proposed a
series of measures to encourage full Nation-wide coverage and minimize
the risk that some regions will remain unsold. Specifically, the
proposed auction rules are designed to favor the bidder or bidders who
seek to cover the most population. The Commission tentatively
concluded, ``as an initial matter, that we will not award any licenses
unless the total population covered by licenses with high bids meets or
exceeds fifty percent (50 percent) of the U.S. population. Setting the
requirement at half of the population should help assure that
sufficient licenses are assigned after the next auction to facilitate
the ultimate success of a nationwide interoperable broadband network
for public safety.''\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Id. at 246.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission further tentatively concluded that, ``if the fifty
percent (50 percent) population threshold is met, winning bidders will
be determined according to the following criteria. If there is no
nationwide bid and there are not high bids on all regional licenses in
either set, the bidder(s) with high bid(s) on the D Block license(s) in
the technology alternative covering the greatest aggregate population
will become the winning bidders after the close of bidding. Similarly,
if there is a nationwide bid but not high bids on all licenses in
either regional set, the bidder for the nationwide license will become
the winning bidder by covering the greatest aggregate population. In
the event that there is a bid on the nationwide license and on all
licenses in either regional set, the set of licenses with the highest
aggregate gross bid(s) will become the winning bidder(s). Similarly, in
the event that there is no nationwide bid and the greatest aggregate
population is covered equally by the high bids in the two sets of
regional licenses, the high bidder(s) for license(s) in the set with
the highest aggregate gross bid(s) will become the winning bidder(s).
Thus, we will look first to population coverage to determine the
winning set of licenses, and to the highest aggregate bid amounts only
if the population coverage is equal.''\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Id. at 247.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rules also include ``procedures to reduce minimum
opening bids on unsold regional licenses during bidding. . . . First,
if there is a bid for the nationwide license, neither alternative set
of regional licenses has received bids on all 58 licenses, and the sum
of the provisionally winning bids for either set of regional licenses
is greater than the amount of the nationwide license bid, then the
Bureau will lower the minimum opening bids for the regional licenses
that do not have bids. Second, if there is not a bid for the nationwide
license and there are bids in either set of regional licenses that
cover at least half the nation's population, then the Bureau will lower
the minimum opening bids for the regional licenses that do not have
bids.''\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Id. at 248-249.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission also proposed ``to take prompt action to assign any
licenses remaining unsold if an auction meets the minimum coverage
requirement and yet there is no winning bidder in some regions.''\32\
First, ``[i]n order to realize the benefits of a truly nationwide
network, we propose that under such unique circumstances, . . . the
Commission should depart from its standard approach of offering
commercial licenses to the applicant making the highest bid without
reference to the applicant's particular business plan and instead
conduct a Request for Proposal (RFP) process, incorporating
consideration of applicant's proposals together with their bids.''\33\
Alternatively, the Third Further Notice seeks comment on whether to
``re-allocate the spectrum so that it can be assigned to the Public
Safety Broadband Licensee. The PSBL would then request the submission
of detailed proposals from would-be licensees regarding how they would
deploy an interoperable broadband network useable for public safety in
the applicable region in partnership with the D block licenses won at
the auction.''\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Id. at 255.
\33\ Id.
\34\ Id. at 256.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 3. Why did the FCC decide to lower the reserve price for
the D Block from $1.33 billion to $750 million? How did the FCC
determine that $750 million is an appropriate price?
Answer. Because no bidder met the reserve price in Auction 73,
lowering the total amount that would have to be paid by winning bidders
in an upcoming auction should increase the likelihood that the next
auction will attract a winning bidder or bidders to develop an
interoperable shared broadband network for the public-private
partnership.
For Auction 73 the reserve price for the D Block was $1.33 billion,
and the minimum opening bid for the D Block license was $472,042,000.
One bid was placed for the D Block license at the minimum opening bid
amount in the first round, but no higher bids were placed for that
license.
The minimum opening bids proposed in the Third Further Notice for
each D Block regional licenses range from approximately $0.02-$0.45 per
MHz-pop. In addition, as described above, the Commission tentatively
concluded that it would substantially reduce minimum opening bids
during the auction under specific circumstances. Since licenses that
were won in Auction 73 sold for approximately $0.02-$9.19 per MHz-pop,
with a weighted average of $1.28 per MHz-pop, the Commission's proposed
minimum opening bids for the D Block fall at the lower end of this
range, consistent with the objectives of promoting auction
participation.
Question 4. Is the FCC aware of the work that the Office of
Command, Control, and Interoperability, of the Science and Technology
Directorate at the Department of Homeland Security, is doing with
regard to technology development? Is there regular coordination between
your respective offices?
Answer. Yes, the FCC is aware of the work that the Office of
Command, Control, and Interoperability (OCCI) is doing with regard to
technology development. Bureau staff regularly interacts with staff
from OCCI as well as with NTIA's Institute for Telecommunication
Sciences, which the OCCI funds for performing much of the engineering
and technical work particularly concerning the 700 MHz public safety
broadband proceeding.
Question 5. How is the FCC ensuring that its efforts to achieve a
successful re-auction of the 700 MHz spectrum are adequately
considering the varied and diverse needs of first responders across the
country?
Answer. In developing its proposals for re-auction of the 700 MHz
spectrum, the Commission has sought extensive input from the public
safety community at each step in the process. When the Commission
issued the Second Further Notice, it not only sought comment on a broad
variety of options for reauctioning the D Block and potentially
reconfiguring the public/private partnership, but it also committed to
issue a detailed proposal and request an additional round of comments
before reaching a final decision. The Commission has followed through
on that commitment in the Third Further Notice, which proposes a number
of significant changes to the rules governing the D Block, the Public
Safety Broadband Licensee, and the public/private partnership based on
ideas and recommendations received from public safety organizations and
officials, government representatives, wireless carriers, and
manufacturers across the country. Based on the final comments it
receives, the Commission will seek to adopt final rules that further
the goal of deploying a fully interoperable Nation-wide broadband
network while remaining responsive to the diverse needs of local first
responders.
Questions From Chairman Henry Cuellar of Texas for Mr. Chris Essid,
Director, Office of Emergency Communications, Department of Homeland
Security
Question 1a. What is OEC doing to provide technical assistance to
assist States who are prepared to implement their State Communications
Interoperability Plans (SCIPs) and the National Emergency
Communications Plan (NECP), in a matter consistent with the 700 MHz
auction?
Answer. The Office of Emergency Communications (OEC) will continue
to provide a variety of technical assistance services to help States,
urban areas, and territories implement the goals and initiatives
outlined in their Statewide Communications Interoperability Plans
(SCIPs) and to assist them in aligning their State-wide plans with the
National Emergency Communications Plan (NECP). OEC's technical
assistance offerings include governance, engineering services, and
operational and communications training. As part of its engineering
offerings, OEC works with the States in supporting land mobile radio
and provides assistance with system migration, which can include 700
MHz spectrum.
