[Senate Hearing 110-1061]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-1061
THE PRESENT AND FUTURE OF
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 8, 2007
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
39-473 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West TED STEVENS, Alaska, Vice Chairman
Virginia JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts TRENT LOTT, Mississippi
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
BARBARA BOXER, California OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
BILL NELSON, Florida GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
Margaret L. Cummisky, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Lila Harper Helms, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and Policy Director
Margaret Spring, Democratic General Counsel
Lisa J. Sutherland, Republican Staff Director
Christine D. Kurth, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Kenneth R. Nahigian, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 8, 2007................................. 1
Statement of Senator Cantwell.................................... 46
Statement of Senator Carper...................................... 58
Statement of Senator Inouye...................................... 1
Letters, dated January 26 and 29, 2007 to Hon. Daniel K.
Inouye in support of S. 385, the Interoperable Emergency
Communications Act......................................... 2-3
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Statement of Senator Klobuchar................................... 5
Statement of Senator McCaskill................................... 52
Statement of Senator Snowe....................................... 55
Statement of Senator Stevens..................................... 5
Letters, dated November 28, 2006 and February 7, 2007 to Hon.
Ted Stevens against reallocation of the 700 MHz spectrum... 12
Statement of Senator Sununu...................................... 49
Statement of Senator Thune....................................... 61
Witnesses
Billstrom, David, Chairman and CEO, National Interop, Inc........ 30
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Desch, Matthew J., Chairman and CEO, Iridium Satellite, LLC...... 35
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Largent, Hon. Steve, President and CEO, CTIA--The Wireless
Association'........................................ 26
Prepared statement........................................... 28
McEwen, Harlin R., Chairman, Communications and Technology
Committee, IACP; Communications Advisor, MCC, NSA, MCSA; Vice
Chairman, National Public Safety Telecommunications Council.... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 16
O'Brien, Morgan, Chairman, Cyren Call Communications............. 20
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Werner, Charles L., Fire Chief, Charlottesville Fire Department;
on behalf of the International Association of Fire Chiefs...... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Appendix
Cosgrave, Paul J., Department of Information Technology and
Telecommunications, City of New York prepared statement........ 75
Globalstar, Inc., prepared statement............................. 65
Letter, dated February 8, 2007 to Hon. Ted Stevens from Leroy
Watson, Legislative Director, National Grange of the Order of
Patrons of Husbandry........................................... 76
McCain, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from Arizona, prepared statement. 65
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye
to:
David Billstrom.............................................. 117
Matthew J. Desch............................................. 122
Hon. Steve Largent........................................... 114
Harlin R. McEwen............................................. 88
Morgan O'Brien............................................... 107
Charles L. Werner............................................ 78
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Frank R.
Lautenberg to:
Harlin R. McEwen............................................. 93
Morgan O'Brien............................................... 111
Charles L. Werner............................................ 88
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Jim DeMint to
Morgan O'Brien................................................. 112
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell
to:
David Billstrom.............................................. 119
Harlin R. McEwen............................................. 90
Morgan O'Brien............................................... 108
Charles L. Werner............................................ 87
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe
to Hon. Steve Largent.......................................... 116
THE PRESENT AND FUTURE OF PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K.
Inouye, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
The Chairman. Good morning. Today's hearing will focus on
the present and future of public safety communications. This is
a matter of continuing importance to our Nation and to the men
and women who risk their lives daily and provide Americans with
emergency assistance.
In too many cities and counties across this Nation, our
Nation's first providers struggle to talk to one another during
natural and manmade disasters. Unfortunately, this problem is
not new. More than a decade ago, a specially created Public
Safety Wireless Advisory Committee reported on the need for
immediate measures to alleviate spectrum shortfalls, and
promote voice interoperability.
While we have made significant strides since that time, one
need only look at our experience during 9/11, or after the
Northeast blackouts of 2003, or Katrina. We know that we have a
long way to go.
In 2005, this committee took an important step by creating
a new $1 billion grant program to help fund new equipment and
training necessary to improve communications interoperability.
Regrettably, our efforts to make progress on this problem are
being undermined by the Administration, which is using this
money, already in the pipeline, to cover the $1.2 billion cut
from the Department of Homeland Security grants that support
State and local preparedness and firefighter assistance. I hope
we can do better in this regard.
In the 110th Congress, I have begun by working with my
colleagues Senator Stevens, Senator Kerry, Senator Smith, and
Senator Snowe, by introducing this measure S. 385, the
Interoperable Emergency Communications Act, which would
eliminate current restrictions in the law that hinders some
interoperability efforts and would provide the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration with the
needed guidance from Congress to ensure the money is
effectively disbursed. I hope that we move quickly on this bill
in the coming weeks.
Today's hearing will also allow us to peer into the future
of public safety communications. By now, even the casual
observer recognizes our broadband networks are changing the way
in which we communicate and exchange information.
While we hate to admit it, our children led the way, using
the power of new technology to provide video and real-time
information to our home and work computers, it does not take
much imagination to realize how invaluable these capabilities
could be to the first on the scene of an emergency.
My statement goes on a little longer, but I think we have
the message.
I now would like to call upon the Vice Chairman of the
Committee, Senator Stevens.
I would like to include in the record letters I received
from the Hawaii Public Safety Committee in support of S. 385.
[The information referred to follows:]
City and County of Honolulu Fire Department
Honolulu, HI, January 26, 2007
Hon. Daniel K. Inouye,
Chairman,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Inouye:
On February 8, 2007, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation will consider legislation to create a Public Safety
Broadband Trust (PSBT). As Fire Chief of the Honolulu Fire Department,
I support the concept of creating a nationwide, broadband network for
public safety and ask that you also support this important issue.
During emergencies, fire, emergency medical services, and law
enforcement personnel must have access to the most modern and reliable
communications capabilities in order to communicate with each other and
with state and Federal officials. The ability for public safety to have
seamless, nationwide roaming capability on a hardened and secure
broadband network is essential to meet our increased responsibilities
in homeland security. This goal can be met if the public safety
community has priority access to a nationwide, interoperable, next
generation, broadband network that incorporates the latest technologies
such as text messaging, photos, diagrams, and video not currently
available on existing public safety land mobile systems.
To achieve this goal, we support legislation to create a PSBT to
oversee management of this public/private network. The PSBT would hold
the license for 30 MHz of broadband spectrum in the upper 700 MHz band,
which is scheduled for auction later this year by the Federal
Communications Commission. Without legislation, the one-time
opportunity will be lost for public safety to have access to a
broadband network immediately adjacent to the already-allocated 24 MHz
of spectrum that will become available exclusively for our use in
February 2009. The 24 MHz as well as the proposed public/private
broadband network are necessary in order for public safety to meet its
future obligations to the public.
Should you have any questions or comments, please call me. Thank
you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Kenneth G. Silva,
Fire Chief.
______
County of Hawaii Fire Department
Hilo, HI, January 29, 2007
Hon. Daniel K. Inouye,
United States Senator,
Prince Kuhio Federal Building,
Honolulu, HI.
Dear Senator Inouye:
On February 8, 2007, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation will consider legislation to create a Public Safety
Broadband Trust. As Fire Chief of the Hawaii Fire Department and member
of the International Association of Fire Chiefs, I wholly support the
concept of creating a nationwide, broadband network for public safety
and ask that you, too, support this important issue.
During emergencies, fire, emergency medical services, and law
enforcement personnel must have access to the most modern and reliable
communications capabilities in order to communicate with each other and
with state and Federal officials. The ability for public safety to have
seamless, nationwide roaming capability on a hardened and secure
broadband network is essential to meet our increased responsibilities
in homeland security. This goal can be met if the public safety
community has priority access to a nationwide, interoperable, next
generation, broadband network that incorporates the latest technologies
such as text messaging, photos, diagrams, and video not currently
available on existing public safety land mobile systems.
To achieve this goal, we support legislation to create a Public
Safety Broadband Trust (PSBT) to oversee management of this public/
private network. The PSBT would hold the license for 30 MHz of
broadband spectrum in the upper 700 MHz band, which is scheduled for
auction later this year by the Federal Communications Commission.
Without legislation, the one-time opportunity will be lost for public
safety to have access to a broadband network immediately adjacent to
the already-allocated 24 MHz of spectrum that will become available
exclusively for our use in February 2009. The 24 MHz as well as the
proposed public/private broadband network are necessary in order for
public safety to meet its future obligations to the public.
I would welcome any questions or comments you may have on this
issue of utmost importance to America's fire service and all of public
safety. Thank you for your consideration and support.
Sincerely,
Darryl J. Oliveira,
Fire Chief.
______
County of Kaua'i Fire Department
Lihu'e, Kaua'i, HI, January 26, 2007
Hon. Daniel K. Inouye,
United States Senator,
Prince Kunio Federal Building,
Honolulu, HI.
Dear Senator Inouye:
On February 8, 2007, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation will consider legislation to create a Public Safety
Broadband Trust (PSBT). As Fire Chief of the Kaua'i Fire Department, I
support the concept of creating a nationwide, broadband network for
public safety and ask that you also support this important issue.
During emergencies, fire, emergency medical services, and law
enforcement personnel must have access to the most modern and reliable
communication capabilities in order to communicate with each other and
with state and Federal officials. The ability for public safety to have
seamless. nationwide roaming capability on a hardened and secure
broadband network is essential to meet our increased responsibilities
in homeland security. This goal can be met if the public safety
community has priority access to a nationwide, interoperable, next
generation, broadband network that incorporates the latest technologies
such as text messaging, photos, diagrams, and video not currently
available on existing public safety land mobile systems.
To achieve this goal, we support legislation to create a PSBT to
oversee management of this public/private network. The PSBT would hold
the license for 30 MHz of broadband spectrum in the upper 700 MHz band,
which is scheduled for auction later this year by the Federal
Communications Commission. Without legislation, the one-time
opportunity will be lost for public safety to have access to a
broadband network immediately adjacent to the already-allocated 24 MHz
of spectrum that will become available exclusively for our use in
February 2009. The 24 MHz as well as the proposed public/private
broadband network are necessary in order for public safety to meet its
future obligations to the public.
Should you have any questions or comments, please call me. Thank
you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Robert F. Westerman,
Fire Chief.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Daniel K. Inouye, U.S. Senator from Hawaii
Today's hearing will focus on the present and future of public
safety communications. This is a matter of continuing importance to our
Nation, and to the men and women who risk their lives daily to provide
Americans with emergency assistance.
In too many cities and counties across this Nation, our Nation's
first responders struggle to talk to one another during natural or
manmade disasters. Unfortunately, this problem is not new. More than a
decade ago, a specially-created Public Safety Wireless Advisory
Committee reported on the need for immediate measures to alleviate
spectrum shortfalls and to promote voice interoperability.
While we have made significant strides since that time, one need
only look at our experience during the events of September 11, after
the Northeast blackouts in 2003, and in the aftermath of Hurricane
Katrina, to know that we still have a long way to go.
In 2005, the Commerce Committee took an important step by creating
a new $1 billion grant program to help fund new equipment and training
necessary to improve communications interoperability. Regrettably our
efforts to make progress on this problem are being undermined by the
Administration, which is using this money, already in the pipeline, to
hide the $1.2 billion cut from the Department of Homeland Security
grants that support state and local preparedness and firefighter
assistance. I hope and trust that Congress can do better in this
regard.
In the 110th Congress, I have begun by working with my colleagues
Senators Stevens, Kerry, Smith and Snowe, by introducing S. 385--the
Interoperable Emergency Communications Act--which would eliminate
current restrictions in the law that hinder some interoperability
efforts and would provide the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration with needed guidance from Congress to ensure
the money is effectively dispersed.
I hope that we will move quickly on this bill in the coming weeks.
Today's hearing also allows us to peer into the future of public
safety communications. By now, even the casual observer recognizes how
broadband networks are changing the way in which we communicate and
exchange information.
Our children lead the way, using the power of new technology to
provide streaming video and real-time information to our home and work
computers, and increasingly, to mobile devices on-the-go. It does not
take much imagination to realize how invaluable these capabilities
could be to those first on the scene of an emergency.
Such technology could send streaming video to command posts in the
aftermath of a hurricane, could assess environmental conditions faced
by firefighters responding to a chemical fire, and could transmit the
vital signs of injured victims to those providing emergency medical
assistance.
To realize this future, we must prepare for it. This hearing raises
some of the most important questions this committee will face:
Do we as a nation have a broadband plan for public safety?
Do our first responders have the resources, both in spectrum
and in funding, to build and operate networks that will enhance
emergency response capabilities?
Now is the time for this discussion. In February 2009, broadcasters
will complete the digital television transition and will open
significant amounts of new spectrum for commercial and public safety
use. Our current plans for the use of that spectrum were adopted nearly
a decade ago. Given the stakes, it is worth taking a fresh look.
While some parties, led by large wireless companies with a vested
interest in the status quo, argue that this discussion will delay the
digital television transition, let me put that fear to rest. This
discussion will not change that date.
However, in the limited time remaining until the planned auction of
DTV spectrum by January 2008, it is incumbent on the Congress and the
Federal Communications Commission to understand the needs of our first
responders and to ensure that we, as a nation, have put in place a plan
that will provide public safety with the capabilities they need in a
broadband world.
STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
applaud you for examining these public safety issues very
early. We have had a focus on this subject for some time, and I
want to join you in continuing with that focus.
This committee led the way that established the hard date
for the transfer of the 24 megahertz of spectrum to public
safety and allocated the $1 billion for interoperability grants
last year as part of our DTV bill. The other public safety
issues addressed by our committee were the creation of a
wireless alert and warning system and the Tsunami Warning
System. We allocated $43.5 million for E-911 and $100 million
for the National Alert System, and funded the Tsunami Warning
System.
Going forward now, I'm pleased that you have made
interoperability one of the first bills we'll introduce this
year, and I'm proud to join you in that regard. It will provide
grant guidance for the billion dollars in interoperability
grants that we provided last year. The funds will drive the
public safety community forward in resolving the
interoperability issues through planning, training, and
equipment grants, as well as establishment of technology
reserves throughout the country. You have also highlighted the
9-1-1 issues and agreed to mark up S. 93 next week. That also
provides advanced borrowing authority so the $43 million for
the 911 concept can be distributed to public safety before the
DTV auction takes place.
The Cyren Call broadband trust is going to be one of the
topics addressed here today. It sounds like something good in
concept, and it could be good for public safety. I've had a
considerable number of questions raised as to whether this
broadband trust proposal may undermine the progress on the DTV
transition and interoperability grant distribution. They have
expressed fear that the program could undermine the funding we
provided to public safety last Congress. I hope that we can
have an opportunity to examine this now, and explore, with the
proponents of that concept, alternative models that would not
do what these people fear.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman. I thank you, sir.
Senator Klobuchar, would you care to make a statement?
STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you
both for the work that you've done on this important issue.
I think when we--when it comes to interoperability, we can
all agree on a common goal, that our law enforcement personnel
should be able to talk to each other. We can agree on the
priority of this goal, based on what we saw after--during 9/11
and after Katrina. And I believe we can agree on the urgency of
this goal.
The question is, What's the most efficient and effective
way to do this? And I will be coming to this just from my own
experience as the Chief Prosecutor in Hennepin County,
Minnesota, which I did for 8 years, and that includes 1.1
million people, which is about a fourth of the population of
our State, it's Minneapolis and 45 suburbs. And I'm very proud
of the work that we did in our county, and actually the
surrounding counties, and it can be a model as we look across
the country. Much of the credit for this goes to Pat McGowan,
my friend who's the former sheriff of Hennepin County and, I
think, was Sheriff of the Year--right?--and he saw the need for
interoperability as far back as--to make systems work together
as far back as 1989. I remember he noted that every time the
President came to town, we realized that we couldn't talk to
each other. He would always tell me about one case in which a
St. Paul cop was shot and several different police departments
pitched in to find the killers. The helicopter pilot assisting
in the search had to carry 12 different portable radios in his
helicopter so that he could individually communicate with the
different law enforcement people as this chase went on. And so,
that's why he became such a strong proponent for a system that
connects.
And the end result, this was actually before 9/11, was that
our county had a cost-effective, fully interoperable police
safety communications system, and now, building on that
success, the nine counties that make up the Twin Cities area--
it's almost half the state--are all interoperable.
I know we're going to hear a lot about spectrum allocation
and the next generation of communications technology. All these
are very important pieces of the interoperability puzzle, and I
look forward to discussing them. But the Minnesota experience
shows to me two other key challenges--divided turf and limited
funding--and the ways to overcome them. Sheriff McGowan always
used the word ``moxie'' to talk about it. He talked about how
our local government had the moxie to allocate dollars to the
purpose and to use the dollars in an efficient way. And this
Congress needs to give incentives to promote that kind of moxie
nationwide. A key aspect of this is support for local law
enforcement and firefighters. This year, our county is rolling
out an upgraded interoperable system that integrates data, as
well as voice communication. The system was funded by a COPS
program grant.
I'm looking forward to this debate, but I do think it is
very important that we use an example that we had in our State.
We were able to get this done, and I see no reason that we
can't get this done for the rest of the country.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
The committee is fortunate to have with us a full panel of
experts and great leaders. We have the Fire Chief of
Charlottesville Fire Department and the International
Association of Fire Chiefs; Mr. Charles Werner; the Chairman of
the Communications and Technology Committee of the
International Association of Chiefs of Police, Mr. Harlin
McEwen; the Chairman of Cyren Call, Mr. Morgan O'Brien; the
President and CEO of CTIA--The Wireless Association
', Mr. Steve Largent; the Chairman and CEO of
National Interop, Mr. David Billstrom; and the Chairman and
CEO, Iridium Satellite, LLC, Mr. Matt Desch.
And, gentlemen, I welcome you all on behalf of the
Committee.
May I now call upon Chief Werner?
STATEMENT OF CHARLES L. WERNER, FIRE CHIEF,
CHARLOTTESVILLE FIRE DEPARTMENT; ON BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF FIRE CHIEFS
Mr. Werner. Thank you, Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman--Mr.
Stevens. Thank you all for the opportunity to be here today.
My name is Charles Werner. I'm the Fire Chief for the City
of Charlottesville, Virginia. I also represent the
International Association of Fire Chiefs' 12,000 members, and
the comments that I make today are also representative of the--
of APCO, as well.
Before I go into this actual testimony, I'd like to thank
both of you individuals for your leadership and the legislation
that you've put forward to help us with the funding, defining
it, for the interoperability. So, thank you, on that note,
first.
Your opening statements were interesting, as it leads into
my testimony, because you talk about the much--much of the
funds that have been put out there in dollars on top of
dollars, and the efforts that continue to be out there, yet
interoperability continues to plague us. And I think that's why
today this discussion that we're having on the Public Safety
Broadband Trust is so important, because it is a very forward-
thinking idea that takes us into a whole new direction that I
think economically will help the fire service and public safety
in general.
And America's public safety agencies support legislation to
create such a Public Safety Broadband Trust that creates an
opportunity with 30 megahertz of spectrum. Important to note
that it's not going to be just for public safety, but for
commercial entities, as well, and that'll be an important note
of my testimony later.
Ten years ago or more, the Public Safety Wireless Advisory
Committee identified the needs of radio frequency spectrum for
public safety. That was again reinforced in a report that
followed the September 11th tragic incidents of terrorism. That
report of--after 9/11--also found that radio frequencies
allocated to public safety had become highly congested in many
of the urban areas; second, the ability of agencies within and
between jurisdictions to communicate with one another is
limited; and, third, the public safety agencies lack the
spectrum to implement advanced communications features. In
addition, the Advisory Committee originally recommended that
95.5 megahertz of new spectrum was required to meet public
safety needs to the year 2011. To date, without the help of
what you've done for 2009, we wouldn't have seen any of that
change.
In the 10 years since that report's come out, there have
also been great advances in technology that will help us look
in new and exciting ways, that will give us the ability, if we
have broadband in place, that gives us transmission of video,
blueprints, and other information, situational awareness,
fireground accountability, biometrics, enhanced GIS mapping
capabilities for building locations, critical infrastructure
protection, target hazards, hydrant networks, transportation
systems. You get the point, it goes on and on about what's out
there. And some people have said, ``Well, to date, public
safety hasn't indicated how that is making any difference.
You're not using it.'' It's because it's not affordable and
dependable in a way that we can make use of it as we need to.
In order to meet public safety's communications
requirements as defined by these dependent--independent
assessments, Senator McCain has discussed and offered to write
legislation to establish such a broadband trust, and we're very
excited about that.
One thing important to note, this is about the Public
Safety Broadband Trust. It's not about a Cyren Call proposal,
or that company, it's about a trust that's overseen by public
safety to help create a new network that is viable for public
safety and funded by commercial effort.
On behalf of America's fire and emergency services, I
encourage Congress to take advantage of this one-time
opportunity--again, this very critical one-time opportunity--to
create a nationwide public safety broadband network.
As I look back on my own personal experience, much as when
referenced earlier about an interoperable system, in
Charlottesville, Virginia, we have done a similar thing in our
region. We have created an entirely full public safety
interoperable system. Fourteen million dollars and $500,000 a
year in maintenance fees is what it costs to put one of these
systems in place. Keep in mind, as soon as that system is in
place, it is what it is, it does not evolve, it does not become
any better, it does not create any new opportunities. What that
means is, if we don't change the current path that we're on, we
will continue to spend millions upon millions--billions upon
billions of dollars for systems that are really obsolete as
soon as they come into operation. Nothing against what we have
in our system today, but we've got to change this paradigm, and
the governments can't continue to be funding these things, as
they are.
This past week, I also heard some concerning reports that
came out that said public safety doesn't need any more
spectrum. Well, I'm sorry, all the reports that have looked
into this thoroughly differ with that opinion. And I also have
a little bit of frustration when people make those statements,
and not once have they talked to public safety. They also
reference--and I'll be brief, I'm finishing up--that we--that
these other coalitions have plans for public safety. Now, up
until now, we have heard nothing of these plans, we've had no
interactions with it. So, I wonder how genuine these proposals
are, and I ask you to look at the opposition to this proposal:
What's in it for them, versus what's in it for us?
With that, I thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Werner follows:]
Prepared Statement of Charles L. Werner, Fire Chief, Charlottesville
Fire Department; on Behalf of the International Association of Fire
Chiefs
Good morning Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee. I am
Charles Werner, Fire Chief of the Charlottesville Fire Department in
Virginia and a member of the Communications Committee of the
International Association of Fire Chiefs IAFC). I am appearing today as
the representative of the International Association of Fire Chiefs
whose 12,000 members represent the leadership of America's fire and
rescue service from small, rural, volunteer fire departments to the
large, urban, metropolitan fire departments. Last year America's fire
service responded to over 23 million fire and emergency calls covering
incidents of structure fires, wildland/urban interface fires, emergency
medical situations, hazardous materials incidents, technical rescues,
and natural disasters. We are prepared, as well, to respond to the
aftermath of terrorist attacks. I appear today to address a specific
and growing communications need for America's fire service--broadband
technology. Our testimony also reflects the views of the Association of
Public-Safety Officials International, Inc.
Public Safety Spectrum Needs
At the request of Congress, the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA) and the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) established the Public Safety Wireless Advisory
Committee (PSWAC) to define and document the critical need for
communications resources and the spectrum to support public safety
through the year 2010. The final report was released on September 11,
1996. Three key problem areas were identified in the report:
First, radio frequencies allocated to public safety had
become highly congested in many, especially urban, areas.
Usable spectrum for mobile operations is limited making it
difficult to meet existing requirements much less to plan for
future, more advanced communications needs.
Second, the ability of agencies within and between
jurisdictions to communicate with one another is limited. Yet
interoperability is desirable for success in day-to-day
operations as well as larger scale operations in dealing with
both man-made and natural disasters.
Third, public safety agencies lack the spectrum to implement
advanced communications features. A wide variety of
technologies--both existing and under development--hold
substantial promise to reduce danger to public safety and
achieve greater efficiencies in the performance of their
duties. Specifically mentioned in the 1996 report were
broadband data systems, video systems for better capabilities
including use of robotics in toxic and hazardous environments,
and better monitoring and tracking of both personnel and
equipment.
To implement the requirements identified, the advisory committee
determined that more spectrum was required, as follows:
Immediately, 2.5 MHz of spectrum for interoperability from
new or existing allocations.
Within 5 years approximately 25 MHz of new public safety
allocations are needed. The report suggested using spectrum
from television broadcast channels 60-69 as soon as possible.
Over the next 15 years (e.g., through 2011) as much as an
additional 70 MHz will be required to satisfy the mobile
communications needs of public safety.
These were the needs and recommendations addressed in the PSWAC
report of 1996. Then, in December 2005 the FCC sent a Report to
Congress on the Study to Assess Short-Term and Long-Term Needs for
Allocations of Additional Portions of the Electromagnetic Spectrum for
Federal, State and Local Emergency Response Providers. This report was
submitted pursuant to P.L. 108-458, The Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. In its conclusion, the FCC stated:
``First, as to the operation and administration of a potential
nationwide interoperable broadband mobile communications network based
upon input from Federal, state, local and regional emergency response
providers, emergency response providers would benefit from the
development of an integrated, interoperable nationwide network capable
of delivering broadband services throughout the country. Second, as to
the use of commercial wireless technologies, while commercial wireless
technologies and services are not appropriate for every type of public
safety communication, there may now be a place for commercial providers
to assist public safety in securing and protecting the homeland.''
For the above stated reasons, the National Public Safety
Telecommunications Council [a resource and advocate for public safety
organizations in the United States on matters relating to public safety
telecommunications] has filed comments with the FCC in support of
reallocating 30 MHz of spectrum in the upper 700 MHz band, currently
slated for auction, to create a public/private nationwide broadband
network to be managed by public safety for the benefit of public
safety. The filing states:
``In an era where government preparedness is crucial, there is
no nationwide public safety network to manage and coordinate
response. There is no wide scale broadband technology
capability to expedite analysis and information-sharing
critical to emergency assistance, investigation and
apprehension. Not only is the current public safety spectrum so
congested as to constrain voice--much less permit broadband use
for video and data, limited funding hinders the incremental
improvements that can be made and which are only pursued on a
system by system basis. That which is possible in
communications today and what public safety agencies have
available reflects an enormous divide. The result is tangible:
slowed and hindered response across all services which puts
lives at risk and property in danger.
``Although legacy systems will continue to play an important
role in public safety communications, the opportunity presented
by the yet to be auctioned 700 MHz channels is emphatic.
Without this additional spectrum, there can be no national
public safety network connecting all agencies. Using broadband
technologies to transmit information across agencies and miles
immediately will be the exception. Public safety communications
will come up short in meeting its challenges.''
The IAFC is a member of the governing board of NPSTC and an active
participant in all of its proceedings. The IAFC fully concurs with the
statements of support by NPSTC for the establishment of a nationwide,
public/private, broadband network that will harness the innovative
power of the private sector but be managed by public safety for the
benefit of public safety.
Public Safety Broadband Requirements
In 1997, Congress addressed part of the issue of additional
spectrum by directing the FCC to allocate 24 MHz in the upper 700 MHz
band for use by public safety. As a result of the Deficit Reduction Act
(P.L. 109-171), which passed last year at this time, this spectrum will
finally become available for our use in February 2009. As was
originally intended, it is to provide, for individual licensees, 12 MHz
of voice channels and 12 MHz of wideband data channels. Fire and police
departments are now in the planning process of building communications
systems utilizing this new spectrum.
Broadband capability for public safety, identified in the 1996
PSWAC report, is a vital and growing need for fire and police agencies.
It is the next step following the allocation and implementation of the
24 MHz designed to alleviate current spectrum congestion and provide
interoperability. To meet the broadband need for public safety, the
following requirements are established:
A nationwide, broadband network covering 99 percent of the
population, 65 percent of the land mass, most of the critical
infrastructure, and a network that supports urban, suburban and
rural communities.
A network large enough to draw commercial support which is
requisite for a nationwide network to be affordable for public
safety.
A network built using next-generation technology.
A network built to public safety ruggedness specifications
to ensure reliability under severely adverse conditions.
A network governed by public safety.
A network which ensures priority access for public safety.
Public Safety Uses of Nationwide Broadband Network
The Public Safety Broadband Trust proposal provides public safety
with enormous potential that does not currently exist.
A hardened public safety network would make possible nationwide
roaming and interoperability for public safety agencies at the Federal
(e.g., U.S. Coast Guard), state (e.g., highway patrol), and local
(e.g., police, fire/EMS) levels. It would give public safety access to
satellite services where terrestrial services either do not exist or
are temporarily out of service. The network build-out would give rural
areas--for the first time--broadband coverage and provide public safety
there a communications tool that would be virtually impossible because
of cost under any other scenario. In addition, this new network will
protect nuclear power plants, dams, railroads and pipelines and other
parts of the Nation's critical infrastructure in rural areas.
There are a number of technologies that are available today that
fire departments would use--more will be developed, especially if an
affordable broadband network is available. Some examples are:
Transmitting video, photographs, blueprints and other
information both to and from an incident command post.
Advanced paging systems particularly useful for summoning
volunteer firefighters/medics.
Mesh enabled architecture (MEA) for non-GPS broadband
location system.
Fireground accountability systems--biometrics as well as
location.
Smart building downloads en route to an alarm.
Enhanced GIS mapping capability for building locations,
critical infrastructure, target hazards, water systems,
transportation systems, etc.
Personal Area Networks linking a portable radio carried by a
firefighter to many useful and lifesaving accessories including
a helmet video camera, video viewing device, health monitor,
wireless self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) microphone
and speaker, or a handheld computer.
Vehicular Area Networks that could link a vehicle's radio to
laptop computers, printers, remote headsets, bar code readers,
and cameras.
Medical video and high-resolution image transmissions from
the scene of an incident to the emergency department of a
hospital where physicians can assess patient status and give
on-scene and en route treatment instructions.
PDAs for fire department leaders or for all firefighters.
A One-Time Opportunity To Do the Right Thing
Senator McCain has announced his intention to introduce legislation
to establish a Public Safety Broadband Trust. The trust will be
composed of public safety organizations to hold a single license for 30
MHz of broadband spectrum to create a nationwide, public/private
broadband network. The trust also will be the management group to
oversee the policies, procedures and practices of the network. In other
words, the public safety trust will run the network for the benefit of
public safety.
The 30 MHz of spectrum that is being considered is immediately
adjacent to the 24 MHz of spectrum allocated to public safety in 1997,
and which will be available in 2009. This has considerable advantage
over any other spectrum since radio communication devices can be dual
purpose with the spectrum so close. This spectrum in the upper 700 MHz
is also near existing public safety which is being relocated in the
lower 800 MHz band.
This 30 MHz of spectrum is currently slated for auction. The
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 requires the FCC to auction this spectrum
by January 2008. Without legislation taking this out of the auction and
allocating it for the public safety trust, this one-time opportunity
will be lost forever.
Call for Action
The Congress of the United States has a one-time opportunity, in
the near term, to provide public safety with a nationwide, broadband
network. In order to be affordable for public safety, the network would
have to have viable commercial capacity of about 30 MHz of spectrum.
The network would be built to public safety ruggedness specifications.
A Public Safety Broadband Trust would be created to hold the single
license from the FCC for the 30 MHz of spectrum and would oversee
management of the network. While the network volume would be largely
commercial, public safety agencies would use what it needed with a
built-in priority status. Commercial use also ensures that sufficient
capital will be available for maintaining the system and upgrading and
refreshing newer technologies when they come along.
We urge the members of this committee to take the first action to
create this Public Safety Broadband Trust by promptly reporting
legislation to take 30 MHz from the pending auction and direct the FCC
to reallocate it to public safety. We cannot suggest too strongly the
urgent and identified need for broadband capability that public safety
can use with assurance that it will work when needed, be available when
needed, and is affordable. With a global war on terrorism being fought
daily and homeland security interest at an all-time high, public
safety, in defense of the homeland, should be operating on 21st century
technology. Thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee. We
appreciate your consideration of this most important public safety
issue.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Chief.
May I assure all the witnesses that their full statement
and supporting documents and exhibits will all be made part of
the record.
May I now call upon Chairman McEwen?
Senator Stevens. Mr. Chairman, could you add to this, this
letter we received from the Coalition?
The Chairman. Yes, sir. Without objection, the letter will
be made part of the record.
[The information previously referred to follows:]
Council for Citizens Against Government Waste
Washington, D.C., February 7, 2007
Hon. Ted Stevens,
Vice Chairman,
U.S. Senate,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator,
Attached please find a copy of a Federal Communications Commission
filing submitted on behalf of the Council for Citizens Against
Government Waste and the National Taxpayers Union. The filing expresses
our concern regarding Cyren Call's proposal to reallocate a portion of
the 700 MHz spectrum. We believe that the ill-conceived plan would have
resulted in an unprecedented government giveaway and a significant
setback for taxpayers.
As you move forward with this issue, please consider the fiscal
impact of any legislation and do not undo the digital television (DTV)
provisions of the Deficit Reduction Act passed in last Congress.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Thomas A. Schatz,
President.
______
National Taxpayers Union,
Council for Citizens Against Government Waste
Washington, D.C., November 28, 2006
Hon. Kevin J. Martin,
Chairman,
Federal Communications Commission,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Martin:
On behalf of the members of the National Taxpayers Union and the
Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, we write to commend your
rejection of Cyren Call's proposal to reallocate a portion of the 700
MHz spectrum. We believe that the ill-conceived plan would have
resulted in an unprecedented government giveaway and a significant
setback for taxpayers.
The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 gave 24 MHz of spectrum in the
700 MHz band to public safety causes, which effectively doubled the
amount of spectrum available for emergency communications systems. By
providing for the public auction of other parts of the 700&z band, the
Act encourages the divestiture of excess government assets while
promoting a robust, market-driven communications sector.
Cyren Call's proposal would have given away for free the additional
spectrum that could bring in billions of dollars for the Federal
Treasury via the time-tested auction process. Past rounds of the
Advanced Wireless Services spectrum auctions suggest that selling off
portions of the 700 MHz spectrum could prove highly lucrative. This
money could he used to decrease the budget deficit, thereby reducing
the bill that taxpayers will ultimately have to settle.
We applaud your decision and stand ready to ensure that the future
allocation of the spectrum serves the interests of American taxpayers
and businesses alike.
Sincerely,
John Berthoud,
President.
Thomas Schatz,
President.
______
Citizens Against Government Waste--Cyren Call Reality Check, The War on
Waste: Chronicles of Waste, Fraud and Abuse
Congressional Alert
February 6, 2007
With Congress's return there is ample opportunity for lobbyists and
legislators to cause new headaches for taxpayers.
One company in particular, Cyren Call, is trying to overturn one of
the positive actions taken by Congress last year. First, some history
is useful.
In 2004, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted the
``Consensus Plan,'' which will realign the 800 MHz spectrum to separate
public safety systems from the commercial systems causing interference.
Nextel offered to reduce interference by giving up some of
its localized 800 MHz spectrum, valued at $1.6 billion, in
exchange for nationwide 1.9 GHz spectrum which could have
fetched billions more in a public auction.
Nextel received nearly a multi-billion windfall at the
expense of taxpayers and possession of valuable spectrum
coveted by other communications companies.
Nextel has asked for a delay of up to 2 years to complete
the 800 MHz realignment.
Now the co-founder and several former senior executives of Nextel
have formed Cyren Call and are trying to take a second bite out of the
taxpayers.
The digital television (DTV) provisions of the Deficit Reduction
Act of 2005 give public safety 24 MHz of prime spectrum in the valuable
700 MHz band and $1 billion in funding to help meet public safety's
needs for interoperability with the remaining 60 MHz of the spectrum to
be auctioned off for taxpayers' benefit.
Cyren Call tried to urge the FCC to give away 30 MHz of the
60 MHz to fund a commercial network that would serve public
safety. That would only benefit Cyren Call and its executives
and financial backers at the expense of public safety and U.S.
taxpayers.
Rather than bidding billions of dollars at auction, Cyren
Call is hoping to be paid to create this new network.
The company claims it will make the U.S. Treasury ``whole''
with a funding scheme for the spectrum but the reality is that
auctioning the spectrum is the law and the only way to serve
taxpayers.
The FCC rightfully rejected Cyren Call's petition and is now
looking at how best to use the 24 MHz being allocated for
public safety consistent with the DTV bill. Now Cyren Call is
trying to get Congress to take up its plan and undo years of
work on a carefully crafted compromise.
Telecommunications spectrum is an asset owned by U.S. taxpayers.
Any time this asset is given away at no charge, potential revenue is
lost.
Our first responders deserve to get their 24 MHz as soon as
possible and taxpayers deserve the billions of dollars a spectrum
auction would bring in. Cyren Call's proposal stands in the way of both
and Congress must guard against it.
______
A Secure National Broadband Network
and the Public Safety Broadband Trust
The Nation does not have what it needs most in telecommunications
capabilities--a secure national mobile broadband network that meets the
needs of public safety but is also used and supported by the commercial
sector.
In times of national and regional emergency, the network will
provide the broadband communications that are essential to saving life
and property.
During ordinary times, the network will provide truly national and
secure communications capabilities to commercial users that do not now
have such a system, including providers of the critical infrastructure
on which the Nation's livelihood depends.
This is how it can be done:
Remove 30 MHz (upper band) from the upcoming FCC auction of
60 MHz of recovered analog spectrum.
Instead of auctioning a license to that 30 MHz spectrum, it
should be assigned for an appropriate price to a non-profit
corporation controlled by national public safety
organizations--the Public Safety Broadband Trust Corporation
(PSBT).
PSBT will lease spectrum usage rights to commercial
operators who will build out a secure national broadband
network meeting public safety specifications.
Public safety organizations will control the development of
the network in order to ensure that it satisfies the
requirements and needs of the public safety community.
PSBT will hold and exercise the ultimate control over the
license to the 30 MHz spectrum and will determine the network's
technology, build requirements and the network's operating
rules.
Commercial subscribers that need a secure national network
will use the network on a day-to-day basis along with public
safety users who will retain priority access to the network.
PSBT will fund the spectrum acquisition with the lease
payments of the commercial operators and with the assistance of
Federal loan guarantees, just like those that have been made
available to other industries (airlines, shipping companies,
pipelines).
The Chairman. Chief--Mr. Chairman?