Availability of standard operating procedures, governance,
available funding, usage and technology were just a few of the factors
taken into consideration during the development of the technical
assistance prioritization plan. Each State technical assistance request
was reviewed by OEC, and its impact on the goals and initiatives listed
in the NECP and the State's SCIP were taken into consideration during
the prioritization process. Additionally, States with a low level of
communications capability but a high threat level will receive a
greater level of support from OEC than those with similar threat levels
but higher capabilities.
Question 1b. How does the Department foresee the implementation of
the NECP, released on July 31, 2008, if the D Block auction is further
delayed?
Answer. OEC will continue to maintain the current NECP
implementation schedule. If there were to be any further delays of the
D Block auction, OEC does not anticipate a negative impact on the NECP
implementation given the strategic nature of the plan and its delivery
schedule, and because the NECP does not set out any specific
recommendations or milestones for that particular band. The NECP does
recognize that advanced broadband services and emerging communications
technologies are tools to aid in cross-jurisdictional communications.
Question 2. Please detail the specific collaborations and analysis
that occurred between the Office of Emergency Communications and the
FCC as it relates to the claim that the 58 FCC public safety regions
can operate in a manner consistent with the SCIPS and the NECP.
Answer. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) participated in
the development of the National Emergency Communications Plan (NECP) as
part of its close collaboration with the Office of Emergency
Communications and other Federal agencies in the Emergency
Communications Preparedness Center Working Group on the NECP. Going
forward, one of the challenges in implementing the NECP, building upon
the work already accomplished through the development of the SCIPs and
improving emergency communications at all levels of government, is to
ensure greater coordination on a regional basis. The OEC also worked
with the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council Spectrum
Committee to ensure that the FCC issues were addressed from the
stakeholders' perspective. OEC will continue to work closely with the
FCC, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and other
stakeholders to foster such regional coordination in the FCC public
safety regions, the FEMA-administered Regional Emergency Communications
Coordination Working Groups, and other regional forums such as the
National Capitol Region to ensure that such regional efforts align
consistently with the SCIPs and NECP.
Question 3a. As you know from the make-up of the PSST board, public
safety entities are understandably protective of their spectrum.
How does OEC plan to collaborate with public safety entities to
turn over control of their spectrum to the PSST?
Question 3b. How has the OEC coordinated with the PSST in the past
and what level of collaboration is needed to ensure a successful re-
auction in the future?
Answer. The Office of Emergency Communications (OEC) has worked
with the Public Safety Spectrum Trust (PSST), as the public safety
broadband licensee, in coordination with the Federal Partnership for
Interoperable Communications to ensure that the PSST was aware of the
views of Federal user members concerning access to the proposed Nation-
wide broadband public safety network by Federal emergency responders.
OEC is not aware of any proposed requirements in the Federal
Communications Commission's pending rulemakings for this band that
would oblige public safety entities to transfer control of their
licensed spectrum to the PSST. Instead, the PSST is envisioned to be
the sole public safety licensee for the Nation-wide broadband public
safety network, through which public safety access to the network would
be coordinated.
As stated at the hearing, OEC stands ready to offer whatever
assistance it can to ensure the successful conclusion of the FCC's
rulemaking, the re-auction of the commercial spectrum in that band, and
any other steps needed to successfully deploy the network.
Questions From Ranking Member Charles W. Dent of Pennsylvania for Mr.
Chris Essid, Director, Office of Emergency Communications, Department
of Homeland Security
Question 1. What is your perspective on the 700 MHz D Block and how
do you envision it will assist our Nation's first responders? Do you
believe the approach being taken by the FCC to auction the spectrum
(i.e. a national versus regional auction) is consistent with the
``bottom-up'' approach to first responder communications as advocated
in the SAFECOM continuum?
Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication.
Question 2. Communications technologies have rapidly evolved over
the years, and ensuring that first responders have access to state-of-
the-art communications capabilities is critical. The National Emergency
Communications Plan appears to recognize this fact and established as
one of its objectives the need to integrate emerging technologies with
current emergency communications capabilities.
Does the Department of Homeland Security plan to promote the use of
``commercialized'' technologies like those widely deployed by the
wireless industry? What benefits and challenges might this present to
first responders?
Answer. The National Emergency Communications Plan (NECP) is a
technology-neutral strategy--it does not favor a particular
communications device nor does it identify a preferred swath of
spectrum for public safety use. It recognizes that technology is just
one element in the overall ``fix'' to improve interoperability, along
with standard operating procedures, governance, planning, and training
and exercises.
The plan, however, does recognize the benefits of getting advanced
broadband services, including commercially available technologies, into
the hands of our Nation's first responders and proposes solutions to
spur the deployment of emerging communication technologies. In
addition, the plan recognizes the importance of coordination and
partnership among the public and private sectors. The NECP also
encourages the aggregation of emergency response agencies' user
requirements during the development of emerging technologies to
increase the effectiveness of the private sector in developing
standardized products and services.
Questions From Chairman Henry Cuellar of Texas for Dr. David Boyd,
Director, Command, Control, and Interoperability Division, Science and
Technology Directorate, Department of Homeland Security
Question 1. Do you believe that the public-private partnership
network for public safety broadband communications can be successfully
built and operated as a commercially viable system without some form of
public subsidy?
Answer. It is the administration's position that the Federal
Communications Commission's (FCC) proposed public-private partnership
is a unique framework for balancing public safety and commercial
broadband capabilities. There are many factors that will determine the
commercial viability of this model. To aid its prospects for success,
we understand that the FCC is seeking to clarify through a rulemaking
the terms of the partnership in advance of a re-auction of the 700 MHz
``D block''. We understand that no explicit public subsidy has been
proposed, therefore, commercial viability is central to ensuring that
the potential benefits of this model are realized. Of course, bid
prices for the spectrum being auctioned reflect the value to the
private sector under the partnership model and, to the extent they are
below prices for spectrum that is solely used for commercial purposes,
represent an implicit form of taxpayer support for the partnership.
Furthermore, the FCC notes that the comment period in question closed
on November 12, 2008, and that a number of commercial entities filed
comments expressing interest in bidding on the D block.
Question 2. As you know from the make-up of the PSST board, public
safety entities are understandably protective of their spectrum.
How does DHS plan to collaborate with public safety entities to
turn over control of their spectrum to the PSST? In your response
please list the public safety entities, discuss timetables, identify
milestones and goals, and share corresponding charts that illustrate
the ``turn-over'' of the spectrum to the PSST.
Answer. The congressionally mandated digital television transition
will free vital spectrum for use by the emergency response community as
television broadcasters return the analog broadcast spectrum they
currently occupy. Through this transition, which is to occur no later
than February 17, 2009, the FCC has proposed that a single Nation-wide
license be issued for 10 MHz of the 700 MHz public safety band that has
been designed for broadband use. The FCC has issued a single Nation-
wide license for the public safety 700 MHz broadband allocation to the
Public Safety Broadband Licensee (PSBL). This transition does not
affect any existing public safety spectrum currently being used by
emergency responders across the Nation, nor does it affect that part of
the 700 MHz band that will be directly licensed to public safety
agencies. To be clear, while some 700 MHz narrowband public safety
operations will be relocated due to a change in the band plan for this
spectrum, these licensees will retain the same number of channels they
currently hold once relocated. The FCC has proposed to require the D
Block licensee to fund this relocation. The Department of Homeland
Security does not have jurisdiction over this process; the FCC is the
lead on this transition.
The Office of Emergency Communications has worked with the Public
Safety Spectrum Trust (PSST) in coordination with the Federal
Partnership for Interoperable Communications to ensure that the PSST
was aware of the views of Federal user members concerning access to the
proposed Nation-wide broadband public safety network by Federal
emergency responders. DHS is not aware of any proposed requirements in
the Federal Communications Commission's pending rulemakings for this
band that would oblige public safety entities to transfer control of
their licensed spectrum to the PSST. Instead, the PSST is envisioned to
be the sole public safety licensee for the Nation-wide broadband public
safety network, through which public safety access to the network would
be coordinated.
As stated at the hearing, DHS stands ready to offer whatever
assistance it can to ensure the successful conclusion of the FCC's
rulemaking, the re-auction of the commercial spectrum in that band, and
any other steps needed to successfully deploy the network.
Question 3. What are the biggest technological impediments to
achieving full coverage of a jurisdiction under a national network and
regional network?
Answer. There are no unsolvable technological impediments to
achieving full coverage of a jurisdiction under either a national or a
regional network. The overarching impediment is cost. The central
question on whether we use a national or a regional network depends
upon whether there will be enough subscribers to pay for the
infrastructure required to provide coverage in a given area.
Furthermore, the FCC docket considering the issues raised remains open
and the commission has sought comment on the costs of either approach.
Questions From Ranking Member Charles W. Dent of Pennsylvania for Dr.
David Boyd, Director, Command, Control, and Interoperability Division,
Science and Technology Directorate, Department of Homeland Security
Question 1. Are there certain technologies that would function more
efficiently if the 700 MHz network were to be built on a national
versus a regional basis?
Answer. It is the administration's position that in the context of
a regional system approach in the 700 MHz band, common standards would
be beneficial to the interoperability of the network during incidents
that cross regional licensing boundaries. The DHS Science and
Technology Directorate's Office for Interoperability and Compatibility
has supported a system of systems approach whereby each regional system
would work as part of a larger national system. The system of systems
approach allows separate agencies to join together using interface
standards, compatible procedures, and training exercises without having
to discard major investments in their existing systems.
Question 2. Will most of the communication devices currently used
by first responders work on a future 700 MHz network or will
jurisdictions be required to purchase new devices?
Answer. It is the administration's position that most communication
devices currently in use in the field were never intended for broadband
use on the 700 MHz band. Therefore, very few of the current
communication devices will be functional on the 700 MHz band. To the
extent that public safety agencies desire to use the 700 MHz band and
do not possess devices that operate on those frequencies, they will
need to consider purchasing new equipment, using patching technologies,
or possibly modifying their existing equipment. Investment decisions
will vary depending on circumstances, and DHS will work with its State
and local partners to evaluate equipment needs and cost-effective
investment approaches. It is worth noting that the National Baseline
Survey on Interoperability found that agencies tend to be more
developed in technology than in other areas of interoperability, such
as standard operating procedures. DHS is using these findings to focus
its grant funding in areas that will bring about effective approaches
toward advancing interoperability.
Question 3. The National Capitol Region received a waiver from the
FCC in order to develop its 700 MHz network. Do you believe that the
FCC should grant a similar waiver to New York City which would allow
the city to build a network on its own but within the guidelines
established by the FCC?
Answer. The National Capitol Region was granted a temporary waiver
to operate on the 700 MHz band. The FCC has continued to grant
renewable Special Temporary Authority for the operations of the
National Capitol Region in the 700 MHz band, consistent with its Second
Report and Order, which will allow this network to operate until such
time as the Nation-wide network is deployed in the area. The FCC has
also sought comment on permitting early local public safety broadband
build out, so long as such networks would be fully interoperable with,
and ultimately fully integrated into, the Nation-wide public safety
network. It is the administration's position that the public-private
partnership proposed by the FCC represents a potential means to enhance
public safety interoperability and broadband capability. It would be
premature to recommend waivers for local jurisdictions until the
viability of the proposed partnership model is fully assessed.
Question 4. What is your perspective on the 700 MHz D Block and how
do you envision it will assist our Nation's first responders? Do you
believe the approach being taken by the FCC to auction the spectrum
(i.e. a national versus regional auction) is consistent with the
``bottom-up'' approach to first responder communications as advocated
in the SAFECOM continuum?
Answer. The emergency response community has long sought additional
spectrum for mission-critical activities. The additional 700 MHz
spectrum is essential to the emergency response community and helps to
satisfy these needs. The public safety broadband spectrum in the 700
MHz band, which has the ability to support voice, text, imagery,
schematics, video, and other broadband applications, has already been
licensed to the Public Safety Spectrum Trust on a Nation-wide basis.
Additional 700 MHz narrowband spectrum is available for local licensing
and use. The Commission has also proposed licensing the commercial
spectrum as part of the public/private partnership to be paired with
the public safety broadband allocation either on a Nation-wide basis,
or on the basis of 58 regions. The Commission has proposed to assess
the winning set of licenses based first on the greatest population
coverage, followed by the highest aggregate bid(s). Emergency
responders have a compelling interest in broadband communications on
the 700 MHz band. Whatever decision is made on the broadband network,
it is essential that spectrum remain available to emergency responders.
Questions From Chairman Henry Cuellar of Texas for Mr. Richard Mirgon,
First Vice President, Association of Public-Safety Communications
Officials
Question 1. Do you believe that the public-private partnership
network for public safety broadband communications can be successfully
built and operated as a commercially viable system without some form of
public subsidy? Please detail the supporting argument for APCO's
position.
Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication.
Question 2a. As you know from the make-up of the PSST board, public
safety entities are understandably protective of their spectrum.
What is APCO's plan to collaborate with public safety entities to
turn over control of their spectrum to the PSST? In your response
please list the public safety entities, discuss timetables, identify
milestones and goals, and share corresponding charts that illustrate
the ``turn-over'' of the spectrum to the PSST.
Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication.
Question 3. Please state clearly for the record, whether APCO
supports a national or regional deployment of a public safety
communications network. In your response, please detail the policy
reasons that support APCO's position.
Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication.
Questions From Ranking Member Charles W. Dent of Pennsylvania for Mr.