STATEMENT OF HARLIN R. McEWEN, CHAIRMAN,
COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE, IACP;
COMMUNICATIONS ADVISOR, MCC, NSA, MCSA;
VICE CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL PUBLIC SAFETY TELECOMMUNICATIONS
COUNCIL
Mr. McEwen. Thank you, sir. Good morning. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman and Mr. Vice Chairman and members of the Committee,
for the opportunity to speak with you this morning.
I am the retired Police Chief of the City of Ithaca, New
York, and I also am a retired Deputy Assistant Director of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation here in Washington, D.C. I
serve as the Chairman of the Communications and Technology
Committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police,
a position I've held for more than 28 years. I also serve as
the Communications Advisor for the Major City Chiefs
Association, the National Sheriffs Association, and the Major
County Sheriffs Association. And in addition to these
organizations, today I'm speaking on behalf of the Association
of Public Safety Communications Officials--International and
the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council.
Senator Klobuchar, I want to just make the point that I've
known Sheriff McGowan for many years. He's a wonderful
professional. We're going to miss him, now that he's retired.
But I worked closely with him in these matters of
interoperability, so I know what you speak of.
I'm pleased to have the chance to discuss with the
Committee today an exciting new opportunity for Congress to
take steps that will pave the way to reduce the dependence on
local and Federal tax revenues to maintain modern public safety
communications systems. That is a proposal for a 700-megahertz
nationwide public-safety broadband network. This proposed
network can become a reality only if Congress authorizes
creation of a public/private partnership controlled by the
public safety community to hold a nationwide license for 30
megahertz of spectrum in the upper 700 megahertz band; and to
further authorize us, the public safety community, to deploy
this network, pursuant to a public-sector/private-sector
partnership model. The wireless voice systems public safety
personnel use today are among the most important tools they
have to do their job in a safe and efficient manner. However,
these systems have, in many cases, been underfunded, poorly
maintained, and generally not refreshed. As we look to the
long-term future, we need to look at a new and better way to
improve public safety communications.
The implementation of a nationwide public-safety broadband
network can be the beginning of the end to the problem of
public safety interoperability. We have been asking for funding
support for years to help us upgrade and replace mission-
critical land mobile voice systems that are built by different
manufacturers, are of different vintages, are generally
incompatible, and, in many cases, not compatible with the P25
standards, which are the only recognized national digital
standards for land mobile public safety communications
interoperability.
For those who argue that public safety already has enough
radio spectrum to meet current and projected mobile
requirements, I can only say that they purposely ignore the
facts concerning public safety spectrum allocations and first-
responder communications requirements. As an example, the
cellular industry, represented by CTIA, has grossly
misrepresented the spectrum issue. CTIA recently said, ``Right
now, the public service community utilizes 47 megahertz of
spectrum to serve its public safety users. At the same time,
there are wireless carriers that use roughly the same amount of
spectrum to deliver voice, data, and advanced information
services to many times that number of subscribers.'' Contrary
to what the CTIA says, the real facts on spectrum allocations
are that the commercial allocations for wireless communications
add up to 528 megahertz, an amount more than ten times that for
public safety.
In regard to the ninth notice of proposed rulemaking
recently issued by the Federal Communications Commission, we
have many concerns about the concept set forth in that
proposal. The ninth NPRM suggests that a nationwide broadband
network could be built using the 12 megahertz of spectrum
currently allocated for local licensing of public safety
wideband systems. This would take away from local licensing
control the spectrum long promised for use by local agencies.
In addition, we believe that the proposal is seriously flawed
by failing to acknowledge the need for enough spectrum to
attract investors to participate in a public/private
partnership where private funds would be invested to build a
nationwide network.
And, Senator Klobuchar, I want to make mention of the fact
that in Hennepin County, three counties partnering with
Hennepin County, for instance, are building a wideband system
that would be in jeopardy if that particular proposal were to
be followed.
I have dedicated most of my professional career to the
advancement of public safety communications. From that
perspective, I believe this Congress has an extraordinary time-
sensitive opportunity. Approval of the Public Safety Broadband
Trust and a public/private-sector partnership will catapult
public safety to its rightful place in the forefront of
communications capability while at the same time delivering
broadband service to communities that continue to be bypassed
by the commercial telecommunications industry. I hope you will
share my belief that this is an opportunity that must be seized
for the benefit of the entire public.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McEwen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Harlin R. McEwen, Chairman, Communications and
Technology Committee, IACP; Communications Advisor, MCC, NSA, MCSA;
Vice Chairman, National Public Safety Telecommunications Council
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the Committee
for the opportunity to appear before you today.
My name is Harlin McEwen and I have been actively involved in
public safety for almost 50 years. My career has been in law
enforcement and I also have been a volunteer firefighter. I am the
retired Police Chief of the City of Ithaca, New York, and am also
retired as a Deputy Assistant Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation in Washington, D.C. I serve as Chairman of the
Communications and Technology Committee of the International
Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), a position I have held for more
than 28 years. I also serve as the Communications Advisor for the Major
Cities Chiefs Association (MCC), the National Sheriffs' Association
(NSA), and the Major County Sheriffs' Association. I am the Vice
Chairman of the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council
(NPSTC) and am a Life Member of the Association of Public-Safety
Communications Officials-International (APCO). Today I speak on behalf
of all of these organizations.
When I first became a law enforcement officer in 1957, police
vehicles had tube type 6 volt analog mobile radios that dimmed the
headlights when we pushed the microphone button. In those days there
were no hand-held radios. In my career I have witnessed many changes
and advances in law enforcement and public safety communications.
However, the advances for public safety have consistently lagged behind
the advances of commercial services, primarily because of lack of
funding and spectrum.
As you are aware, citizens rely upon their local and state police
agencies, sheriffs' offices, fire departments, emergency medical
services, and other emergency services like highway and public works
and utilities to come to their assistance wherever and whenever needed.
They respond whether it is a crime in progress, a civil disturbance, a
building fire, a forest fire, an automobile accident, a health
emergency, a natural disaster, or, as we learned on 9/11, a terrorist
attack. Today, citizens assume that those first responders will get the
call and will have the communications tools they need to address
emergencies quickly and efficiently. Unfortunately that is not always
true.
I want to applaud the efforts of this Committee and the Congress in
voting to clear the television broadcasters from the long promised 700
MHz spectrum. This will help us improve public safety radio
communications, both operability and interoperability. The major cities
and metropolitan areas of this country are still in desperate need of
additional land mobile voice channels and are anxiously waiting for
this spectrum to become available. Your efforts to designate $1 billion
derived from the auction of radio spectrum for public safety
communications are also very much appreciated by the public safety
community and will be very helpful. The introduction of S. 385 by
Senators Inouye, Stevens, Kerry, Smith, and Snowe is also helpful in
giving direction to NTIA with respect to the $1 billion grant program
and we appreciate these efforts to have this funding program
implemented in a timely fashion.
I am pleased to have the chance to discuss with this Committee an
exciting new opportunity for Congress to take steps that will pave the
way to reducing the dependence on local and Federal tax revenues to
maintain modern public safety communications systems. That is a
proposal for a 700 MHz nationwide public safety broadband network. This
proposed network can become a reality only if Congress authorizes
creation of a public/private partnership, controlled by the public
safety community, to hold a nationwide license for 30 MHz of spectrum
in the upper 700 MHz band and further authorize us to deploy this
network pursuant to a public sector-private sector partnership model.
I have studied the issue of public safety telecommunications for
decades. I have been actively engaged in the efforts of the Federal
Communications Commission, other Federal agencies, state and local
government entities and individual departments to identify law
enforcement communications requirements and provide our first
responders with the necessary tools to meet those needs. Substantial
time and significant taxpayer dollars have been devoted to those
efforts, yet in 2007 the public safety community still is far behind
commercial users in terms of wireless functionality. Our public safety
users who should have the best, most advanced, and most robust
capabilities too often must rely on systems that are inadequate for
their needs today, much less the expanded responsibilities with which
they will continue to be charged in the future. Without a fundamental
change in the way we approach emergency responder communications,
specifically without allocation of the additional 30 MHz of spectrum
and adoption of the approach embodied in the Public Safety Broadband
Trust (PSBT) proposal, I see no reason to ever expect substantial
improvement.
The wireless voice systems public safety personnel use today are
among the most important tools they have to do their job in a safe and
efficient manner. However, these systems have in many cases been
underfunded, poorly maintained and generally not refreshed. As we look
to the long term future, we need to look at new and better ways to
improve public safety communications.
The need for more efficient public safety data systems is growing
and this has become the focus of much of our attention as we look to
ways for public safety to take advantage of Third Generation (3G) and
Fourth Generation (4G) technologies.
The implementation of a nationwide public safety broadband network
can also be the beginning of the end to the problem of public safety
interoperability. We have been asking for funding support for years to
help us upgrade and replace mission critical land mobile voice systems
that are built by different manufacturers, are of different vintages,
are generally incompatible and in many cases not compatible with the
P25 standards, the only recognized national digital standards for land
mobile public safety communications interoperability.
It is critical to understand that this is a one-time-only
opportunity to solve many of the public safety communications
requirements of today and the future. We recognize this is not an easy
decision for the Congress. You must choose between solving the public
safety communications problem and making sure our citizens have good
public services, or allowing the spectrum required by public safety to
be auctioned to commercial companies who want to expand their services
and increase their profits. It seems simple to us that by your approval
of this important step for public safety you will be doing the right
thing for America. It will begin to take the burden off the taxpayers
who must build and maintain increasingly expensive public safety
communications systems.
The benefits from a nationwide public safety broadband network as
set forth in the Public Safety Broadband Trust proposal are as follows:
1. Broadband data services (such as text messaging, photos,
diagrams, and streaming video) not currently available in
existing public safety land mobile systems.
2. A hardened public safety network with infrastructure built
to withstand local natural hazards (tornadoes, hurricanes,
earthquakes, floods, etc.) that would include strengthened
towers and back-up power with fuel supplies to withstand long-
term outages of public power sources.
3. Nationwide roaming and interoperability for local, state,
and Federal public safety agencies (police, fire and EMS) and
other emergency services such as transportation, health care,
and utilities.
4. Access to the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN)
similar to current commercial cellular services.
5. Push-to-talk, one-to-one and one-to-many radio capability
that would provide a back-up to (but not replace) traditional
public safety land mobile mission critical voice systems.
6. Access to satellite services to provide reliable nationwide
communications where terrestrial services either do not exist
or are temporarily out of service.
For those who argue that public safety already has enough radio
spectrum to meet current and projected mobile requirements, I can only
say that they purposely ignore the facts concerning public safety
spectrum allocations and first responder communications requirements.
As an example, the cellular industry, represented by CTIA, has grossly
misrepresented the spectrum issue as recently exhibited in their press
release critical of Senator McCain's announcement that he would be
introducing legislation to establish a new nationwide, state-of-the-art
public safety broadband network. The CTIA statement said ``the basic
facts of the matter should compel this important debate to be about
providing first responders with funding, access to equipment and
coordination, not more spectrum''. CTIA further stated ``Right now, the
public service community utilizes 47 MHz of spectrum to serve its
public safety users. At the same time, there are wireless carriers that
use roughly the same amount of spectrum to deliver voice, data and
advanced information services to many times that number of subscribers.
More spectrum is clearly not the answer''.
Contrary to what the CTIA says, the REAL facts on spectrum
allocations are as follows:
State and Local Public Safety Spectrum Allocations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allocation MHz
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VHF Low Band (25-50 MHz) 6.3
VHF High Band (150-174 MHz) 3.6
UHF Low Band (450-470 MHz) 3.7
800 MHz Band (806-821/851-866 MHz) 3.5
800 MHz Band (821-824/866-869 MHz) 6.0
700 MHz Band (764-776/794-806 MHz) 24.0
----------
Total Public Safety 47.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Spectrum Allocations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allocation MHz
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cellular 50
Broadband PCS 120
AWS 90
Broadband Radio Services 190
Lower 700 48
Upper 700 30
----------
Total Commercial 528
------------------------------------------------------------------------
But even these numbers do not tell the real story or explain why
existing public safety allocations cannot be used for broadband
operations. Historically, the FCC has allocated individual channels,
not contiguous channel blocks, for public safety use. These channels
are immediately adjacent to channels allocated for taxicab companies,
truck operators and other businesses. The channels typically are no
larger than 25 kHz bandwidth and more frequently 12.5 kHz, or a tiny
fraction of each 25 MHz cellular system authorization. This allocation
approach has permitted numerous governmental entities to secure
licenses for localized, individual purposes, but precludes the public
safety community as a whole from consolidating enough contiguous
channels to deploy 21st century broadband technology networks. There
simply is not sufficient contiguous bandwidth to support the text
messaging, building diagrams, photos, streaming video and other
transmissions that will be as essential to law enforcement officers
during these perilous times as the weapons they carry.
While the 24 MHz public safety allocation in the upper 700 MHz band
is contiguous, even that spectrum is subdivided in various categories
designed for mission critical voice communications on both localized
and state levels, as well as for wideband data applications. And that
spectrum allocation, first promised to the public safety community in
1997, was intended to address the unmet needs and identified
deficiencies in the spectrum resources available to public safety more
than a decade ago. New technologies and new services have since been
developed to respond to the ever escalating commercial appetite for
more useful and sophisticated mobile communications tools and
solutions--and appropriate new commercial spectrum allocations have
been made available to commercial network operators to bring those
improvements to their customers. Likewise, over the past decade, public
safety's needs for access to these advanced technologies, services,
tools and solutions has not stood still--although, unfortunately, the
amount of appropriate spectrum allocated to meet them has.
Allow me to emphasize these points by example, as the contrast
between the spectrum resources available to commercial wireless network
operators and to the public safety community could not be more
striking. To begin with, commercial cellular and PCS licensees have
access to large blocks of contiguous spectrum. Their allocations were
specifically designed to support system architectures and technologies
that would accommodate vast numbers of customers. To compare the number
of subscribers that can be served on a 25 MHz cellular network with the
number of police officers that can share a 12.5 kHz bandwidth channel,
or even multiple channels, is as meaningful as comparing the size of
watermelons to grapes. Compounding the imbalance is the absolute amount
of spectrum that has been made available for commercial use in
comparison to that which has been made available for public safety uses
as detailed above. Just last year, the Commission made another 90 MHz
of spectrum of Advanced Wireless Spectrum available for commercial
operations, again in large spectrum blocks and expressly authorized for
commercial mobile broadband uses.
In fact, it is the success of the cellular/PCS model that has
convinced us that public safety must have a 30 MHz spectrum block on
which to deploy an advanced technology broadband network. That model
has persuaded us that the public safety community must join together in
the Public Safety Broadband Trust, rather than seeking individual
licenses for individually designed and deployed systems, if we are to
achieve our objective: seamless nationwide roaming capability on a 21st
century broadband 700 MHz network that is built and operated to satisfy
increasing and demanding public safety requirements.
I stated previously that a nationwide broadband network solution
needed to address both spectrum and funding, and to address them both
at the same time and in the same context. The latter is just as
critical as the former and requires an innovative approach given the
extraordinary costs associated with building and operating a truly
nationwide broadband network. Unlike purely commercial systems that
have the luxury of limiting coverage to areas of denser population and
transportation corridors, public safety users must have communications
capability wherever there are people or property to protect. This
mandate has the important consumer benefit of ensuring that a broadband
network designed to meet public safety needs will be available in
suburban and rural communities that remain outside the areas of
commercial broadband deployment. However, I have substantial experience
in the traditional funding sources for public safety communications and
see no realistic possibility that the necessary moneys will be made
available even to build, much less maintain, operate and routinely
upgrade a network of this scope if dedicated to purely public safety
requirements.
The only solution that we consider viable is a public sector-
private sector partnership as proposed in the Public Safety Broadband
Trust. Under this approach, the PSBT would acquire a 30 MHz license at
700 MHz and would enter into leases of spectrum usage rights with
commercial operators who would build a nationwide public safety network
that: (1) would be paid for by commercial operators using excess
capacity, not by the public safety community or the taxpayer; (2) would
be licensed and controlled by public safety representatives to ensure
public safety priority access; and (3) would be refreshed with the
latest technical improvements, funded by the commercial participants.
We do not support what some would call a ``hosted'' public safety
network. While the term may have somewhat different meanings to
different people, at its core it puts mission critical, emergency
response communications in a position of dependence with respect to the
host commercial provider. Moreover, it undermines or even negates the
essential nationwide character of the network. With all due respect to
commercial operators that might now express support for hosted systems,
there is nothing in the over 20-year history of commercial wireless
systems that would validate their reliability or availability for
mission critical public safety needs. That is not an arrangement that
the public safety community could endorse.
In regard to the Ninth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
recently issued by the Federal Communications Commission, we have many
concerns about the concepts set forth in that proposal. The Ninth NPRM
suggests that a nationwide broadband network could be built using the
12 MHz of spectrum currently allocated for local licensing of public
safety wideband systems. This would take away from local licensing
control the spectrum long promised for use by local agencies. In
addition we believe the proposal is seriously flawed by failing to
acknowledge the need for enough spectrum to attract investors to
participate in a public/private partnership where private funds would
be invested to build a nationwide network.
By contrast, the partnership outlined in the Public Safety
Broadband Trust creates a symbiotic and balanced relationship, but one
in which public safety always remains in control. It represents a win-
win opportunity if sufficient spectrum is allocated to accommodate both
public safety and commercial usage. Public safety cannot fund this
network on its own, but also must be confident that the network is
built to hardened public safety requirements with priority access that
is adequate to respond to emergencies. Commercial operators will lease
the spectrum and build the network to public safety specifications, but
only if there is sufficient excess capacity to permit meaningful
commercial service on a regular basis. The technical data supports the
conclusion that a minimum of 30 MHz is needed to serve these
complementary requirements.
The many public safety organizations and agencies that have
supported the PSBT approach recognize that it will require removing
some of the 700 MHz spectrum that currently is scheduled to be
auctioned. The PSBT proposal includes a plan to make the Federal budget
whole. The PSBT would raise $5 billion to pay the U.S. Treasury for the
spectrum, using the revenues from the commercial users and the
assistance of Federal loan guarantees similar to those that have been
made available to industries such as airlines, pipelines and automobile
manufacturers. This financing arrangement would ensure that other
Federal public safety spending priorities, including the $1 billion for
other public safety interoperable communications needs, would not be
affected.
Let me add that I and other supporters of the PSBT also endorse the
commendable work being done by local and regional organizations such as
the Capitol Area Region Broadband Project with respect to broadband. To
the extent their efforts bring about public safety communications
improvements, it is important work that deserves support. But we must
remain mindful that the results will be, at best, a patchwork of
improved, but incompatible, non-interoperable networks at a daunting
per unit cost. They are doing what they can in light of the regulatory
and financial environment in which they must operate, but this Nation
can and must do better.
I have dedicated most of my professional career to the advancement
of public safety communications. From that perspective, I believe this
Congress has an extraordinary time-sensitive opportunity. Approval of
the PSBT and the public sector-private sector partnership will catapult
public safety to its rightful place in the forefront of communications
capability while at the same time delivering broadband service to
communities that continue to be bypassed by the commercial
telecommunications revolution. I hope you will share my belief that
this is an opportunity that must be seized for the benefit of the
entire American public.
The Chairman. I thank you very much.
May I now call upon Mr. O'Brien, Chairman of Cyren Call.
Mr. O'Brien?
STATEMENT OF MORGAN O'BRIEN, CHAIRMAN,
CYREN CALL COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. O'Brien. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Vice
Chairman and members of the Committee.
My name is Morgan O'Brien, and I am no stranger to
controversy.
[Laughter.]
Mr. O'Brien. In 1987, I was a founder of a company then
called Fleet Call, which became Nextel. And the relevance of
the history of my experience and--at Fleet Call and Nextel--to
today's deliberation is that Fleet Call and Nextel approached
the FCC and argued strenuously that a more efficient use of
spectrum, a different way of handling spectrum, would create a
competitive opportunity to the cellular industry that was a
duopoly. It would be fair to say that the response in 1987 from
the established cellular industry, the wireless operations, and
the wireless carriers, was violent. I understand well the
process of innovation and introducing disruptive technology
into an existing environment.
I think the success that Nextel accomplished illustrates
vividly the point that competition, as opposed to competitors,
is the guiding principle in the regulation of
telecommunications. I know I'm preaching to the converted when
I talk about competition to this committee, but the history of
Nextel--which, for 18 years, I lived intimately--was that new
competition and disruptive technology are never welcome, but
they have a very beneficial effect.
At Nextel I also developed a high degree of confidence for
the private sector--the willingness of the private sector to
capitalize new ventures and the ability of a new venture such
as Nextel to take on the establishment, build up market share,
and be a long-time successful operation. I know that process. I
know the elements. And I believe I see the same opportunity
here.
Prior to the Nextel experience, and, in a certain way, a
return for me to my roots, I had the privilege of working at
the Federal Communications Commission in the 1970s, working in
the area of spectrum management of private radio services, the
key player in the private radio services being public safety.
So, I began my career working for several years at the FCC,
working on the same thorny issue that we're talking about
today, and that was in the 1970s. Spectrum management is a more
rational way of using and assigning frequencies for the most
important users of radio communications frequencies, which is
public safety.
The details of the proposal that Cyren Call has put forward
to this committee and to the FCC are set out in my testimony
and others, so I won't take the time to go through the details
now. I just want to make one or two points of emphasis.
By far the most important element of our proposal is that
30 megahertz of spectrum be licensed to a not-for-profit Public
Safety Broadband Trust broadly representative of the public
interest--public safety interest at State, local, and Federal
levels--throughout this country. I want to stress the
implications of having that type of a licensee, something never
before attempted, and the difference of a non-profit oriented
license. The not-for-profit licensee would be sufficiently
instructed by legislation and by the FCC to achieve certain
objectives not in the commercial interest, but instead in the
public interest. For example, providing the broadest possible
coverage, even when the broadest possible coverage isn't the
most economically rational thing to do. Providing a public-
safety-grade build-out would not be economically rational but
for a licensee such as the Public Safety Broadband Trust.
So, I draw your attention to the importance of awarding a
license, figuring out a way to make that license available to
the Public Safety Broadband Trust, and then following through
the implications--the powerful implications--of how that type
of licensee, working with the private sector--again, something
unprecedented--can use the private sector and the willingness
of the private sector to finance a next-generation network.
I'd like to make a last point--actually there are two last
points. One, any effect of our proposal, or proposals like our
proposal, that would delay the availability of spectrum based
on the earlier legislation, in our view, would be a terrible
mistake. Anything that would affect the billion dollars that's
available--or will be coming available to public safety
interoperability--again, would be a terrible mistake. No one at
Cyren Call in any way would support that. So, if that were the
unfortunate consequence, and a choice had to be made, the clear
choice is not to affect those deadlines. That would be counter
to the best interest of public safety and the public interest.
I want to say one final word about three aspects of
competition. First and foremost, the disruptive and positive
effect of a new player coming into the wireless industry at
this point of time, I think, cannot be exaggerated. Competition
is important, and protecting competitors is not important, as
has been so often the case before.
Secondly, the use of competition is important. If a Public
Safety Broadband Trust is created, to recruit and develop the
best possible range of commercial operators to partner with
public safety under the guidance of public safety, the use of
competition will be effective. And, third, and most painfully
and most personally, I want to address the competition for the
role that Cyren Call has sought. We are absolutely consistent
with the logic of the Public Safety Broadband Trust making the
right decision, looking fully and competitively to determine
who would be the best partner, and the best manager in this
type of relationship. We're prepared to go through that
process. We would hope to win in that process. But, again, we
look at the competition.
And I thank you very much, and I hope to have a chance to
talk more in the questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. O'Brien follows:]
Prepared Statement of Morgan O'Brien, Chairman,
Cyren Call Communications
Good morning Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Stevens, members of the
Committee. My name is Morgan O'Brien. I am the Chairman of Cyren Call
Communications Corporation. Prior to forming Cyren Call last year, I
spent eighteen years as a founder of Nextel Communications, Inc. I
served most recently as Vice Chairman of Nextel prior to its merger
with Sprint Corporation.
Historically, Congress and the FCC have treated the communications
requirements of the public safety and commercial communities as
separate and distinct. As a result, public safety increasingly has been
left behind while commercial service providers have revolutionized the
telecommunications capabilities of the Nation. The challenge before us
today is how to correct this imbalance, since 9/11 taught us that we
are all one nation facing a new threat. To meet this threat, public
safety must have the same extraordinary capabilities that consumers
already are beginning to enjoy on commercial broadband networks.
The Nation's emergency response providers are being asked to take
on ever expanded duties with limited human and financial resources.
Improved technology is key to enabling that workforce to keep pace with
those responsibilities. This Committee has repeatedly recognized the
importance of broadband for the general public. The Nation's most
essential users, the individuals who protect our persons and property,
also have a paramount need to access the almost mind-boggling
capabilities that can be delivered on an advanced wireless broadband
network. We must identify an approach that at last will permit public
safety users to be at the forefront of this Nation's telecommunications
revolution.
On April 27, 2006, Cyren Call filed a comprehensive proposal with
the FCC in which it recommended the creation of a nationwide, wireless
broadband network for public safety and commercial use employing an
innovative public sector-private sector partnership and funding method.
In my opinion, and as indicated by the public safety representatives
who address you today, this shared 30 MHz governmental/commercial
network at 700 MHz, described more fully below, is the only technically
and financially viable solution for the following reasons:
First, those who protect our lives and property should be
using best-in-class, state-of-the-art wireless technology, and
all too frequently they are not. Both spectrum and financial
limitations act as barriers to that objective.
Second, the Nation's public safety mobile capabilities must
be upgraded as the FCC has reported on several occasions over
the past few years. The public safety community's expanded
responsibilities require a nationwide, interoperable broadband
network at 700 MHz. Comments filed by thousands of public
safety representatives in response to several recent FCC
proceedings confirm that they embrace the idea of a 700 MHz
broadband public safety network.
Third, the realities of local, state and even Federal
funding constraints make it clear that the public sector--on
its own--cannot finance a broadband network with the necessary
geographic coverage and technical capabilities. Indeed, earlier
this week, the Administration proposed sharp cuts in FY 2008
grants for first responders. And even if such a network could
be built with taxpayer dollars--a daunting assumption that
requires the availability of tens of billions of dollars for
that purpose alone--the ongoing cost of operating, maintaining
and continuously upgrading it to keep pace with technological
improvements vastly exceeds available public funding sources.
Fourth, more than twenty-five years of commercial wireless
deployment has also made it clear that no business case has
emerged to induce commercial carriers to build out their
networks beyond areas of relative population density, even
though substantial spectrum has been made available for that
purpose. Yet, the individuals in those communities still
require police, fire, emergency medical and other vital
governmental services. Moreover, they deserve access to the
same wireless broadband technology that is transforming
peoples' lives and their ways of conducting business in more
urban markets.
The considerable time I have spent over the past years with police,
fire, EMS and other emergency response providers, those serving rural,
sparsely populated communities as well as those in major urban areas,
has given me a deep appreciation for their truly unique communications
requirements. Access to tomorrow's broadband devices will be essential,
for example, to enable police officers to have real-time (streaming)
video of a crime scene or major disaster as it unfolds. That type of
situational awareness will give first responders a quantum leap in
intelligence, a 21st century equivalent to body armor.
Just as important, it is becoming increasingly clear that the
Nation needs a secure wireless broadband network to meet the needs of
the critical infrastructure community, upon which our economy and well-
being depend. Their access to a secure broadband network, in times of
national threat or emergency will be a vital enhancement to the
Nation's security.
At Nextel I had hands-on experience building a commercial wireless
network from the ground up, while also converting operations from
analog to digital technology. I know what is required to finance,
deploy, operate, maintain and upgrade a top-quality, large-scale
wireless network. Even with that experience, I do not underestimate the
even greater challenge of building a nationwide broadband network to
the more demanding public safety specifications and fully appreciate
that the commitment, of necessity, is long-term. But it must be started
now and started right. If public safety is to enjoy the advanced
capabilities it needs and deserves, its wireless devices must be
developed in conjunction with the right technology platform, not
retrofitted to conform to a system built to less stringent commercial
standards.
It is the combination of these factors that led to the creation of
Cyren Call and its work with the public safety community in developing
the concept of a governmental/commercial shared 30 MHz broadband
network at 700 MHz, the license for which would be held by the Public
Safety Broadband Trust (PSBT). The PSBT would consist of
representatives of a broad variety of local, state and Federal
Governmental entities and organizations. Excess capacity on the 30 MHz
would be leased to commercial carriers for entirely commercial service
in exchange for building, maintaining, operating and upgrading the
network in accordance with specifications established by the PSBT. The
PSBT proposal contemplates that public safety entities would pay for
their own subscriber equipment and for system access. However, they
would avoid the infrastructure costs that require extraordinary bond or
other taxpayer measures, measures that take years to effectuate and, at
best, provide individual organizations with equipment that already may
be outdated by the time it is deployed, and which then cannot be
upgraded for years or decades without additional taxpayer funding.
Instead, the PSBT approach would mirror the commercial approach to
network upgrades; public safety technology would be refreshed routinely
in accordance with the demands of the consumer marketplace, although
always consistent with the PSBT specifications as well. Public safety
also would enjoy the cost economies of subscriber devices produced in
volume for the broader consumer market, economies that continue to
drive down the cost of cell phones and other wireless products.
The result would be a nationwide broadband network available to
serve both public safety entities and the general public. It would not
replace existing public safety voice facilities, but would provide
access to a state-of-the-art system built specifically to public safety
standards. On a day-to-day basis, the great majority of capacity would
be devoted to commercial usage. While public and private wireless
operations traditionally have been viewed as incompatible, the 21st
century network contemplated in the PSBT proposal permits rational
shared use. The first commercial subscribers are likely to be a
combination of users such as utilities with more demanding public
safety-like requirements and first adopters who want access to the most
advanced technology available. However during emergencies, whether of a
local, statewide, regional or even nationwide scope, increased access
and capacity would automatically be dedicated for emergency response
provider purposes on a scaled basis as dictated by the event. Of
course, the rules of the road with respect to preemption would be
established in advance by the PSBT so that those transmitting less
critical communications would know to anticipate some disruption during
those events. Those with vital transmissions, network users at the
local, state and Federal levels, would have immediate, seamless
interoperability. Public safety agencies operating on their own systems
in other bands also could be provided with interoperability through IP-
based gateway patches that would reside on the network and use its IP
backbone resources.
The operation of this network would represent a substantial
challenge for commercial wireless veterans and will require careful
oversight by the PSBT, whose members are not professional network
operators. The legislation therefore permits, but most certainly does
not require, the PSBT to hire personnel or enter into contracts with
parties that bring skills critical to the network's success. Cyren Call
believes it has the qualifications to take on important
responsibilities vis-a-vis the network and has raised capital in
anticipation of responding to any PSBT management services request for
proposal. However, I will state here for the record what I have stated
publicly and repeatedly since filing the proposal with the FCC in April
2006: Cyren Call is not asking for a guarantee of any ongoing role with
respect to the PSBT or this 700 MHz spectrum. All such decisions will
remain firmly in the hands of the PSBT, participation in which will be
limited exclusively to public safety/governmental organizations.
Representatives of the Nation's police and fire officers have
explained to the Committee their critical need for broadband capability
on a national scale. They have described some of the functions that
cannot be introduced on their current radio systems, but that would be
available on a 30 MHz broadband network. Public safety officers are
hampered today by not having access to features such as streaming
video, large file downloads (e.g., building diagrams and architectural
plans), remote database access and multi-media messaging capability.
And these are the capabilities that we already know are needed. The
history of telecommunications teaches us that the introduction of
improved technologies spawns applications and functionalities even
beyond those originally anticipated. Who could have anticipated in 1983
when the first analog cellular system was activated that subscribers in
2007 would be using their ``phones'' to take pictures, watch
television, read e-mails and maintain calendars? It is not possible to
envision today all of the uses to which emergency response providers
and commercial subscribers will put this broadband network since the
only limits will be those of entrepreneurial ingenuity. However, a
compelling advantage of this public/private broadband partnership is
that public safety at last will enjoy the ongoing technical
developments that now are taken for granted by subscribers on
commercial networks. Competition in a fully competitive marketplace is
a powerful engine for driving technological advances.
Technical improvements on this order require an appropriate
spectrum platform. Yet critics of this governmental/commercial shared
network claim that public safety does not need additional spectrum on
which to deploy a broadband network. They argue that public safety
could meet its needs by using its existing spectrum more effectively.
The proponents of such criticism either are woefully misinformed or
are willfully disingenuous about the reality of public safety spectrum
allocations. Most public safety spectrum is allocated in individual 25
kHz or 12.5 kHz channels. These channels are but a fraction of the
spectrum awarded to each cellular and PCS licensee and, even then, are
not contiguous to one another. Under rules and procedures established
by the FCC, they are interleaved with channels used by a variety of
non-public safety entities and must coexist with them. Even if the FCC
were inclined to displace all existing public safety operations on this
shared spectrum, those individual channels could not be cobbled
together to create a block of contiguous spectrum adequate to support a
broadband network. Suggesting otherwise is a deliberate attempt to
mislead Congress and this Committee. The fact that this fiction
originated from CTIA, the organization representing the wireless
carriers who have made no secret of their appetite for the spectrum in
question, speaks volumes.
The public safety community also has stated already that even the
12 MHz of contiguous public safety spectrum at 700 MHz proposed by the
FCC for a nationwide broadband network is entirely inadequate for that
purpose. They have determined that it would not provide enough capacity
to accommodate all governmental broadband usage, much less provide
excess capacity that would attract commercial partners.
It is for precisely this reason that the public safety community
has embraced the fundamental premise of the PSBT legislation--a shared
governmental/commercial 30 MHz broadband network is the only
economically realistic vehicle for delivering broadband capabilities to
local, state and Federal public safety users as well as to the American
people that live beyond the outposts of commercial wireless deployment.
If there is a better answer, one that addresses all of the technical
and economic factors that must be integrated to produce a workable
solution, its proponents should be here, before this Committee, so that
their proposal could be tested for cohesiveness and validity. The needs
of public safety are urgent and immediate. They should not be deferred
in the hope that this problem will resolve itself or that an easier
solution will emerge. They most certainly should not be denied because
of a previously enacted Congressional auction schedule.
Last week's oversight hearings also reaffirmed that this Committee
and the FCC consider ubiquitous broadband deployment one of the
fundamental challenges for our Nation's telecommunications policies.
There is no question that state-of-the-art broadband technology should
be delivered to all of our citizens, not just those in the more densely
populated communities that support purely commercial deployment.
Indeed, several Senators questioned whether there should be incentives
for more expansive broadband deployment and how addressing this issue
might impact the Universal Service Fund.
The shared governmental/commercial network proposed in the PSBT
legislation represents a solution that requires neither governmental
incentives nor USF moneys. Chief McEwen has explained the financial
structure of the PSBT legislation. He has described how the Federal
Treasury will be compensated for the 30 MHz of spectrum that would be
allocated to the PSBT rather than auctioned.
The success of this approach is dependent upon two factors. First,
the network must be conceived, organized and operated as a nationwide
system with operations in more commercially attractive markets such as
Los Angeles and New York defraying the cost of providing service in
areas such as North Dakota, South Dakota, Arkansas, Mississippi, and
West Virginia. The network must operate on the principle of coupling
access to prime spectrum usage rights in commercially desirable markets
with the obligation to build and operate, or contribute to the
construction and operation of, the network in more sparsely populated
and underserved markets. If not, it will be bound by the same economic
barriers that, to date, have defined the geographic coverage of
commercial wireless systems. Indeed, one of the PSBT's greatest
challenges will be balancing public safety coverage requirements with
the implacable economic realities of network costs.
Second, there must be sufficient capacity to support governmental
usage while still attracting commercial interest. The former dictates
that the network be built to hardened public safety specifications,
substantially beyond the requirements of a typical commercial system,
and that it have truly nationwide coverage through a combination of
terrestrial and satellite service. The cost of deploying such a network
is substantial. The commercial operators who will be building,
maintaining, operating and improving it pursuant to their lease
arrangements with the PSBT must be confident that there will be
sufficient commercial capacity to support significant usage by a
commercial customer base large enough to justify their investments.
Let me share with you a summary of the analysis that suggests 30
MHz is the minimum needed to support a viable network of this scope.
Terrestrial Coverage Cost: Public safety must provide
services wherever there is public to serve. A nationwide public
safety broadband network is assumed to require a terrestrial
build to 99.3 percent population coverage. The favorable
propagation characteristics at 700 MHz help reduce costs of
network construction, operation and maintenance vis-a-vis
building out in a higher band, but even with the 700 MHz
coverage advantages, it still is estimated that approximately
37,000 cell sites will be needed.
Satellite Coverage Cost: Although the terrestrial build-out
would cover 99.3 percent of the population, 35 percent of the
Nation's land mass would not receive service from terrestrial
sites. To ensure that public safety providers and the general
public scattered throughout these sparsely populated areas
nonetheless would have coverage, coverage that is not always
available even today, and to guarantee a level of nationwide
redundancy in the event of a catastrophe along the lines of
Hurricane Katrina, satellite coverage will be an essential part
of the network. Both terrestrial and satellite capabilities
would be built into handsets so that emergency response
providers will develop a full familiarity with both as part of
their day-to-day radio operations.
Hardened Network Cost: The occasional dropped call or
network outage is an inconvenience, not a catastrophe, for a
commercial subscriber. When a police or fire officer or an EMT
loses communications, a life may be lost. Because of the
responsibilities their personnel shoulder, public safety
agencies require their communications systems to be built to
significantly higher standards of reliability and redundancy
than are the norm in commercial networks. Each of these
elements adds cost to the network.
Operational/Maintenance/Upgrade Cost: Economic analyses
often focus on the cost of initial network deployment and fail
to calculate the very substantial ongoing expenses associated
with operating, maintaining and upgrading wireless systems. In
fact, those costs can dwarf build-out expenses even when the
up-front investment is significant. A 37,000 plus site network
providing advanced capabilities to millions of public safety
and commercial subscribers will have very significant
operational and maintenance costs. Refreshing the network with
technology upgrades as dictated by the marketplace and
consistent with PSBT specifications will require additional
financial commitments on the part of the commercial operators.