Richard Mirgon, First Vice President, Association of Public-Safety
Communications Officials
Question 1. Several months ago there were reports that the
Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO) was
threatening to cut ties with the current Public Safety Spectrum Trust
(PSST) over discussions regarding the on-going 700 MHz auction. What is
APCO's position with regard to the Public Safety Spectrum Trust's
handling of the 700 MHz D Block auction?
Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication.
Question 2a. In August, APCO suggested changes to the FCC rules
that would significantly enhance the incentive for potential bidders by
doubling the spectrum available from a 10-MHz block to a 20-MHz block.
Please discuss why APCO believed this proposal would increase the
likelihood of success in a second D Block auction.
Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication.
Question 2b. Is this still the stance of APCO?
Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication.
Questions From Chairman Henry Cuellar of Texas for Mr. John M.
Contestabile, Board Member, Public Safety Spectrum Trust
Question 1. Please state clearly for the record, whether the Public
Safety Spectrum Trust (PSST) advocates a national or regional
deployment of a public safety communications network. In your response,
please detail the policy reasons that support the PSST's position.
Answer. Although the PSST, the Public Safety Broadband Licensee
(PSBL), retains a preference for a single, Nation-wide ``D Block''
spectrum (D Block) license, it has begun exploring the merits of a
State or regional licensing approach for the commercial D Block
spectrum that will be paired with the PSBL spectrum to create the
public safety-commercial partnership for the shared wireless broadband
network (SWBN). The PSST strongly believes that the country's first
responders need a Nation-wide, interoperable broadband network.
However, the PSST also believes that goal can be achieved under a
regional licensing approach for the D Block, as long as the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) mandates a single air interface
technology to be used throughout the Nation-wide network and a legally
binding governance structure among any multiple regional D Block
licensees to facilitate the interactions among the D Block licensees
and the PSBL, and to ensure interoperability and Nation-wide roaming.
Although deployment of a single air interface technology and the need
to work with a single D Block licensee would be a given if a single
bidder were to acquire a Nation-wide D Block license, the PSST believes
that since such a result cannot be assured, it is prudent--with the
requirement of a single technology and common commercial licensee
governance structure noted above--to offer to prospective D Block
regional license bidders an alternate route to reach the PSST's desired
Nation-wide interoperable broadband network goal.
The PSST believes assigning the D Block spectrum to local or
regional entities without the provisions stated above would be a
serious mistake. Without a requirement for a common air interface,
different localities or regions could opt for technologies that would
be incompatible with each other. As noted above, a legally binding
governance structure among multiple regional D Block licensees provides
an effective mechanism for communications with the PSBL and would
facilitate roaming for first responders among the regions.
Question 2. As you know from the make-up of the PSST board, public
safety entities are understandably protective of their spectrum. In
your response please list the public safety entities, discuss
timetables, identify milestones and goals, and share corresponding
charts that illustrate the ``turn-over'' of the spectrum to the PSST.
Answer. In 1997 Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997,
and the President signed into law, legislation designating 24 MHz of
spectrum in the upper 700 MHz band to public safety. The FCC designated
12 MHz of this spectrum for narrowband voice communications channels
and 12 MHz of the spectrum for wideband communications. With the gains
in technology over the next 10 years which introduced broadband
technologies, the FCC re-designated the 12 MHz of wideband spectrum for
broadband use and subsequently issued a Nation-wide license for that 12
MHz broadband spectrum to the PSST for use in a public-private
partnership. Specifically, the partnership would combine the PSST's
license with an adjoining 10 MHz of spectrum (the D Block) in which to
build a Nation-wide mobile broadband network and enable Nation-wide
public safety communications interoperability. This 12 MHz of broadband
spectrum was originally licensed by the FCC directly to the PSST on
November 19, 2007, and has never been licensed to any other public
safety entity or entities. The FCC is completing its rulemaking
concerning the build-out requirements and other requirements for this
spectrum, and the PSST will begin planning its deployment timetables
and milestones once the FCC releases its final order and rules and
consistent with a subsequent Network Services Agreement to be
negotiated with the D Block winner[s].
Question 3. In several instances--at a hearing before the Energy
and Commerce Committee in March 2008, in several publications, and in
the second D Block notice of the FCC--there have been calls for the
PSST to improve its transparency with regard to organizational
structure. There have also been calls for the PSST to clarify its
position regarding the D Block.
Please identify the specific steps that the PSST has taken to
demonstrate transparency. In your response, please demonstrate how
those specific steps have improved the auction process.
Answer. Only incorporated in June 2007, the PSST took many steps to
demonstrate transparency well before the March 2008 hearing. Even
before the PSST became an FCC licensee, it launched a robust public web
site (found at www.psst.org) on or about November 13, 2007 (within days
of it becoming the PSBL upon formal award of the Nation-wide public
safety broadband license in accordance with an open application and
qualification process as prescribed in a public rulemaking process by
the FCC) that contained extensive information about the PSST and the
contemplated public safety network. Under the ``About the PSST'' link
on that web site, the PSST posted a description of the PSST, a list of
its 15 member organizations, the names of the board representatives of
those member organizations, the names and bios of the members of its
Executive Committee, its Articles of Incorporation and its Bylaws. The
PSST web site also set forth a history of public safety communications
leading up to the FCC decision to create a public safety-commercial
partnership to establish a Nation-wide, interoperable public safety
broadband network as well as a summary of that FCC decision and a
description of the PSST's vision of such a public safety broadband
network. In addition to providing contact information and a link to all
the PSST's news releases, the PSST web site also included much
additional information on the future public safety broadband network.
Per the FCC's 2nd Report and Order adopted in July 2007 (2nd Report
and Order), the FCC required the envisioned Nation-wide D Block auction
winner to negotiate an NSA with the PSBL. In response to requests from
potential D Block bidders,\1\ but without any FCC requirement to do so,
the PSST also demonstrated great transparency by devoting significant
resources to create and post on its public web site a detailed Bidder
Information Document (BID). The BID set forth the PSST's expectations
and preferences for the SWBN, subject to negotiation of the NSA. The
PSST released BID version 1.0 on the PSST web site on November 15, 2007
so all interested parties would understand public safety's expectations
and preferences prior to the filing deadline to participate in the
auction.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Potential bidders requesting guidance on public safety
expectations for the SWBN included AT&T, Frontline Wireless and
Verizon.
\2\ After further input from potential bidders, the PSST released
version 2.0 (the final version) of the BID on its web site on November
30, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PSST initiated the BID process in a transparent way by asking
the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) to create
a draft set of technical expectations. Many public safety and industry
representatives contributed to the NPSTC work product, including
industry representatives of potential bidders.\3\ NPSTC published its
set of technical specifications on its own web site. In addition, the
PSST sought--and held--numerous meetings with potential bidders in
connection with the development of the BID.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ NPSTC published a list of more than 50 public safety
contributors and more than 20 industry contributors to its technical
expectations document available at http://www.npstc.org/documents/
700%20SoR%20Participants%20v2.pdf. The industry participant list
includes wireless vendors and carriers such as Airvana, Alcatel-Lucent,
AT&T, Ericsson, Frontline Wireless, Inmarsat, Motorola, Nortel,
Northrop Grumman, Tyco Electronics, Qualcomm and Verizon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the above demonstrations of transparency by the PSST helped
the initial auction process by giving potential bidders information
about the PSST, the entity with whom the D Block auction winner would
negotiate the NSA, to reduce uncertainty about its negotiating partner.