Estimated Usage: The history of wireless communications is
that subscriber usage invariably exceeds estimates. The
spectrum efficiencies gained when improved technologies are
introduced permit new applications that themselves prompt
additional system utilization. The impact on network usage when
public safety leapfrogs from voice-centric communications to
streaming video and other spectrum-consuming applications will
be extraordinary. And the data applications that drive
broadband usage will only expand once this next-generation
network is deployed. The viability of the network will depend,
among other factors, on ensuring that it has sufficient
capacity to support these more capacity-consuming applications
while maintaining a public safety grade blocking rate.
Required Rate of Return: Commercial operators have a
financial obligation to their investors and/or shareholders.
The potential rate of return associated with the shared
governmental/commercial network described herein must justify
the investment required to fund the elements identified above.
This requires capacity that is adequate to accommodate local,
state and Federal Government usage with enough excess capacity
to support an economically remunerative commercial subscriber
base as well. There is no viable business case for a shared 12
MHz nationwide broadband network. 30 MHz is the minimum
allocation that will satisfy this purpose.
By scheduling this hearing, this Committee already has demonstrated
its seriousness of purpose with respect to public safety communications
requirements. It has been apparent for some time that the traditional
response to a worsening situation, piecemeal financing of individual,
incompatible systems serving individual needs, is prohibitively costly
to taxpayers and does not address what clearly is a systemic problem.
The solution endorsed by the public safety community, creation of
the PSBT and the assignment to it of a 30 MHz authorization designated
specifically for deployment of a nationwide, advanced technology,
interoperable, and secure wireless broadband network shared by
governmental and commercial users, represents a unique opportunity to
address both public safety and rural broadband needs. But time is not
on the side of those who support this initiative. Its opponents
recognize that actions taken by prior Congresses mean that the clock
continues to tick down toward the auction deadline for this 700 MHz
spectrum. A failure to act promptly will eliminate this solution by
default and stalemate, and rob Congress of the opportunity to engage in
reasoned decisionmaking on this vital national issue.
I urge Congress to embrace the comprehensive approach set out in
the PSBT legislation and endorse a public/private partnership that will
deliver wireless broadband service to all of the American public and
provide public safety with the telecommunications capabilities needed
to protect the safety of our citizenry.
The Chairman. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And may I now call upon President and CEO of CTIA, Steve
Largent?
STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE LARGENT, PRESIDENT AND CEO, CTIA--THE
WIRELESS ASSOCIATION '
Mr. Largent. Thank you, Chairman Inouye and Co-Chairman
Stevens and members of the Committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today.
I support the idea of an interoperable wireless broadband
public safety network. One only has to look at the efforts
between the industry and public safety on E-911, wireless
priority service, wireless AMBER alerts, and, most recently,
the WARN Act and emergency alerts, to know that this industry
is serious about public safety. We will do our part in this
instance, too.
I have several points to make to you today. First, Congress
got it right a year ago, when it passed the DTV Act, setting a
firm date for the full conversion to digital television and
giving public safety agencies access to an additional 24
megahertz of spectrum in the 700-megahertz band. This will
double public safety's spectrum inventory from pre-September
11th levels. Additionally, this committee was instrumental in
providing a billion dollars in funding for interoperable
communications to be drawn from commercial spectrum auction
proceeds. The DTV Act promises an expedient transition to
digital television, advanced wireless broadband services, and
enhanced interoperability for our first responders. Now is not
the time for change.
Second, interoperability challenges faced by first
responders are not based on a lack of spectrum. Upon completion
of the DTV transition, public safety will have 49.7 megahertz
of spectrum to use for state-of-the-art voice and data services
to serve approximately 3 million first responders. Cyren Call
would have you believe that public safety networks will use
that spectrum only to provide voice service and that more
spectrum is needed for data. CTIA's largest carriers use, on
average, the same amount of spectrum, yet provide both voice
and broadband data services to more than 50 million customers
each. This debate should not be about spectrum.
If the problem facing public safety is not spectrum, what
is the problem? I offer that it is, as was said earlier,
limited funding and divided turf. I don't dispute the need to
improve interoperability and the broadband capabilities of our
Nation's public safety communications system. If the Committee
is looking for a model solution for how to deal with these
challenges, I suggest you look to the effort of New York City.
Under the leadership of Mayor Bloomberg, it has made great
strides toward solving interoperability challenges that cost
them so dearly on September 11th. Last September, New York City
announced it had awarded a contract for a public safety
broadband wireless network that will utilize 10 megahertz of
spectrum in the 2.5 gigahertz band to provide enhanced,
interoperable broadband services. Solutions addressing the
needs of public safety are available today.
Third, Cyren Call's plan should be rejected. It's untimely,
unwise, and unnecessary less than 10 months before the auction
is expected to occur. The Cyren Call plan could have been
debated during the period in which the DTV bill was crafted,
but it was not. That was a 10-year period of time. The proposal
is a giveaway that shortchanges the U.S. Treasury, potentially
by billions of dollars. Additionally, the financing scheme set
forth in Cyren Call's proposal effectively requires taxpayers
to subsidize Mr. O'Brien's entry into the commercial space.
Today, wireless industry is highly competitive, and there's no
compelling reason to subsidize additional entry.
Fourth, if Cyren Call's proposal is not the solution, what
is? The wireless industry accepts that it has a responsibility
to provide expertise in what works and what doesn't work to
solve public safety's interoperability needs. Accordingly, I am
pleased to announce that the Silicon Flatiron's program at the
University of Colorado, through a grant provided by CTIA, will
host a 2-day joint experts meeting here in Washington, D.C.,
the week of April 9th. Dale Hatfield, the respected former head
of the Office of Engineering and Technology at the FCC, has
indicated a willingness to lead this effort. Leaders from the
public safety world will be invited to join experts from the
commercial sector to discuss the best solutions for public
safety. They will address broadband and interoperability, and
specifically investigate use of CMRS technologies, unlicensed
WiMAX, and Muni WiFi applications, solutions from New York and
the Washington National Capital Region, reliance on a national
systems integrator, as well as issues involving spectrum needs,
costs, time to market, and complexity. I've spoken to several
of our largest carrier manufacturer CEOs, and they have
committed to have their leading subject-matter experts at the
meeting. The goal is not another discussion, but real work
toward the best solutions. Putting the best minds together can
get us there.
What is needed from Congress is a continued commitment to
the DTV transition and the interoperability grant programs. You
can use your influence to help solve the leadership and turf
battles that too often slow progress towards interoperability,
and you can reject the false choice that one must be for Mr.
O'Brien's plan to be for public safety, as that is not the
case.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Largent follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Steve Largent, President and CEO,
CTIA--the Wireless Association '
Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Stevens and members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning on an
issue that is of great significance to the wireless industry, but more
importantly, critical to the security and safety of this country--the
present and future of public safety communications.
As someone who was a Member of Congress on September 11th, 2001 and
now as President of CTIA, I am keenly aware of the need for a national,
interoperable wireless broadband public safety network. I am proud to
say that the wireless industry has a long and proven track record of
working with public safety agencies throughout the country to develop
public safety and interoperability solutions. One only has to look at
the collaborative efforts between the wireless industry and public
safety on E-911, Wireless Priority Service, Wireless AMBER Alerts and,
most recently, the WARN Act and emergency alerts to know that this
industry is committed to developing a world class 21st century
communications network. It is imperative that our Nation's first
responders have access to the latest technology, such as broadband data
and video capabilities that are now currently available in wireless
handsets used by American consumers.
This Committee and Congress got it right a year ago when it passed
The Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act (DTV Act)
setting a firm date for the full conversion from analog to digital
television. The DTV Act represents years of careful consideration on
the part of Congress, the FCC, NTIA, public safety, television
broadcasters, and the wireless and technology industries. As a result
of this landmark legislation, public safety agencies will have access
to an additional 24 MHz of spectrum in the prime 700 MHz band doubling
public safety's spectrum inventory as compared to pre-9/11 levels.
Additionally, this Committee was instrumental in providing $1 billion
in funding for interoperable communications from the auction proceeds
of commercial spectrum.
As Chairman Martin and Commissioner Adelstein said last week before
the Committee, the reallocation of the 700 MHz band is one of the most
important undertakings before the Commission. I commend the FCC on
taking the next crucial step with its notice of proposed rulemaking
which solicits input from the best and the brightest as to how best to
deploy an interoperable network utilizing the 24 MHz of prime spectrum.
Congress has made prudent decisions by setting a hard date for the
DTV transition and by making funding available to public safety for
interoperability grants. It is therefore crucial that the auction for
this spectrum occur expeditiously. A timely auction will raise much
needed funds for interoperability and make the promise of wireless
broadband a reality for the U.S. economy, consumers, and importantly,
the millions of non-first responder government officials who rely on
commercial networks to keep their cell phones and PDAs functioning
during a crisis.
There is no dispute regarding the need to improve interoperability
and the broadband capabilities of our Nation's public safety
communications system; however, the Cyren Call plan or other proposals
that stray from the path set by the DTV Act only serve to hinder and
delay the transition.
It is the firm belief of CTIA and the wireless industry that now is
not the time to alter the procedures set in place by the DTV Act.
Congress and the FCC must remain committed to the current course, which
promises an expedient transition to digital television, advanced
wireless broadband services, and most importantly, enhanced
interoperability for our first responders.
I would like to emphasize that the current interoperability
challenges faced by first responders is not based on a lack of
spectrum. Upon completion of the DTV transition as currently
configured, public safety will have 49.7 MHz of spectrum (not including
the 50 MHz that they have been allocated in the 4.9 GHz band) to use
for voice and data services to serve approximately 3 million first
responders. Cyren Call would have you believe that public safety
networks will use that 49.7 MHz to provide only voice service to the 3
million first responders, and that more spectrum is needed for data. In
comparison, three of our largest carriers use, on average, the same
amount of spectrum, yet provide both voice AND broadband data services
to over 50 million customers each, with two of them serving over 60
million. Commercial operators, using the same 50 MHz of spectrum, can
provide voice and data service to 60 million Americans. The commercial
wireless industry provides interoperable voice and data services to
twenty times the number of customers as are served by public safety.
This is not about spectrum.
Professor Jon Peha of Carnegie Mellon has studied the current
fragmented approach to public safety communications, and has come to
the conclusion that the current approach consumes more spectrum than it
should. To date, the United States has assigned approximately 200 MHz
of spectrum to the commercial wireless industry, and there currently
are over 230 million subscribers. National wireless carriers in the
U.S., on average, use 1 MHz of spectrum to provide service to one
million customers. After the 700 MHz auction, public safety will have
almost 50 MHz of spectrum to serve 3 million first responder
subscribers. Public safety will have 16 times more spectrum, per user,
than the average nationwide carrier does now, and again, this figure
does not include the 50 MHz of spectrum that public safety has been
allocated in the 4.9 GHz band. Even before the DTV transition, public
safety currently has 8 MHz per million users. If spectrum is not the
problem inhibiting a coordinated and cohesive interoperable public
safety network, then what is the problem?
If the Committee is looking for an answer to this question, I would
suggest the Committee should examine effort of New York City.
Last September, New York City announced it had awarded a five-year,
$500 million dollar contract to Northrup Grumman to develop a public
safety broadband wireless network. The proposed network will utilize 10
MHz of spectrum in the 2.5 GHz band, and is designed to enhance public
safety by facilitating communication between first responders. The
network will utilize Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS)
technology from IP Wireless because of its inherent spectral
efficiency, which reduces the network's need for spectrum while
providing New York with a technology sufficient for its public safety
wireless broadband requirements. According to IP Wireless, the system
can deliver download data rates of 8 to 10 megabits with future
versions capable of 30 megabits of download speed. These speeds can
easily accommodate applications that first responders require.
Examples such as this illustrate that through the use of modern
wireless technologies, the 24 MHz of 700 MHz spectrum that already is
allocated to public safety is more than sufficient to meet the data
rates and bandwidth requirements for an interoperable broadband
service.
* * * * *
As I mentioned earlier, the DTV Act represents 10 years of
painstaking deliberation on the part of policymakers and stakeholders.
Mr. O'Brien had ample opportunity during those 10 years to put forth
his Cyren Call proposal and have its merits debated before the DTV
legislation was enacted. Instead, Cyren Call offered its proposed
alternative approach in April 2006--two months after the legislation
was signed into law.
In April of last year, Cyren Call filed a petition with the FCC
requesting that an additional 30 MHz of commercial spectrum in the 700
MHz band be reallocated to construct a nationwide broadband emergency
communications system to be used by first responders. Cyren Call's
business plan, and to be clear, Cyren Call is a for-profit business
venture, proposes that the spectrum be deeded to a ``Public Safety
Broadband Trust'' which would in turn lease the spectrum to commercial
operators in exchange for their commitment to construct a national
broadband network.
On November 3, 2006, the FCC dismissed Cyren Call's petition,
noting that the venture is inconsistent with the DTV Act. Unwilling to
take ``no'' for an answer, Mr. O'Brien and his team of lobbyists have
begun seeking legislation based on the proposal the FCC rejected.
The Cyren Call proposal shortchanges the U.S. Treasury, and thus
the taxpayers--potentially by billions of dollars. Under the terms of
Cyren Call's proposal, the corporation is entitled to purchase a chunk
of the valuable 700 MHz band on a no-bid, non-compete basis, for an
amount ``not to exceed'' $5 billion. Many recent estimates suggest this
is likely to be far less than the spectrum would fetch at auction.
Additionally, the bill requires taxpayers to subsidize the
corporation's below-market purchase of the spectrum by guaranteeing up
to $10 billion of loans to the corporation, half of which can be used
by the corporation to buy the public safety broadband license. The rest
could be paid to the private sector entities selected by the
corporation to lease the spectrum, in essence requiring the taxpayers
to subsidize those entities as well. Despite a decidedly mixed track
record in administering complex indebtedness issues in the NextWave
case, the FCC would provide the loan guarantees.
Another concern the Committee should examine is the rural
component, or lack thereof, associated with the Cyren Call proposal.
This plan offers little for those who live in the more sparsely
populated areas of our country. Since coming on board at CTIA 3 years
ago, one of the issues about which I hear most frequently from Members
of Congress is the need for more wireless services in rural America.
The DTV Act, as enacted, promises to remedy this problem by enabling
CTIA member companies to bring wireless broadband service in America's
rural communities more quickly.
* * * * *
This Committee and Congress should be justifiably proud its
accomplishment of in enacting the DTV Act, which allocates 24 MHz of
spectrum for public safety; provides an estimated $7 billion for
deficit reduction; and sets aside $1 billion for interoperability
grants. The quicker these grants are dispersed, the quicker public
safety can address their interoperability needs. Unfortunately, Cyren
Call's proposal puts all the aforementioned at risk.
Now, just 12 months before the DTV conversion is to be completed,
is not the time for Congress to be changing the rules of the game,
particularly since Mr. O'Brien had ample opportunity before the DTV
bill was enacted to come forward with his proposal.
What is needed by this Committee and Congress is a continued
commitment to see this through. Mr. O'Brien offers you the false choice
that one must be for his plan to be for public safety. I am here to
tell you that is not the case, and to pledge that the wireless industry
stands ready to work with public safety to construct efficient,
interoperable networks for the health and welfare of our citizens.
Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
The Chairman. I thank you very much, Mr. Largent.
May I now call on Chairman Billstrom?
STATEMENT OF DAVID BILLSTROM, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, NATIONAL
INTEROP, INC.
Mr. Billstrom. Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Stevens,
members of the Committee, I'm deeply honored to be here today
speaking on interoperable communications from the front lines.
My name is David Billstrom. I am a public safety
communications executive with a 25-year history in the computer
industry, radio communications, and venture capital, but I'm
also a first responder. I've been a first responder for over 25
years, first as an EMT, then in sheriff search and rescue, and
now as one of the 27,000 volunteer firefighters in the Pacific
Northwest. So, I'm in the unusual position of being part of the
interoperability problem and, I hope, part of the solution.
I'm going to try to talk about three things today: why
interoperability is so expensive, what's wrong with the plans
underway in almost every State, and why Google provides the key
to effective public safety communications.
First, why is it expensive? If we continue on the current
path to interoperability solutions, I can guarantee that in 5
years, if you invite me back, we'll be back talking about this
problem. The political, policy, and media coverage of
interoperability is dominated by the equipment issue. And as
anyone who knows me can tell you, I love equipment. But as a
volunteer firefighter, I have a responsibility to tell you that
it's not about the equipment. The secret is that standard
operating procedures, training, and other people issues are
just as important. The FCC report on Katrina came to the same
conclusion.
But the emphasis on equipment is understandable. It's
tangible. You can touch it. It's concrete. And, in fact, we've
asked our radio equipment vendors to--for their help solving
our problem, and those radio vendors have done their best to
give us a good answer--in their own understandable business
interests.
In the last several years, at the direction of Congress,
many States have reviewed their needs. They've generally
proposed completely new statewide systems. Those systems will
be state-of-the-art, best-of-breed, and very effective. They'll
also be the most expensive radio systems ever devised. In one
State, the construction costs worked out to $65,000 per user,
and then the cost of the radios, $3,500. Why does it matter to
the Committee? With every State I've met with, they plan to ask
Congress to pay for most, if not all, of these statewide
systems. How much are we talking about? In Washington State,
$600 million; Oregon, $561 million for phase 1; Florida's
system was $900 million; and New York started construction on a
$2 billion system. A good working number for a statewide
interoperability system, as designed, is $1 billion each. This
is a $50-$100 billion problem. And here's the kicker, that
price does not include radios for the local public safety
agencies. It's for the State, for the dispatch centers, for the
towers, and for radios for the State public safety agencies,
not the locals.
This committee already knows that 72 percent of all
firefighters are volunteers, 79 percent of all police officers
work for local police departments, and virtually all EMTs are
local. Eighty percent of our first responders work for local
agencies. It goes without saying, they can't all afford to buy
new radios.
The approach is upside down. We should be building radio
systems first to accommodate the nearly 2 million local first
responders, then the State and Federal responders, not the
other way around.
But I have good news. First, imagine if your cell phone
only worked when you called other people using the same kind of
cell phone on the same network. So, a Verizon customer couldn't
talk to a Sprint. Imagine if you couldn't access Google through
Dell computers, only HP. It would be ridiculous in a commercial
world, but that's exactly what we deal with in the public
safety world. For example, that $3,500 police radio in Seattle,
Washington; if you take it to Portland, Oregon, it won't work.
Wireless carriers and Internet providers have already
solved this fundamental problem of interoperability, because
they had to. The same core idea of the Internet backbone and
the desire to communicate--indeed, the same technology--is
going to solve our problem. The U.S. military is already using
a technology called IP Radio to connect together very different
radios all over the world for over 4 years. Philosophically,
they have solved our problem. And, like Google and Yahoo!, the
technology is absolutely independent of the hardware. There are
several companies offering IP Radio. The market's led by two
companies: a small company, Twisted Pair Solutions, and a
slightly larger company, Cisco.
And it's not just the U.S. military leading the way. A
pilot project of IP Radio known as OPSCAN, in Washington State,
is a DHS-funded public safety system. It uses an IP Radio
technology to connect together 41 different local, State, and
Federal agencies, three Indian tribes, and first responders
from Canada. The scope of this system is comparable to a small
State, but at a fraction of the cost.
IP isn't magic, and it can't do everything, but it will win
the marketplace of ideas, because it's open, standards-based,
and affordable. It's not closed, proprietary, or massively
expensive.
We also have an opportunity. In Washington State, we will
soon face the daunting task of being prepared for the 2010
Olympics just over the Pacific Northwest border with Canada.
Senator Cantwell has been on the front lines of helping us be
prepared for this event, and everyone, from the Washington
State Patrol to my own fire chief in San Juan County, is
grateful.
We need to be prepared, and we need interoperability. First
responders in the region will be ready to roll for emergencies,
except that their radios do not work with the new radios
already being carried by the Federal responders. And if a
typical radio system is built, they won't be able to use that
either.
Respectfully, I'd like to offer three suggestions for the
Committee.
First, mandate the use of IP Radio technology when funding
interoperable communications such as the $1 billion. We must
support the hard work of the States, but we can't ask every
first responder in the country to buy a new radio. Let's build
statewide systems that accommodate their existing radios.
Second, when funding the expansion of a radio system,
require those systems to accommodate IP Radio technology.
You'll soon discover two or three proprietary vendors won't
like that very much, but 2 million first responders will.
Third, consider taking advantage of the opportunity
presented by the 2010 Olympics and build an IP Radio system
that serves the needs of the local first responders first,
instead of last.
I also want to applaud Chairman Martin, of the FCC, for his
comments last week to this committee in which he called for, as
I have here, IP Radio technology as an immediate
interoperability solution. He stated that if funds were
available now, the entire country could be covered within 4
years. And I agree.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Billstrom follows:]
Prepared Statement of David Billstrom, Chairman and CEO,
National Interop, Inc.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, and members of the Committee.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today.
My name is David Billstrom, and I am a public safety communications
consultant with a long background in radio communications, the computer
industry and in venture capital. I've also been a first responder for
over 25 years. First as an EMT, then sheriff's search and rescue for
many years, and one of 27,000 volunteer firefighters in the Pacific
Northwest.
I want to give you just a few high-level observations on public
safety communications--from my somewhat unusual position of being both
part of the problem, and I hope, part of the solution.
I'm going to talk about three things: why interoperability is
expensive, what's wrong with the plans underway in almost every state
in this country, and why Google provides the key to effective public
safety communications.
Why Is Interoperability Expensive?
If we continue on the current path to interoperability solutions, I
can guarantee you that 5 years from today, if you invite me back, we
will still be talking about the problems with interoperability.
That is because both historically and currently, questions of
interoperability assume that we have an equipment problem that calls
for completely new radio systems and new radios. I believe this is
because we're relying upon the same equipment suppliers that we have
used for years.
And these equipment suppliers have a vested interest in ``solving
the problem'' with more radio equipment.
The focus on new equipment is understandable. Equipment is
tangible, it's concrete, you can touch it. And of course we always need
better equipment, and more of it.
But an equipment-centric approach is very, very expensive. Which
means it will take years.
Statewide Interoperability Systems
The good news is that in the last several years, hard-working
committees called ``SIECs'', or State Interoperability Executive
Committees--in more than half of all the states have analyzed the needs
of public safety and proposed new statewide systems that provide
interoperability.
These new statewide systems will be state-of-the-art, best-of-
breed, and very effective.
The problem is, they are also the most expensive radio systems ever
devised when calculated on a per-user basis.
In one state, the cost was approximately $65,000 per radio user to
build the proprietary system. Additionally, it will cost more every
year to operate it. With 14,000 users in this system, it is quite
lucrative for equipment suppliers.
Why does this matter to this Committee? Because most of the states
I have met with plan to ask you, the Federal Government, to pay for
most if not all of their new system.
How much are we talking about?
In Washington State, we have an initial estimate of $600 million.
Our Governor in Oregon has just proposed $561 million for the first
phase of the system there, which is likely to run past $1 billion when
complete.
Florida already has a $900 million system and New York has started
on their $2 billion system.
The math is fairly easy--if we continue in this direction there is
a $50 to $100 billion funding requirement for interoperability for
state agencies.
But the news gets worse.
The problem is, these statewide systems are designed for, and
provided to, state agencies--not local public safety agencies.
And, as you may know, 72 percent of the one million-plus
firefighters in the United States are volunteers. About 79 percent of
all 800,000 law enforcement officers in the Nation work for local
police departments. Nearly all EMTs are with local agencies. In fact,
only 20 percent of the Nation's first responders work for state or
Federal agencies. All of the others are with local agencies.
And in general, local public safety agencies do not have the funds
for new radios compatible with these new statewide proprietary systems.
I know my fire department does not.
So what we have are new statewide radio systems that most of our
firefighters, EMTs, and police officers will not be able to afford to
use.
The approach is upside down. We should be building public safety
communication systems that first accommodate the 1.8 million local
first responders, and then the 200,000 state and Federal first
responders, rather than the other way around.
Open and Closed Systems
You may be wondering how we can accomplish this. This is where
Google comes in . . .
It is a simple issue--open versus closed systems. Imagine if you
could only access Google if you were on a Dell laptop, because IBM
laptops didn't work with Google.
That might sound absurd, but that's exactly the current state of
first responders in the Pacific Northwest--a police radio from Seattle,
Washington does not work on the Portland, Oregon system--that is the
world that proprietary systems create.
The more proprietary--the less interoperable.
Google and Yahoo! and all Internet businesses thrive because the
services they provide run on every type of computer made, world-wide.
The same idea--indeed, the same technology--is going to solve the
problem of public safety communications.
I can make this prediction because I can simply look at how the
U.S. military has addressed this very same issue.
Starting more than 4 years ago the military has been deploying a
technology called IP Radio to allow field radios, fixed telephones,
encrypted command radios, laptops, and satellite radios to all
interconnect. From the battlefield across the seas to the command
centers right here.
And, this is a technology, not a single product from a single
equipment vendor.
Like Google and Yahoo!, this technology is absolutely independent
of the hardware used.
``IP Radio'' means sending and receiving radio traffic on Internet
hardware. It works by connecting together existing radio systems. Users
on one system can talk to users on another system.
I will even go this far: if the public safety community operated
with the command structure of the U.S. military, we wouldn't be having
this discussion today because firefighters, EMTs and police officers
throughout the U.S. would already be interoperable using IP Radio.
Now you can see why it is not radical for me to predict that open,
standards-based software will revolutionize public safety
communications.
And, this technology can dramatically cut the cost of those $1
billion statewide radio systems.
To put it simply, this means our first responders will be able to
use any radio they can afford--even the radios they already have--and
be interoperable with all of their state and Federal colleagues.
I respectfully submit that this Committee can make interoperability
more effective, immediately, by mandating the use of open standards,
software-based radio systems.
And where proprietary, hardware-centric systems are already in
place, you could mandate full and open connectivity from those
proprietary systems to the new open standards, software-based radio
systems.
Finally, I want to applaud Chairman Martin of the FCC for his
comments last week to this Committee. He suggested that if sufficient
funds were made available now for fixed and portable IP Radio networks,
then interoperability could be functional throughout most of the Nation
within 4 years. I agree with him whole-heartedly.
If I could leave you with a central message today, it would be
this:
First, let's not assume that the traditional suppliers of radio
systems with proprietary technology will offer the most desirable
solutions.
Second, if we want true interoperability, we need to move to an
open, device-independent, standards-based, software so that the
majority of our first responders can be included.
Third, IP Radio, already embraced elsewhere, will meet several of
our most critical needs immediately. And save lives. And we may
actually be able to afford it.
Thank you. I welcome your questions.
The Chairman. I thank you very much, Chairman Billstrom.
And now may I call on Chairman Desch?
STATEMENT OF MATTHEW J. DESCH, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, IRIDIUM
SATELLITE, LLC
Mr. Desch. Good morning, Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman
Stevens, and members of the Committee.
My name is Matt Desch, and I am Chairman and CEO of Iridium
Satellite, LLC. And I want to thank you for this opportunity to
appear before you to discuss the state of our Nation's
emergency communication network.
Nearly a year and a half has passed since the disaster
wrought by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, but the images of those
days in August and September 2005 are not easily forgotten. The
Committee's efforts since then to ensure that our
communications infrastructure is fully capable before, during,
and after disasters is to be applauded.
The FCC's around-the-clock work during Katrina to ensure
that communication providers had the resources necessary for
the recovery effort is also to be applauded. From assisting us
in obtaining additional spectrum to facilitating Customs entry
of additional handsets, they worked in an efficient,
cooperative, and professional manner. We want to thank the
Commission for these efforts, and we believe that the FCC's
Homeland Security Bureau will work closely with communication
providers to develop even more successful emergency
communications solutions.
Iridium's network is uniquely suited to the communication
needs of first responders. Iridium satellite phones, like the
one I have in front of me, require two things to complete a
call. One is a charged battery, and two is a little bit of
instruction, similar to the instruction needed when you
purchase a new phone or a PDA.
Unlike other systems, the Iridium system does not require
cell sites or other infrastructure on the ground. The network
can be available anyplace, anytime, anywhere, including in the
air and at sea, far from shore, which is why the U.S. military
relies on us for its communication needs in Iraq and around the
globe, and why we were chosen to provide the communication
network, for example, for the U.S. Tsunami Warning System.
As part of our global coverage, we are the only mobile
satellite provider to cover both Hawaii and all of Alaska, with
significant ground facilities in both States. And, it's
Iridium's experience with disaster communications that leads us
to support S. 385, the Interoperable Emergency Communications
Act.
The challenge now is to provide our first responders with
both a redundant and an interoperable emergency communications
network. S. 385, introduced by you, Mr. Chairman with the
support of Vice Chairman and Senators Kerry, Smith, and Snowe,
takes on this challenge.
The bill addresses two important lessons learned from these
recent disasters: one, the need to create a strategic
communications reserve to have communications equipment pre-
positioned and ready to use in an emergency; and, second, the
need to study the creation of a national emergency back-up
communications system and the use of satellite communications
as an element of that system.
We believe that it's time for the Nation to create
communication reserves and to develop a national backup
communications system that includes a significant satellite
component.
Recent disasters make the need for S. 385 abundantly clear.
The lack of communications equipment pre-positioned in the Gulf
Coast region hampered the relief efforts there and made
communication problems there worse than they should have been.
Satellite networks were often the only networks available to
first responders after Katrina. Iridium and other satellite
providers stripped their stocks bare to send equipment to the
Gulf Coast, bringing it in from around the globe. Even so, we
had to turn down or limit requests for equipment from public
safety organizations.
Beyond the lack of readily available equipment, a core
problem is the lack of an integrated communications plan that
embraces satellite. As FCC Chairman Martin said less than a
month after Hurricane Katrina made landfall, ``If we learned
anything from Hurricane Katrina, it is that we cannot solely
rely on terrestrial communications.'' When the National Guard,
the Red Cross, utility workers, search-and-rescue officials,
and even local phone companies obtained satellite phones, they
told us they were able to carry out their missions more
effectively. For example, the Red Cross deployed nine
specially-designed emergency response vehicles to the Gulf
Coast, each equipped with ten satellite phones and portable
VSAT dishes. The First U.S. Army division relied on Iridium
satellite phones for their basic voice and data communication
needs while they were deployed in the region. Louisiana's
firefighters had constant contact with their headquarters
through their Iridium phones, even when they were standing in
the knee-deep waters of New Orleans.
Satellite communications, and, in particular, satellite
phones, have proven their value in an emergency. No matter the
damage on the ground from a disaster, including floods,
earthquakes, tornados, and manmade catastrophes, first
responders can go about their duties knowing that their
satellite communications system is available.
September 11th revealed the need for communications
interoperability. Hurricane Katrina did not diminish the need
for interoperability, but it made clear the overriding need for
redundancy. Now, over a year after the Gulf Coast disaster, the
challenge of establishing a truly effective system still
confronts us. If first responders do not have communications
equipment when they need it and where they need it, any system
will be ineffective. A strategic communication reserve that
provides for advance placement of equipment is a necessary
step.
The Federal Government can also implement several
additional steps to strengthen the Nation's emergency
communications. One, you could expand the grant program created
last year that gave money to hospitals to purchase satellite
communications equipment. Two, you should consider the
development of nonterrestrial emergency communication backup
systems for Federal buildings. And, three, the Federal
Government should make additional money available to public
safety agencies to make sure that they're adequately trained to
use their communication equipment as an integrated part of
their response protocol.
I'd like to thank this committee for your efforts towards
creating more robust emergency communications. And I think,
bills like S. 385, will begin to shape the discussion.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Desch follows:]
Prepared Statement of Matthew J. Desch, Chairman and CEO,
Iridium Satellite, LLC
Good morning Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Stevens, and members of
the Committee. My name is Matt Desch, and I am the Chairman and CEO of
Iridium Satellite, LLC. Iridium played a vital role in providing
emergency communications after Hurricane Katrina, and I am very
grateful to be here today to talk to you about the state of the
Nation's emergency communications network. Nearly a year and a half has
passed since the disaster wrought by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, but
the images of those days in August and September of 2005 are not easily
forgotten. I want to applaud the Committee for its continuing efforts
to ensure that the Nation's communications infrastructure is prepared
before, during, and after disasters.
During Katrina, the effect of satellite communications was greatly
enhanced by the swift actions of the Federal Communications Commission.
The FCC worked around-the-clock to ensure that providers had the
resources available to assist in the recovery effort. From assisting us
in obtaining additional spectrum to facilitating customs entry of
additional handsets, they worked in an efficient, cooperative, and
professional manner. I want to thank the Commission for these actions,
and I believe that the development of the Homeland Security Bureau
within the Commission is an important step toward ensuring more
effective emergency communications in the future.
Iridium's network is uniquely suited to the communications needs of
first responders and the military. In fact, the Iridium's system
configuration is particularly effective in an emergency. Our network
includes more than 66 orbiting satellites, ensuring that every location
in the U.S. and world, including both Hawaii and all of Alaska, is
served by an Iridium satellite every minute of every day. Iridium is
the only communications system that has this universal coverage. We
also have significant ground facilities in both Hawaii and Alaska.
We are the primary mobile satellite telephone provider to the U.S.
military and thousands of Iridium handsets are in use everyday by our
soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen in Iraq and around the globe. We
also serve as the communications backbone for the Nation's tsunami
warning system in the Pacific Ocean. Iridium delivers essential
services to users who need communications access to and from remote
areas where no other form of communication is available, including in
the air and at sea far from shore.
Through a satellite phone handset or small data device, a first
responder is able to access our communications network that is
positioned hundreds of miles above the planet, where it is always on
and always ready. Unlike any other network, Iridium's system does not
have to rely on vulnerable ground infrastructure to connect calls,
which means that destruction of the terrestrial communications
infrastructure will not render our system inoperable. Iridium's
satellite phones require two things to complete a call: (1) a charged
battery; and (2) instruction similar to the instruction needed when you
purchase a new phone or PDA. Iridium is also interoperable with other
communications devices such as land mobile radio through off-the-shelf
technology. And it is Iridium's experiences with disaster
communications that leads us to offer our wholehearted support of S.
385.
Communications are the essential backbone of any disaster response
system. If our first responders, public safety personnel, and medical
professionals cannot talk to one another over a functional, effective,
and secure network when a disaster strikes, needless lives will be lost
and needless destruction of property may occur. Unfortunately, the very
events that can so adversely affect our communities--whether they be
natural or man-made, hurricanes or floods, or bombs or bullets--also
often disrupt the basic infrastructure with which we communicate. The
present emergency communications system for the Nation remains
vulnerable, even as its limitations were revealed both by the September
11th attacks and by the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes. Major strides have
been made in the last year and a half, but the challenge for the future
is to provide our first responders with both a redundant and an
interoperable emergency communications network that is available when
they need it, where they need it. By taking steps to ensure that first
responders have the proper communications equipment ready for a
disaster, this Committee can also spur business adoption of appropriate
back-up emergency communications equipment.
S. 385, the Interoperable Emergency Communications Act introduced
by you Mr. Chairman with the support of the Vice Chairman and Senators
Kerry, Smith, and Snowe, is a needed and necessary step toward this
goal. Iridium is proud to give this bill its support. This bill
embraces two lessons learned from our Nation's recent disasters that
will dramatically strengthen the national emergency communications
system: (1) the need to create strategic communications reserves in
various locations around the Nation so that communications equipment is
pre-positioned and ready for use when a disaster strikes; and (2) the
need to explore the creation of a national emergency communications
back-up system for the Nation, including an evaluation of the use of a
non-terrestrial, satellite-based communications component for that
backup system (which Iridium believes should be a significant component
of such back-up system). This Committee should act quickly to report S.
385. Doing so will address two of the most obvious problems with the
country's emergency communications capabilities.
Satellite's Role in Emergency Communications
Satellite communications networks were often the only
communications network available to first responders in the Gulf Coast
region in the days immediately following the destructive hurricanes of
2005. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed most of the terrestrial
communications systems used throughout the Gulf Coast. Telephone wires
simply vanished, and wireless towers had to have extensive repairs when
the storms had passed before they were fully-functional. Even temporary
communications solutions such as fixed-line phones on vehicular
platforms, trucked-in cell towers, and hastily-wired emergency shelters
took days and sometimes weeks to deploy. But there was never enough
equipment for all affected communities, even when these stop-gap
measures became available. Iridium and other providers stripped their
stocks bare to send equipment to the Gulf Coast, bringing it in from
around the globe. Even so, mobile satellite providers had to turn down
requests for equipment from public safety organizations, and give other
public safety organizations, including the House Sergeant-at-Arms
office, less equipment than they requested. The lack of available
communications equipment pre-positioned in the Gulf Coast region
hampered relief efforts and made the communications problems in the
region worse than they should have been.
Beyond that, a core problem in the emergency communications in the
Gulf Coast was the lack of an integrated emergency communications plan
that embraced satellite communications. As the Chairman of the FCC
informed this Committee less than a month after Hurricane Katrina made
landfall, ``[i]f we learned anything from Hurricane Katrina, it is that
we cannot rely solely on terrestrial communications. When radio towers
are knocked down, satellite communications are, in some instances, the
most effective means of communicating.'' In the midst of this
catastrophe, emergency personnel came to rely on satellite phones and
other non-terrestrial services for their vital communications needs.
The reason for that reliance was clear--more and more first responders
found that satellite provided voice and data access when other networks
simply could not. In fact Sulfur, Louisiana's firefighters had constant
contact with their headquarters through their Iridium handsets, even
while standing in the knee-deep waters of New Orleans.
What worked in the Gulf Coast immediately after the hurricanes was
satellite, which became a vital communications link that first
responders found necessary as they went about saving lives. Satellites
provided the redundancy, ubiquity, and resiliency that were unavailable
from land-based networks. The National Guard, the Red Cross, utility
workers, search and rescue officials, and even local phone companies
turned to mobile satellite phones and terminals in the minutes, hours,
and days after the hurricane struck. For example:
The Red Cross deployed 9 specially-designed Emergency
Response Vehicles to the Gulf Coast, each equipped with 10
satellite phones and portable, tripod mounted VSAT satellite
dishes.
The First U.S. Army Division, based on its disaster recovery
experience in Florida and other locations in the United States,
relied on Iridium satellite phones while deployed to the Gulf
Coast for their basic voice and data communications needs,
knowing that other terrestrial options would be inoperable.
Air evacuation teams used the Iridium communications system
to track helicopters when they were in the air and to transmit
data on incoming patients. According to the President and CEO
of Air Evac Lifeteam, which deployed to the Gulf Coast in the
hours after Katrina hit: ``We knew where our ships were at all
times. We were able to send and receive text messages in real-
time when other modes of communication failed--our crews and
our communicators were able to exchange timely information,
which enhanced both the safety and the effectiveness of our
mission.''
Today, the private sector is working with Iridium to provide a more
permanent emergency communications capability for their operations. And
that capability is reliant upon the redundancy and effectiveness of
satellite communications. Two current Iridium projects illustrate this
fact:
Iridium's communications network is being used as the
backbone for a new system that provides in-flight, on-demand
medical assistance during airborne emergencies. The network
provides flight crew with a direct link to physicians who have
been specially-trained in remote airborne diagnosis and
treatment.
MedStar Health, the primary Washington, D.C. hospital
operator, has chosen the Iridium system to serve as its
corporate backup emergency communications provider. Iridium
phones will be deployed throughout MedStar's medical network to
ensure that communications services will be available at all
times. According to Dr. Christopher Wuerker of MedStar, ``As a
vital community medical services provider, it is critically
important that we have redundant layers of backup
communications.'' Iridium equipment is also used in MedStar's
medical transport helicopters to provide tracking and voice
communications systems.
The move to satellite communications equipment for emergency
situations makes perfect sense--widespread and catastrophic damage on
the ground, or the remoteness of a particular location, simply does not
impact a satellite communications network located in space. No matter
where disaster occurs, mobile satellite communications equipment can be
immediately available for critical communications needs. Satellite
communications systems also offer first responders and public safety
personnel the interoperability they so desperately need. The satellite
industry is already offering interoperable communications options to
first responders.
Satellite communications, and in particular satellite phones, have
proven their value in an emergency. Where they are available and used
as part of an integrated emergency communications plan, they provide
first responders with an effective and redundant communications
capability from the moment a disaster strikes. No matter the damage on
the ground from a disaster, including flooding, earthquakes, tornados,
and man-made catastrophes, first responders can go about their duties
with the knowledge that they will have all the information they need
provided through a satellite communications system. Unfortunately, the
current lack of readily-available satellite communications equipment
and the lack of an integrated plan for their deployment and use
continue to hamper the Nation's emergency communications system.
The Future of Emergency Communications for the Nation
The realization that the American communications system was not
ready for a disaster was never more evident than on September 11th,
when stories surfaced about the lack of interoperable equipment
available to the heroes who responded to the catastrophe at the World
Trade Center. Hurricane Katrina reinforced that realization 4 years
later, revealing not only that the American emergency communications
system lacked interoperability but that it also lacked redundancy. Now,
over a year after the Gulf Coast disaster, the challenge of
establishing a truly effective national emergency communications system
still confronts us. S. 385 embraces that challenge.
No matter how successful any particular emergency communications
system is, if it is not in the hands of first responders or ready in
times of need, it will never be as effective as it could be. The key
for the Nation is to, in the immortal words of the Boy Scouts, ``Be
Prepared.'' Iridium, like other communications companies, stands ready
to answer the call in an emergency. When Hurricane Katrina struck,
Iridium personnel worked overtime to get Iridium phones into the hands
of those first responders who lacked operable communications equipment.
But these efforts were hampered by the same infrastructure destruction
that made other communications systems inoperable and the need to
transport equipment across the Nation to the disaster area.
The efforts were also hampered by the economic reality that in
times of emergency, there is never a large enough stock of equipment to
get it in the hands of everyone that needs it. A strategic
communications reserve that provides for advanced placement of
communications equipment is a necessary step in the development of a
national emergency communications plan. The grants established in S.
385, which provide for up to $100 million total for strategic placement
of communications equipment across the Nation, will make available the
funds necessary to make sure that communications equipment is ready and
available when needed where needed.
The basic reality of the present national emergency communications
system, however, is that it is over-reliant on terrestrial systems, the
same systems that were proven fallible along the Gulf Coast. This is
not an issue of equipment availability or even interoperability; it is
an issue of redundancy and effectiveness. That is why Iridium supports
the measures outlined in S. 385 to study the development of a national
emergency communications backup system. We also thank the Chairman and
the Vice Chairman, and the other co-sponsors of the bill, for including
satellite communications systems in the study of that backup system.
For it is satellite communications that offers the best chance of
creating a ``resilient interoperable communications system for first
responders.'' It is beyond time for the Nation to consider creating a
national emergency communications backup system. And Iridium is
committed to assisting that study in any way possible.
The Federal Government can also implement additional steps to
strengthen the state of the Nation's emergency communications system.
Iridium would like to see the Federal Government expand the grant
program created last year which gave money to hospitals in the Gulf
Coast states to purchase satellite communications equipment for use
during emergencies. This program will bring vitally-needed
communications equipment to these hospitals, but there is no reason to
limit the program to the Gulf Coast. Other hospitals need these
communications links for the times when other communications
alternatives may not be available. Having this equipment could
literally be the difference between life and death.
The Federal Government's own communications networks are also in
dire need of a backup system. The communications network for Capitol
Hill and in Federal Government buildings around the Nation is almost
exclusively reliant on terrestrial communications systems. If a
disaster on the magnitude of Hurricane Katrina ever struck Washington,
D.C., the Federal Government could very well be without basic voice and
data communications in the minutes, hours, and days immediately
following the disaster because the local terrestrial communications
infrastructure has been destroyed. Iridium believes that the Committee
should consider the development of a non-terrestrial emergency
communications backup system for Federal buildings. Much like the
MedStar system, an emergency backup based on satellite communications
would provide the Federal Government with the safety and security of
knowing that communications would be available in a time of need.
Finally, training is a vital component of any emergency
communications system. It is not enough to simply give a first
responder a satellite phone, or any other communications device, and
tell them to ``go to your job.'' Modern emergency communications
systems are so much more than a means of voice communication. For
instance, the real-time data transmission available over the Iridium
system can put a host of information at the hands of a first responder,
particularly if they are deployed to areas they are not already
familiar with or into situations that are continually in flux. We need
to make sure that first responders understand the immense capabilities
of the equipment that they are given and can incorporate and use those
capabilities when they are in emergency situations. The Federal
Government should make money available to public safety agencies to
ensure that they are adequately trained to use their emergency
communications equipment as an integrated part of their response
protocol.
Conclusion
I would like to thank this Committee for its efforts toward
creating a more robust emergency communications network for the Nation.
As we have seen time and time again, effective emergency communications
is essential during a disaster. This Committee has made emergency
communications a priority, and bills like S. 385 will begin to shape
the type of emergency communications system that will be available to
our first responders when even the most devastating natural or man-made
disaster confronts us. Strategic deployment of communications equipment
will ensure that equipment is ready the minute disaster strikes. And a
national emergency communications backup system, particularly one that
contains a non-terrestrial component, will provide first responders
with the redundant communications systems they need to do their job
efficiently and effectively.
I can assure the Committee that each Iridium employee takes
seriously the vital role that we play as the piece of the Nation's
communications infrastructure that never goes down. To that end, we
continue to add functionality based on the lessons learned from each
disaster recovery operation and on the recommendations of public safety
personnel. We also continue to work with the FCC to ensure that we have
the necessary spectrum to expand and improve our system. Our Nation's
emergency communications system is getting better, but we have not yet
embraced all of the lessons learned from America's recent disasters. We
can all do more to assist our first responders, and Iridium, with its
satellite phones and communications network, stands poised to aid in
any way necessary. Thank you again for letting me testify before you
today, and I will be happy to answer any questions you might have.
The Chairman. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And now I would like to thank the panel and call upon
Senator Stevens for a round of questions.
Senator Stevens. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And I hope the Committee and everyone--will excuse me for going
back a little bit in history before we consider this problem.
Howard Baker used to say, ``If you don't toot your own
horn, no one's going to toot it.'' When I was the solicitor in
the Interior Department, I found that the oil and gas leases
that were released were put into a little box, and they allowed
people to have an opportunity to participate in the drawing
that took place. And they would draw a name out of a hat, and
that name got the lease, and they turned around and sold it for
a couple of million dollars to the oil industry. I was very
surprised when I got on this subcommittee, this Commerce
subcommittee here on communications, to find that when spectrum
became available because of a failure or otherwise, the same
thing was taking place, lottery. Twenty-five bucks and you had
your chance to get a piece of spectrum. And at times, that was
sold for $100 million.
Joined by my friend, we provided the concept of auctioning
the spectrum. I remember too well the day that we got the first
auction, and it was about $18 billion. And I called the FCC
Chairman and said, ``Don't you have, over there, one of those
reward systems so that anyone that makes a suggestion that
increase income to the government--he gets a share?'' And he
says, ``Yes, we do.'' And I said, ``Where's my check?''
[Laughter.]
Senator Stevens. And he said, ``You're not a government
employee.''
[Laughter.]
Senator Stevens. But, in any event, what I'm saying is,
this spectrum as most of you have said, is public. We passed an
Act that allocated the income from when this spectrum is sold.
The first part of it goes to a general reduction of the
deficit--over half of it. The first responders for
interoperability got the next billion dollars. But we also
allocated money to the analog converter box program, to the New
York City 9-1-1 digital transition problems, the low-power TV
transitional digital-to-analog conversion, the low-power
transfer to upgrade program, the national alert and tsunami
warning program, the 9-1-1 program enhancement, and Essential
Air Service Program interoperability.
So, what you've suggested now, as I see it, is that we have
about, I think, 84 megahertz here. You have 24 already. I'm
told there are 60 left to auction. You're suggesting that 30 of
it be turned over to this trust, and that the trust then would
operate that and make it available to the various initial
responders. I think the most serious problem in the country
today is interoperability and assuring that we have total
interoperability in all forms for the areas that you represent.
But I have some serious questions about this. You made the
statement, Mr. O'Brien, ``If this disturbs the $1 billion, it
disturbs the allocation system, then we shouldn't do it.'' But,
by definition, it's going to. We predicted we would have at
least $10 billion in income from this spectrum. I'm told it
could be much more. But if you take half of it out and then we
end up with a situation where half the spectrum is not subject
to being controlled in the public interest in the future by
this program we've already allocated, we're going to have to
change the existing law. We will have to take money away from
system interoperability, the analog converter box, all those
other things, and those programs are planned on taking part of
this money, too.
I don't understand, in view of the fact you have 24
megahertz already allocated to public safety, why we should
turn another 30 megahertz over to a trust. That can be used for
public safety to lease it to the public sector. This is
creating a new FCC, isn't it, Mr. O'Brien?
Mr. O'Brien. Senator, let me answer your question, please.
First of all, we propose that the Public Safety Broadband
Trust be created by legislation--it will require legislation--
and that that legislation authorize----
Senator Stevens. I know--I've only got 5 minutes. Now, tell
me, won't it have the impact I said?
Mr. O'Brien. No, sir, it won't.
Senator Stevens. Why?
Mr. O'Brien. Because we're proposing that the Public Safety
Broadband Trust pay $5 billion for that spectrum----
Senator Stevens. But you're----
Mr. O'Brien.--so that there won't----
Senator Stevens.--assuming that that's----
Mr. O'Brien.--be a shortfall.
Senator Stevens. What if it would auction for a lot more?
Mr. O'Brien. The point is----
Senator Stevens. No, no, we have a series of proposals
already in law, where the money goes. I believe we propose
we'll get something like, a minimum, $10 billion--most people
think it'll be $15 billion, according to CBO. If we give half
of it to you, the most we could possibly get would be $5 to
$7.5 billion. The first billion goes to you, anyway. We have to
cut out at least half of the people already expecting, under
the law, a portion of that income, right?
Mr. O'Brien. My understanding of the CBO number is that
it's slightly higher than $10 billion, and that's why we're
proposing meeting $5 billion by raising money in the----
Senator Stevens. Well, but----
Mr. O'Brien.--private capital markets, so that none of
those programs would be affected.
Senator Stevens. CBO's projection of the first auction was
$7.5--$750 million; $18 billion came in. Now, you're saying
that we're going to locked in by the CBO estimate? But if you
cut the spectrum in half, I believe the total will be less,
because you're going to be leasing your spectrum in competition
with the people that want to bid. I really believe you--I can't
take any more time. I guess I'll get back another time, Mr.
Chairman. But I do think, you know, the idea is great. We have
to find a way to deal with interoperability. But we also have
to think first of preserving the right of the public to have
the full control over this spectrum in the future. Yours would
take half of the spectrum and turn it over to a trust, which we
would never get back into the FCC.
Mr. O'Brien. Well, but, Senator, if the spectrum is
auctioned, it's gone forever.
Senator Stevens. No, it isn't.
Mr. O'Brien. The spectrum is----
Senator Stevens. It's only gone until someone gives up or
fails or anything. All of this stuff came back because of a
change in policy. What if there's a change in technology? I'm
told there is a change in technology coming. And the broadband
people can tell you more about that.
Mr. O'Brien. Well, but I believe--I'm--it's always been my
understanding that the spectrum that's auctioned is pretty much
gone to the licensee, unless the licensee misbehaves.
Senator Stevens. I'll close----
Mr. O'Brien. And----
Senator Stevens. When I was a kid, I invented one of those
radios that you have to dial. We'd go 5 degrees this way and 5
degrees that way in order to find the point where we could
catch the radio. Okay?
Mr. O'Brien. Yes.
Senator Stevens. It took 10 degrees to pick up on a crystal
set. Now, you take 1 degree of spectrum and it's divided into
10 already, maybe 100 with some new technology. I believe
spectrum is going to continue to increase in value if we use it
properly and keep the control at the FCC.
Mr. O'Brien. Well, but so do I. With all due respect, I
think that the proposal to put the spectrum in a Public Safety
Broadband Trust, which is controlled long term by
representatives of State and local and Federal; is a much
better return to the public.
Senator Stevens. I've got to disagree with you. Spectrum is
subject to license. It is public property. We have never given
it away. We've never sold it completely. We've provided the
right to use it if the licensee has a license. But he does not
have ownership of this property. You would get ownership of
this property under this proposal.
Mr. O'Brien. No, Senator, we're proposing that the rights--
the licensee rights, the Public Safety Broadband Trust, would
be identical to the licensee rights of any other licensee,
and----
Senator Stevens. That's not what your statement says. You
say you continue to lease it when you're not using it. Today,
if you're not using part of your spectrum, FCC can come in and
have an opportunity to bring about sharing of that. That could
not happen under your proposal.
Mr. O'Brien. There is no aspect of our proposal which would
change the relationship between the FCC and the licensee, sir.
Senator Stevens. I've taken too much time. I'll come back.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Klobuchar?
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
Mr. McEwen, for your kind comments about our retired sheriff
and the good work he has done on interoperability.
I just wanted to follow up a little on what Senator Stevens
was asking about, in a more narrow question, and then a bigger
one. I know that the proposal that's being discussed--the
spectrum, Senator McCain's proposal, would have mixed public
safety and commercial use. And I just wanted people to talk a
little bit about that idea, if you see problems with it, what
are the strengths and weaknesses of mixing the use with the
spectrum?
Mr. McEwen. Well, first of all, let me just say that the
concept here that we are supporting, the public safety
community is supporting, is that this spectrum would be
allocated to the public safety community under this proposal as
a trust. That means that it's in the same category, Senator as
any other kinds of allocations. I mean, it's never--it never
belongs to anybody, it's always the public's--it has control
over it. But the fact is that, in this particular case, the
concept is that this spectrum would be managed by public
safety. We would have a controlling interest in the board of
directors of the trust. And the commercial interests would then
build and manage this under our direction and control.
The idea here is that the commercial spectrum--the spectrum
would be actually used primarily--a lot of the spectrum would
be used by the commercial interests, with public safety always
having access to it and priority whenever they needed it.
That's the concept with getting private investors to build this
network. We have no money, we have no--if we depend upon you to
fund this, it'll never happen, because you don't have the
unlimited resources that we would need to build this. You know,
we've talked about how many billions of dollars it might cost--
--
Senator Klobuchar. But wouldn't a piece of this also
involve a loan?
Mr. McEwen. Pardon?
Senator Klobuchar. Wouldn't a piece of this also involve a
loan from the Government? No?
Mr. McEwen. Yes, but----
Senator Klobuchar. You were----
Mr. McEwen.--the point is that the spectrum is worth some
money, as the Senator--Senator Stevens has just referred to.
What it's worth, I'm not quite sure. But--$5 billion,
whatever--but the fact is, that value of that spectrum doesn't
go away. If something happens that, in some way, this fails,
that spectrum still belongs to the public. We--I mean, you
don't give that spectrum away.
Mr. O'Brien. May I----
Senator Klobuchar. Jump right in, then Mr. O'Brien.
Mr. O'Brien. All right, certainly. May I clarify just a
couple of things?
The first one is the beauty of where technology is taking
us in next-generation wireless technology. The so-called fourth
generation, which is IP-based, allows on a software basis
different quality of service, so you can share capacity between
public safety and commercial, while always preserving the
primary interest of public safety. And so, it breaks through
the classic problem that, when spectrum is reserved for public
safety, there's some amount of lack of utilization of it, while
public safety is, sort of, waiting for the next big event. This
solves that problem by saying the capacity that's generated on
the system is always available first to public safety, but then
to commercial, so that you get the maximum utilization of it,
using the technology.
The second point is that we are proposing not loans, but
loan guarantees, to the Public Safety Broadband Trust. By using
the leverage that's created when it gets this license, it can
go into the capital markets and actually raise the money. So,
the $5 billion is not a loan. It's raised in the capital
markets, but to lower the cost of borrowing it, we're asking,
or proposing, that there be loan guarantees to the Public
Safety Broadband Trust. And that's just to acquire the
spectrum. The build-out would not be loans. The build-out would
be investment--private capital investing in a next-generation
wireless network.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
Mr. Largent. Senator, I'd just like to say that--first of
all, that some people have viewed our testimony here today as
being adversarial with public safety. And I just want to say,
first and foremost, it is not adversarial. We don't have that
kind of relationship with public safety, because we believe in
what they do. We were up here on the Hill for the last several
years to ensure that the DTV transition bill actually was
passed into law, so that public safety got the billion dollars
that Congress already enacted, that we get this spectrum to use
for public safety. They're getting 24 megahertz in the current
language of the bill, and that doubles what they have today.
And it's contiguous spectrum that they can do a lot of things
with. And so, I would just say that, up front, there's not the
conflict that many have perceived between CTIA and our
membership and public safety. But what we're trying to do is
ensure that what Congress has set out to do--and I would
mention that what they have done is deliver 24 megahertz of
spectrum to public safety, which is a significant piece of
spectrum, and they have applied a billion dollars to start this
process for public safety. And those were two----
Senator Klobuchar. But how much do you think it would cost
to make--I mean, there are--some estimates are $15 billion. The
President's going backward in his budget on this. I mean, how
much do you think this would really cost?
Mr. Largent. That's--I have no idea. And the billion
dollars, I'm saying, is just a downpayment to get them started.
And they're going to need more money in the future. And we
admit that. But these are two really key suggestions that were
made by the 9/11 Commission--24 megahertz is what public safety
needed, and a billion dollars to get them started--those were
the exact increments that the 9/11 Commission made for public
safety. And this Congress has delivered that for public safety.
Now, they're talking about delivering broadband and all
these other types of things. And I think there's additional
spectrum that could be available for public safety in the
future. But it's wrong to--I think it's wrong to take something
off the table that took 10--over 10 years to get passed through
Congress, the DTV transition bill, take it off the table and
try to rejigger it now right before the auction is to be held
later this year. That's going to create some significant
problems.
Mr. O'Brien. Senator, let me just take 1 minute and try to
explain why I think this is such a compelling necessity for
Congress to consider there now.
The proposal we've laid out, for the first time, creates a
self-sustaining business model for public safety communications
now and into the future. Yes, it requires spectrum. It requires
spectrum, which has a tremendous value. Nobody would disagree
with the tremendous value of the spectrum. But we find
compelling the observation that today, in doing their jobs, men
and women in the first-responder services have devices which
their lives sometimes depend on and which all of us sitting
here know are inferior. Our proposal is not to create
interoperability, except as a byproduct. Our proposal is to
bring public safety first responders to the forefront of
wireless communications. It cannot be done without spectrum. It
cannot be done without significant money--billions of dollars.
We can walk through with you the model. We can show you dollars
and cents, and what it will take to cover 99.3 percent of the
U.S. population. It is somewhere in the neighborhood of $20
billion. The capital markets, the private capital markets, we
are confident, will support that type of a build-out on a
shared-spectrum basis. This is a unique opportunity. There is
obviously a misunderstanding between myself and Senator Stevens
on how we propose this spectrum go to the Public Safety
Broadband Trust. I hope I will be able to clarify that
misunderstanding. But I can't not take the opportunity to say:
focus on the money. Where is the money coming from to bring
these devices to the men and women who are risking their lives?
It will not come, it is not coming, it hasn't come, from any
level of government, and it's not going to come from there. And
it hasn't come from the commercial wireless sector, which has
had 25 years to address it. They have not addressed it. It is
not their function to address it. It is their function to make
money for the shareholders of their companies, which is a fine
thing, but very different from what we're discussing.
Thank you so much.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you so much.
Senator Cantwell?
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
panelists.
It seems to me that we're talking about the same things
here, but we're talking about two different approaches. One is
this top-down spectrum issue, and, in the meantime, you're over
there bootstrapping a model that is, getting this done today. I
am curious about how far you think that we can go with RoIP to
successfully build the interoperability. You seem to be saying,
``Don't get so hung up on the hardware. Focus on the software
interoperability solution.'' So, if IP packets are delivered up
to satellites and down to microwave dishes and then down to
handheld communication devices, and there is an IP wrapper
there, and it can be secure, isn't what you're discussing right
now, that's taking place in various parts of the State, the
interoperability that we need, regardless of spectrum,
regardless of devices?
Mr. Billstrom. That's right, Senator. The concept of IP
Radio is really orthogonal to the issues of spectrum. And, as
you just described, there are the issues of how communications
occurs at the very lowest level, at the hardware level.
If I was making a criticism, it was over the traditional
trunking radio technology, that is proprietary and closed, that
the P25 program has attempted to address. But, unfortunately,
P25 is not standard across the United States yet, and those
proprietary systems are still in place.
IP Radio offers----
Senator Cantwell. Is that part of Homeland Security? Is
that what you're saying?
Mr. Billstrom. Yes.
Senator Cantwell. And so, Homeland Security is still
favoring hardware technology that is--doesn't have the
interoperability IP capabilities----
Mr. Billstrom. They----
Senator Cantwell.--that might be so universal.
Mr. Billstrom. That's correct. And, in their defense,
they've not been presented with an opportunity that's
different. So, there really is no other alternative for them
today.
Senator Cantwell. So, where would you----
Mr. Billstrom. If a public safety agency wants to buy a new
radio, and if they need to support more users or more
capability, their choices are fairly limited.
Senator Cantwell. So, where would you go from here, then,
on taking RoIP interoperability to the next level?
Mr. Billstrom. I would----
Senator Cantwell. What are the barriers in breaking that
down? And what do you think, specifically, of Mr. O'Brien's
idea?
Mr. Billstrom. I think the idea of a new carrier is a very
exciting one, and I'm not qualified to comment on it. I see
pros and cons to both. I also see IP Radio as something we can
do immediately as an interim step, at least, if not a method of
integration for all of the different radio technologies. I can,
in fact, imagine a world where we have old trunking radio
systems still being used by a city, new technology of the type
that Cyren Call is discussing, and military radios, all of
which need to interoperate. And the only way to connect all
three of those technologies right now is IP Radio, and the
military is already doing it.
Senator Cantwell. Could you just explain the cost
differential, from the bootstrap model up, versus----
Mr. Billstrom. Sure, I've heard an estimate as low as $300
million to provide interoperability across the entire United
States within the next 4 years.
Senator Cantwell. And----
Mr. Billstrom. That's obviously less than the cost of a
single State as they've already been done.
Senator Cantwell. I think you said a billion dollars per
State was what you were saying----
Mr. Billstrom. Roughly a billion is a good number.
Senator Cantwell. So, I'd be curious about the barriers
that you think that we need to break down so that we can
continue those bootstrap models of existing technology and
using RoIP, because it seems to me that if it's worked in so
many other things, and it's working for the military now, that
it holds great promise. And I should say, to be specific, I
think what you're trying to say is more that open-architecture
software has the----
Mr. Billstrom. Absolutely.
Senator Cantwell. Is that correct?
Mr. Billstrom. Absolutely. Open architecture has changed
the world of computing and has touched everyone in this room,
but it hasn't, in public safety.
Senator Cantwell. Well, thank you. Before I go on to Mr.
O'Brien could you just comment on where we are with the
Canadians on this 800 megahertz issue and what we need to do?
Do we need to get the State Department to move faster on this--
working with the Canadian Government on resolving this issue
for the 2010 Olympics?
Mr. Billstrom. Yes. Not everyone in this room may be aware
of it, but in the radio industry, when we try to license a new
channel, just a single new channel for one radio anywhere along
the Canadian border, the time that it takes to get that license
through the FCC and then through Canada and enable a public
safety agency to go on the air is measured in years. It's
measured in years. In fact, applications made this week would
probably not be finished until after the Olympics were over.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you. So, we have to, obviously,
work with the State Department.
Mr. O'Brien, did you want to add comment there?
Mr. O'Brien. I'd like to just clarify one thing. Senator
Software used to improve the interoperability of existing
systems is a fantastic idea and the best possible use of the
money. It's something Congress should be spending a lot of time
and attention on, and they have. But a software solution to tie
together existing systems doesn't correct the failings of the
system. They can't boost the performance of the basic device.
So, if somebody has a 1980s-technology two-way radio in their
hand when they go into an emergency, all the software
interoperability solutions in the world can only achieve tying
them back in. It can't improve the functionality. Our focus is
on improving the functionality and bringing data and video-type
services to improve situational awareness as people head into
dangerous situations which is a very different thing. And, of
course, yes, it's more expensive.
Senator Cantwell. I mean, yes, Mr. O'Brien, I haven't
reached a conclusion about your proposal. But I am saying this,
that if the SAFECOM program in the Department of Homeland
Security is favoring hardware technology that isn't going to
help us on interoperability, that's a much cheaper problem to
solve and allows us to bootstrap the existing service. I can
guarantee you, when you have to think about the Olympic
Peninsula or Alaska or Hawaii, and they have to think about
tsunamis and things that are happening on a day-to-day basis,
or could happen, or Mount St. Helens, or Mt. Ranier, you really
want to do all that you can, now, immediately, on this issue,
until----
Senator Stevens. Would the Senator yield just for a second?
Senator Cantwell. Yes.
Senator Stevens. The problem is, when they get the local
governments, the State governments, they award it to the lowest
bidder. The reason the military has one is, there's
federalization. Unless you federalize it, the lowest bidder is
still going to buy it, whether----
Senator Cantwell. Well, I'm happy to work with the Senator
from Alaska on this issue, and figure out how we can make sure
that the hardware purchases, going forward--and, again, the--
probably one of the lower-cost elements of the system can be
upgraded to IP solutions. So, I thank the Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Sununu?
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E. SUNUNU,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Sununu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It's a very interesting hearing. And I think we can all
stipulate that we're all for public safety and we're all for
interoperability and we're all for our local first responders.
But somehow, like anyone else, I feel a need to make that
absolutely clear for the record.
[Laughter.]
Senator Sununu. Let me begin just by picking up on one of
the points made by Senator Stevens, and that is, one of the
overriding concerns of any proposal like this is its timing and
the potential delay that it can have on choices and decisions
and legislation that has been implemented or passed after being
negotiated over a 10-year period. The potential costs of
changes to that path are very significant. They can be
financial. Senator Stevens talked about the change in the
distribution methodology for these resources if we're not going
to have an auction, if we're not going to have the same
anticipated collection of revenues. It will have real
implications on funding streams for equipment and upgrades and
first-responder technology.
Second is the impact to the market. The competitive
implications of making a decision not to put spectrum in the
hands of the private sector. And that also has public safety
implications, real public safety implications, because that
private-sector-controlled/used spectrum is used by both
consumers and existing public safety responders. It's
commercial spectrum--but they use it for public safety
purposes. And anyone who's ever called 911 can attest to that.
I mean, that is part of our public safety infrastructure, but
that 911 call, most of the time, is being initiated on a
commercial spectrum being carried by a private sector operator.
And a delay in putting more spectrum into the hands of the
commercial operators does ultimately have an impact on the
quality of those networks that have some public safety
function.
Next, we have an existing 24 megahertz of spectrum that we
are committed to putting in the hands of public safety. That's
good, and that's important, and I have supported legislation to
put that into the hands of public safety even faster. And
there's a little bit of tension between public safety advocates
and the broadcasters about getting that spectrum into the hands
of public safety faster. But I think it's a tough choice, but
one we should make and one we should continue to push for. But
the question is, How can we make sure that 24 megahertz of
spectrum is used as effectively as possible? And I think that's
an area where we need to focus much more attention before just
making a decision to throw even more spectrum at the public
safety arena. We want to make sure we're using it effectively.
I think the FCC has done the right thing in putting out a
notice of proposed rulemaking, to say, ``Look, are there ways
that we can use this 24 megahertz we've allocated more
effectively and more efficiently?''
And I want to begin on that point, because I think it was
Mr. McEwen who, in his testimony, talked about the proposed
rulemaking at the FCC. In your testimony, you argued that using
the 24 megahertz that have been allocated for public safety
would take away, from local licensing control, the spectrum
long promised for use by local agencies. But it's certainly my
sense, from watching this debate, that local licensing efforts
has really led to a pretty inefficient use of some of the
spectrum that's out there. So, why shouldn't we expect more
efficiency from those public safety operators, rather than just
casting more spectrum into their domain? That's a question for
you, Mr. McEwen.
Mr. McEwen. Yes, OK. Well, thank you, Senator.
First of all, I want to thank you and the members of the
Committee that have supported giving us the 24--or making
available to us the 24 megahertz of spectrum. Let me give you a
quick history.
First of all, you--you, the Senate, and the Congress--
directed the FCC, more than 10 years ago, to give us that
spectrum. OK? So, when you say you're concerned about that we
use it efficiently, let me tell you, we've had 10 years to
figure out how we're going to use it, and we don't have it yet.
OK? And, like you said, you have supported giving that to us as
soon as possible. Right now, the law says 2009. That's the
earliest. So, we've had lots of time----
Senator Sununu. But my----
Mr. McEwen.--to figure out how to----
Senator Sununu.--point isn't the efficiency of spectrum you
haven't received. I'm talking about the efficiency of spectrum
that's already in the hands of public safety.
Mr. McEwen. You're talking about the other spectrum----
Senator Sununu. Sure----
Mr. McEwen.--other than the 24.
Senator Sununu.--spectrum that's being used now. And I
think it's fair to say that it is not necessarily being used as
effective and as efficiently as possible. What's the spectrum
that's in public safety hands now, 40 megahertz, give or take?
Mr. McEwen. No, it's 23, other than----
Senator Sununu. So----
Mr. McEwen.--the 24.
Senator Sununu. Well, no----
Mr. McEwen. But the point is--the point is, I would
respectfully disagree with you. There are lots of people who
haven't had experience in public safety communications that
would say that we don't use that----
Senator Sununu. It's 25 megahertz.
Mr. McEwen.--spectrum----
Senator Sununu. Twenty-five megahertz.
Mr. McEwen. Right. You know, there are lots of people that
would say we don't use that efficiently. The problem is that
generally there are academicians and people who have a reason
not to think that we ought to have more spectrum. I mean, I
would be glad to have discussions with you or anybody else, and
I believe that if you were to think about it carefully, from
what we would tell you, you would find that isn't necessarily
true.
Senator Sununu. And my point isn't an argument for not
making more spectrum available. As I have pointed out----
Mr. McEwen. Right.
Senator Sununu.--I have voted much more aggressively than
many other members of the U.S. Senate to make that available to
you sooner.
Mr. McEwen. Yes, you have.
Senator Sununu. The real question, though, is, What can we
do to ensure an improvement in the efficiency, both of the
spectrum, the 25 megahertz public safety currently has access
to, and the 24 that's going to be allocated?
Mr. McEwen. Let me----
Senator Sununu. And my point is, those are questions that
are probably more important to address, soon and effectively,
than deciding whether to make another 30 megahertz available.
My time is limited, so--I apologize. I know a couple of you
wanted to comment on that, but I'd like to move to another area
that I think is very important.
Senator Cantwell spoke very effectively about the
importance of looking at existing technology, IP technology, in
particular. Mr. Billstrom, I enjoyed your testimony. And
Senator Cantwell and I have worked to try to make sure that, of
the billion dollars that's being allocated as a part of this--
funds that will come from the auction of spectrum can be used,
but doesn't have to be used for implementation of IP
communications solutions. And the only issue I have with
Senator Cantwell's remarks is, she talked about this as a
bootstrap operation, and I think that can have very positive
connotations, but, at the same time, we've got to recognize
that these IP networks are incredibly robust. We cannot shy
away from that. And they're only going to improve over time.
And we saw what a positive impact they had in the wake of
Hurricane Katrina. And, Mr. Billstrom, you obviously have much
more firsthand experience than I or anyone on this committee.
So, I would like to hear from you a little bit as to whether
you think it's a good idea to use some of that billion for a
purchase of IP technologies and to what extent you think that
those IP systems are useful and will be useful for more rural
areas, because, you know, they don't always have access to some
of the backbone that makes these systems work.
Mr. Billstrom. That's right. Both the military, overseas,
but also the National Guard, domestically, are using IP Radio
technology to provide connectivity into areas that have
absolutely no infrastructure at all. So, that's a good model
for rural communities that don't yet have Internet broadband
access. Technology such as satellites, point-to-point digital
microwave, many of the pieces of the puzzle that are used by
the cellular industry can also be used here, which is--one of
the things I didn't speak about in my testimony, is that almost
all, if not all, of the hardware used in IP networks is the
same hardware that is used in this building, for this--for the
computers in this building and the computers in the military.
We can use off-the-shelf commercially available equipment for
that, which lowers the cost and separates the software from the
hardware, which gives us much more flexibility as time goes on.
We've already seen the cost of satellite units drop by at
least a factor of 200 percent in the last 3 years. Others can
comment more specifically to that. So, there are plenty of
opportunities there.
There's another area that sometimes come up, which is a
concern about security. I am not an encryption expert, but the
DOD that's deployed IP Radio in Iraq and Afghanistan presumably
have addressed this issue.
Senator Sununu. Let me close, Mr. O'Brien, by returning to
you on this point, because I think you said something that was
a little bit misleading in reference to the work that's being
done in this space. You talked about the first responder, with
a 1980s radio, that somehow, an IP system isn't going to help
the first responder with a 1980s radio. But neither is what
you're proposing. And I want to do something about the person
with the 1980s technology, but setting up a system that has
video capability or data capability, which isn't going to make
any difference to the person with the 1980s radio technology if
it's not compatible with the network that you're building. So,
there's going to be an issue with compatibility and equipment
upgrades in order to take advantage of modern IP networks that
might have video or data capability, but that's going to exist,
regardless, for all of those first responders that rely on
equipment that's analog or outdated or in need of an upgrade.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator McCaskill?
STATEMENT OF HON. CLAIRE McCASKILL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI
Senator McCaskill. First, I want to thank the panel, and I
particularly want to thank the representatives from the Chiefs
of Police and the Chiefs of Fire Departments. I'm a former
prosecutor, and as a very young prosecutor, because my father
was a volunteer firefighter, I asked to take over the arson
specialty. And so, Steve Westerman is here, who is the Fire
Chief from Eastern Jackson County Fire Protection District,
which was in my area where I was the arson prosecutor. And 30
years ago, I was trying to explain to his folks how important
it was not to break down that door until they checked to see if
it was locked, because it was kind of hard to make those
circumstantial arson cases if we didn't know whether the door
was locked or not before they broke it down fighting the fire.
It's very difficult for me to question any testimony coming
from your two organizations because of my background. I want to
congratulate the City of Kansas City, and particularly Chief
Smokey Dyer, on an incredible response to a chemical explosion
that we had in Kansas City yesterday, a major chemical
explosion, very near downtown Kansas City, 18,000 gallons of
foam were used yesterday afternoon. We're talking about a major
evacuation in a major metropolitan area, and we had no
injuries. It was a remarkable showing of skill by our Emergency
Operations Center in Kansas City, and I didn't want to get to
my questions before I congratulated Chief Dyer, my old friend
Smokey, and all of the professional first responders in Kansas
City for that incredible job.
I want to ask Mr. O'Brien--I'm assuming this proposal is
predicated on the idea that it will make a profit.
Mr. O'Brien. Actually--sorry, Senator--let me divide it
into two pieces. A Public Safety Broadband Trust, which plays
the major role in this operation, would be not-for-profit. The
commercial partners that would come in to a relationship with
the Public Safety Broadband Trust and build out to the
specifications of the Public Safety Broadband Trust would be
expecting to make a return on their investment. That's the fuel
that keeps this whole thing running.
Cyren, or whoever is selected to be the manager, would
expect to have a negotiated arrangement with the Public Safety
Broadband Trust to get a return on investment also. So----
Senator McCaskill. Well----
Mr. O'Brien.--hopefully I've got that----
Senator McCaskill. Right. I think that was a long way of
saying that this proposal will produce a profit, correct? I
mean, you have great experience in this field, in terms of
putting together a private enterprise effort that eventually
became one of the largest and very successful wireless
providers in this country.
Mr. O'Brien. Right.
Senator McCaskill. I'm assuming you've gone into this with
a business model that will provide bottom-line positive
activity, in terms of profit.
Mr. O'Brien. Right. And, even more importantly, I think, is
to use that to fund the buildout of a next-generation public
safety system. It's a teaming up of the public interest with a
private--a series of private--partners. If you don't have an
opportunity for those commercial operators to make a return on
their investment on building out the network, well, then, of
course, as you understand, they won't build out the network.
Our role, my role, is far more to just tee up this debate
than it is to duplicate or replicate what I'm very proud of,
which is the success of Nextel. I mean, Nextel was a very
different opportunity, a very different business in a different
time. But, yes, we set out for the shareholders of Nextel to
try to take spectrum, use spectrum more efficiently, and
generate value out of that proposition. And we were successful,
as you say.
Senator McCaskill. I guess my question is, if, ultimately,
this entire proposal will be--will provide that, ``return on
investment,'' or, you know, to put it bluntly, ``profit,'' why
not just bid on the spectrum when it comes up at auction?
Mr. Largent. Could I answer your question, Senator?