The PSST actions also assisted the auction process by providing very
specific information regarding the PSST's expectations and preferences
regarding the SWBN in advance of the auction so potential bidders could
consider those factors when they analyzed the business case for a
possible D Block bid.
After the auction, the PSST continued to demonstrate further
transparency by considering enhancements to its corporate governance
procedures despite the fact that it had been in existence only a few
calendar quarters. Those changes under consideration by the PSST board
include opening board meetings to the public, making minutes of board
meetings available to the public and posting annual financial
statements on-line. Such changes would provide additional transparency
that could help a future auction by providing additional information
about the PSST to potential bidders.
Of course, transparency must be balanced against the reality that
the PSST also must consider the interests of the prospective public
safety users on the contemplated Nation-wide network, some of which may
be safeguarded by FCC rules, and some of which may be protected in the
process of arms' length negotiation to reach an NSA between the PSST
and the D Block licensee(s). So, the PSST should not be compelled to
disclose all of its deliberations, negotiating strategies and potential
areas of compromise or tradeoff publicly--thereby making that
information available to bidders that the PSST might find ``on the
other side of the negotiating table'', any more than such bidders
should be required to disclose their true minimally acceptable
positions on all important issues to participate in the D Block
auction. The PSST believes that it has provided and continues to
provide guidance and relevant reasoning as to its positions and has
made those publicly available, both in its publicly filed comments in
FCC proceedings and through the materials posted on its web site, and
has earnestly solicited and received equally candid and helpful input
from potential D Block bidders.
Question 4. Do you believe the public-private partnership network
for public safety broadband communications can be successfully built
and operated as a commercially viable system without some form of
public subsidy?
Answer. To answer the question, it is useful to look at the SWBN as
what it is--a commercial network and a public safety network using a
common infrastructure. I will defer to others with more expertise on
the economics of a commercial network, but I have no reason to believe
that the commercial network portion of the SWBN would require any
public subsidy to be successfully built and operated. The public safety
network, however, will require public expenditures. At a minimum, State
and local government first responders will need public funds to buy
wireless broadband equipment for the network \4\ and pay monthly access
charges.\5\ Further governmental assistance would be welcome in other
areas such as: for PSST operating expenses, subsidization of public
safety devices, subsidization of public safety service access charges
and assistance for network construction in places where such
construction may not be otherwise economically viable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Given the potential economies of scale (see, e.g., 370 of 2nd
Report and Order) of a Nation-wide public safety system using
commercial hardware, the costs of SWBN devices should compare favorably
to public safety devices used today on balkanized largely local
networks.
\5\ In the 2nd Report and Order, the FCC stated it believed the
public safety service fees ``will in fact be lower than typical
commercial rates for analogous services.'' 2nd Report and Order at
451.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions From Ranking Member Charles W. Dent of Pennsylvania for Mr.
John M. Contestabile, Board Member, Public Safety Spectrum Trust
Question 1. How does the PSST ensure that its policy
recommendations represent all public safety concerns, including those
of the major cities like New York?
Answer. The PSST is a nonprofit corporation established to provide
public safety leadership an organizational structure through which
decisions can be made to guide the construction and operation of a
Nation-wide wireless broadband network for public safety. The PSST
works hard to represent all State and local public safety concerns. One
way the PSST represents the broad array of State and local public
safety organizations, such as those serving in a major city like New
York, is through the membership of its board of directors. The PSST
board of directors consists of representatives of organizations
representing local, county and State public safety organizations and
the local, county and State governments who employ them. Through its
rulemaking process, the FCC mandated the representation of each such
organization on the PSST board. The organizations represented on the
PSST board are:
1. American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO)
2. American Hospital Association (AHA)
3. Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials--
International (APCO)
4. Forestry Conservation Communications Association (FCCA)
5. International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)
6. International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC)
7. International City/County Management Association (ICMA)
8. International Municipal Signal Association (IMSA)
9. National Association of State Emergency Medical Services
Officials (NASEMSO)
10. National Association of State 9-1-1 Administrators (NASNA)
11. National Emergency Management Association (NEMA)
12. National Emergency Number Association (NENA)
13. National Fraternal Order of Police (NFOP)
14. National Governors Association (NGA)
15. National Sheriffs' Association (NSA)
As demonstrated by the nature of the above organizations, the
directors represent groups with thousands of first responders and local
government officials in major cities.
Another way the PSST seeks to represent varied public safety
concerns is through the expertise and job experience of its board
members. Members of the PSST board bring decades of critical and
directly relevant experience in many types of public safety
organizations to their PSST assignment and, through that experience,
have a keen understanding of public safety needs. That understanding
provides the PSST with essential tools to help direct policy
recommendations.
Yet another way the PSST works to represent all public safety
concerns is through its outreach activity in general and communications
with State and local public safety groups in particular. PSST board
members and service providers to the PSST have attended and spoken at
dozens of public safety conferences and meetings during the last 12
months. At these events, PSST board members and its service providers
have sought input from conference and meeting leaders--and rank-and-
file members--to inform them on current needs, trends and opinions from
the public safety community. Furthermore, the PSST board members and
its service providers have been speakers and members of presentation
panels to help explain the proposed Nation-wide public safety broadband
system and the opportunities it presents.
Apart from conferences and meetings, PSST board members communicate
directly with Federal, State and local public safety officials to help
PSST board members understand the needs of those officials.\6\ For
example, the PSST Chairman recently traveled to New York City to
discuss New York City's public safety needs directly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ To help communicate with public safety organizations, the PSST
also established a robust web site (found at www.psst.org) to provide
background information on the PSST, to explain further the proposed
Nation-wide, interoperable broadband public safety network and to
identify PSST contact information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As hard as the PSST works to represent all public safety, however,
it of course cannot guarantee unanimous support among all public safety
entities on a PSST policy decision any more than a congressional
representative can count on 100 percent agreement among his or her
constituents on any given issue or vote. To that end, I realize my
fellow hearing witness from New York city offered a different view from
the PSST on the need for a Nation-wide interoperable public safety
broadband network even though that network has received wide and strong
support from public safety organizations around the country. At the
hearing, I specifically commended the city of New York for putting
together the essential ingredients that have permitted it to deploy an
advanced broadband network. As I also said at the hearing, however, if
New York's access to funding could be replicated throughout the rest of
the country, we would be facing a much less challenging future.
Unfortunately, funding for comparable dedicated public safety-only
networks is lacking for almost all other State and local jurisdictions
and history has proven it will take a national effort to create Nation-
wide seamless interoperability. The PSST therefore respectfully
disagrees with the city of New York's current position on the Nation-
wide, interoperable public safety broadband network.