Senator McCaskill. Sure.
Mr. Largent. I think the--your question is the question
that our commercial providers are asking themselves. Why would
they pay to build a premium system that public safety needs and
then pay a premium to the person that--the in-between person,
between public safety and them, to build out the system? And
then they've got to pay to build the system, itself. So,
there's a lot of cost that goes into building this system, and
a premium that would go to the interloper, if you will, between
public safety and the commercial folks that would use it. And I
just don't think--I think this industry is so competitive that
the cost of building that system--that there would be no return
from the investment. And so, that's why I really think there
are some questions about the model that's constructed here,
that there would be a healthy return. And----
Senator McCaskill. But----
Mr. Largent.--there's a lot of skepticism about that.
Senator McCaskill. But let me ask a question. I'm----I want
to make sure I understand this. Am I correct that this proposal
assumes that commercial providers will build out the network
when it comes to a small community like Lebanon, Missouri, as
opposed to Kansas City and St. Louis? Well, what happens if
those commercial providers don't step up and build that out?
Aren't we still going to be looked to, to provide that
important capability for rural America and rural Missouri?
Mr. McEwen. Can I answer----
Senator McCaskill. Sure.
Mr. McEwen.--that, Senator? Let me give you a little
different perspective from a public safety perspective, not a
Morgan O'Brien perspective or a CTIA perspective. We look at
this differently than was just described by Mr. Largent. We
look at it that we're going to--this spectrum is not going to
be Mr. O'Brien's spectrum, it's not going to be the
commercial--they're not going to own this. This will be
managed--it'll be in a trust that public safety will manage.
OK? He described the business model. I don't want to get into
that, because that's not my area. But the fact is that you do
have to have investors who will make a profit, who will build
out the network, or we would have to then ask the Congress
again to fund more and more and more. So, that business model
is there.
But the difference is that this spectrum would be managed
by public safety, not by the commercial interests, and it would
be our interest to build out--for instance, in answer to your
question, in these rural areas--the commercial companies that
now are in existence don't have a commercial need. They can't
find it profitable for them to build out in some of those
areas. It isn't viable for them. However, we need it. We need
that service in those rural areas, and the public needs it.
This would pay for that extension.
I envision taking one of the commercial, or more of the
commercial, providers that are in existence today, take a
Verizon, a Sprint/Nextel, a T-Mobile, either a combination of
them or one of them--actually, we would be looking to take
their nationwide network and improve it, build it out, harden
it. We would invest in it. We wouldn't have to build a whole
new network. The concept here, you know, is pretty simple. From
our perspective, it's a little different. The problem is that
right now the industry--Verizon and others--don't want to talk
with us about that, because they want the spectrum for their
own commercial purposes. If the spectrum is allocated for
public safety, we would then be trying to negotiate with the
commercial providers to either--as one of them, for a
nationwide network, or having regional parts of it, to build
this out.
Senator McCaskill. So, you'd be doing your kind of own
mini-auction.
Mr. McEwen. Absolutely. Absolutely. And we would be
building it to our needs, hardening the network, which the
commercial interests haven't done a good job of, making it more
reliable, more redundant. It would serve our interests, which
are different than theirs, and would serve the public's
interest much better than it does today.
Senator McCaskill. It's just--you know, and I--I'm out of
time, but I do--it's a hard concept for me to get my arms
around, that we will take something that is--could be auctioned
on a--in a public sale and then have those resources available
to do what we need to do to help first responders. As a
government function, that we would, in fact, embrace a hybrid,
which is a profit-making venture, to someone who hasn't had to
compete to get that, that's difficult for me.
I thank you all very much.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Snowe?
STATEMENT OF HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE
Senator Snowe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Obviously, it's a dual challenge, in terms of--I mean, it's
absolutely vital that we have, you know, our first responders
having the kind of equipment and the ability to communicate.
Having been down to visit during--in the aftermath of the
disaster of Hurricane Katrina, and watching the Coast Guard,
for example, they didn't have interoperability in the
communications, but they--you know, they're a can-do operation,
they were able to overcome that. And so, it's no question that,
with our--you know, our policemen and the firefighters, they
need to have the capacity to do that. But the question is, How
do we achieve these dual goals? And, you know, for the last 10,
20 years, where we think--we view the spectrum as a public
entity. So, this is unusual. It's a precedent, from the
standpoint of transferring to a private-sector entity, in
addition to the potential for the loss of revenues by virtue of
doing it in this instance, in the manner in which you are
recommending, Mr. O'Brien.
How--I want to ask Mr. Werner and Mr. McEwen, with respect
to the 24 megahertz--because currently it's for radio. If the
FCC changes the rule to include that use for broadband, could
that be accomplished?
Mr. McEwen. Yes. Right now, the 24 megahertz--as I said,
we've had 10 years to figure out how we're going to use this,
and we don't have it yet, so we've got lots of time to do that.
The 24 megahertz right now, under current rules, is segmented
into two 12-megahertz blocks. Twelve megahertz of that is
designated for mission-critical voice. That is mission-critical
to the major metropolitan areas of this country. The big
cities, like New York, Chicago, Miami, they have no more voice
spectrum; they need it desperately. So, that was something that
we asked the Congress to give us years and years ago, and we
would hate to have you take that away from us. That's in--
that's pretty sacrosanct, from our perspective. The other 12
megahertz was intended for data. Originally, when we put the
recommendations to the FCC for the rules, it was to be wideband
data, because nobody had heard much about broadband data.
Today, we have recommended to the FCC that they change the
rules to allow that to be used for either broadband or
wideband, and it would be chosen by the local regions in your
area of the State. So, that is intended to be done that way.
That isn't a different problem.
The problem here is taking that 12 megahertz and trying to
build a nationwide network. As far as we can understand, there
isn't enough spectrum there to attract the kind of investors to
build this without having to, again, come back to you to fund
it.
Senator Snowe. I see. So, you're saying that is the only
way to have an interoperable deployment of broadband to all
areas of the country.
Mr. McEwen. That's right. It would be a----
Senator Snowe. So, it is not possible, under the 24
megahertz, with the 12 that you're saying would be set aside?
Mr. McEwen. That's our opinion. I mean, we believe that
that isn't sufficient, number one, to serve the needs of both
commercial and private/public safety. Without the investment,
we have no money to build a nationwide network, Senator. And
that's the big problem here, is that the commercial people
don't offer us any commercial--any kind of a model that would
pay for this, other than to come back to you, sitting here
today, to continue to fund that. I mean, this is a great way to
take it off the backs of the taxpayer.
Senator Snowe. Mr. Werner?
Mr. Werner. Just add to that. The other problem that we run
into with the current system is that we are forced to stovepipe
our systems based on the current model. The Public Safety
Broadband Trust would allow, at much larger economy of scale--
which means we, as first responders, would now be able to buy
devices on a common network that's commercial, and be able to
see the evolution of the new technology that we are constantly
behind. Without that economy of scale, even if we were able to
take the 12 megahertz and make it a nationwide network, we
still would not have the volume to create the opportunities to
buy radios at what we think are affordable and reasonable
prices, which we are very much having difficulty now.
And just--along with that same with the network, when you
talk about the IP Radios, I don't think any of us here have any
argument that IP Radios are in our future. The difference
that--the really big difference here that you see, that this
network offers, is, we don't have the network in place that the
military has in place, which is very expensive. If we did have
such a network of 700 megahertz that strengthened--the IP
Radios suddenly become a much more viable solution for us to
use on an everyday basis. And we see the partnerships.
And with the satellite, the proposal that Cyren Call has
written, that we are looking at as Public Safety Broadband
Trust, also embraces satellite technology that says we realize
that it can't be terrestrial all the time, because of the
failures and the redundancy.
So, I think that what this does is, it creates an
opportunity that is self-sustaining on a commercial market,
that has the volume of scale that continues the ability to
evolve new technology, as opposed to us buying radios that are
obsolete as soon as we buy them.
Senator Snowe. Mr. Largent, how do you respond to that?
Because I think it is the question, What is the guarantee that
if we go through the traditional route that you are going to
extend this network to rural areas? As I understand, under Mr.
O'Brien's proposal, we are talking about covering 99 percent of
our population within the next decade. It is a concern, for
those of us who represent rural areas, as to whether or not
we're ever going to get this service. What would the wireless
industry do to guarantee braodband deployment and public safety
services in rural areas?
Mr. Largent. Well, Senator, I'm not sure you were here for
my opening statement, but I mentioned there that we are
conducting a seminar--not a seminar, but a--putting our heads
together with the public safety community to try to figure out,
What are the best ways that we can put this puzzle together?
And it'll be the first time that we've ever done that. We're
going to conduct that in--I think it's in April--April 9th--the
week of April 9th. And we'll conduct that kind of discussion.
But the important thing is, is that Congress has acted.
They've delivered 24 megahertz in the 700-megahertz spectrum,
for public safety. We still think that there's a possibility to
use the 12 megahertz to deliver a broadband service for public
safety in the space that you've given them already. We don't
need to go back and rework it.
Senator Snowe. In all parts of the country?
Mr. Largent. In all parts of the country----
Senator Snowe. In all----
Mr. Largent.--that's right.
Senator Snowe. In all?
Mr. Largent. Absolutely.
Senator Snowe. They obviously disagree on that question.
Mr. O'Brien. Yes. Senator, may I just take 1 minute?
Senator Snowe. Yes.
Mr. O'Brien. It's a critical imperative to get the benefits
of broadband into rural America. We see only one way. I don't
think a seminar conducted by CTIA is going to reverse 25 years
of ignoring rural America by wireless. And it's not because
commercial wireless is heartless, it's because they are driven
by the necessity to earn a return on the investment they make.
The beauty of--the reason we're so anxious to have you take
a close look at--this proposal is that it will bring broadband
to rural areas, because the Public Safety Broadband Trust will
be able to take a national view of meeting certain objectives.
And the primary objective--our suggestion--is that the Public
Safety Broadband Trust should extend coverage to rural America,
where it has not been, and to have it paid for by the overall
economics of a nationwide system. This is new. This is
disruptive.
This is, with all due respect, not going to be solved at a
seminar run by Dale Hatfield or Albert Einstein. It's about the
money. Where do you find the money? If this Congress and the
State and local jurisdictions are willing to fund billions of
dollars a year of losses in rural America, then that solves the
problem. But I don't believe they are. Twelve megahertz of
spectrum won't support a solution such as ours. It's math, not
politics. It's math. You need to have sufficient critical mass
of spectrum to attract the investment, to solve this problem,
and to bring broadband to rural America.
We urge the members of this committee to consider this. It
is complex. It is complex. But take into consideration that
virtually every public safety organization that has looked at
this--virtually every one--is supporting this. This is a
crying-out-for-help signal. We are sending men and women into
dangerous situations every day, knowing that their devices are
inferior. How can we, as a country, continue to do that? We
have a solution. I understand that the legislation was put on
the books a year ago. That can't possibly mean that the
legislation can't be improved by this committee and this
Congress. It can't mean that.
Senator Snowe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Carper?
STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM DELAWARE
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
I think this is the second or third hearing I've attended
as a new member of this committee. And I was joking with one of
my colleagues, Senator Pryor--I said, ``It was only last year I
learned how to spell VoIP, now I've got to learn how to spell
RoIP.''
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. Well, hopefully I'll come along.
I--in my old job, as Governor, I--we actually, in Delaware,
put in place an 800-megahertz system, started doing it about--
almost 10 years ago. We came into some money and decided to
spend it on other things, put in a system that would allow our
police and fire and paramedics and National Guard and other
first responders to communicate. Took a while to perfect the
system, and we had problems with the remote parts of our State,
the parts that stick out into the ocean, and we had problems
communicating with first responders when they were in
buildings--big buildings. But we finally worked it out, put a
lot of repeaters in on these towers, and finally got a pretty
good system. The folks from Motorola were good. They didn't
give up, and we wouldn't let them give up. And we put some
money of our own, and took a little bit of Federal money, too,
to pump in, to make it work. So, that's, sort of like, the
perspective that I bring to this argument.
And I say that as a preface to a question I'm really going
to ask you all, and give you about a minute to respond to this
question, if you will. I missed your opening statements. I'd be
lying if I said I'm going to go home and read them. And----
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. maybe I should. Others will tell you
they're going to home and read them. I'll tell you the truth--
I'm not.
What--that's why I hire these smart staff people--what I
would like to ask each of you--just a minute apiece--give me a
1-minute takeaway, just, kind of, tell me, out of your
testimonies--it's impossible for me to remember everything
you're going to say, but maybe a 1-minute takeaway from each of
you for a guy who's a recovering Governor.
Mr. Werner. OK. We need new technology. You, going through
the experience of 800-megahertz radio system, know how
difficult and complex that is, and you know that once you put
all that money into it, that it is what it is; it doesn't
change, it doesn't evolve. In 10 years, you'll be forced to
replace that infrastructure that you have in place, which will
be millions and millions of dollars. And just that example of
New York City that Mr. Largent referenced earlier, their
system, for New York City alone, is $500 million--funded by the
Federal Government, by the way. Now, if you're going to give
Charlottesville, Virginia, that umpteen million dollars, or the
State of Virginia, I don't really have any more discussion with
you. I'm OK with that. I don't think that's going to happen.
The other thing is, we're continually--the way the--the way
it's set up now, it's forced to stovepipe the current systems,
not to make them system-of-systems or a nationwide network.
And, again, we're faced with the expensive nature of the
radios, because of a limited competition for public safety,
because of the economy of scale. Change the network, make it
available to everybody, increase the technology, it evolves,
it's self-sustaining. It looks to me like it makes perfect
sense.
Senator Carper. All right. Thanks, Mr. Werner.
Mr. McEwen, give me your best 1-minute.
Mr. McEwen. I'll give you a quick 1-minute.
You talked about the new 800--or the 800-megahertz system
in Delaware. That's a voice system, mission-critical voice
system. It's very good. It's getting better all the time. I
know the people that run it in Delaware, so I'm familiar with
it.
This is a data system with voice capability. People are
talking about Internet protocol, Voice-over-IP. You have that
capability in a broadband network, but it's primarily to bring
us new capabilities in a broadband way and have
interoperability and roaming throughout the whole country. It's
a big difference. It's a revolutionary change. We will never
have the money--there's no money that I know of, in this
Congress or any other place, to build this kind of a network
and to have a nationwide opportunity like this. And I will tell
you, if you talk to your people back in Delaware, they will
tell you they think this is the right thing to do.
Senator Carper. All right, thank you.
Mr. O'Brien, 1 minute, please.
Mr. O'Brien. Yes, Senator, and thank you.
``Nearly miraculous'' is the way I describe wireless
services today and on the near horizon--nearly miraculous and
transformational. It's hard to exaggerate what they have done
and will do. Our plea is to figure out a way, which can only
happen here, it can only happen in this committee--figure out a
way to make those capabilities available to the men and women
who never calculate the reward, but always are willing to take
any risk to try to save life or property. Give them those
devices.
Senator Carper. I think the last time I heard someone use
the term ``nearly miraculous,'' they were describing my
election to the U.S. Senate.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. Miracles do happen.
Mr. Largent?
Mr. Largent. Senator, I would just say that we applaud
Congress for passage of the DTV Transition Act that designated
24 megahertz to public safety, a billion dollars to begin the
investment in their system. We don't think that that'll be the
last money that they'll need; they'll certainly need more. But
it's a good start. And I would just say that we need to keep
that course on this particular spectrum.
The debate that they raise is a worthy debate that needs to
be aired out in Congress, it needs to be talked about among the
experts in the field. And we're proposing to do that, in April,
as I mentioned. But our message to you is really that we need
to keep this ship going in the same direction on the 700
megahertz, and get that auction to occur so that they can begin
building out their 24 megahertz for public safety and that the
commercial sector can begin building out its 60 megahertz.
Senator Carper. Thanks.
Mr. Billstrom?
Mr. Billstrom. Senator, I've never done anything in 1
minute, so----
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. Well, give it a shot.
Mr. Billstrom.--I'm going to give it a shot.
The--what, mostly, has been discussed today is really what
I would call operability. And what I testified on today was
interoperability. And my focus is fairly pragmatic, and it's
also immediate. So, there are the systems like the one in your
home State that are 800 megahertz, and closed. We can't take a
radio from another city and use it in Delaware. Not right now.
And we have rural areas that have 1980s--in fact, some have
1970s-technology radios.
We're suggesting IP Radio is a solution for connecting all
those together for interoperability. It's not necessarily for
operability.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
The last word.
Mr. Desch. And last, but not least, the poor satellite guy
here, who's got a slightly different approach here, in that--
not in the middle of this debate about what's interoperability
or the best way to allocate spectrum, which is an interesting
discussion, but still represent that the systems, even the
current system, after 25 years, only, still, is built out to
over 65 percent of our country. The key message that came out
of Katrina and Rita wasn't interoperability. It--that was a big
issue--but was the fact that the systems didn't work for
hundreds of miles and there wasn't any other solution.
So, we represent just the opinion here that S. 385, which
you're supporting, is a great first step to redundancy, which
is an important thing. Don't forget that there are other
solutions that fit together, interoperate--RoIP is a great
solution, and we use it, and make the systems work--but, in
these systems, don't forget the satellite component.
Senator Carper. Good.
Mr. Desch. Thank you.
Senator Carper. Thank you all very much, that was helpful.
Thank you.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Thune?
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing. Thank you, to our panel. Thank you, to the first
responders and the members of your organization, for the great
work that you do out there.
I'm, as is Senator Carper, new to this Committee, so it's a
steep learning curve, and I appreciate it when you use small
words and big print. As my tech-savvy teenage daughters always
refer to it as ``back in the day.'' I don't remember the
crystal-set era, but I do remember a time when we didn't have
near the options in technology available to us, even in a state
like South Dakota. And I grew up in a small town of 600 people,
where, at the time, we had one TV station and none of the
things that we're talking about, in terms of the avenues to the
world that our kids have today.
That's why I want to hone in a little bit on some of the
points that have been discussed earlier with regard to the
impact of this proposal and other approaches to reaching rural
areas.
In South Dakota, the State Department of Homeland Security
tells us that we have 90-percent interoperability with regard
to voice. The next step, obviously, is broadband. And I also
want to know, as I've listened to the discussion back and
forth, what will best accomplish the objective of providing
that sort of broadband interoperability for our first-responder
community in South Dakota. And so, as you have batted that back
and forth here, I find that to be of great interest and want to
continue to hear from you about any additional light that you
can shed on that particular subject.
Mr. O'Brien, I do have a question--a couple of questions
that are maybe more of a practical variety regarding the Cyren
Call plan. One has to do with whether or not public safety
communications would be prioritized over typical private
customers' communication. The way I understand it, that would
mean a call between a firefighter and their headquarters would
be prioritized over a call between teenage sweethearts, for
example. And I guess my question is, Would that technology be
reliable? And has it been tested extensively?
Mr. O'Brien. Senator, let's talk about a couple of
different things. A network--a fourth-generation wireless
network such as we propose--has three major functionalities.
One is voice, one is data, and the other is video. For purposes
of focusing on your question, we are proposing that mission-
critical voice--and it doesn't sound, from your hypothetical,
like you are referring to mission-critical voice--would
continue to be carried on existing technologies until such time
as public safety determines that Voice-over-Internet Protocol
has achieved a level of robustness that they want to move to
it. I personally predict that will not be so very far down the
road because I have confidence in where technology is going.
But, I make an important distinction between mission-critical
voice and data and video capabilities, which are otherwise not
possible on traditional land mobile systems. These advanced
data and video capabilities would never be possible on
traditional systems in a rural State such as yours.
I do want to focus attention on--particularly for rural
States--the benefits of creating a Public Safety Broadband
Trust and allowing that trust to take a national point of view
about broadband deployment. For the first time ever, this will
be a not-for-profit driven perspective to look at coverage--
extensive coverage--as its first design criteria and will
solve--it's the only model I've seen that has any chance of
solving--the 25-year-old problem that commercial wireless
cannot deploy in areas where they cannot earn a return on those
facilities. That's the rural dilemma. We're trying to address
it.
Senator Thune. Second question, a follow-up to that, would
a customer choose a communications provider where a connection
could be preempted at any time by a public safety need?
Mr. O'Brien. If we are fortunate enough to see our vision
come true, that will be one of the most interesting parts of
the marketplace test of this kind of a concept. When you think
about the functionalities--the features and functionalities--of
the network we are proposing, built to public safety grade, we
believe there are large numbers of commercial customers that
will value those capabilities just like the police value them.
We believe that commercial customers will go on that system
knowing that, based on certain well-articulated protocols,
under certain circumstances public safety will have priority.
Think about it in terms of when you're driving down the highway
and a siren goes off behind you. You move over to make way for
a higher-priority use. We believe that same concept is well
within the potential of having a marketplace success.
Mr. Largent. Senator, if I could respond to your question,
I think your question is a good one. And the commercial
operators that are members of our association are asking
themselves the same question, How do we get return on our
capital when we're coerced, forced, to build towers in rural
South Dakota, where there's no return on our investment? Are
they going to--is this trust fund going to force us to build
towers there because we build out in New York, and we'll just
take the offset--the capital from New York and put it in South
Dakota? And I just don't see that that's realistic, that--
you'll end up with the same problem that existed 5 or 10 years
ago with our industry, where we were building out in the major
metropolitan areas, but not in rural America. But now, as you
know, we're extending into rural America, and our coverage is
much, much better today, but getting better every year.
Mr. McEwen. Mr. Largent just makes a very good point, and
that emphasizes what I've been saying right along. He's saying,
``How can we be coerced or forced to build out into these rural
areas?'' Well, that is the whole point, that is exactly what
we're telling everybody. We need this coverage in those areas
where they will not provide it, because they are not going to
be coerced or forced to do it. We would do it with private
investors' money, and we would provide the public with better
service and service that we need now that they don't give us.
Mr. Largent. I just don't see where the private investor
return--gets a return on his capital, building in areas that
are not profitable in the first place, which is why I think
taking the 12\1/2\ megahertz--the 12 megahertz that Congress
has already set aside in the DTV transition, and saying that's
for broadband--and there's no commercial interest in that, it's
for broadband--and we're going to build that out, and it's
going to cost money for the Federal Government. It's going to
cost money to build that out, no question about that. But we
think we have the expertise in that area to lend to public
safety to help do that in the most expeditious and expedient
and least expensive way.
Mr. O'Brien. Senator, we have the most powerful system on
Earth for determining whether ideas like this can succeed. In
the marketplace when presented with an opportunity to
participate in the next-generation Public Safety Broadband
Trust wireless network, in every fiber of my being and all of
my experience, I am sure that numerous commercial operators--
whether they happen to be current operators who belong to CTIA
or not--numerous operators and numerous entrepreneurs will step
up for the right, for the privilege, of participating in that
network.
Obviously, I can't prove it. It's something that sits out
there in the future. But all of my experience suggests--all of
my experience raising money on Wall Street, all of my
experience operating a network--suggests yes, that is exactly
what will happen. There's the ability within the Public Safety
Broadband Trust to subsidize the rural buildout with the more
lucrative buildout in the major markets. That's the very thing
that fuels this idea.
Again, I urge you to please give us an opportunity to come
in and explain it more to you or your staff. It is somewhat
complicated, but it is very compelling as you get into it.
Senator Thune. Mr. Chairman, I thank you. I'm anxious to
hear more about--that particularly with regard to the data and
other advanced communications and how that becomes more readily
available in rural areas.
But you've all done a good job of making your points for
your respective points of view today, and it's helpful. All of
us who represent rural areas are very interested in this
subject and how best to accomplish the objective we all have in
mind.
So, thank you for your testimony, and we'll continue to
keep the discussion going. Thanks.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
There is a vote pending now, but I'd like to call upon
Senator Stevens for the last question.
Senator Stevens. Well, I hope, Mr. Chairman, that all the
members here at this panel will agree to meet with Dale
Hatfield to discuss interoperability solutions.
I want to call your attention to what has been deployed now
by the Michigan National Guard. It is a vehicle that has an in-
vehicle software solution to enable the integration of advanced
electronics communications equipment, security/counterterrorism
features, and other technologies. This vehicle includes the
capability of providing radio communications interoperability
through a switch that allows the first responders to talk to
each other via dissimilar communications systems, which include
municipal safety radio, State and Federal radios, military
radios, land lines, cellular, satellite, and whatever, all
means of communications.
Now, I think this conference could step out of the box and
stop talking about who gets spectrum and talk about how we meet
the needs of these first responders now. This vehicle is--
working right now for Michigan. And it's on a demonstration
phase right now. And I urge you to think about that, going to
that meeting and discussing interoperability solutions, not
allocation of spectrum.
And, again, respectfully, Mr. O'Brien, no matter what you
say, you're asking us to create a new subdivision of the FCC,
giving complete control over what amounts to, 54 megahertz,
with only 30 going out to the industry, as a whole. That is, to
me, impossible for us to do, fiscally. We should not it do from
the point of view of substance either.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
As I indicated, there's a vote pending.
I will not be asking questions now, but I will be
submitting them to all of you. And I hope that you can respond
to them.
The record will be kept open for 2 weeks. If you have any
addendums, new exhibits, or new statements, please submit them.
And I hope that you will respond to my questions, written
questions.
Thank you very much. The Committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Hon. John McCain, U.S. Senator from Arizona
I am pleased that the Committee is focusing on this very important
issue. In fact, I would go so far as to say that there may be no more
important issue facing this committee than the issue of public safety
interoperable communications.
The 9/11 Commission's Final Report states that: ``Command and
control decisions were affected by the lack of knowledge of what was
happening 30, 60, 90, and 100 floors above.'' To remedy this problem,
the 9/11 Commission recommended the ``expedited and increased
assignment of radio spectrum to public safety entities.'' Congress did
so belatedly last year when it finally set the date of February 17,
2009, for the availability of 24 MHz of spectrum to public safety after
years of wrangling with the National Association of Broadcasters.
However, public safety has long stated that 24 MHz is not enough to
remedy this crisis. On September 11, 1996, 5 years to the day before
the 9/11 terrorist attack, the Public Safety Wireless Advisory
Committee released its final report, which stated that ``Over the next
15 years, as much as an additional 70 MHz of spectrum will be required
to satisfy the mobile communication needs of the public safety
community. The currently allocated public safety spectrum is
insufficient to meet current voice and data needs, will not permit
deployment of needed advanced data and video systems, does not provide
adequate interoperability channels, and will not meet future needs
under projected population growth and demographic changes.'' If only we
had listened to the public safety community in 1996, we may not have
had the lapses in command and control communications during September
11, 2001.
Over 10 years later, public safety is still grappling with
inadequate spectrum and radio communication systems that do not
communicate with one another. And Congress sits here debating the
issue.
That is why last week I announced plans to introduce legislation to
provide more spectrum to public safety for an interoperable national
broadband network. The network, which would be created by providing an
additional 30 MHz of radio spectrum in the upper 700 MHz band to public
safety, would allow first responders seamless nationwide roaming
capability and real-time transmission of data. I invite any member of
this Committee to join me in drafting this legislation and helping move
it through the legislative process swiftly.
I fought for many years to clear the 700 MHz spectrum for first
responders and I do not intend to allow the February 2009 date to be
delayed, contrary to media reports. Additionally, I have long believed
in a competitive marketplace for spectrum, and I do not intend to
change my views now. Therefore, I ask that the wireless industry, the
public safety community and others review the legislation when it is
introduced and start a dialog with each other and legislators so we can
work together to remedy our Nation's interoperable dilemma that has
deadly consequences.
The Federal Government has made strides in developing a
comprehensive, interoperable emergency communications plan,
establishing equipment standards, funding the purchase of emergency and
interoperable communications equipment, and belatedly making additional
radio spectrum available. But none of this is enough. We must do more.
We are at a watershed moment where we can provide more of the 700 MHz
spectrum to solve our national public safety communications crisis and
greatly enhance our emergency preparedness. If we do not act now, this
valuable spectrum will be auctioned off and this opportunity will be
lost forever.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to move legislation
through the Committee and I thank the Chairman for holding this
important hearing today.
______
Prepared Statement of Globalstar, Inc.
Globalstar, Inc. (``Globalstar'') submits the following written
testimony for the formal record being compiled in connection with the
February 8, 2007, hearing of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation (``Committee'') on ``The Present and Future of
Public Safety Communications.'' As one of the main providers of
reliable communications to the Gulf Coast states during and in the
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and an active participant in the
proceedings of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'') and its
Independent Panel Reviewing the Impact of Hurricane Katrina on
Communications Networks (``Independent Panel'') \1\ Globalstar believes
that it is well positioned to advise the Committee and the FCC on
additional steps that may be taken to ensure that the Nation's
communications infrastructure is prepared for future emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Recommendations of the Independent Panel Reviewing the
Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Communications Networks, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, EB Docket No. 06-119, FCC 06-83 (June 16, 2006)
(``Katrina Panel NPRM'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Background
Globalstar is now in its seventh year of providing mobile satellite
service (``MSS'') voice and data services. Globalstar's services are
currently available in all areas of the world, except central and
southern Africa, Southeast Asia, and the Indian subcontinent, areas in
which Globalstar is in the process of negotiating to expand coverage.
Globalstar is one of only two FCC-licensed companies that provide MSS
using battery-powered handheld and vehicle-mounted phones. Globalstar's
MSS phones are ``operable'' with each other and with any other
communications device that is connected to a public switched telephone
or wireless network anywhere, including wireline, cellular, and
interconnected specialized mobile radio and private systems. As a
result, a Globalstar user can communicate via satellite with any other
Globalstar user and with anyone on or connected to the worldwide public
switched telephone network. A significant and growing number of
Globalstar's customers are first responders and other public safety
officials who rely, with increasingly frequency, on Globalstar's
products and services to meet their day-to-day communications needs,
and, more importantly, to ensure that they have operable communications
systems during times of emergency.
Globalstar's services proved their value to first responders and
other public safety entities by operating without interruption
throughout the Gulf Coast during Hurricane Katrina and in its
aftermath. Because of those services, thousands of first responders and
other public safety officials whose other means of communication had
been destroyed were able to communicate among themselves and with the
outside world. Many state and local governments also now seek to ensure
that Globalstar's satellite phones are made an essential component of
their emergency response plans. For example, Haley Barbour, Governor of
Mississippi, stated that, ``as a result of Globalstar's performance
[during Hurricane Katrina], [Globalstar's] satellite phones are now a
part of the State Emergency Response Team deployment package for future
emergencies.'' \2\ In addition, the press and the public have
recognized the immense value of Globalstar's services in meeting the
communications needs created by disasters such as the Gulf
hurricanes.\3\ President Bush has personally praised Globalstar's role
in the hurricane response.\4\ Building on lessons learned in 2005, and
by request from certain Federal agencies, Globalstar prepositioned
equipment in distribution centers in anticipation of the 2006 hurricane
season in the Southeastern United States, and will do the same again
this year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Letter to Kevin J. Martin, FCC Chairman, from Haley
Barbour, Gov. of Miss. (Dec. 21, 2005) (``Barbour Letter'').
\3\ See, e.g., Crisis on the Gulf Coast: When Satellite Was the
Only Game in Town, VIA SATELLITE, Jan. 2, 2006 (``Globalstar doubled
its capacity to make calls to landline phones, increased its active
spectrum allocation via special temporary authorities granted by the
U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and allocated gateway
coverage footprints to increase capacity in the affected area to manage
the unprecedented surge in users''); Paul Davidson, Satellite Phones
Provide Critical Link to Outside World, USA TODAY, Sept. 6, 2006
(noting that Globalstar ``sold more than 11,000 phones and leased 1,000
more'' immediately following Hurricane Katrina); Satellite Phones
Critical to Katrina Relief Efforts, SATELLITE WEEK, Sept. 5, 2006
(noting that Globalstar saw ``increased usage . . . from response
agencies at all levels'' in the aftermath of the hurricanes).
\4\ See Letter from President George W. Bush to Globalstar (Nov.
21, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The effectiveness of Globalstar's MSS services in such stressed
conditions rests on the fact that--as an MSS system--Globalstar's
satellite constellation is largely unaffected by ground-based disasters
that can disrupt terrestrial services. But this effectiveness reflects
also the reliability of Globalstar's products, distribution channels,
and customer service. Not surprisingly, those who have relied on
Globalstar's services during recent disasters and emergencies uniformly
have praised them.\5\ As a result, a significant and increasing number
of Globalstar's customers are Federal agencies that have chosen
Globalstar to meet their communications needs because they recognize
Globalstar's reliability as a service provider.\6\ For example, in 2006
the Department of Defense amended its policy regarding the procurement
of satellite communications equipment, making it easier for individual
components of the Department to procure Globalstar voice and data
products for unclassified communications in the United States. In doing
so, DOD recognized that ``recent developments related to disaster
relief in the United States indicate a need to broaden the available
base of MSS for unclassified operations.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See e.g., Barbour Letter, supra at n. 3.
\6\ Among other Federal agencies, for example, Globalstar currently
provides service to: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S.
Department of Justice; U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency; U.S.
Secret Service; U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation; U.S. Customs
Service and Border Protection; U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration;
U.S. Department of Defense; U.S. Northern Command; The Army National
Guard; U.S. Coast Guard; U.S. Marine Corps; National Security Agency/
Central Security Service; Federal Bureau of Prisons; Defense
Intelligence Agency; U.S. Department of State; U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency; Federal Aviation Agency; National Aeronautics and
Space Administration; U.S. Department of Transportation; U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services; U.S. Dept of the Interior;
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration; and
the National Nuclear Security Administration.
\7\ See Globalstar Press Release, Globalstar Applauds Updated DOD
Policy Regarding the Procurement of Satellite Handsets, May 18, 2006,
available at http://www.globalstar.com/en/news/pressreleases/
press_display.php?pressId=407.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Globalstar has been granted authority to integrate an Ancillary
Terrestrial Component (``ATC'') into its MSS system, and currently is
the only MSS licensee capable of seamlessly incorporating ATC into its
existing, first-generation MSS system.\8\ Globalstar is in the process
of conducting engineering analyses and meeting with potential business
partners regarding ATC technologies and services. The realm of possible
MSS/ATC services continues to expand as technologies evolve, and once
deployed, Globalstar's ATC network will bring significant benefits to
Globalstar's public safety (and other) customers. In light of these
benefits, in July 2006 Globalstar filed a Petition for Rulemaking to
expand its ATC authority to encompass its entire spectrum
assignment.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Order and Authorization, Globalstar, LLC, Request for
Authority to Implement an Ancillary Terrestrial Component for the
Globalstar Big LEO Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) System, 21 FCC Red
398 (2006). Globalstar already has proven the ease with which ATC
services can be integrated into its MSS system in a series of
demonstrations in New York and Washington in the summer of 2002,
conducted pursuant to its ATC experimental license (Call Sign WC2XXD).
In those demonstrations, Globalstar used a transportable base station
no larger than a suitcase and modified Telit 550 dual mode Globalstar/
GSM phones to enable demonstration participants to place calls to
anywhere in the world through the base station and the satellite system
into the public switched telephone network. Id. at para. 16.
\9\ See Globalstar Petition for Expedited Rulemaking to provide
Ancillary Terrestrial Component Services in its Entire Spectrum
Allocation (filed June 20, 2006) (``Globalstar Petition for Expanded
ATC Authority''). See also Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau
Reference Information Center Petition for Rulemakings Filed, Report No.
2784 (Jul. 27. 2006). To date, the FCC has not acted on Globalstar's
Petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Globalstar has participated extensively in the FCC's Independent
Panel's activities. Globalstar submitted written comments recounting
its experience in the aftermath of Katrina in advance of the
Independent Panel's second meeting, and on March 6, 2006, Globalstar's
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer traveled to Jackson, Mississippi,
to testify before the Panel in person.\10\ Globalstar's comments and
the written testimony of Globalstar's Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer are attached at Exhibits 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Comments of Globalstar submitted to the Federal
Communications Commission Independent Panel Reviewing the Impact of
Hurricane Katrina, Pub. Notice DA 06-57 (Jan. 27, 2006) available at
http://www.fcc.gov/eb/hkip/PubCom/Globalstar.pdf; Statement of James
Monroe III, Chief Executive Office, Globalstar, LLC, before the Federal
Communications Commission Independent Panel Reviewing the Impact of
Hurricane Katrina, at 2-3 (Mar. 6, 2006) available at http://
www.fcc.gov/eb/hkip/GSpeakers060306/ACT1050.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Specific Recommendations
Globalstar agrees with those witnesses who advocate a multi-prong
approach to ensuring that first responders have reliable satellite
communications networks at their disposal in advance of future
emergencies. Specifically, Globalstar makes the following
recommendations based on its own experiences during past hurricanes and
other natural disasters:
1. Training. Globalstar has observed that, although they had the
foresight to stock Globalstar phones and other satellite communications
equipment, some first responders had not received adequate training in
the proper use of the equipment. This lack of training accounted for a
sizable number of communications failures during the first 48 hours
after Hurricane Katrina. While in some cases, first responders simply
had failed to keep the handset batteries charged, in other instances
they did not realize that satellite phones require a clear line of
sight between the handset and the satellite in order to function
effectively. Accordingly, Globalstar believes that it is essential that
first responders and other emergency personnel receive proper training
on the operation of satellite equipment, and that such training be
updated on an ongoing basis as technologies evolve. Such training could
be organized for local, state and Federal level first responders under
FEMA, and Globalstar is actively engaged in training and outreach
initiatives with its public safety customers so that they are prepared
when the next emergency occurs.
2. Deployment Plans. In reviewing its experiences during Hurricane
Katrina and other emergencies, Globalstar has found that first
responders often do not have pre-emergency deployment plans in place
that they can invoke in advance of an actual emergency. As a result,
Globalstar had difficulty determining where to send its phones and
other equipment for staging into disaster areas. In the case of
Hurricane Katrina, only through repeated contacts with FEMA and other
officials was Globalstar ultimately advised where to send it equipment,
which resulted in significant delays in the delivery of Globalstar
equipment into the hands of those who needed it. In order to avoid this
problem in the future, Globalstar believes that it is vital that first
responders, preferably through cooperation at both the state and
Federal level, establish a plan to deploy operable equipment in advance
of an emergency. Globalstar also recommends that such plans ensure
military (i.e., National Guard) assistance to transport emergency
communications equipment into the affected area faster and more
efficiently.
3. Funding Mechanisms. During and in the aftermath of Hurricane
Katrina, Globalstar found that although many local and state first
responders already had operable Globalstar phones for emergencies, in a
number of cases they either did not know how to activate their service
through their local or state government procurement agency, or did not
have funding readily available for procurement. This lack of available
funding mechanisms often resulted in delays before Globalstar service
could be activated, leaving first responders with little or no
communications capability. Globalstar believes that, in order to
overcome the difficulties that first responders might have in securing
budget approval to pay for multiple service subscriptions for phones
that they might not use on a day-to-day basis, local, state and Federal
agencies should examine whether there are ways that they might improve
their contracting methods and/or pool their emergency communications
funds to ensure that they are prepared for future emergencies. For
example, first responders could seek to share the cost of
communications equipment on a statewide (or nationwide) basis and,
consequently, receive volume discounts on their minutes of use.
Globalstar also has launched special pricing and service plans to
ensure that Globalstar's services are cost effective for first
responders with limited communications budgets.\11\ Globalstar believes
that the FCC should encourage other communications providers to do the
same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See, e.g., Globalstar Launches Emergency Satellite Rate Plan,
Press Release of March 2, 2006, available at http://
www.globalstarusa.com/en/about/newsevents/press_display.php?
pressId=62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. State of-the-Art Equipment. In Globalstar's experience, because
of budget and other procurement constraints, first responders often do
not have the same state-of-the-art equipment that its large commercial
customers have. There are a number of relatively new communications
products for first responders available from Globalstar and other
satellite service providers. For example, during Hurricane Katrina,
Globalstar's technicians developed and sent to FEMA four transportable
Globalstar Emergency Communications System ``picocells''--transportable
units about the size of a large ice chest that are configured with
Globalstar Fixed Access Units (``FAUs'') and GSM cellular picocells.
When combined with a small PC not much bigger than a laptop, these
units essentially create a small local area network that is capable of
handling six simultaneous cellular-to-satellite calls, five
simultaneous cellular-to-satellite calls, and one 9.6 kbps data
``call.'' Other satellite-based products that could be of great value
to first responders include narrow bandwidth video, solar-powered
phones and satellite backhaul infrastructure for cell phones and other
portable communications equipment. Local, state and Federal agencies
and commercial operators must work together to develop and deploy new
solutions for emergency preparedness.
5. Health Care Communications. Finally, Globalstar believes that it
is vital that the FCC take additional steps to ensure that not only
first responders, but also members of the medical community have access
to reliable, redundant, state-of-the-art communications equipment fur
use during times of emergency. Globalstar provides satellite
communications services to approximately 1,100 hospital and other
health care facility subscribers, many of which have multiple
Globalstar phones. In addition, Globalstar has taken concrete steps to
ensure that its services are made available to additional hospitals and
other health care providers that normally might not seek out satellite
equipment due to cost constraints.\12\ But still today, many hospitals
and other health care centers only have terrestrial communications
networks at their disposal, leaving them ill-prepared in the event of
future natural or manmade disasters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ For example, in 2004 the Iroquois Healthcare Association (IHA)
used grant funding to purchase one in-hospital telephone, one portable
telephone and one laptop computer with an Internet connection through
Globalstar for each of 29 hospitals in 12 counties to provide redundant
communications for use during times of emergency. See Signal--Armed
Forces Communications and Electronics Association, April 1, 2004
(Volume 58; Issue 8), 2004 WLNR 15277393.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Conclusion
Globalstar respectfully submits the above recommendations to aid
the Committee and the FCC in their efforts to facilitate
interoperability among first responders and to ensure that the Nation
is prepared for future emergencies.
______
Exhibit 1
Federal Communications Commission Independent Panel Reviewing the
Impact of Hurricane Katrina
Comment of Globalstar, LLC
Public Notice DA 06-57
January 27, 2006
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Globalstar was one of a very
small number of telecommunications companies serving the Gulf Coast
region whose services were not disrupted. We are one of only two FCC-
licensed companies that provide mobile satellite services (``MSS'')
using battery-powered handheld and vehicle-mounted phones. Our MSS
phones are ``operable'' with each other and with any other
communications device that is connected to a public-switched telephone
or wireless network anywhere, including wireline, cellular, and
interconnected specialized mobile radio and private systems.\1\ As a
result, a Globalstar user can communicate via satellite with any other
Globalstar user and with anyone on or connected to the worldwide
public-switched telephone network. Globalstar's services proved their
value to first responders and other public safety entities by operating
without interruption throughout the Gulf Coast during the hurricanes
and in their aftermath.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In his testimony at the September 29 Hearing, Satellite
Industry Association Chairman Tony Trujillo presented a comprehensive
review of the role and importance of the satellite industry to
emergency preparedness. We incorporate Mr. Trujillo's testimony by
reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In his Written Statement of September 29, 2005, before the House
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet Committee on Energy
and Commerce (``September 29 Hearing''), Chairman Kevin Martin noted:
Fortunately, satellite service providers did not experience
damage to their infrastructure. They have helped to bridge some
of the gaps left by the outages by providing satellite phones
and video links to law enforcement officials, medical
personnel, emergency relief personnel, and news outlets.
The Chairman's comment is absolutely true, but it fails to capture
the vital role that satellite phones and data terminals played in the
days, weeks, and months following Hurricanes Rita and Wilma, as well as
Katrina. MSS is not a service that is ``nice to have'' or a ``bridge
service'' that will make do until terrestrial services are restored. To
the contrary, MSS is an increasingly essential service for legions of
government and non-government customers who require communications
during emergencies or in remote areas or who simply want
telecommunications capability that they know will work under virtually
all conditions.
We here provide a summary of Globalstar's response to the Hurricane
Katrina emergency.
In advance of Hurricane Katrina:
Prepositioned phone inventory to strategic locations
Re-allocated coverage footprints of Texas and Florida
Gateway earth stations to increase capacity in Gulf region
Trained network operations team to monitor usage
patterns in real-time to manage anticipated traffic
increase effectively
Immediately after Hurricane Katrina:
Donated about 100 phones each to the Governors of
Louisiana and Mississippi
Activated and deployed roughly 10,000 additional
phones within 1 week to FEMA and other state and Federal
agencies
Activated and deployed some 2,000 simplex data
terminals so that FEMA and other agencies could reliably
track their mobile and fixed assets such as generators and
trailers
Doubled the capacity for Globalstar calls to landline
phones
Within 24 hours increased available network access by
60 percent
Continuously reallocated gateway capacity and coverage
to maintain service quality in Gulf region
Developed and deployed four new transportable
Globalstar Emergency Communications System ``picocells,''
which mate GSM cell phones with a Globalstar fixed phone
for backhaul to create a small Local Area Network (see
attached news release)
We have attached as an Appendix a public version of our principal
e-mail reports to the FCC staff between August 30 and September 22,
2005.
Even though Globalstar's calling increased 566 percent in the week
following Katrina compared with the week preceding Katrina, we were
able to maintain our quality of service to ensure that FEMA and other
first responders had adequate service. Our efforts were recognized by
public officials, including President George Bush and Mississippi
Governor Haley Barbour, as well as national publications such as the
Wall Street Journal (in its edition of November 3, 2005).
The point that must not be lost amid public officials' concern
about the lack of ``interoperability'' among the heritage private radio
systems licensed to police, fire, and other first responders is that
MSS systems already provide ``operability'' for public safety, national
security, and disaster management. Globalstar proved this during two
consecutive hurricane seasons--2004 and 2005. The Commission can
support the satellite industry and assist its fellow government
agencies by helping to increase awareness of the communications
capabilities already available via satellite and by encouraging
agencies to coordinate among themselves to develop contingency plans
using phones and networks that will always work during emergencies.
Respectfully submitted,
Globalstar, LLC.
______
Globalstar, LLC--Appendix to Comment
Selection of Globalstar Status Reports to FCC
Following Hurricane Katrina
8/31/05
Here is some additional information about Globalstar's response to
the hurricane emergency. Per our conversation, our gateway earth
stations are not in the hurricane zone, and we have no outages at all
on our system. The gateways serving the hurricane area are in Sebring,
Florida and Clifton, Texas. I have attached the coverage maps that we
submitted with our Sebring license application, which is currently
pending. We are operating Sebring under STA granted July 13.
At this time, we are working from California and Canada
(unfortunately, our Gulf States distribution manager based in southern
Mississippi lost his home and has not been able to ``be on the scene''
for us), primarily with FEMA and also with Senator Landrieu's office.
The emergency escalated so suddenly yesterday that state agencies are
still reacting.
Globalstar distributes phones and service through a network of
dealers and its own 800 number and website. As to phones, in the last
36 hours or so we have shipped 500 phones from our warehouse here in
California to FEMA at FEMA's designated location. In addition, dealers
and individual customers calling the 800 number have ordered another
1,400 phones. (We normally activate about 2,000 phones in the U.S. in
an entire month.) These phones are activated and shipped as ordered
from our provisioner, Unigistics. While the vast majority of our U.S.
phones are Globalstar/CDMA phones manufactured by QUALCOMM, we also
have a supply of Globalstar/GSM phones manufactured by our Italian
vendor, Telit, which are distributed primarily in Europe. We have been
shipping the latter as well, and we are modifying our network to serve
them.
With respect to the network, we have taken the steps necessary to
increase capacity to accommodate the much greater than anticipated call
volume. Specifically:
1. We will triple the Globalstar/GSM capacity of the Sebring
gateway by Friday Sept. 2.
2. We will increase the PSTN interconnect capacity at Clifton
by 50 percent by Friday Sept. 2 and again by another 50 percent
(of original capacity) by Sept. 9. This will allow us to avoid
blocked calls and busy signals.
3. We will increase Globalstar/GSM capacity of the Clifton
Gateway 2.5 times by Friday Sept. 2.
4. We will increase the overall airlink capacity at Clifton by
50 percent by Sept. 9.
5. We will continue to make adjustments as necessary to meet
demand.
[We] will keep you informed about developments in the Globalstar
System as they occur. Please do not hesitate to contact [us] by phone
or e-mail.
* * * * *
9/1/05
Further to the information that [we] sent you this morning--
One of the two T1 trunks connecting the Sebring, Florida, and
Clifton, Texas, Gateways went down after the hurricane. Half of our GSM
capacity riding on that trunk was lost. Our Operations Department
quickly rearranged our U.S./Canada network configuration and freed up
some capacity on the remaining trunk. The arrangement now allows us
more GSM call capacity than when we had both trunks up.
As to phone sales, we received orders for another 2,750 phones
today. Our provisioning company has added staff to activate phones and
will work through the weekend. They can now activate about 1,400 per
day (versus a typical 80 per day), which will cause a few days' backlog
because of the unprecedented number of orders. We have asked whether
they can add additional temporary staff. Our Canadian phone battery
supplier has placed orders for battery components and will be
significantly increasing its production of batteries. The supplier
currently has sufficient inventory for the next couple of weeks.
We have donated 100 phones to the States of Louisiana and
Mississippi.
[We] will provide you with an update tomorrow.
* * * * *
9/2/05
Open Letter From the Desk of Jay Monroe
Chairman and CEO Globalstar, LLC
As the tragedy in the Gulf continues to develop, our thoughts and
prayers are with those affected. Beyond our concern we are working to
ensure that Globalstar provides needed communications to help save
lives and property as the country bands together to help the victims of
this unparalleled event.
The physical damage to the region has widely affected land-based
communications, resulting in many response organizations turning to
Globalstar satellite service. We have planned and trained for this kind
of situation, but the magnitude of the crisis is staggering, and many
have asked us what we are doing in response. Here are some highlights:
Satellite Phone Deliveries
Globalstar is working closely with emergency organizations to get
as many units activated and into the hands of these groups so the
phones aid recovery teams.
Within the first week of this disaster, Globalstar, our
dealers and clients have deployed over 10,000 phones to the
Gulf Coast region.
Globalstar has donated the use of 100 phones to the States
of Louisiana and Mississippi.
We continue to work closely with FEMA and the American Red
Cross.
We are deploying over 15 times the normal volume of
equipment, primarily to response agencies, in order to help the
region.
Network Quality
Globalstar was designed from the start to provide reliable service
regardless of events on the ground. Our network team is monitoring
usage to ensure that we effectively manage the sudden increase in
system usage. Over the past several days, we have:
Doubled capacity for Globalstar calls to landline phones
Increased active Globalstar spectrum allocation to handle
increased volume
Re-allocated gateway coverage footprints to increase
capacity in the Gulf area
Continually monitored usage to accommodate regional usage
increases
As with all telecommunications systems there may be instances where
calls cannot be completed during periods of intensified usage. These
occurrences are being minimized with our initial efforts, and our work
is ongoing to ensure maximum network availability during this crisis.
Customer Care
Globalstar is providing full support with many employees working
well beyond scheduled hours in the United States and Canada. While
current wait times and activation times may be longer than normal,
every caller who waits will be answered.
Contact
If you would like to purchase Globalstar products please call 1-
877-728-7466. For existing customers who may have questions, contact
Globalstar Customer Care at 1-877-452-5782. Media inquiries should be
directed to John Dark, Senior Marketing Manager, Globalstar at 408-933-
4413.
On a personal note, my home is in New Orleans and most of my family
lives there. None of us have received a reliable report on the
condition of our houses and neighborhoods, and all of us are among the
displaced at this time. While it is great solace to know that
Globalstar is an important tool in aiding relief workers and
individuals in the area, I will share with you my deep anguish over the
losses we are all experiencing.
Sincerely,
Jay Monroe,
Chairman and CEO,
Globalstar, LLC.
* * * * *
9/8/05
For the last several days Globalstar has been recording more than
20,000 calls and 60,000 minutes per day through our Clifton, TX,
Gateway and an additional 2,500 calls and 7,500 minutes through
Sebring, FL. We believe that the majority of these are FEMA calls
although we cannot be certain.
FEMA has ordered several thousand of our ``AXTracker'' simplex data
modems. The AXTracker is a battery-operated, self-contained telemetry
device designed for asset tracking and fleet management in remote
regions. We understand that FEMA is using these to keep track of its
emergency equipment in the field such as portable generators.
Our network seems to be functioning properly. We had one problem
with a two-circuit private line provided by Sprint connecting Sebring
and Clifton. One circuit went down at the beginning of last week. We
contacted NCS and our Sprint sales rep and got the circuit back up
quickly.
* * * * *
9/20/05
Globalstar has constructed two of its planned four ``Globalstar
Emergency Communications Systems'' (GECS) and hopes to ship the two to
FEMA (or other government agencies) by tomorrow. There are two
components: (1) A water-resistant crate about 3.5 x 2 x 1.5 feet houses
six Globalstar fixed access units (FAUs). The GECS fits in the back of
a pickup truck or SUV or in a small boat. The FAUs will be connected by
30-foot cables to their antennas, which can be placed anywhere there is
line of sight to the satellites. The user can plug any six telephones
into the FAUs through standard RJII jacks. The crate must be connected
to a 110V power source. (2) A cellular GSM picocell, which is a device
about the size of a dinner plate two inches thick. Two picocells can be
connected to the FAUs through a small PC not much bigger than a laptop.
The PC provides all the functionality of a cellular base station. The
picocell is manufactured by Intelcomm. Additional picoccells could be
added by adding more ports on the PC.
When two picocells are connected to the FAUs through the ``base
station,'' the whole unit is capable of processing fifteen simultaneous
cellular-to-cellular calls (essentially creating a small local area
network) or six simultaneous cellular-to-satellite calls, or a
combination. Initially, Globalstar will provide preprogrammed GSM SIM
cards with special phone numbers. Eventually, we will work out the
network connectivity so that any GSM cell phone can be used with the
GECS. All of the GECS equipment can carried by two people and set up
wherever there is a 110V power source.
* * * * *
9/22/05
As you know, Globalstar's principal U.S. Gateway is in Clifton,
Texas, near Waco. Right now, the National Weather Service is showing
that Rita will track fairly close to Waco. We do not expect any adverse
effects from rain or flooding. Clifton is currently providing the
primary coverage in the Katrina area. Our contingency plan provides for
expanding the coverage in Sebring, Florida and the two Canada Gateways
if we have to shut down Clifton briefly. This will ``stretch'' the
other three Gateway coverage areas, which could result in a reduction
in the length of time that any given call can be maintained in the area
normally covered by Clifton. However, there will be no total loss of
service anywhere. We can execute the contingency plan with about 90
minutes' advance notice.
[We] will keep you apprised of developments as they occur.
[We] don't yet have anything specific to report regarding the
provision of additional emergency phones to the Texas Gulf coast except
that we have our established relationship with FEMA and will continue
to work cooperatively.
______
Exhibit 2
Federal Communications Commission Independent Panel Reviewing the
Impact of Hurricane Katrina
Statement of James Monroe III
Chief Executive Officer
Globalstar, LLC
March 6, 2006
Chairwoman Victory and distinguished Members of the Panel. I very
much appreciate the opportunity to appear before you on behalf of
Globalstar. Globalstar is one of the original ``Big LEO'' mobile
satellite systems licensed by the Federal Communications Commission
more than a decade ago. Like the rest of the telecommunications
industry, we suffered through the doldrums of the business recession
that began in 2000. We entered chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2002, and the
pundits, the terrestrial wireless industry and even many of our
regulators gave us up for dead. But our loyal and dedicated employees
and, most importantly, our customers, did not give us up for dead. Why
not? Because we provide a unique suite of products and services that
government and industry have come to rely upon in remote areas of the
globe and during the emergencies that routinely disable terrestrial
wireline and wireless communications for a period of time.
We all know that Hurricane Katrina was a an extraordinary event
with an unusually disruptive impact on the land-based
telecommunications infrastructure. We also all know that Government's
response to the emergency was not acceptable to the public or to its
elected officials. My presentation today will address, first,
Globalstar's response to the emergency as we experienced it and,
second, our recommendations to ensure a faster and better coordinated
response if and when the next such event occurs.
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Globalstar was one of a very
small number--perhaps fewer than five--of telecommunications companies
serving the Gulf Coast region whose services were not disrupted. We are
one of only two FCC-licensed companies that currently provide mobile
satellite services, or ``MSS,'' using battery-powered handheld and
vehicle-mounted phones. Our satellites serve the Southeast United
States with the aid of our Gateway satellite Earth stations near Waco,
Texas, and Sebring, Florida. Because our satellite constellation is
located 850 miles above the Earth's surface, as long as either one of
those ground stations is undisturbed, our customers in the Gulf Coast
area can obtain uninterrupted service even when all terrestrial
communications in the area are unavailable.
Much of the debate among telecommunications policymakers following
Hurricane Katrina concerned the lack of ``interoperability'' among
proprietary radio systems used by local, state and Federal police, fire
and rescue and other emergency assistance agencies, which I refer to
collectively as ``First Responders.'' This lack of interoperability is
indeed a problem that these agencies and state and Federal regulators
have been attempting to solve for years. However, the lack of
interoperability was not an impediment for those agencies that had MSS
phones at their disposal during and after the hurricane. This is
because MSS phones, which use globally-allocated radio spectrum, and
which do not rely on the terrestrial infrastructure to function
effectively, are ``operable'' with each other and via satellite with
any other communications device that is connected to the public
switched telephone network or to a wireless network anywhere.
If I may, I would like to summarize briefly Globalstar's actions
both before and immediately after Hurricane Katrina came ashore.
In advance of Hurricane Katrina, we--
Prepositioned our phone inventory to strategic
locations such as Baton Rouge;
Re-allocated the coverage footprints of our Texas and
Florida Gateway earth stations to increase our capacity in
the Gulf Coast region; and
Prepared our network operations team to monitor usage
patterns in real-time to manage the anticipated traffic
increase effectively.
Immediately after the hurricane moved out of Louisiana and
Mississippi, we--
Within 24 hours, increased available network capacity
in the affected areas by 60 percent;
Donated about 100 phones each to the Governors of
Louisiana and Mississippi;
Within about 1 week, activated and deployed roughly
10,000 additional phones to FEMA and other state and
Federal agencies;
Activated and deployed some 2,000 simplex data
terminals so that FEMA and other agencies could reliably
track their mobile and fixed assets, such as generators and
trailers;
Doubled the capacity for Globalstar calls to landline
phones;
Continuously reallocated Gateway capacity and coverage
to maintain service quality in the Gulf Coast region; and
Developed and sent to FEMA. four new transportable
Globalstar Emergency Communications System ``picocells,''
which mate GSM cell phones with a Globalstar fixed phone
for backhaul to create a small, self-contained local area
network.
Even though Globalstar's calling increased a staggering 566 percent
in the week following Hurricane Katrina, compared with the week
preceding, we were able to maintain our quality of service to ensure
that FEMA and other First Responders had uninterrupted communications
capability. Why were we able to do this? Because we were prepared.
I do not mean to imply that everything worked smoothly--it did not.
No company or government agency can anticipate each potential point of
failure during a calamity. Even if we could, the cost of designing
hardware and software and preparing ourselves for the unthinkable would
be cost-prohibitive. We design our equipment and procedures to work
properly ``nearly all the time.'' This does not mean that we cannot
take steps to reduce the points of failure.
With that in mind, I would like to share with you Globalstar's
observations and recommendations based on our experience, not only with
Hurricane Katrina, but also with Hurricane Wilma some weeks later and
with the series of hurricanes that struck Florida during 2004.
First, we found that some First Responders, who had the foresight
to stock Globalstar phones and other satellite communications
equipment, had not received adequate training in proper use of the
equipment. This lack of training accounted for a sizable number of
communications failures during the first 48 hours after the hurricane.
In some cases, First Responders simply had failed to keep the handset
batteries charged, just as we at home might fail to keep fresh
batteries in our flashlights in the event of a power failure. Others
did not realize that satellite phones require a clear line of sight
between the handset and the satellite in order to function effectively.
Accordingly, it is essential the First Responders and other emergency
personnel receive proper training on the operation of satellite
equipment. There is no reason that such training cannot be organized
for local, state and Federal First Responders under FEMA, and
Globalstar is actively engaged in training and outreach initiatives
with its public safety customers so that they are prepared when the
next emergency occurs.
Second, we found that First Responders generally did not have pre-
emergency deployment plans that they could invoke in advance of the
actual emergency. As a result, Globalstar had difficulty determining
where to send our phones and other equipment for staging into the
disaster area. Only through repeated contacts with FEMA and other
officials were we ultimately advised to send our equipment to staging
areas--primarily Baton Rouge. In order to avoid this problem in the
future, it is vital that First Responders, preferably through
cooperation at both the state and Federal level, publish a plan to
deploy operable equipment in advance of an emergency. We also recommend
that any such plan ensure military--for example, National Guard--
assistance to transport emergency communications equipment into the
affected area faster and more efficiently.
Third, we found in many cases that although local and state First
Responders already had operable Globalstar phones for emergencies, they
either did not know how to activate their service through their local
or state government procurement agency, or did not have funding readily
available for procurement. It is understandable that First Responders
might not be able to secure budget approval to pay for multiple service
subscriptions for phones that they might not use on a day-to-day basis;
however, if local, state and Federal agencies were able to improve
their contracting methods and pool their emergency communications
funds, they could share the cost statewide, or even nationally, of
emergency preparedness and could, consequently, receive volume
discounts on their minutes of use.
Fourth, we found that First Responders often did not have the same
state-of-the-art equipment that our large commercial customers have.
There are a number of relatively new solutions for First Responders
available from Globalstar and other satellite service providers. As I
noted previously, Globalstar's technicians developed and sent to FEMA
four transportable Globalstar Emergency Communications System
``picocells.'' This product is quite similar to an ancillary
terrestrial component, or ATC, product that we intend to develop now
that the FCC has authorized us to implement ATC. Other satellite-based
products that could be of great value to First Responders include
narrow bandwidth video, solar-powered phones and satellite backhaul
infrastructure for cell phones and other portable communications
equipment. Local, state and Federal agencies and commercial operators
must work together to develop and deploy new solutions for emergency
preparedness.
In summary, we recommend that First Responders train their
employees on the proper use of equipment, deploy emergency equipment in
advance of a disaster, work together to share resources and funding,
and work with industry to procure and maintain, state-of-the-art
equipment.
That concludes my prepared statement. I respectfully refer the
Panel to Globalstar's written statement submitted on January 27 for
additional detail about Globalstar's response to Hurricane Katrina.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Paul J. Cosgrave, Commissioner, Department of
Information Technology and Telecommunications, City of New York
New York City strongly commends the Senate Commerce Committee for
addressing our concerns with the $1 billion public safety
interoperability grant program that the Committee established last
year. In the recently proposed ``Interoperable Emergency Communications
Act'' (S. 385), which provides the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA) with additional guidance on how to
allocate the $1 billion in interoperability funding, the Committee
removes a counterproductive linkage between funding eligibility and the
use of specific spectrum.
Last year, Congress expedited the release of $1 billion in grants
to state and local public safety agencies to support the deployment of
interoperable public safety communications systems. While applauding
Congressional recognition of the need for such funding, the City of New
York was greatly troubled that such grants would be directed solely
toward a newly reallocated portion of the wireless spectrum. As Mayor
Bloomberg made clear in Senate testimony and a separate letter
(attached), this statutory preference for newly allocated public safety
spectrum would not serve the interests of high-risk cities like the
City of New York.
New York City, however, urges the Committee to go further. A
provision in S. 385 would not permit interoperability grants to be
provided directly to localities. Especially in the Nation's highest
risk areas, wireless public safety communications systems are funded
and deployed by municipal agencies. In the initial hours after an
event, state agencies are unable to play a significant role in
emergency response in major metropolitan areas. Indeed, New York City
has been a leader in the development of public safety communications.
New York City has already invested more than $1 billion in our own
public safety infrastructure, including a commitment of well over $0.5
billion to upgrade our interoperable voice and data networks since the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Unfortunately, S. 385 would effectively prohibit interoperability
grants from being provided directly to the agencies that need them
most: local first response agencies in high-risk urban areas. In
particular, the bill would require the Assistant Secretary of NTIA to
distribute the grants on the basis of the USA PATRIOT Act formula,
including a states-only distribution and a minimum to each state of
0.75 percent, which consumes 40 percent of the funds without any
consideration of risk. It is New York City's view that the USA PATRIOT
Act formula effectively shifts funds away from high-risk areas, which
the 9/11 Commission recommended be the basis for all homeland security
grant allocations. Furthermore, the requirement that funds be
distributed to states only ensures that the communications needs of
state agencies will be given preference over the needs of municipal
agencies, which are in fact the first responders to all urban
emergencies. For example, New York State's interoperable communications
network applies mainly to State agencies--participation by local
agencies is ``optional.'' While we intend to be interoperable with the
state's new network, our day-to-day first responder communications
would overwhelm the state's system.
I appreciate this Committee's efforts in the area of public safety
interoperability, including its responsiveness to New York City's
initial concerns. However, the City of New York respectfully, but most
urgently, requests that S. 385 be modified to address the issues
outlined above.
______
The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry
Washington, DC, February 8, 2007
Hon. Ted Stevens,
Vice Chairman,
U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Vice Chairman Stevens:
Attached is a copy of the National Grange's November 28, 2006
filing with the FCC supporting the decision to dismiss a petition by
Cyren Call to create a Public Safety Broadband Trust. The National
Grange believes this proposal to alter the digital television (DTV)
provisions of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA 05) will he
harmful to rural areas and represents a setback in Congress' effort to
provide our public safety professionals with a reliable and
interoperable communications infrastructure.
With the inclusion of DTV provisions within the DRA 05, Congress
took a definitive step to bring our Nation's television broadcast
services into the digital age while freeing up valuable spectrum in the
700 MHZ band for new commercial telecommunications services as well as
dedicating a block of 24 MHZ of spectrum for our first responders. As
you can see in our filing to the FCC, this represented a thoughtful
compromise among numerous stakeholders.
The new commercial applications resulting from the auction of the
700 MHZ band represent an opportunity for traditionally underserved
rural communities to benefit from more expansive and consistent
advanced telecommunications services. The Cyren Call proposal directly
threatens the application of those services. The National Grange
respectfully asks for your continued support and swift implementation
of the DTV provisions within the DRA 05, including an expedited auction
of the 700 MHZ spectrum.
Sincerely,
Leroy Watson,
Legislative Director,
National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry
Enc.
Cc:
Chairman Daniel K. Inouye
Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV
Hon. John F. Kerry
Hon. Byron L. Dorgan
Hon. Barbara Boxer
Hon. Bill Nelson
Hon. Maria Cantwell
Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg
Hon. Mark Pryor
Hon. Thomas R. Carper
Hon. Claire McCaskill
Hon. Amy Klobuchar
Hon. John McCain
Hon. Trent Lott
Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison
Hon. Olympia J. Snowe
Hon. Gordon H. Smith
Hon. John Ensign
Hon. John E. Sununu
Hon. Jim DeMint
Hon. David Vitter
Hon. John Thune
______
The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry
Washington, DC, November 28, 2006
Hon. Kevin J. Martin,
Chairman,
Federal Communications Commission,
Washington, DC.
Re: RM-11348
The National Grange, the Nation's oldest general farm and rural
public interest organization, opposes the proposal made by Cyren Call
for the creation of a Public Safety Broadband Trust, that would he a
free give-away of portions of the 700 MHZ band of spectrum. The
National Grange believes that Congress has already taken the necessary
action, in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, (DRA 05) to allocate an
additional 24 MHZ of the 700 MHZ band to first responders for
interoperable communications. We strongly believe that the Cyren Call
proposal would not be in the best interest of family farmers and other
residents of rural communities who currently lack adequate commercial
access to advanced telecommunications technologies and who currently
face disruptions from the transition to digital TV broadcasting. We
also believe that Cyren Call's proposal would undermine, not aid,
Congress' effort to provide first responders with the timely, reliable
communications systems they need, as recommended by the 9/11
Commission. As such the National Grange supports the decision by the
Federal Communications Commission to dismiss Cyren Call's petition on
this matter.
By including digital TV (DTV) provisions in the DRA 05, Congress
set in motion a plan to advance the Nation's conversion of its TV
broadcast services to new digital technology. This will free up vast
amounts of high-quality spectrum in the 700 MHZ band, a portion of
which will be made specifically available for public safety uses. This
plan is entirely consistent with the recommendations made by the 9/11
Commission. The National Grange believes that the transition to DTV
will be especially disruptive for rural communities that lack access to
competitively priced satellite or cable television services and that
continue to rely on over-the-air broadcasting to receive television
programming. Nevertheless, the National Grange has supported the DTV
transition provisions of the DRA 2005, in part, because the Congress,
in its wisdom, allocated a significant portion of the newly available
spectrum to become available for additional commercial
telecommunications applications. These new commercial applications of
spectrum hold out a promise of more robust, more reliable and more
consistent service coverage for rural and fanning communities that are
currently underserved by existing advanced telecommunications
technologies.
The National Grange believes that the provision of new spectrum in
DRA 05 for use by first responders is a critical step in meeting their
interoperable communications needs in times of natural and manmade
crises. Funds for these programs, as well as other programs to
facilitate the transition to DTV, will come from the public auction of
the remaining spectrum in the 700 MHZ band vacated by TV broadcasters.
The DRA 05 provides up to $1.5 billion for digital set top converter
box subsidies that will ease the transition to digital TV for rural
consumers. An additional $1 billion will be provided to help public
safety agencies better deploy and use interoperable communications
systems. Additional funds are also provided for a unified national
alert system ($156 million) and enhanced 911 services ($43 million).
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA) will administer these grant programs. The National Grange has
already opened a dialogue with NTIA to explore ways that we can use our
network of nearly 2,800 local and county Grange chapters across the
United States to assist in implementing a public service education
program in rural America to facilitate the transition to DTV in 2009.
Delays in implementing the provisions of DRA 05 related to the DTV
transition that might arise from further reconsideration of the Cyren
Call proposal would complicate and disrupt our efforts to train and
mobilize our volunteer resources in rural communities across the Nation
to participate in public service educational campaigns regarding the
DTV transition. Other non-profit and civic organizations are preparing
similar commitments of resources to assist with this transition in
rural communities as well. Given the disproportionate impact that the
DTV transition will have on rural communities and the clear necessity
for public service educational programs to address those impacts, we
believe that further delays in the implementation of the DTV transition
provisions would be directly contrary to the legislative intent of the
DRA 05.
The National Grange also believes that, in this instance, auctions
are the right way to allocate spectrum to commercial telecommunications
service providers. Auctions raise billions for the Treasury, and ensure
that economic and technical value--not political favoritism--determines
the highest and best use of the spectrum. The FCC's own data clearly
indicates that, given reliable access to these technologies, consumers
in rural areas are increasingly turning to wireless technologies to
serve their communications needs. Rural consumers recognize the
convenience, mobility, efficiency and security that wireless
technologies can provide. The National Grange believes that market
demand for advanced telecommunications services in rural communities,
coupled with appropriate discretionary oversight of commercial
applications of new telecommunications technologies and services by
state and Federal regulatory agencies, is more likely to result in
greater effective allocation of spectrum resources to serve rural and
farming communities than the Public Safety Broadband Trust advocated by
Cyren Call.
Under current law, this spectrum auction must occur by January
2008, but the National Grange believes that there is no compelling
reason to postpone the spectrum auction until then. The sooner this
auction occurs, the sooner critical public funds can be used for DTV
transition programs, for enhanced investment in first responder
networks and interoperability and for deficit reduction. In addition
the sooner this spectrum auction occurs, the sooner that spectrum
resources can be made commercially available for deployment of advanced
telecommunications services in rural and farming communities.
Recently, Representative Nancy Pelosi eloquently stated the House
of Representative's order of business when the Democrats gained the
majority. At the top of the list was enactment of all the
recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission. Another point she made was
that no program shall advance if it increases the Federal deficit.
Implementation of the DRA 05, as written, supports both of these goals
by improving public safety communications and by providing additional
resources to the U.S. Treasury for deficit reduction.
In sharp contrast, Cyren Call's proposal would only advance its own
interests, potentially at the expense of family farmers and rural
residents who live in communities that are currently underserved by
advanced telecommunications technologies and services. It would derail
Congress's carefully thought-out plan and current time line for the
conversion to digital TV. It would delay the timely allocation of
spectrum for public safety communications and other important public
benefits.
Thank you for your consideration of the views of the National
Grange in opposition to Cyren Call's proposal for a Public Safety
Broadband Trust. The National Grange believes that the public interest
will best be served if the FCC implements, as enacted, Congress's well-
orchestrated digital TV provisions outlined in the DRA 05. These
provisions will result in new commercial applications of spectrum that
hold out a promise of more robust, more reliable and more consistent
service coverage for rural and farming communities that are currently
underserved by existing advanced telecommunications technologies.
Sincerely,
Leroy Watson,
Legislative Director,
National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
Charles L. Werner
Question 1. Both CTIA and the FCC suggest that a national broadband
network can be built on 12 of the 24 megahertz that public safety is
currently expected to receive following the DTV transition. Why do you
believe an additional 30 megahertz is needed? What effect would an
additional allocation have on the use of other public safety bands?
Answer. The International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) is a
governing board member of the National Public Safety Telecommunications
Council (NPSTC) which has commented on the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) PS Docket No. 06-229, WT Docket 96-86, Ninth Notice of
Proposed Rule Making regarding this issue. I have attached a copy of
this document, which completely answers your question.
______
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
) PS Docket No. 06-229
Implementing a ) WT Docket 96-86
Nationwide, Broadband,
Interoperable Public )
Safety Network in
The 700 MHZ Band )
)
The Development of )
Operational, Technical
and Spectrum
Requirements for
Meeting
Federal, State and Local
Public Safety
Communications
Requirements Through
the
Year 2010
Comments of the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council
The National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC)
submits these comments in response to the Commission's Ninth Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (Ninth NPRM) in the above proceedings.\1\ The Ninth
NPRM proposes rule changes that the Commission believes would promote
deployment of a centralized public safety nationwide broadband network
utilizing the 12 MHZ wideband segment channels in the 700 MHZ band
currently allocated to local and state agencies through the regional
planning process. The network would encompass Internet Protocol based
system architecture and be administered by a nationwide licensee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Implementing a Nationwide, Broadband Interoperable Public
Safety Network in the 700 MHZ band and In the Matter of the Development
of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting
Federal, State and Local Public Safety Communications Requirements
Through the Year 2010, Ninth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, PS Docket
No. 06-229, WT Docket 96-86, FCC 06-181 (December 20, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has become increasingly apparent to NPSTC that deployment of a
nationwide public safety broadband network is enormously important for
emergency responders at all levels of government: local, state and
Federal. It will be an essential tool for addressing the expanded
domestic defense and emergency response obligations of all public
safety agencies. Such a proposal is not a substitute for present land
mobile assignments, including the current 700 MHz narrowband spectrum,
that provide for public safety mission critical voice communications.
However, a data network will serve growing critical needs if it meets
the expectations that the 700 MHz public safety segment has portended;
it must encompass advanced data services that will also include Voice
over Internet Protocol (VoIP) capabilities that will provide a vital
backup to public safety mission critical land mobile voice systems; it
must conquer the historical public safety challenge of satisfying the
most critical communications requirements with highly limited or no
resources; and it must be available to all agencies, small or large,
wealthy or poor, rural, suburban or urban.
NPSTC believes that these attributes translate to five principles
which the Commission must address if it is to provide a meaningful
response to the current public safety communications situation:
universal access by all agencies, sufficient spectrum to ensure
commercial investment and public/private coexistence on a shared data
network, a modern data network built to public safety standards and
able to accommodate changing requirements, a governance structure
ensuring public safety community control and standards and protection
of mission critical voice spectrum from interference. We do not believe
these attributes can be realized if public safety is limited to the 12
MHZ of its existing 700 MHZ allocation as proposed in the Ninth NPRM.
Also, we do not believe that secondary use of the narrowband spectrum
provides any meaningful spectrum supplement for broadband use because
the areas of the country where there will be the greatest demand for
broadband are the same areas where the narrowband voice channels will
be fully utilized once the spectrum is cleared and systems are
implemented. We also have serious questions regarding the near-term
viability of the cognitive technologies that would be necessary for
such broadband/narrowband spectrum sharing.
The Commission, Congress, Administration, public safety and private
interests now have a short opportunity to enact and structure a
nationwide broadband network that will satisfy the five principles
identified above. Unless these principles prevail, the opportunity will
be lost and public safety communications will deteriorate further, with
many agencies left behind. Set forth below is NPSTC's path to a
nationwide broadband network that will improve communications
dramatically and bring the unity that is vitally necessary to public
safety operations.