Question 2. If the FCC proceeds with the spectrum auction based on
58 regions, how would the PSST manage its relationship with these
regional licensees?
Answer. Subsequent to the hearing, the FCC adopted its 3rd FNPRM
concerning the Nation-wide public safety broadband network on September
25, 2008. In that 3rd FNPRM, the FCC proposed offering the D Block at
auction as both a single, Nation-wide license and as regional licenses
covering 58 regions.\7\ If the D Block spectrum is licensed on a
regional basis, no one of course can know at this time the number of
distinct regional licensees that would result from such an auction.
But, I would expect that the number of D Block licensees will be fewer
than the number of regions since it seems likely that an entity or
entities will win more than one region if they are interested in this
spectrum. That said, managing the PSST's relationship with multiple
regional licensees will be challenging and frankly will likely require
more PSST resources than just interfacing with one national licensee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 3rd FNPRM at 63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PSST notes that the FCC's 3rd FNPRM seeks comment on a proposal
that if the D Block is licensed on a regional basis to multiple
entities, the FCC adopt a ``legally binding governance structure''
among the multiple regional D Block licensees ``to facilitate
interactions among multiple D Block licensees and the PSST, and to
ensure interoperability and nationwide roaming.''\8\ If the FCC grants
regional D Block licenses to multiple entities, the PSST believes that
such a governance structure will be essential to help it manage its
relationship with such licensees in an effective and efficient manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 3rd FNPRM at 173.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 3. Would public safety communications benefit if the FCC
were to grant more spectrum waivers similar to the waiver issued to the
National Capital Region? Provided that these 700 MHz networks are
eventually amalgamated into the national network, would these waivers
facilitate faster network deployment?
Answer. FCC authority to permit interim temporary deployments
similar to the system built by the National Capital Region may or may
not benefit public safety communications and/or facilitate a faster
rollout of a Nation-wide, interoperable public safety broadband
network. Such grants of special temporary authority by the FCC will
only benefit public safety communications if the jurisdiction seeking
such authority has sufficient resources to design, build, maintain and
hopefully upgrade a network that will effectively work and will allow
first responders to talk and share data on that network. That is, until
the shared commercial-public safety network replaces that interim,
temporary network. In other words, FCC permission itself without a
funded and workable follow-through plan will not itself benefit public
safety communications. Moreover, if the jurisdiction wishes to recover
a substantial part of the cost of its early network deployment--
consistent with the PSST's preference for a smooth and rapid transition
from that network to a shared commercial-public safety network--there
would need to be close coordination and agreement between the
jurisdiction and the relevant D Block licensee. In particular, the
relevant D Block licensee needs to ensure that network design and
construction in the affected area is done in such a way as to allow for
easy integration into the Nation-wide, interoperable broadband network
that the D Block Licensee(s) deploys in other areas. [Network design
and construction--particularly in large, urban areas--is not a rapid
process, but funding is more readily available for such construction in
the largest markets. It is worth noting that while it is very likely
that only major metropolitan areas could assemble the funding needed to
construct a modern, commercial open standard broadband network, it is
in precisely those same markets where the commercial D Block
licensee(s) would have strong economic incentives to deploy the shared
commercial-public safety network the earliest.]
Therefore, the capability to fund and implement a system under a
waiver would also be essential for such FCC authority to facilitate
faster network deployment. In addition, such FCC authority would only
help quicken network deployment if the local system is built with an
air interface compatible with the system used by the D Block
licensee(s)--such that it is therefore later able to be part of the
larger Nation-wide, interoperable network. If the local system is built
with an incompatible technology, or with a customized public safety-
specific operating system, it will do little to hasten the Nation-wide
interoperable broadband network's deployment.
Thank you for the opportunity to answer your questions and please
contact me if you need any additional information regarding these
matters.
Questions From Chairman Henry Cuellar of Texas for Mr. LeRoy T.
Carlson, Chairman of the Board, U.S. Cellular
Question 1. On page 4 of your testimony, you recommend that the FCC
rule for the D Block address issues such as ``reliability, coverage,
public safety preemption, back-up power, security, and major service
features.'' You argue that if the rules are commercially reasonable,
then companies will be inclined to invest in the partnership.
As a representative of the private sector, please provide the
subcommittee with specific examples of what would attract a company to
invest in a regional plan as compared to a national model.
Answer. A company would be more likely to make operating a D Block
license commercially viable if the company can leverage its existing
network infrastructure and operations in the area covered by the
license. Such geographic overlap will yield cost efficiencies and speed
network and service deployment.
United States Cellular Corporation (``USCC'') operates wireless
systems covering about 15 percent of the Nation's population. It would
have substantial efficiencies in the areas covered by its existing
systems and in some adjacent areas. In contrast, it would have much
higher network construction and operating costs outside these areas,
including in about 85 percent of the broad geography covered by a
national license. In addition to lacking existing infrastructure to
leverage in geographic areas distant from its existing service areas,
USCC simply could not finance the much larger acquisition, construction
and operating costs for a national license. Accordingly, selected
regional licenses (for example, some of the 58 public safety regions)
would be much more likely to attract investments from a company like
USCC than would a national license.
There are many other regional wireless operators with systems
covering certain metropolitan or rural service areas, but far less than
the entire Nation. Moreover, there are many other potential bidders
that could finance the costs of selected regional systems but not a
national system. One expert, Dr. Coleman Bazelon, testified before the
House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and the Internet, on April 15, 2008 that he
estimated the unfilled demand for regional licenses in the A and Blocks
of the 700 MHz auction held in early 2008 (Auction 73) at $9.346
billion.
Question 2. On page 3 of your testimony, you state that smaller
area licenses will attract more bidders.
How would this approach avoid uneven investments in various
jurisdictions?
Answer. I anticipate that each area will attract one or more bids.
Each area has existing wireless operators who would be candidates to
acquire additional spectrum at a reasonable price and could leverage
their networks and operations to satisfy efficiently the requirements
of the shared broadband wireless network. Also, new entrants and
operators serving other areas of the Nation may be attracted to bid on
area licenses that have low minimum opening bids.
For the areas that are likely to be less economically attractive,
the FCC has proposed a slightly lower coverage requirement that would
have to be achieved by the end of the license term. This approach would
decrease the costs of serving low-density areas and help attract
bidders to them, while still achieving very high coverage levels. Also,
the FCC has recently proposed an auction mechanism that would, during
the auction, decrease the minimum bid on areas that have not attracted
bids prior to a certain point in the auction. USCC supports these
proposals and expects that they will help avoid unsold area licenses.
Once a license is sold at auction, the winning bidder will be
required to build a network that will interoperate with the other
networks in the public/private partnership, with aggressive coverage
requirements. Each licensee will be required to make investments in its
areas that are necessary to provide uniform Nation-wide high levels of
network service features, quality of service and reliability for public
safety users.