The National Public Safety Telecommunications Council
NPSTC serves both as a resource and advocate for public safety
organizations in the United States on matters relating to public safety
telecommunications. NPSTC is a federation of public safety
organizations dedicated to encouraging and facilitating, through its
collective voice, the implementation of the Public Safety Wireless
Advisory Committee (PSWAC) and the 700 MHZ Public Safety National
Coordination Committee (NCC) recommendations. NPSTC explores
technologies and public policy involving public safety agencies,
analyzes the ramifications of particular issues, and submits comments
to governmental bodies with the objective of furthering public safety
communications worldwide. NPSTC serves as a standing forum for the
exchange of ideas and information for effective public safety
telecommunications. The following 13 organizations participate in
NPSTC:
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials
American Radio Relay League
American Red Cross
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials--
International
Forestry Conservation Communications Association
International Association of Chiefs of Police
International Association of Emergency Managers
International Association of Fire Chiefs
International Municipal Signal Association
National Association of State Emergency Medical Services
Officials
National Association of State Telecommunications Directors
National Association of State Foresters
National Association of State Telecommunications Directors
Several Federal agencies are liaison members of NPSTC. These
include the Department of Agriculture, Department of Homeland Security
(SAFECOM Program and the Federal Emergency Management Agency),
Department of Commerce (National Telecommunications and Information
Administration), Department of the Interior, and the Department of
Justice (National Institute of Justice, CommTech Program).
Current Proposals Addressing Broadband
The Ninth NPRM is the most recent in a series of Commission
proceedings that address the optimal use of this critical portion of
the spectrum. In addition to this proposal for deployment of a
nationwide broadband public safety network, the Commission also has
open proceedings in which it is examining the structure of the 700 MHz
public safety allocation, the reallocation of certain 700 MHz guard
band segments and service rules for the yet-to-be auctioned 700 MHz
commercial allocation. These converging proceedings present a pivotal
opportunity to propose the 700 MHz capacity needed to support an
economically viable, sustainable, nationwide, broadband public safety
network, if sufficient spectrum is made available to do so. By
examining these proposals one can discern a path that reflects the
principles identified herein and that will thereby unify public safety
communications while providing commercial interests a viable
opportunity to invest in and use the network.
The Commission first began to explore how to provide broadband
capability for public safety from the current 700 MHz wideband and
guard band segments while preserving local discretion in choosing
whether the spectrum would be utilized for broadband or wideband
applications.\2\ Public safety input to that proceeding was clear that
the Commission needs to provide the option to choose wideband or
broadband solutions within the current 700 MHz data spectrum as
requirements dictate. Under the Access Spectrum/Pegasus proposal,\3\
the current 4 MHz B Block guard band would be eliminated, with 3 MHz
placed in the public safety segment and 500 kHz paired channels moved
to the A Block guard band, which would be relocated adjacent to the
spectrum added to the public safety segment. This spectrum is from two
sources: of the 52 B Block licenses, 42 are held by the Commission as a
result of the 800 MHz reconfiguration, having originally been licensed
to Nextel, with the remaining 10 licenses held by Access Spectrum,
Pegasus, and others, who seek compensation for relinquishing these
licenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In the Matter of the Development of Operational, Technical and
Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and Local Public
Safety Communications Requirements Through the Year 2010, Eighth Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, WT Docket 96-86, FCC 06-34 (March 21, 2006) and
In the Matter of Former Nextel Communications, Inc. Upper 700 MHZ Guard
Band Licenses and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commissions Rules, WT
Docket No. 06-169 and Development of Operational, Technical and
Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and Local Public
Safety Communications Requirements through the Year 2010, WT Docket No.
96-86, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 06-133 (September 8,
2006).
\3\ Access Spectrum and Pegasus are current holders of 700 MHZ
guard band licenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A consensus among public safety organizations has emerged embracing
the Access/Pegasus proposal while recognizing its inherent limitations.
NPSTC believes this proposal should be adopted, regardless of the
licensing structure ultimately chosen for the existing data spectrum
because it helps minimize interference to the 700 MHZ narrowband voice
spectrum. However, even with the reconfiguration that Access Spectrum
and Pegasus have proposed, the resulting spectrum is still far short of
that needed for a nationwide broadband network and the regulatory
structure proposed by the Commission would not support deployment of
such a network. As noted above, local officials need the discretion
afforded by the regional planning process to use the current 700 MHZ
data segment for either broadband or wideband operations, as addressed
in responses to the previous Eighth NPRM. It preserves for local
officials, whose governments must assume associated capital and
operating costs, the decision whether to pursue a more resource-
demanding broadband network or more cost efficient wideband network.
The discretion is particularly important to rural agencies facing large
coverage and topology challenges where the costs for local governments
makes implementation of wideband coverage more achievable than the
advanced services broadband will provide.
By contrast, any nationwide broadband network, of necessity, must
be uniform in design and deployment. It must be available to all
agencies; otherwise it will not unify public safety but further divide
it. For this reason, it must be in addition to, not a replacement for,
the systems that will be deployed on the current 700 MHZ wideband
segment, as enhanced by the Access Spectrum/Pegasus proposal.
It is in this context that NPSTC, and the public safety community,
has embraced the Public Safety Broadband Trust (PSBT) proposal.\4\ The
PSBT proposes that 30 MHZ of the yet-to-be auctioned spectrum in the
upper 700 MHZ band be committed to public safety communications for a
nationwide interoperable broadband network. A trust, organized,
populated and controlled by the public safety community, would be
established to administer these channels and develop funding sources to
build and maintain the network. To that end, private entities would
lease access to the spectrum from the trust in a shared government/
commercial environment; the leasing revenue would fund building,
maintaining and upgrading the network and also repay monies borrowed
against Federal loan guarantees to compensate the Treasury for foregone
auction revenue. The PSBT would establish the technical parameters of
the network to ensure public safety standards, pervasive
interoperability among agencies and open architecture. It presents a
governing body embracing public safety representation and a management
structure promoting public/private spectrum use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Reference Information
Center, Petition for Rulemakings Filed, Report No. 2794, RM 11348, Part
27, Cyren Call Communications Inc., In the Matter of Communications
Reallocation of 30 MHZ of Corporation 700 MHZ Spectrum (747-762/777-792
MHZ) from Commercial Use (October 30, 2006), Dismissed, Order, DA 06-
2278 (November 3, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critically, the PSBT approach presents a path toward a nationwide
public safety broadband network because it addresses the systemic
under-funding of government radio systems on an ongoing basis. It will
be able to do so, however, only if there is sufficient spectrum to
attract commercial interest to invest in a shared government/commercial
network. The shared environment that would emerge provides adequate
spectrum to protect all interests and a funding base to construct and
maintain the network, a forceful incentive for coexistence. It is this
essential element that is absent in the Ninth NPRM which proposes only
12 MHZ of already allocated public safety 700 MHZ spectrum for this
critical purpose.
NPSTC recognizes that the PSBT concept will require Congressional
approval not to auction the 30 MHZ of the 60 MHZ of commercial 700 MHZ
spectrum. It will require Congressional enactment allowing the PSBT to
borrow monies to pay the Treasury the revenues that would have come
from auction. While the concept is opposed by commercial interests that
seek to purchase the spectrum, the PSBT proposal presents the best path
to unify public safety services, its premise being to offer a new,
exciting and achievable path to solving the challenges of future public
safety communications.
The Ninth NPRM has some of the same characteristics as the PSBT.
However, there are also several important and decisive differences.
Most critically, instead of 30 MHZ, the nationwide network proposed in
the Ninth NPRM would consist of only 12 MHZ. With a spectrum segment so
small, it provides no realistic means to build and maintain an advanced
broadband network. Its pay-as-you-go format continues the status quo in
a sector that is perennially under-funded. Its Commercial Mobile Radio
Service (CMRS) model approach ignores and would dangerously compromise
the diversity, redundancy, security and universal obligations of public
safety communications. Its reliance on cognitive technologies is
untested in any public safety scenario.
The inadequacy of spectrum in this proposal culminates in its most
serious flaw. NPSTC is firmly convinced that commercial interests will
have no incentive to invest in the network. NPSTC has made inquiries of
private interests regarding commitments to invest and use the spectrum
under the circumstances proposed by the Ninth NPRM. Responses were
negative and premised on the lack of adequate spectrum to coexist with
public safety given the preemptible status of commercial service on the
network. The use of 12 MHZ simply will not provide even the capacity to
accommodate the enormous expansion of domestic defense and emergency
responsibilities of local, state, and Federal Government agencies, much
less present viable opportunities for shared commercial usage.
Without commercial investment to support the build-out and
maintenance of the network, the burden will fall to state and local
governments under the pay-as-you-go format. Faced with ever-increasing
burdens to protect our homeland this is neither realistic nor
achievable. Under the Ninth NPRM concept no nationwide public safety
broadband network will ever be built. Deploying and maintaining a
nationwide broadband network consistent with public safety standards,
generating revenues to assure universal access, promoting public/
private use and possessing the ability to respond to emergent
circumstances requires a focused and accountable structure that the
Ninth NPRM cannot deliver.
The Opportunity
NPSTC believes that within the PSBT concept, the Access Spectrum/
Pegasus guard band proposal, and the Ninth NPRM is a path to a
nationwide public safety broadband network that will improve quality
and coverage and unify public safety. The path embraces universal
access, sufficient spectrum to ensure commercial investment and
participation, capital and operational resources ensuring an enduring
modern nationwide broadband network and a governance structure ensuring
public safety community control, emergency response standards and
management expertise and efficiency. The foundation for the path is the
dedication of spectrum that is adequate to support the initiative.
This path requires action by the Congress, Administration and the
Commission. The public safety controlled PSBT must have the requisite
statutory or regulatory authority to assume daily management of the
spectrum, finance the deployment and pay the Treasury for the value of
spectrum intended for auction, with discretion to take such action as
necessary to respond to expanded or emergent needs, all subject to the
Commission's regulatory authority and to Congressional oversight.
The interests of all parties desiring access to the 700 MHZ band
can converge to secure this short-lived opportunity. Public safety can
be convinced to embrace a shared environment if the nationwide
broadband network is available to all agencies for the full range of
uses and environments that agencies encounter daily and if operations
are protected. Private investment and commercial use will ensue where
adequate capacity and reliability is present. An accountable PSBT can
ensure through supervision and incentive, that cognitive radio
technology is eventually possible in both public and commercial
environments, subject to appropriate testing. For the first, and
perhaps last time in our history, adequate spectrum resources combined
with concepts the Commission has under consideration make a nationwide
public safety broadband network possible.
Summary
NPSTC recognizes the reality that the expectations and economic
value of those pursuing the yet to be auctioned 700 MHZ band compete
with providing a nationwide public safety broadband network. The
Commission's Ninth NPRM initiated an examination of how these seemingly
competing objectives can be reconciled. NPSTC believes that the core
principles enumerated above set the proper course and that these
interests can ultimately converge.
NPSTC's plea is that the interests involved and the consideration
by the Congress, the Commission and the Administration comprehend
another reality. Current public safety operations are complex and
difficult, hindered by lack of resources, where dangerous delays and
disruption lurk. Congestion of public safety communications channels
pervades virtually every urban and suburban area. The improvements a
nationwide public safety broadband network will afford will make an
enormous difference to the effectiveness of deterrence, response and
investigation. The greatest and most definitive benefit will accrue to
the citizen who desperately needs help when confronted with an
emergency.
Respectfully submitted,
Vincent R. Stile,
Chair,
National Public Safety
Telecommunications Council.
February 26, 2007
______
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
) PS Docket No. 06-229
Implementing a ) WT Docket 96-86
Nationwide, Broadband,
Interoperable Public )
Safety Network in
The 700 MHZ Band )
)
The Development of )
Operational, Technical
and Spectrum
Requirements for
Meeting
Federal, State and Local
Public Safety
Communications
Requirements Through
the
Year 2010
Reply Comments of the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council
The National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC)
submits these reply comments addressing the Commission's Ninth Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (Ninth NPRM) in these proceedings.\1\ The Ninth
NPRM proposes a centralized interoperable public safety national
broadband network that will be shared with commercial interests. It
proposes to use the 12 MHZ wideband segment currently allocated to the
public safety service in the 700 MHZ band.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Implementing a Nationwide, Broadband Interoperable Public
Safety Network in the 700 MHZ band and In the Matter of the Development
of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting
Federal, State and Local Public Safety Communications Requirements
Through the Year 2010, Ninth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, PS Docket
No. 06-229, WT Docket 96-86, FCC 06-181 (December 20, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The benefit and need for a public safety broadband network is
endorsed by cellular carriers, equipment manufacturers, public safety
agencies and organizations. While embracing this essential objective;
the comments diverge regarding how to attain the goal. The divide
centers on whether public safety agencies need additional spectrum.
Cellular carriers, pursuing the remaining 60 MHZ of the 700 MHZ band
through the auction process, oppose any additional allocation;
asserting that public safety's current allocation is adequate.
NPSTC believes that additional spectrum is crucial to meeting
public safety's expanded responsibilities. It is critical to the
technical and economic viability of the Commission's proposal. The
Commission should reject the static position that denies the enormous
expansion of domestic defense and emergency response responsibilities.
It should pursue a path providing additional spectrum for a broadband
network capable of delivering improvements paralleling today's
challenge.
Summary of Comments
Interests supporting the Ninth NPRM's premise that 12 MHz is
sufficient for a public/private network include cellular carriers,
broadband equipment providers and their trade associations.\2\ Several
oppose any additional spectrum for public safety communications.\3\
These interests also recommend relocating current public safety
narrowband voice channels but object to the proposal of guard band
licensees to provide additional channels to public safety.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Comments of Verizon Wireless, AT&T, MetroPCS Communications,
Alcatel-Lucent, the Cellular Telecommunications Internet Association
(CTIA) and Consumer Electronics Association (CEA).
\3\ Comments of AT&T, MetroPCS Communications, CTIA and CEA.
\4\ Comments of Verizon, AT&T, Alcatel and CTIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast, public safety agencies and other interests state that
12 MHZ is inadequate to support public safety operations and cannot
additionally accommodate commercial interests, reflecting, as APCO
indicates, the proposal's ``fatal'' flaw.\5\ Many public safety
comments emphasized that eliminating the wideband channels diminishes
the options and flexibility afforded to local officials.\6\ Secondary
operation by commercial interests on the 12 MHZ public safety segment
was strongly challenged.\7\ The guard band licensee proposal to provide
public safety additional channels was endorsed.\8\ Several comments
challenged the ability of the commercial radio service (CMRS) model to
meet public safety standards of universal coverage, redundancy,
diversity and reliability.\9\ Several parties noted that the Public
Safety Broadband Trust (PSBT), in contrast to the Ninth NPRM, is a
viable technical and economic proposal.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Comments of the City of Philadelphia, Region 22 Planning
Committee, Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, Association of
Public Safety Officials, International (APCO), Northrop Grumman,
GEOCommand, RCC, Spectrum Coalition and Cyren Call.
\6\ Comments of the City of Philadelphia, Region 22 Planning
Committee, Dataradio, M/A Com, Motorola, Northrop Grumman, Spectrum
Coalition and APCO.
\7\ Comments of the Telecommunications Industry Association.
\8\ Comments of Region 39 700 MHZ Committee, Region 22 Planning
Committee, Dataradio, Access Spectrum/Pegasus, Missouri Highway Patrol,
Frontline Wireless.
\9\ Comments of Dataradio, Northrop Grumman, RCC, Spectrum
Coalition.
\10\ Comments of APCO, Region 22 Planning Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment manufacturers Dataradio, M/A Com and Motorola discussed
the importance of flexibility for local operations and addressed these
requirements in the context of band alignment. Northrop Grumman stated
that the viability of the proposal is so tenuous it would delay access
to the 700 MHZ band. Cyren Call reiterated its PSBT proposal that would
use 30 MHZ of the yet to be auctioned 700 MHZ band for a public/private
broadband network; Frontline Wireless proposed that a new E Block of 10
MHZ be established from this spectrum to serve public safety agencies
and carriers.
NPSTC's position is more than a simple plea for additional spectrum
for public safety. It recognizes the technical challenges pervading the
band yet the opportunities and efficiencies presented by broadband
technology. We have pursued policies throughout the 700 MHz proceedings
that promote not only the coexistence of services but a complementary
environment benefiting all interests. While our review of the comments
is biased toward those presenting positive contributions to public
safety's challenges, an important element is the benefits that can
accrue across all users.
Additional Spectrum is Integral to a Nationwide Public Safety Broadband
Network
Assertions that public safety has adequate spectrum are insulated
from the reality facing the Nation's emergency services. The cellular
deployment experience has neither the history nor the challenges and
should not serve as the justification to deny public safety additional
spectrum. No commercial carrier has channels spread over ten frequency
bands that vary widely in propagation characteristics, and often
needing the use of multiple bands simultaneously at an incident scene.
Nor has any carrier faced an almost 50 year history of regulatory
direction to reduce channel size, a direction counter to broadband
delivery. In their comments for this proceeding, the Consumer
Electronics Association and High Tech DTV Coalition have made reference
to the Criterion Economics paper released on February 6, 2007 and
entitled ``Improving Public Safety Communications: An Analysis of
Alternative Approaches.'' This paper, prepared at their expense, was
developed to primarily support their assertions that public safety does
not need more spectrum and distorts facts concerning the history and
intended purpose of the 24 MHz of public safety spectrum allocated by
Congress in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. We urge the Commission to
review the March 7, 2007 report of Cyren Call Communications entitled
``Setting the Record Straight: A Critique of Criterion Economics'
Improving Public Safety Communications: An Analysis of Alternative
Approaches.'' \11\ In our view this paper does an excellent job of
explaining the true history of public safety communications and the
vast difference of needs between public safety and commercial systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ ``Setting the Record Straight: A Critique of Criterion
Economics' Improving Public Safety Communications: An Analysis of
Alternative Approaches'' prepared by Cyren Call Communications
Corporation (March 7, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike the cellular carriers, public safety agencies face widely
varying geographic and population requirements where they must provide
service. Broad geographic areas must be covered efficiently for a small
number of users, requiring relatively high power handsets or other
mobile receivers as compared to the cellular environment. Public safety
cannot tolerate denied access, garbled transmissions or dropped calls.
These values translate to substantially higher standards of reliability
for the infrastructure and equipment. The cost is not only additional
investment, which is consistently under funded, but often results in
diminishing of network capacity. The result is an achieved value and
not an indication that public safety uses its spectrum inefficiently.
Added to this environment is that today's first responder works in
a world transformed by the September 11, 2001 attacks and the recent
hurricanes. The 9/11 Commission's recommendation of additional public
safety spectrum was not misinformed but grounded on the enormous
enlargement of state and local government responsibilities. It
recognized the widening gap between the responsibilities of local,
state and Federal agencies for domestic security, emergency
preparedness and radio resources. Of the many policy and technical
decisions faced by the Commission in this proceeding, the amount of
spectrum dedicated to public safety is the key to meeting these
challenges.
The current structure of the public safety services, including the
700 MHZ public safety allocation, provides local governments, who must
pay for the networks capital and operating costs, wide discretion. This
is consistent with the national framework committing the management and
financing of public safety responsibilities to local government.
Contentions that the CMRS history should be either a model showing
inefficient public safety spectrum use or the path to deliver public
safety services are wrong. Instead, what emerges is a blind allegiance
to commercial control of the remaining 60 MHZ of 700 MHZ and a deep
discounting of what this spectrum can provide to emergency response.
Failing to Provide Additional Spectrum While Eliminating Current
Flexibility and Discretion in the 700 MHZ Public Safety Segment
Presents Significant Risks
Removing the 12 MHZ from its intended use and mandating a broadband
network will come at significant cost and create substantial risk. It
will remove local officials with primary responsibility for public
safety from determining how radio resources should assist their
operations. Comments in support of the Ninth NPRM ignore that wideband
is appreciably more affordable and effective for many agencies,
especially in less densely populated areas. This is particularly
critical when the only funding comes from local, state and Federal
taxpayers. The comments also improperly discount the proposal of the
guard band licensees to increase flexibility and discretion to shape
communications to respond effectively.
The importance of the guard band licensee proposal is in what it
provides and in its underpinnings. It adds crucial flexibility allowing
local agencies to choose more cost efficient wideband channels or the
expanded services accompanying broadband. Underlying the proposal is an
extensive technical analysis demonstrating its ability to protect
against interference between and among services while promoting more
efficient use for public safety and commercial users. It presents a
fundamental premise of how services cannot only coexist but complement
one another.
Significantly, contrary to comments urging only the relocation of
the public safety narrowband channels to obtain purported adjacent
channel compatibility, the guard band licensee proposal resolves
challenges from Canadian broadcast operations to U.S. border agencies.
The opposing comments do not, and in failing to do so present severe
interference challenges to border agencies in the use of the 700 MHZ
narrowband voice interoperability channels.
The risk accompanying simply redesignating the 12 MHZ as broadband
becomes more profound by the uncertainty of private sector
participation and investment. Its fragile and tentative state is
starkly shown as not one commercial interest filed a comment stating
that it will use the band or invest in it. Similarly, no comment
supporting the proposal addressed or refuted the several objections
that commercial broadband operations, with secondary authority
throughout the public safety segment, present serious interference
challenges, particularly to public safety's narrowband voice channels.
Much diluted local discretion, substantially increased interference
challenges, and an economic model that is not viable, go in a direction
opposite of the important goal of an interoperable broadband network
providing advanced services to all agencies.
The Justification for Additional Spectrum
NPSTC urges the Commission to pursue assisting public safety in
efforts to rescue spectrum from the yet to be auctioned 700 MHZ. We do
not believe a viable network can be deployed and used without it.
The path commences with adopting the guard band licensee proposal
to add channels to the public safety segment. It requires analyzing not
only coexistence but how infrastructure and equipment across various
services can complement one another to the benefit of all. The PSBT
proposal is at the forefront of how to approach this challenge. The
Frontline Wireless proposal should also be given further close
examination. While we are waiting for additional details from the
proponents, we believe there are a number of issues that, from our
perspective, need to be addressed. Under the Frontline proposal, the
selection of the operator for a nationwide public safety broadband
network would not be made by public safety and not by Congress or the
FCC; rather it would be a matter of who puts the highest dollar number
on the table. It seems to us that a vitally important decision is being
left to chance. Without regard to whether this operator understands the
unique requirements of public safety, the operator would be given
exclusive rights to share capacity on public safety's 12 MHZ. If the
operator runs into financial trouble, public safety could be sitting
across the table bargaining with an operator with the sole objective of
recovering the highest percentage of their money. The Frontline
proposal seems to permit the outcome that if no agreement is reached
after negotiations with public safety, the E block licensee would then
have the chance to build out ``commercial only'' facilities on whatever
basis it chooses, thus defeating the purpose of the ``set aside'' in
the first place. The commercial operator would be the spectrum licensee
of the E block, the system operator, and it would have the exclusive
right to access the public safety spectrum on a shared basis. This
combination would give too much negotiating leverage when it bargains
with public safety to discuss shared facilities. Particularly since it
has a great chance of keeping and using the spectrum if no deal is
reached, the winner will have no incentive to bargain in good faith
with public safety.
NPSTC urges the Commission to cross the barrier so clearly
delineated in the comments and move public safety and commercial
interests to higher standards. What is presented is the opportunity to
provide the spectrum resources parallel to the magnitude of
responsibility public safety faces while preserving the opportunities
to commercial interests the band presents.
Conclusion
NPSTC urges the Commission to address the need to provide public
safety agencies at all levels of government the additional spectrum in
the 700 MHZ band required for a viable nationwide broadband network
that can assist all agencies. It should reject the myth of those
challenging the needs of public safety and who would prefer to keep the
value of that spectrum for their own interests.
Respectfully submitted,
Vincent R. Stile,
Chair,
National Public Safety
Telecommunications Council.
March 12, 2007
Question 2. The President's FY 2008 Budget for the Department of
Homeland Security proposes to reduce State and Local Preparedness
Grants by over 30 percent from $2.7 million to $1.9 million and to
reduce Firefighter Grant Assistance by over 50 percent, from $662,000
to $300,000. Chief Werner, could you briefly discuss the impact these
cuts would have on state and local first responders?
Answer. The President is requesting $300 million for the Assistance
to Firefighters Grant Program (commonly known as the ``FIRE Act''), a
2.4 percent increase from the Administration's proposal last year. The
President is also requesting $0 for the Staffing for Adequate Fire and
Emergency Response (SAFER) Act grant program. These proposed funding
levels represent a significant decrease from the $547 million for FIRE
and $115 million for SAFER that Congress appropriated for FY 2007.
In addition, the President requested $250 million for grants
through the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP). This request
also represents a significant decrease from the $525 million
appropriated by Congress for FY 2007.
The IAFC urges Congress to fully fund the FIRE and SAFER Act grant
programs. According to the U.S. Fire Administration's report, ``Four
Years Later--A Second Needs Assessment of the U.S. Fire Service,''
there are still major shortages in the basic requirements of America's
fire service. For example:
An estimated 42 percent of volunteers serving in communities
with less than 2,500 people serve in departments that are
involved in structural firefighting but have not formally
trained all involved firefighters in those duties.
An estimated 36 percent of fire departments are involved in
delivering emergency medical services (EMS) but have not
provided formal training in those duties to all involved
personnel.
An estimated 65 percent of fire departments do not have
enough portable radios to equip all emergency responders on a
shift.
An estimated 60 percent of fire departments do not have
enough self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) to equip all
firefighters on a shift.
An estimated half (48 percent) of fire departments do not
have enough personal alert safety system (PASS) devices to
equip all emergency responders on a shift.
It is important that the FIRE and SAFER grant programs be fully
funded to meet these basic needs.
In addition, we have concerns about the proposal in the President's
budget to limit the use of FIRE grant funding for training, equipment
and personal protective gear. The President has proposed this change in
prior fiscal years, however each time Congress made sure that the funds
could be used for all hazards and for all types of programs, including
wellness and fitness, fire prevention, public education, and
modifications of facilities for the health and safety of personnel, as
the original legislation intended. We urge Congress to continue to make
sure that FIRE grant funding can be used for all of the legislatively-
authorized categories.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Charles L. Werner
Question 1. Are you aware if manufacturers of P25 compliant radios
have any discretion with respect to conforming to the standard? If so,
what features of P25 radio are subject to manufacturer's discretion?
Answer. To my knowledge, if a radio is to be P25 compliant, there
is no discretion to conforming to the standard.
Question 2. To the best of your knowledge, have there been
instances where certain features of P25 compliant radios from one
manufacturer were not interoperable with P25 compliant equipment from
another manufacturer?
Answer. Not that I am aware but recently, radios that were
supposedly P25 compliant were found not to be through NIST tests. It is
a complicated standard and it is even harder for the lay public safety
responder to understand and validate.
Question 3. Is there a conformance test for P25 radios that is
available today for manufacturers?
Answer. I believe that NIST has developed a test to validate
compliance. I recommend that you contact Mr. Derek Orr at NIST
regarding additional information about P25.
Question 4. Have there been emergency situations you are aware of
where a first responder has stated a preference for using analog radios
instead of digital radios?
Answer. Yes, while the digital radios offer many new functional and
safety features as well as more efficient use of spectrum, analog
offers a clearer voice audio during many fireground operations. Loud
noises can create interference and potentially unintelligible audio
voice in digital radios.
Question 5. Do you see a role for analog mutual aid channels in the
large scheme of achieving interoperable communications?
Answer. Many are in operation today and will be into the
foreseeable future. Bridge technology is available and in operation
today to connect disparate systems in a planned mutual aid environment.
Question 6. Is there a standard for public safety personnel to
exchange data? For exchanging video? Should any standards developed be
open standards? What is the danger of not having open standards?
Answer. There are standards being developed (Emergency Data
Exchange Language--EDXL) as part of the Global Justice initiative. They
are open standards which are crucial to future success and
interoperability between devices.
Question 7. Many communities rely on the Department of Homeland
Security's SAFECOM guidance in guiding purchase and requests related to
facilitating interoperable communications. Do you believe that
historically DHS has focused too much on hardware solution? Do you
believe that DHS guidance in the past has chilled local governments
from pursuing IP-based solutions?
Answer. SAFECOM has developed a ``Continuum'' to describe the route
to interoperability. Technology is only a part of that solution. The
first effort, and probably the most significant, is governance. As to
IP-based solutions, the technology at this time is not advanced
sufficiently to be useful for voice mission-critical public safety
wireless radio communications. This also includes the fact that the
wireless networks are not made to the reliability and redundant
standards of public safety systems. However, a wireless network that is
designed under the guidance of the Public Safety Broadband Trust may
lead to a network appropriate for these technologies.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg to
Charles L. Werner
Question 1. Can you provide the Committee with an update on the
costs and status of interoperable systems in the existing public safety
spectrum bands?
Answer. There are approximately 55,000 public safety communications
operations in the United States. Each one is different with different
operational requirements and at different levels of financial ability.
The status of interoperable systems in the existing public safety
spectrum bands is available from SAFECOM from a recently completed
survey of public safety agencies.
Question 2. Has the public safety community conducted studies
showing the condition of interoperability nationwide today, matching
that interoperability to existing spectrum allocations, and how much
additional spectrum is needed overall?
Answer. The SAFECOM Baseline study on interoperability, recently
completed, provides information on status of interoperability today.
The Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee Report submitted to the
FCC and NTIA on September 11, 1996 provides detailed information on how
much additional spectrum is needed overall for public safety. I
referred to this report in my testimony.
Question 3. The new broadband network that is envisioned would need
enough capacity for both government and commercial use. In any given
day, how much capacity would need to be dedicated to public safety vs.
commercial use? Would public safety's capacity needs on this network
likely increase as time went by?
Answer. I think on a daily basis, the demand would be much like
that of the commercial market. During a serious incident a much higher
demand would be needed for the initial time immediately following an
incident/event.
I think that the increased use will occur but such that the
technology and network will increase but similar to that of the
commercial subscriber model.
Question 4. What are some of the special needs of public safety
that are not available on existing commercial networks?
Answer. The primary reason public safety does not use voice on
commercial networks is that commercial networks are generally not built
to the hardened status that public safety communications networks are
and that public safety priority for its mission-critical status is not
assured. Additionally, the commercial network has a drop rate of 2
percent which is much higher than mission critical voice systems of
public safety. However a new Public Safety Broadband Trust guided
network may well change that paradigm.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
Harlin R. McEwen
Question 1. Both CTIA and the FCC suggest that a national broadband
network can be built on 12 of the 24 megahertz that public safety is
currently expected to receive following the DTV transition. Why do you
believe an additional 30 megahertz is needed?
Answer. First, it is important to understand the background of the
24 MHz of spectrum assigned to public safety in the upper 700 MHz band.
In 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), in concert
with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA), established the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee
(PSWAC) to provide an assessment of the communications needs of public
safety agencies through the year 2010. On September 11, 1996, PSWAC
released a report setting forth the current and future spectrum needs
of public safety. Among the findings of the PSWAC report was that 97.5
MHz of new public safety spectrum was needed by 2010, including 25 MHz
within 5 years (i.e., by 2001).
As a result of the PSWAC report, Congress directed the FCC (in the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997) to allocate no later than January 1, 1998,
24 MHz of radio spectrum between 746 and 806 MHz (to be recovered from
television channels 60-69 as a result of the implementation of digital
television). The FCC then reallocated for public safety use, television
channels 63, 64, 68, and 69. On August 6, 1998, the FCC created the
Public Safety National Coordinating Committee (NCC) under the authority
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The purpose of the NCC
was to recommend rules for the use of the 24 MHz of spectrum in the 700
MHz band.
The NCC, in its final report in July 2003, recommended that half of
the new spectrum (12 MHz) be designated for urgently needed public
safety narrowband voice channels, and that the remaining 12 MHz be
designated for wideband data channels. Since then, significant advances
in technology have made it desirable to add the option of using
broadband data channels. To accommodate this there are several new
plans currently under study by the FCC.
A proposal known as the Public Safety Broadband Trust has been made
to allocate 30 MHz of additional spectrum for public safety (from C and
D blocks) to be assigned to a Trust that would be controlled by public
safety and would enter into public/private partnerships to deploy a
nationwide broadband public safety network that would also be used for
commercial broadband communications.
The current 24 MHz of spectrum already allocated for public safety
is not sufficient for such a nationwide broadband network because:
1. Half of the spectrum (12 MHz) is allocated for urgently needed
narrowband voice and is already licensed and being used by public
safety agencies in areas where there are no competing television
broadcasters. Many other agencies have this spectrum in the planning
process and plan to use it once the television broadcasters have
vacated the spectrum in February 2009.
2. The wideband data channels are designated for local and state
licensing and are being planned for local, regional and state use. As
an example, one contract already has been approved for a three-county
wideband system in Minnesota.
3. The 12 MHz of spectrum designated for data channels is not
sufficient in capacity to support both public safety and commercial
services such as proposed for the Public Safety Broadband Trust (PSBT).
There must be sufficient spectrum for commercial investors to be able
to offer reliable commercial services that would not regularly be
disrupted by public safety pre-emption. Without commercial investors
public safety has no funding mechanism to build a nationwide broadband
network.
Question 1a. What effect would an additional allocation have on the
use of other public safety bands?
Answer. Most of the existing public safety allocations below 512
MHz are highly fragmented on very narrow channels that are interleaved
with users such as construction companies, taxicab fleets and tow truck
operators. While entirely unsuitable for broadband applications, they
were designed to and do meet a wide variety of mission-critical public
safety voice communications requirements that are integral to the
ongoing responsibilities of public safety officials. The nationwide
advanced technology interoperable broadband network under consideration
is not expected to replace these legacy voice systems, at least for the
foreseeable future, in part because IP-based voice facilities need more
testing and performance improvement (particularly in the area of
latency) before they will be deemed to satisfy the rigorous reliability
requirements of emergency response providers. As individual public
safety entities elect to migrate more of their traffic to the proposed
broadband network, it is not unreasonable to expect that some of the
narrowband voice channels could be abandoned and returned to the
Commission. However, this is all based upon an assumed build-out of a
nationwide broadband network such as proposed in the Public Safety
Broadband Trust.
Question 2. The President's FY 2008 budget for the Department of
Homeland Security proposes to reduce State and Local Preparedness
Grants by over 30 percent from $2.7 million to $1.9 million and to
reduce Firefighter Grant Assistance by over 50 percent, from $662,000
to $300,000. Mr. McEwen, could you briefly discuss the impact these
cuts would have on state and local first responders?
Answer. The states and localities are depending on the DHS grant
programs to assist with improving operable as well as interoperable
public safety communications systems. Unfortunately many of today's
public safety systems are older analog systems that are close to the
end of their useful lifecycles. These communications systems are
inadequate to handle the tremendous demands that are made of public
safety in their everyday duties as well as disastrous or catastrophic
events such as a terrorist attack or a major natural disaster. These
inadequacies are not remedied by software solutions that simply connect
incompatible networks together. The budget cuts that were proposed will
delay upgrading systems and will put both first responders and the
citizenry at additional risk. There is general agreement that bringing
all the Nation's public safety systems into the 21st century must be a
priority and that it will take time under the best of circumstances.
Given this fact, I regret the cuts to the DHS grant programs. The
justification offered for the cuts has been unpersuasive.
First, the interoperability funds in the NTIA Public Safety
Interoperable Communications (PSIC) Grant Program were intended to
accelerate the use of the new 700 MHz frequencies. By reducing other
DHS programs to offset the NTIA funding it leaves public safety with no
net gain. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Finally, to claim that there
is unused funding in the pipeline is misleading. Virtually all that
funding is allocated to projects underway but not completed. Congress
should recognize that when it appropriates funding for public systems
there will be a time period during which the systems are planned,
procured and installed.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Harlin R. McEwen
Question 1. Are you aware if manufacturers of P25 compliant radios
have any discretion with respect to conforming to the standard? If so,
what features of P25 radio are subject to manufacturer's discretion?
Answer. The P25 Standard contains mandatory core elements that
assure interoperability but also allows for manufacturer unique
features to encourage innovation and the development of new
applications while maintaining interoperability with other P25 radios.
P25 radios are tested for compliance at a feature level. All P25 radios
need not be capable of all the features defined by the P25 standard.
There are core features that must be included to enable
interoperability in the standard P25 mode. There are other features
that are ``optional'' but must meet the standard if included. Finally,
P25 allows for the inclusion of other features that have not been
standardized, but no features that are not standard can impede the
intended interoperability functionality.
Question 2. To the best of your knowledge, have there been
instances where certain features of P25 compliant radios from one
manufacturer were not interoperable with P25 compliant equipment from
another manufacturer?
Answer. The P25 standard is a very lengthy and complex set of
documents and over time it has become apparent that different
manufacturers in good faith have interpreted certain specific details
differently.
There are over 100 localities and 15 states that are operating P25
systems. Many agencies have successfully tested and certified radios on
their systems from competitive manufacturers. Among the jurisdictions
currently using multiple vendor radios are the States of Alaska,
Arkansas, and Colorado, as well as the City of Phoenix.
The national public safety organizations are working with the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) SAFECOM Program, the Project 25 Steering
Committee and the manufacturers represented by the Telecommunications
Industry Association (TIA) to address the known issues and are in the
process of developing new testing and certification procedures to
address these issues.
Question 3. Is there a conformance test for P25 radios that is
available today for manufacturers?
Answer. A conformance test process was begun in April 2005, and we
are hopeful that it will be completed by the end of 2007. NIST, with
the support of SAFECOM and the P25 Steering Committee, is developing a
comprehensive P25 Conformity Assessment Program. Although a number of
the conformance testing procedures are complete, there are a number of
``key interfaces'' that collectively comprise the P25 standard, and not
all interfaces have received complete and uniformly agreed technical
definitions, nor have all of the identified test protocols been fully
developed.
Aspects of the P25 standard unfortunately are highly technical in
nature, and the processes of standards development and definition and
of the formulation and application of testing protocols are not easily
condensed into concise, easy to communicate summary form. The topics
addressed in the prior answers are treated in more detail in a number
of documents available on the Internet that may be helpful to you,
Senator Cantwell, and others on the Committee who may desire additional
background information on these topics. The Commonwealth of Virginia
(through the efforts of its State Interoperability Executive Committee)
provides a good, summary (yet fairly detailed) overview of the P25
standard, its relevance to public safety communications, and a status
summary of conformance testing and validation, along with links to more
formal, technical documents, all of which can be accessed at http://
www.interoperability.virginia.gov/P25.html.