Question 3. Do you believe that the public-private partnership
network for public safety broadband communications can be successfully
built and operated as a commercially viable system without some form of
public subsidy?
Answer. Yes, because the shared broadband network will yield
substantial economies. With reasonable auction rules, technical
requirements, pricing and spectrum lease obligations, this network can
be built and operated without congressional funding. Many public safety
users will find the shared broadband network attractive and affordable,
and the systems will be commercially viable for the licensees. Yet,
many public safety entities operate under limited budgets and some form
of public support or subsidy may help them afford conversion to,
handsets for and services on the shared broadband network.
Additionally, public support or subsidies could help public safety
entities order upgrades to the network features and services that the
licensees would be required to provide. Spectrum lease payments from
the commercial operators for use of the spectrum assigned to the Public
Safety Spectrum Trust (PSST) could represent one source of such support
or subsidy.
Question 4. Please provide the committee with a detailed chart that
explains the U.S. Cellular coverage proposal for each subcommittee
Member's State (including Chairman Bennie G. Thompson of Mississippi).
In your charts, please identify the percentage and scope of the
coverage area.
Answer. In the pages that follow, we have provided maps for each of
the States requested, based on the State-level licensing approach and
population coverage tiers proposed by U.S. Cellular. As you review
these maps, it is important to realize that it is impossible to predict
in advance the specific coverage design that a winning licensee would
adopt to satisfy the population coverage requirement. In preparing
these maps to show one way the coverage requirement could be satisfied,
we have taken the approach of assuming that the more dense counties
would be covered before the less dense counties. We recognize that this
is a simplification and deployments wouldn't likely be ``all or
nothing'' at the county level. Actual coverage plans would result from
negotiations between public safety and each D Block licensee and would
likely be based on local public safety priorities as well as
opportunities for the licensee to leverage its existing network assets
(e.g. towers) in the areas to be covered. Our maps have also noted
major highways and communities with greater than 3,000 population. In
addition to satisfying the population coverage requirement, our
proposal (and the FCC's) includes a requirement to provide coverage to
these communities and to the most heavily traveled interstate and State
highways.
Please feel free to contact me if you or your colleagues require
any further information or clarification concerning U.S. Cellular's
proposals.
Questions From Chairman Henry Cuellar of Texas for Mr. Robert LeGrande,
II, Former Chief Technology Officer, District of Columbia
Question 1. You are to be commended for moving out ahead of the
Federal Government and building out the National Capitol Region's
broadband, interoperable network.
Do you think the FCC should set specific transmission standards or
simply require that broadband public safety networks have the ability
to interoperate?
Answer. Chairmen Thompson and Cuellar, thank you for your kind
acknowledgment of our efforts in the National Capitol Region. I'm very
proud of how our 19 jurisdictions came together and solved voice
interoperability and also attempted to avoid the same problems with
video and data interoperability. I believe it is critical that we set
standards for broadband data networks immediately. Many States and
local jurisdictions lack direction on how to provide their public
safety users with wireless data communications. As a result, they are
choosing non-interoperable solutions. Many will argue that in an IP-
based world, we can more easily tie together networks. This is true,
but short-sighted. First Responders and all other users carry devices,
not networks. Once they roam out of a coverage area, it will be
critical that the area in which they are roaming has the same
technology using the same frequency. The easiest and most efficient way
to achieve this level of interoperability is standards. The second and
obviously the most difficult, is to try to fund and build a national
network. We should try both and what is the worse we will do? Build
several ``interoperable'' networks in our most targeted jurisdictions.
This is far better than nothing which is what we have done to date.
Question 2. Why did the National Capitol Region (NCR) stop building
its regional broadband network and what lessons does it hold for the
Nation as we contemplate a regional or national approach?
Answer. In my opinion, the NCR officials stopped investing in the
regional wireless broadband network because they were promised that the
national network would finish the job. With many other competing
priorities, it was an easy decision not to invest if a third party was
going to build it for ``free''. Obviously, there was over-commitment
and now each jurisdiction is using a different form of wireless data
communications.
It is important to note that the regional plan being considered by
the FCC is not the same as the plan developed in the NCR. The FCC's
plan would merely auction the spectrum in smaller chunks and not cover
many of the rural areas in the country. The NCR network would be built
and operated by the jurisdictions who agreed to use the same technology
and frequencies. I think the most significant lesson from the NCR is
that jurisdictions can work together for the greater good. We
established a standard and were well on our way to achieving the
highest level of communications interoperability in the country.
Question 3. Do you believe that the public-private partnership
network for public safety broadband communications can be successfully
built and operated as a commercially viable system without some form of
public subsidy?
Answer. I think that if a public-private network is built, there
will be a public subsidy in one form or the other. If the Federal
Government does not help the winning bidder with the up-front costs of
building the network(s) to public safety standards, then the State and
local jurisdictions will have to pay a high user fee. If neither of
these happens, I do not believe the bidders will have a viable business
model, especially since they will have to compete with the existing
commercial carriers for public safety's business.
Question 4. On page 5 of your testimony, you state that ``we should
fully fund the public safety spectrum trust.'' Why do you advocate for
the Federal Government to fund the PSST?
Answer. As mentioned in my testimony, finding funding (even if it
is just for start-up costs) is time-consuming and takes away time that
should be spent finding the best possible solution. The PSST has to
remain void of the appearance of improprieties. This past year has been
difficult for the PSST and many questions of conflicts of interest
placed a dark cloud over their efforts. The best way to remove that
cloud is to fund the PSST.
Questions From Ranking Member Charles W. Dent of Pennsylvania for Mr.
Robert LeGrande, II, Former Chief Technology Officer, District of
Columbia
Question 1. As the Former Chief Technology Officer for the District
of Columbia Government, does the National Capitol Region's 700 MHz
network meet the necessary requirements for first responders or are
there any areas that fell short of expectations or warrant further
improvement?
Answer. The NCR's network leverages the best and most widely-used
commercial technology today (EVDO Rev A). Many first responders
throughout the country are already leveraging this technology through
their Verizon and Sprint wireless broadband services. I believe that
public safety should start deploying commercially proven technology
today (3G) versus deploying and operating new emerging technologies
(4G) tomorrow (2012). The good news is that migration path to the 4G
technology is not difficult and is going to be made easier by the
carrier investment. The longer we wait, the more non-interoperable we
become and the less prepared we will be when we have to respond.
Question 2. Would you advocate that other urban areas pursue the
development of their own 700 MHz network? If so why?
Answer. As mentioned in my testimony, I'm a strong advocate for
early deployments by urban areas. I think many have the maturity and
capabilities to design, procure, deploy, and operate 700 MHz networks
at a commercially available standard starting today. I also stated that
the current FCC proposal has many un-answered questions from the
Commissioners, members of Public Safety associations, as well as States
and local jurisdictions. Universal support for the plan will take time
and I'm very concerned that we are focusing on ensuring that the
spectrum will be auctioned instead of finding a win-win-win solution.
The FCC should immediately rule to allow States and local jurisdictions
to build and operate their own 700 MHz broadband networks starting
today. If and when we reach universal agreement on the national network
plan, and if it is in best long-term interest for all jurisdictions
large and small, then the early deployed networks should be integrated
into the national network and the jurisdictions should be compensated
for their network assets. As I highlighted above, every day we delay is
a day we are less prepared to respond.
Questions From Chairman Henry Cuellar of Texas for Mr. Charles F. Dowd,
Deputy Chief, City of New York, Police Department
Question 1. Given the decisions of Philadelphia, San Francisco and
New York City to build and operate its own public safety network on the
700 MHz, what assurances can you give this subcommittee that these
cities will not contribute to the lack of connectivity across regions
or nationally?
Answer. Two primary factors contribute to the lack of
interoperability among public safety first responders: (1) Public
Safety agencies operate on disparate frequency bands; (2) Public Safety
agencies use different and sometimes proprietary air interfaces.
Speaking for New York City, if we are permitted to construct our
own Public Safety Broadband Network on 700 MHz we will adapt the same
over-the-air interface as the Nation-wide 700 MHz broadband network.
Since the frequency band will be the same (700 MHz) and the air
interface will also be the same, interoperability will be greatly
enhanced. The New York City network would be connected to the adjacent
regional networks by linking their respective Network Operations
Centers. Authorized units roaming to another network would affiliate
with the local site in a manner similar to cell phones that roam
between competitive wireless networks. Roaming agreements would be
established and protocols put into place to allow this level of
transparency. This is standard practice in the commercial wireless
industry; the technical issues have long since been resolved. The
result will be much greater interoperability, Nation-wide.
Question 2. Do you believe that the public-private partnership
network for public safety broadband communications can be successfully
built and operated as a commercially viable system without some form of
public subsidy?
Answer. The public subsidy will come in the form of user fees paid
to the network operator by public safety agencies. Once a national
network is established, the FCC will not permit it to fail financially.
It will, in effect, become a regulated monopoly similar to the Bell
System prior to divestiture. If user fees prove inadequate, they will
be increased to ensure the continued viability and profitability of the
network. Public Safety agencies Nation-wide will effectively bear the
cost of the network deployment and will continue to pay indefinitely to
access spectrum that has been allocated to them by Congress.
Question 3a. In your testimony, you state that a national public
safety network model needs to be done by the ``bottom-up approach.''
You also mentioned that every other major city agrees that a commercial
entity will not build a network to public safety requirements.
What are the reasons that most major cities disagree with the
national network that the Public Safety Spectrum Trust supports?
Answer. Commercial broadband wireless networks already exist in
large cities. If a public safety agency wished to subscribe to a
commercial broadband wireless network they could do so today, without
any action by the Commission. Many large cities also maintain that the
Commission's proposal would not result in a network built to rigorous
public safety standards.
Most large cities would prefer to construct their own broadband
networks in order to have control of the network and to build the
network to their standards. In addition many believe that the proposed
Public Private Partnership will simply result in another commercial
network deployment, and that the spectrum allocated by Congress to
Public Safety will effectively be donated to the D Block auction winner
who will use it to generate profits, subverting the intent of Congress.
In addition, many large city officials believe that profits gleaned
in large cities would subsidize the network build-out in less populated
regions, and although that may be a laudable goal from a national
perspective, large cities feel that they are being exploited.
Question 3b. How has the PSST failed to coalesce the public safety
community and represent them with a single voice?
Answer. The PSST has made no attempt to build a consensus among
Public Safety agencies regarding the 700 MHz public private network
proposal. In fact, there may not be a consensus, as demonstrated by the
diverse opinions expressed in recent hearings. As to who the PSST
actually represents, that is a question best answered by the PSST;
certainly they do not represent the views of the NYPD, the City of New
York or other large cities who filed comments in opposition to the
Commission's proposal to mandate that the D Block auction winner
construct a single Nation-wide public/private broadband network.
Questions From Ranking Member Charles W. Dent of Pennsylvania for Mr.
Charles F. Dowd, Deputy Chief, City of New York, Police Department
Question 1. Would you please describe efforts underway to ensure
that New York City agencies are fully interoperable with regional and
State first responder agencies? What frequency range is being used to
achieve this level of interoperability?
Answer. For Public Safety agencies using the UHF band,
interoperability is conducted on six New York Metropolitan Area
Committee (NYMAC) channels in the UHF band. These channels are shared
between New York City, Nassau and Suffolk Counties. New York City is in
the process of establishing one of these channels as a Regional
Simulcast Channel which will provide coverage throughout New York City
and Westchester County.
Interoperability for public safety agencies that operate radio
systems on the 800 MHz band is provided through the use of the NPSTC
national interoperability channels.
Interoperability is also provided to Federal agencies operating in
the VHF band through the use of a gateway which, when activated,
patches the VHF Federal Interoperability channel to the NYPD channel
most appropriate for the incident.
Question 2a. Back in June, and again at the September 16 hearing,
the NYPD stated that the FCC should not attempt to re-auction a piece
of wireless spectrum that failed to sell, but instead should give that
spectrum to emergency response agencies.
If the FCC were to give the 700 MHz spectrum license to New York
City, how would the city finance the construction of the network, as
well as its ongoing maintenance and upgrades?
Answer. The city is already in the position of having to fund the
NYPD radio system conversion from 25 kHz channels to 12.5 KHz channels
(or equivalent spectral efficiency) by 2013 due to an FCC mandate. This
conversion amounts to nothing less than a forklift replacement of the
existing NYPD radio system that will cost the city hundreds of millions
of dollars. We believe that we could better spend this money by
investing in a more modern approach to spectral efficiency, namely an
integrated broadband voice and data network. We also believe that
emerging 4G technology such as Long Term Evolution can make this vision
a reality prior to the 2013 FCC deadline.
Question 2b. How would surrounding areas participate in a city-
built 700 MHz network?
Answer. The barriers to interoperability are a lack of a common air
interface and agencies operating on disparate frequency bands. The FCC
has chosen a frequency band (700 MHz) for the public safety broadband
network, and has stated that there will be a common technology deployed
nationally. The New York City-built 700 MHz broadband network would
adhere to these standards and therefore be interoperable with
surrounding networks built to the same standards. Interoperability
would be seamless in much the same way as commercial wireless network
providers provide seamless coverage.
The ability for users to operate outside of their home network
requires roaming agreements between networks. Roaming agreements
between the New York City 700 MHz network and surrounding networks
would be established to permit public safety users from other
jurisdictions to use the New York City 700 MHz network, and conversely
to permit New York City public safety users to use the broadband 700
MHz network built within their jurisdictions to support public safety.
These technical issues have been resolved years ago in the commercial
wireless industry. We would adapt similar technologies and practices.