Question 4. Have there been emergency situations you are aware of
where a first responder has stated a preference for using analog radios
instead of digital radios?
Answer. While digital systems generally offer better performance
over a broader range of conditions, much greater flexibility, and more
efficiency than analog, some public safety organizations, particularly
fire fighters, have continued to prefer analog. Many smaller agencies
are still using analog systems and are not able to afford replacing
them. Clearly the future of communications will be dependent upon
digital systems and the public safety community has been working to
make sure that new digital systems meet their mission-critical needs.
Question 5. Do you see a role for analog mutual aid channels in the
large scheme of achieving interoperable communications?
Answer. Yes. Public safety has a significant investment in analog
mutual aid communications. They are useful not only from an asset
perspective but also from a Mutual Aid/Incident Command System
perspective. A Mutual Aid response is built on communications
interoperability and written agreements that pre-determined resources
(human and equipment) respond to numerous scenarios.
Also, some analog mutual aid channels have been ``harmonized''
across national borders with Canada and Mexico. Current FCC rules
require 800 MHz NPSPAC radios be capable of analog mutual aid operation
on five specific 800 MHz channels.
Analog mutual aid channels have also been identified in VHF and UHF
bands. The FCC has also designated interoperability (Mutual Aid)
channels in the 700 MHz band that operate in the digital P25 mode.
Question 6. Is there a standard for public safety personnel to
exchange data? For exchanging video? Should any standards developed be
open standards? What is the danger of not having open standards?
Answer. There are no specific standards for public safety data
exchange today. Public safety would prefer to use open standards
wherever possible. Certainly, data exchange standards are important.
Examples of this in today's environment are e-mail and instant
messaging. These examples show that while the applications can be
different and perhaps proprietary, it is possible to develop
information exchange standards so that different end-user applications
interface in an effective manner.
Question 7. Many communities rely on the Department of Homeland
Security's SAFECOM guidance in guiding purchase and requests related to
facilitating interoperable communications. Do you believe that
historically DHS has focused too much on hardware solution? Do you
believe that DHS guidance in the past has chilled local governments
from pursuing IP-based solutions?
Answer. I support the current SAFECOM guidance and the preference
it shows for open standards. Open standards are the key to
accomplishing true interoperability. For these reasons, I believe that
the current DHS guidance is appropriate as it allows for flexibility
for state and local first responders to choose the technology solutions
that best address their needs.
The P25 standard has been critical in facilitating interoperability
between systems from different vendors and injecting competition into
the handset marketplace. Regardless of whether we are discussing
hardware or software, open standards are crucial, and their necessity
is affirmed in the SAFECOM guidance. There is a role for IP but there
is work to be done to make it totally acceptable for mission-critical
use.
For example, a January 13, 2007, National Security
Telecommunications Advisory Committee (NSTAC) Report to the President
stated the following regarding IP-based solutions:
``Today's various IP gateways do not interoperate in part
because of conflicting VoIP protocols. Furthermore, they often
support only a basic audio patch to the different access
networks; to improve end-to-end services and achieve
interoperability between these IP gateways, it will be
necessary to drive the adoption of interoperable protocols for
transporting emergency communications services across IP
networks.''
Another example goes into more detail. On August 22, 2006, I
attended a meeting hosted by the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST), Office of Law Enforcement Standards (OLES), in
conjunction with DHS SAFECOM. Also in attendance were key stakeholders
from various Federal agencies and states, as well as a number of public
safety vendors, including M/A-COM, Motorola, Cisco, and Twisted Pair.
We were brought together to discuss the role of IP-based solutions for
public safety. While the public safety participants discussed the
attractiveness of the cost of IP-based systems, we identified
limitations such as:
A lack of standards profiles
Security related to:
Privacy and integrity of messages
Authentication and authorization of users
Reliability
Concerns about IP in mission-critical situations
At the end of the session, the entire group reached the following
conclusions about the limitations of IP-based solutions:
``You can't just dump VoIP into an existing network and
expect it to work.''
Most public safety agencies do not often have the staff or
funding to continuously upgrade and manage their systems to
meet the requirements.
IP doesn't automatically mean interoperability.
Government officials need further education on the
relationship between the strengths and limits of VoIP:
Just because this area involves Internet Protocol does
not mean it is using the Internet.
VoIP is part of some LMR solutions.
Radio-to-radio in the absence of infrastructure is critical
to public safety:
Everything is secondary to voice.
IT and IP product and applications life cycles tend to be
much shorter than public safety funding cycles for
communication systems.
For these reasons, I believe that the current DHS guidance is
appropriate and Congress should let the public safety community,
working with SAFECOM, determine whether the guidance needs to be
revised.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg to
Harlin R. McEwen
Question 1. Can you provide the Committee with an update on the
costs and status of interoperable systems in the existing public safety
spectrum bands?
Answer. The recent Baseline Survey conducted by the DHS SAFECOM
Program gives some indication of the status and progress of
interoperability in public safety communications. The results can be
found at http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/baseline/.
Question 2. Has the public safety community conducted studies
showing the condition of interoperability nationwide today, matching
that interoperability to existing spectrum allocations, and how much
additional spectrum is needed overall?
Answer. No. The public safety community does not have the funding
or resources to do such a study.
Question 3. The new broadband network that is envisioned would need
enough capacity for both government and commercial use. In any given
day, how much capacity would need to be dedicated to public safety vs.
commercial use? Would public safety's capacity needs on this network
likely increase as time went by?
Answer. That is difficult for me to answer, given the varied daily
needs of public safety. Cyren Call Communications has developed a white
paper entitled Public Safety Broadband Capacity Analysis that may be
helpful to understanding the answer. I have attached a copy for your
reference. See Supplemental Attachment on page 86.
Yes, it is envisioned that public safety's capacity needs on this
network would likely increase as time went by.
Question 4. What are some of the special needs of public safety
that are not available on existing commercial networks?
Answer. Public safety needs are measurably different from the needs
of commercial users. A dropped call on a commercial network is
inconvenient, however, on a public safety network, it can mean life or
death. Public safety networks must operate at near 100 percent
reliability 24/7. Public safety radios must work every time in mission-
critical situations.
For this reason, public safety spectrum cannot be compared to
commercial use in that a public safety network must be able accommodate
peak traffic flows, without failing or delay, during an emergency. A
public safety officer can never hear, ``all systems busy, please try
your call again later.'' Public safety networks are designed to
accommodate peak usage demand during major emergencies. Peak demand at
an incident can require 3-10 times the number of resources required on
an average day.
The communications needs of public safety are also dramatically
different from a commercial user. Public safety officers must be able
to connect to the network, as well as directly to each other. This
usage pattern for public safety radios is referred to as ``talk
around.'' This is where the officers communicate radio-to-radio without
going through a network. This can be critical at times when many
officers converge on an incident.
Public safety also requires near ubiquitous network coverage.
Public safety users must communicate throughout their jurisdictions,
including the most rural areas and require 95 percent or more
geographic coverage. There is not currently a single commercial service
in the United States that can provide that level of coverage.
Further, police radios are ``in-use'' at levels that far exceed the
average commercial user. In the course of the day, a police radio is
often in a monitor mode, listening to calls to other officers to see if
they need assistance. As many as 50 officers can be monitoring a single
channel at the same time. A typical police officer's radio in the
monitor mode is equivalent to a long conference call with 50 to 70+
people listening. Typically public safety is in this mode 30-50 percent
of the time. This is equivalent to over 4,000 ``cell phone'' minutes
per officer per month, which is 10 times the ``typical'' usage.
When we compare the cost of public safety systems to commercial
cellular systems we must take into account the fact that public safety
radios are used 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for an average of 7 years
before replacement. The average life of a cell phone is significantly
shorter.
Public Safety needs a hardened network with infrastructure built to
withstand local natural hazards (tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes,
floods, etc.) that would include hardened towers and backup power with
fuel supplies to withstand long term outages of public power sources.
For the most part, commercial networks do not offer that level of
service or reliability.
______
Supplemental Attachment
Public Safety Broadband Capacity Analysis
Introduction
The future of telecommunications is moving toward the ubiquitous
carriage of information via IP-based telecommunications systems.
Wireless services are part of this evolution as all voice, data, and
video will soon be sent and received via IP based radio access that is
an integral portion of this future all IP network environment.
To fully understand the radio spectrum requirements of this future
network, Cyren Call performed an analysis of the capacities a public
safety-grade wide area wireless broadband network will have to support
to ensure that public safety can leverage and utilize the advanced
capabilities required to meet its mission of providing protection and
safety for the citizens of the United States.
Background
Public Safety has recognized that the specific spectrum allotments
that will support wireless broadband technology for its needs must be
identified and set aside now to ensure that it is available for the
future. It is generally agreed by the Congress of the United States,
FCC, NTIA, commercial industry, and the scientific community that
spectrum is a finite resource. To ensure the many competing interests
for this resource have sufficient allocations for their specific
requirements, Congress and the FCC agree that each need be weighed
against the benefits a specific allocation can provide for overall
common good of the United States.
To this end a determination of what is sufficient spectrum for a
given entity or services provider becomes an exercise of peering into
the future and using the best available information to assess what
impacts technology change will have on its needs.
What is known is that as wireless services have evolved to
incorporate services beyond basic voice, spectrum with increasingly
larger channel sizes are required to deliver advanced capabilities and
provide the level of performance demanded by these services. This has
caused a competition for spectrum to arise with many entities vying for
its share of the spectrum pool.
Public safety is no exception, it is in competition with the
wireless commercial operators for spectrum to support its mission. This
has raised the debate not only as to how much spectrum public safety
will require to implement broadband services but in an era of fiscal
constraints, how it will be able to sustain and keep evergreen the
technology base required to have services available now and into the
future.
Scope
As outlined above there are many facets to the current debate over
public safety's broadband requirements and what will be required to
ensure these capabilities are available for its use. This analysis was
undertaken to determine not only the sufficiency of current spectrum
allotments to support wireless broadband technologies for public safety
but also what would be required for a public/private partnership that
enables public safety to evolve and maintain a desired level of service
now and into the future.
This focus provides the boundaries for this analysis and the
underlying assumptions used in the capacity calculations. Two spectrum
positions were analyzed to determine the requirements of public safety
and also a public/private partnership. These were:
12 MHz--6 MHz by 6 MHz paired
30 MHz--15 MHz by 15 MHz paired
Assumptions
In this section the major assumptions used in the analysis are
outlined. Specific assumptions that are critical to the methodology of
the analysis are highlighted in context with the use of the assumption.
General
This study assumed a national network view. The national network
assumed 37,000 cell sites required to provide coverage and capacity to
meet the requirements of the baseline user population, their profiles,
and offered services. Due to the scope, magnitude, make-up and varying
sizes of public safety jurisdictional entities within the U.S. specific
case by case sample studies for jurisdictions in large dense urban,
suburban, rural, and highway corridor environments will be the basis
for future studies to assess individual jurisdictional needs.
Incidents/events of various scales were a key component of this study
to assess capacity and performance requirements for these types of
occurrences.
Analysis Period
A period of 10 years was used in this analysis, from 2008 to 2018.
By using a full 10 year study period considerations such as technology
and applications evolution and maturity, services adoption, gains in
spectral efficiency, convergence and concurrent use of services, and
increasing demands for mobility could be employed to assess the demands
that would be placed on the network.
Network Technology
Today there are three major wireless technologies considered to be
on migratory and evolutionary paths to what is envisioned will be the
technology deployed for the 3G+ or 4th wide area mobile next-generation
networks in the study period. These are:
GSM > UMTS > HSPA > LTE
WiMax > LTE
EVDO Rev A/B > LTE
Long Term Evolution or LTE is a term used to describe the
envisioned technical characteristics that will be required for these
next-generation wide area mobile networks. This analysis blended and
used common technical stated evolutionary characteristics across all
three technology tracks such as OFDM-MA and MIMO,\1\ flat IP core
network architectures, mature IMS/SAE services delivery and management,
VoIP-based push to talk, and other attributes to normalize the capacity
and performance assumptions that will be available to provide broadband
services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ OFDM-MA: Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing--Multiple
Access, MIMO: Multiple Input/Multiple Output.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radio Access Layer
The radio link for a given sector was characterized using the
following design assumptions from HSPA+ as this provides a conservative
estimate for modeling rather than using the stated objectives for 3GPP
LTE:
Channel Size: 5 MHz
Reuse Factor: 3/1
Uplink Capacity: 11.5 Mbps
Downlink Capacity: 28 Mbps
Broadband Network User Population
It is estimated that by 2018 there will be less than 3 million
public safety personnel and that the U.S. population will be 300+
million. A conservative and high estimate of 3 million public safety
users and 32 million critical infrastructure and enterprise users was
assumed as the user population for this network in 2018.
Services
The following table depicts the services that were characterized
that would be provided by the network for this study.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub- RAN Service Rqmt. E-E/1-
category Capacity Service Service Throughput rate Way
Type Category (where Mgmt. description Example level -------------------- Delay
applicable) Ref. ID designator (Kbps) (Mbps) (ms)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Voic PS Tele- PTT TSP-1 Individual- 1:1 or Walkie Guaranteed 24 0.024 <150
e Service Direct Talkie
s
[P25] ........... TSP-2 Group Talk Groups Guaranteed 24 0.024 <150
........ ........... TSP-3 Broadcast 1:N or 1:1 for Guaranteed 24 0.024 <150
Dispatch
........ ........... TSP-4 Un- 1: All Devices on Guaranteed 24 0.024 <150
addressed Channel
........ ........... ........ Open All Devices on Guaranteed 24 0.024 <150
Channel Channel
........ Monitoring TSM-1 Individual- Unit/Device level Guaranteed 24 0.024 <150
Direct
........ ........... TSM-2 Group All Units/Device Guaranteed 24 0.024 <150
assigned to group
........ ........... TSM-3 Channel All Units/Device Guaranteed 24 0.024 <150
on channel
........ ........... TSM-4 Scanning All Units/Devices Guaranteed 24 0.024 <150
on selected
channels
........ Alerting TSA-1 lndividual- Unit/Device level Guaranteed 24 0.024 <150
Direct
........ ........... TSA-2 Group All Units/Devices Guaranteed 24 0.024 <150
assigned to group
........ ........... TSA-3 Audible Individual device/ Guaranteed 24 0.024 <150
Emergency assigned units to
a group
........ ........... TSA-4 Silent Unit/Device level Guaranteed 24 0.024
Emergency
CMRS Network CMR-1 Local Local M-M/M-PSTN Predictive 24 0.024 <150
Based
........ ........... CMR-2 Long Long Distance M-M/ Predictive 24 0.024 <150
Distance M-PSTN
........ ........... CMR-3 Conferencin Voice Predictive 24 0.024 <150
g
........ ........... CMR-4 CLASS Call Forward, Call Predictive 24 0.024 <150
Features Wait, Trace, etc.
........ ........... CMR-5 Voice Mail Traditional Voice Predictive 24 0.024 <150
Mail Services
Data Media Photo DMP-1 Image Stills, Slide Show Best 144 0.144 1000
Transfer Effort
Messagin SMS DMT-1 Text Both basic and Best 14.4 0.0144 4000
g enhanced (rich Effort
text) SMS
........ E-Mail DMT-2 Enhanced Text w/ Best 14.4 0.0144 4000
Text attachments--vari Effort
ous includes M-
Media
FTP Bulk Data DFT-1 Reporting Form based data Best 64 0.064 1000
transfer Effort
........ ........... DFT-2 File Various file type/ Best 64 0.064 2000
Transfer sizes Effort
Sensor Telemetry DSR-1 Bio-Metrics Personnel Guaranteed 28.8 0.0288 <50
physiology
reporting/mgmt.
........ ........... DSR-2 Environment Temperature, Predictive 14.4 0.0144 4000
al Moisture, etc.
........ ........... DSR-3 Situational Intrusion Guaranteed 28.8 0.0288 <500
Awareness Detection,
Wireless Fence,
alarm
........ ........... DSR-4 Vehicle Vehicle Sensors-- Predictive 64 0.064 1000
Telemetry Speed, Crash,
Engine, etc.
Location Reporting DLB-1 Person Individual Guaranteed 14.4 0.0144 <250
Based location tracking
........ Reporting DLB-2 Vehicle Vehicle location Guaranteed 14.4 0.0144 1000
tracking
........ Bulk Data DLB-3 GIS Thematic Maps Best 64 0.064 4000
Thematic (e.g., Hurricane Effort
Track Flooding)
........ Reporting DLB-4 Sensor Location of Sensor Best 14.4 0.0144 4000
both fixed and Effort
temporary
........ Reporting DLB-5 Robotic Location of Best 14.4 0.0144 <500
Robotic Elements/ Effort
devices/machines
Work Personnel DFM-1 Normal/ Daily Assignment Best 64 0.064 1000
Force Mgmt. Daily via form based Effort
Mgmt. data
........ Personnel DFM-2 Incident/ Event personnel Predictive 64 0.064 1000
Mgmt. Event assignments,
accounting, etc.--
Interactive form
Asset ........... DAM-1 Normal/ Daily mgmt & Best 64 0.064 4000
Mgmt. Daily tracking of Effort
assets--assignmen
t/status form
based
........ ........... DAM-2 Incident/ Event/Incident Best 64 0.064 4000
Event mgmt. and Effort
tracking of
assets--assignmen
t/status form
based
Robotics ........... DRS-1 Control Remote Control/ Guaranteed 64 0.064 <250
mgmt. of robotic
devices
........ ........... DRS-2 Data Robotic gathered/ Predictive varies varies
assembled data on type
Vide Media Video DMV-1 Real-Time Broadcast Quality-- Guaranteed 1000 1 <500
o Uni-Directional--
24-30 fps
........ ........... DMV-2 Real-Time Basic Quality--Uni- Predictive 500 0.5 1000
Directional--15
fps
........ ........... DMV-3 Streaming Store and Forward-- Predictive 300 0.3 1000
Uni-Directional--
8-10 fps
........ ........... DMV-4 Conferencin Multi-participant Guaranteed 770 0.77 <150
g Video + Voice +
Media - Bi-
Directional--15
fps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Services Note
It was assumed that all services have a failure point based on
excessive delay. For example:
It may be acceptable to wait a minute for a file transfer,
but it may not be acceptable for that file transfer to take 30
minutes.
Service throughput is determined by the most demanding
aspect of the service which is generally session initiation and
set-up.
Utilizing strict average throughput would underestimate
usage especially with concurrent sessions (voice with video).
Methodology
The high level methodology used to determine the number of
subscribers supported for various spectrum positions was as follows:
Characterize the Services
Define Subscriber Types
Assign Service Usage to Subscriber Types
Determine the Available Throughput
Capacity Calculations
Public Safety
Critical Infrastructure
Commercial
Each step is further explained in the subsequent sections.
Characterize the Individual Services
For the purposes of this analysis it was assumed that subscribers
would utilize services in three broad categories, namely: Real Time
Services, Best Effort Services, and Streaming Services. Within each
category, specific services were assigned, as follows:
Real Time Services
Push-to-Talk (PTT)
Telephony (Voice)
Monitoring--ability to listen to ongoing group communications
Alerting--ability to alert other users that communication is
desired
Best Effort Services
File Transfer--Transfer of large files to or from some data
repository
Messaging--Ability to send multi-media messages to one or more
users
Location--Transmission to or from the network containing
information about the physical location of the user
Sensor-based data
Streaming Services
Streaming Video--The ability to transmit or receive continuous
video
Define Subscriber Types
The following user profiles were developed and incorporated as the
subscriber types for this study:
Public Safety: Blended profiles for police, fire, and EMS
personnel
Critical Infrastructure: Medical, Energy/Power, Water, Food,
Transportation
Enterprise: Large enterprise [business] entities
Assign Service Usage to Subscriber Types
Independent Service Usage
For each subscriber type, a service profile was assigned that
specified how much of each service that subscriber type would utilize
on average. It was assumed for this analysis that public safety would
not be using this service for its primary voice system, and would
instead rely on it for mission-critical and routine broadband
applications. Critical infrastructure and commercial users would use
the system for voice, and this was factored into the model. Usage was
assigned for uplink and downlink separately.
Aggregate Service Usage
Once each subscriber type had the individual service profiles
assigned, an aggregate service profile was created. This aggregate
service profile was used to characterize the average network
utilization of that particular type of subscriber (Public Safety,
Critical Infrastructure, or Commercial).
The specific usage assumptions and aggregate service profile for
each subscriber type are listed in the appendix.
Determine Available Throughput
This analysis uses a generic, technology independent, throughput to
determine available capacity. The throughput values are correlated to
available radio spectrum. Although the available throughput is
technology independent, the quantitative initial estimate is based on
stated LTE standards for spectrum positions of 30 MHz (paired 15 MHz)
and 12 MHz (paired 6 MHz).
The effect of radio propagation over distance on the effective
throughput--
As the radio channel deteriorates, the throughput decreases.
The radio channel deteriorates as the distance increases
from the cell center (a function of radius).
It is assumed that the user distribution in a cell site is
random (evenly spread out within the area of the cell).
The diagram below shows the calculations for the average
effective data rate for an omni-directional cell divided into
three regions: inner, middle and outer rings. An ideal user
distribution model would utilize a continuous distribution
model, rather than the discrete 3 section model shown below.
However, the radio modulation schemes do not adjust
continuously, but rather discretely in a finite number of
steps. It is clear that the average effective throughput is
significantly less than the peak throughput and this is an
initial estimate at quantifying the derated throughput.
Estimate the impact of other system effects that impact throughput:
Packet Loss (radio and otherwise)
Retransmissions due to Packet Loss
Lower Layer Packetization Efficiencies (Layer 2 Framing,
etc.)
Computational Delays and Inefficiencies
The cumulative effect of these inefficiencies is estimated
to reduce the available throughput by 20 percent
Result: The effective available throughput for the average user.
Below are the analysis results for the throughput at 30 MHz. The same
process would be used for other spectrum positions.
Capacity Calculations
Sharing Spectrum
The system being modeled is one with the ability to prioritize
traffic and in this system Public Safety has priority access to all
capacity. If Critical Infrastructure or Commercial users are utilizing
capacity that is needed to serve Public Safety, the system will
throttle the capacity available to Critical Infrastructure and
Enterprise users, and make it available to Public Safety on an
immediate, as needed basis.
Critical Infrastructure users will also have priority. However it
is lower than Public Safety, but it is higher than commercial users.
Thus after Public Safety capacity needs are met, Critical
Infrastructure users are served.
Enterprise users utilize the remaining capacity. Note that capacity
that has been set aside to ensure Public Safety and Critical
Infrastructure usage experiences less blocking but also provides
service for the enterprise users. Enterprise users are only affected by
capacity in use, and would only be blocked from having access to
additional capacity if Public Safety and Critical Infrastructures are
generating a high demand on the system. The diagrams below illustrate
the concept.
The first diagram shows a hypothetical level of traffic for the
three types of users. The second diagram is the additive capacity of
that usage. In this hypothetical example, there would have been no
blocking if the capacity of the system was at least 25,000 kbps. It is
illustrative to look at the blocking effects as the capacity of the
system is constrained.
* Note that even though Critical Infrastructure is blocking, some
commercial traffic can still get through.
** Note that a substantial amount of Critical Infrastructure traffic
still is passed by the network, and that there may be cases
where some commercial traffic can squeeze in as well. None of
this traffic impacts the service levels of Public Safety.
It is clear from the diagram that Public Safety users would benefit
with an extremely high availability system (from a congestion/capacity
stand point), and that sizing of the system is dependent more upon the
enterprise user base, and to a lesser extent, critical infrastructure
grade of service.
Per Cell Capacity Calculation
To determine the number of subscribers supported for a given
throughput, the number of concurrent average services for the available
capacity was calculated. Once the number of concurrent simultaneous
sessions is known, one can apply statistical modeling with the desired
grade of service calculations. In this analysis, Erlang B and Poisson
distribution modeling was used with various grades of service,
depending on the subscriber type. The result is the effective number of
simultaneous sessions (users) that provides the desired grade of
service. The average effective load or the average subscriber was
calculated previously, and the effective number of sessions, with
effective load per user can be used to determine the total number of
users that could be supported within a cell.
Network-Wide Capacity Calculation
In order to extrapolate a per cell calculation to the entire
network, usage modeling assumptions need to be made. Specifically the
distribution of the subscribers/users across the cells needs to be
taken into account. For this analysis the business modeling assumptions
were taken from the Cyren Call business model using an even
distribution of users across the network. The following depicts
analysis of a 30 MHz (15 15 paired) spectrum position.
Public Safety Calculation
The capacity to support Public Safety is limited only by the
average available throughput of the system. Therefore by using the
services and usage levels of a typical Public Safety subscriber the
total number of Public Safety subscribers can be determined.
The table below summarizes the calculation for Public Safety.
From the table one can see that the model predicts that the network
with 30 MHz could support between nearly 7 million to nearly 11 million
Public Safety users for varying grades of service (blocking). However,
the maximum number of Public Safety users that would be expected to be
supported would be 3 million. Note that, by the nature of giving Public
Safety priority, that this network at 30 MHz would provide essentially
Public Safety with non-blocking service.
Having calculated the Public Safety utilization one can then
determine the amount of capacity that is left over for other users. For
the purposes of this model, it was assumed that 3 million Public Safety
users were utilizing the network, and any remaining capacity unused by
them would form the basis of subsequent calculations.
Critical Infrastructure Calculation
For this analysis, it was assumed that Critical Infrastructure
would require a better grade of service than Commercial users, but that
it would not need to be as robust as for Public Safety, and that
planning for 1 percent blocking was reasonable. To determine the
available capacity for Critical Infrastructure, it was first necessary
to determine the Public Safety capacity requirements at 1 percent
blocking. Note that this is not the grade of service Public Safety has,
but that the amount of capacity needed to maintain Public Safety at 1
percent blocking can not be utilized by Critical Infrastructure users.
One must account for the fact that unused Public Safety capacity is
available to Critical Infrastructure users, and that it is the actual
usage of Public Safety that impacts the remaining capacity, not the
capacity set aside to maintain high grades of service (as discussed in
the Capacity Overview section). For this model it was assumed to be a
reasonable approximation that Public Safety capacity usage at 1 percent
blocking would be capacity that was unusable by Critical
Infrastructure. The analysis is summarized in the table below.
As shown in the table, the analysis showed that nearly 12 million
Critical Infrastructure users could be supported in 30 MHz (15 MHz
paired). However, the Cyren Call business analysis expects the Critical
Infrastructure users to number approximately 6 million subscribers.
Commercial Calculation
The commercial capacity is calculated in a similar manner. It is
assumed that Commercial users would receive the nominal blocking of
most other cellular systems, namely 2 percent. Thus the capacity
available for Commercial users would be that which is left over from
Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure usage also at 2 percent. The
analysis results are below.
The analysis shows that with 3 million Public Safety users, and 6
million Critical Infrastructure users, there is enough network capacity
to serve about 26 Million commercial users at typical cellular service
levels with a 30 MHz (15x15 paired) spectrum position.
Summary of Results
Using the methodology described above, the following spectrum
positions were analyzed. It was found that a 12 MHz (6x6) allotment
would not care for a 2.9 million public safety user base using an even
distribution national network model.
As was shown in the more detailed overview of the analysis, a 30
MHz (15x15) would meet the criteria to offer public safety grade
prioritized service and still enable sufficient capacity to be provided
to critical infrastructure and enterprise subscribers.
Appendix A
The following tables provide user individual and aggregated service
assumptions used in the analysis.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
Morgan O'Brien
Question 1. One issue that continues to vex policymakers is the
buildout of wireless services in rural areas. Could you discuss this
issue, and how either the proposal suggested by the FCC or the Public
Safety Broadband Trust proposal would address these concerns?
Answer. Because first responders must go everywhere problems and
disasters occur, their communications capabilities must precede them.
This is why it's critical for any nationwide platform to be ubiquitous
across the United States, including rural locations. The Public Safety
Broadband Trust proposal (``Proposal'') includes a terrestrial cell
site buildout deep into our Nation's rural locations--to cover areas
with a population density as low as 5 persons per square mile, well
beyond areas covered by the commercial carriers. That terrestrial
network build would be supplemented and supported by a satellite
overlay network, both to cover areas where the terrestrial network
would not extend and to provide a redundant communications capability
should the terrestrial network become inoperable. In the process of
assigning to commercial entities leases of usage rights to its licensed
spectrum, the Public Safety Broadband Trust would have, as one of its
core mandates, assuring that the network is built out and service is
provided in the more sparsely populated, underserved areas of our
nation, as well as in the more densely populated urban market areas.
Given the strong overlap and identity of interests between the Public
Safety Broadband Trust and rural residents--the former being committed
to make sure first responders have state-of-the-art communications
wherever they must go, the latter being anxious to obtain a bridge
across the digital divide that separates them from the personal and
commercial benefits carried by access to modern, broadband
communications services--there are real incentives and true motivation
to add confidence that the buildout to rural America will happen. No
other proposed alternative offers the safeguard of having the license
to the spectrum in the hands of the Public Safety Broadband Trust, a
non-profit, non-stock entity controlled by public safety organizations,
or the powerful combination and alignment of motivations and incentives
needed to achieve a meaningful rural network buildout.
Question 2. Many opponents argue that failing to auction 30 MHz of
spectrum necessarily results in a spectrum giveaway. Mr. O'Brien, some
have criticized your plan as a ``spectrum giveaway'' that would allow
you to personally profit rather than compete through an auction. How do
you respond to this charge?
Answer. Despite misinformation to the contrary, it should be
emphasized that neither Cyren Call nor any private, for-profit entity
will be receiving a license to any spectrum if the Proposal is
implemented. Rather, under that proposal the Public Safety Broadband
Trust itself would be awarded and would hold the license to this 30 MHz
of spectrum in the 700 MHz band. The Public Safety Broadband Trust--a
non-profit, non-stock entity controlled by public safety
organizations--would have the normal spectrum license rights granted to
any other FCC licensee--and, like other licensees, would be subject to
FCC oversight and, consistent with numerous provisions contained in the
draft legislation that public safety has endorsed and is attempting to
have introduced, to significant ongoing Congressional supervision. The
``spectrum giveaway'' characterization is seriously flawed on at least
two grounds. First, the spectrum license would be awarded and held for
the principal benefit of America's public safety community, and
licensed spectrum that has been made available for similar purposes in
the past never has been regarded as ``given away.'' Rather, it is
provided for the use of our first responder personnel to enable them to
have the tools they require to safely and effectively discharge their
critically important roles--protecting and preserving our lives and our
property. For that reason, and with ample justification, such spectrum
licensed to and for the benefit of public safety cannot be regarded as
a ``giveaway.'' Second, as the draft legislation makes clear, the
Public Safety Broadband Trust would pay (with money borrowed in the
capital markets, backed by government loan guarantees) an amount to the
Treasury for the award of that spectrum license, both to compensate for
the loss of auction revenues attributable to that spectrum and to
assure full funding for the purposes enumerated in the Deficit
Reduction Act of 2005 (which, when that legislation was adopted, was
assumed to be supplied by 700 MHz spectrum auction proceeds). Cyren
Call will not ``profit'' from the award of a spectrum license to the
Public Safety Broadband Trust, or from the payment made for that
spectrum license. The Proposal contemplates that an entity would be
retained by the Public Safety Broadband Trust to fulfill important
roles in the public/private partnership structure, roles in which both
knowledge and experience in the commercial wireless industry and in the
world of public safety communications should be crucial ingredients and
qualifications. Although neither Cyren Call nor any other entity has an
entitlement or commitment to be awarded any of those roles, Cyren Call
intends to apply for those roles, and expects that it would need to
compete aggressively with other for-profit applicants in an open and
fair process--as expressly provided in the draft legislation--to win
the award of any or all of those roles. To clarify further, Cyren Call
proposes that neither it nor whoever else might be chosen instead for
that role would participate in any way as a commercial operator lessee
of the spectrum. This prohibition is suggested to avoid any conflict of
interest that might develop between what is best for the Public Safety
Broadband Trust and the for-profit interests of the commercial
operator(s).
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Morgan O'Brien
Question 1. My understanding is that you propose to solve the
interoperability problem by having all public safety organizations
eventually migrate over to the 700 megahertz spectrum. Even if the
proposal is successful, this new network will not be built out for a
decade or more. Does your proposal address the issue of improving
interoperability of first responders in the near and intermediate term?
Answer. As catastrophic events of the recent past have shown, there
is an immediate need to make sure that public safety narrowband voice
communications networks are made interoperable, particularly on a
regional basis, as soon as possible. The government must continue to
supply the leadership and funding to make voice communications for
first responders--over their existing legacy systems already in place
and operating today--truly interoperable. The Public Safety Broadband
Trust proposal (``Proposal'') first and foremost addresses problems
that relate to the future communications capabilities that need to be
made available to public safety personnel--and takes a common sense
approach in assuring that those capabilities will be provided in a way
that also assures their interoperability. As a result, public safety
personnel at all levels of government--state, local and Federal--will
be provided access to a uniform, next-generation, open standard,
nationwide platform permitting them to enjoy the highest possible level
of communications interoperability. As important as interoperability
will be in this new setting, it is equally important and exciting to
appreciate that these new communications capabilities will deliver to
first responders the large file data and streaming video capabilities
that they do not have today. Imagine a burning building on the Elliot
Bay waterfront in Seattle--firefighters set up video cameras from
multiple angles and enter the edifice with streaming video capabilities
on their helmets--and all this information is sent back in real-time to
a team in a command center, making decisions based upon a comprehensive
``situational awareness.'' In addition, as burn victims are raced to
Harborview Medical Center, effective treatment is performed en route as
doctors in the emergency room monitor vital signs and injuries through
streaming video and high-speed wireless transmission of medical and
diagnostic test results. Now imagine that this capability is replicated
all across America. All of this is possible, but only if a broadband
network designed for public safety is created, with the proper
financing stream to support its operation.
It is true that construction of this network will require--as every
national wireless network before it has required--some fairly
significant period of time. Even though that network build likely will
reach many of our Nation's largest urban centers (and a number of other
areas) in the first three build years, the Proposal does not
contemplate or advocate that the ongoing efforts to achieve
interoperability for public safety's existing legacy voice networks be
abandoned or slowed down. The Proposal and the next-generation public
safety network it seeks to implement does not involve the diversion of
one penny of the $1 billion in public safety interoperability funding
authorized by Congress--in fact, the mechanisms set forth in the draft
legislation to provide payment to the Treasury for the spectrum license
to be awarded to the Public Safety Broadband Trust were crafted
specifically to assure that the needed funding for that and other
programs and uses would be available on the timetable and in the
amounts indicated by Congress. Nor does the Proposal recommend or even
suggest that public safety's access to its long-promised and long-
awaited 24 MHz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band--especially the channels
included in that allocation that have been identified specifically for
interoperability purposes--be delayed 1 second beyond the
Congressionally-mandated DTV transition deadline in February 2009.
Although the committed interoperability funding, as well as the
additional spectrum designated expressly for interoperability uses,
will provide significant assistance to the public safety community in
achieving interoperability on their current legacy voice systems,
others (in Congress and elsewhere) have noted that this problem has
eluded solution, although it has been recognized and diagnosed, and
funding for solutions have been provided, for at least a decade.
Aspects of the public safety broadband network outlined in the Proposal
include components--notably an IP-based core backbone and
``interoperability gateway'' access points to the network--that (as
they become available in particular areas) also could make significant
contributions to a comprehensive approach to solve public safety's
existing legacy voice system interoperability challenges.
Question 2. Wireless carriers are currently rolling out what is
referred to as third generation or 3G networks. The rollout has taken
longer than originally thought, in part for technical reasons and in
part for business reasons. My understanding is that the Cyren Call
proposal is based on what is referred to as fourth generation
technology. I have heard that the reason the network requires the 30
megahertz is for technical reasons--to ensure the most efficient re-use
of the spectrum. I have heard that the reason the network requires 30
megahertz is for business reasons. Why does your proposal require the
30 megahertz of bandwidth? Has there been a technical risk assessment
performed on the feasibility of rolling out a fourth generation network
nationally?
Answer. The Proposal includes the creation of a public-private
partnership by which public safety controls the spectrum assets and
collaborates with commercial entities (as lessees of usage rights to
the licensed spectrum) to construct the network. In exchange for
building the network, these commercial entities will be permitted to
have shared use of the network and to make the network's excess
capacity available to the commercial customers that they will serve,
though public safety users always will have priority access to the
network's capacity, up to and including the full capacity of the
network if required in times of crisis. This vision for the future of
public safety communications will: provide public safety with an
evergreen platform that will evolve with technology; create a funding
mechanism so that government financial support for the network build is
unnecessary; and at last provide public safety with the benefits of the
scale economies of a commercial wireless business environment, thereby
lowering both their costs of obtaining wireless services and the cost
of public safety communications equipment. Using data from current
wireless carrier operations and network usage and other assumptions
that we believe reasonable and consistent with publicly available data
sources, our modeling shows that for such a shared public safety/
commercial network, 30 MHz of spectrum is needed to support not only
public safety's sporadic, critical incident-driven significant network
capacity needs, but also the projected ``ordinary course''
communications needs of the sizable commercial subscriber base that is
required to provide the bulk of the revenue to meet network costs (both
capital and operating). An insufficient amount of spectrum--such as the
12 MHz suggested in the FCC's December 2006 Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking--will attract neither commercial network builders nor their
investors, and so the network will not be built. Also, next generation
technologies require a sufficient amount of spectrum to support the
bandwidth-intensive capabilities and transmission speeds especially
important to first responders.
Capacity calculations for a mobile radio network involve many
factors and result in a complex engineering exercise. No single factor
by itself can be used to determine what capacity requirements for a
network ultimately will result from an engineering analysis. This is
especially true for an IP-based 4G mobile network design that must
consider the variance of capacity needs for public safety (normal to
extreme emergency events) coupled with a high-performance commercial
service offering.
The key elements that factor into these types of analyses are:
Offered service performance requirements (throughput,
latency, jitter, etc.)
Elasticity behavior of IP networks vs. Time Division
Multiplexing (TDM) based networks
Services mix used by the subscriber (e.g., voice, video,
data, messaging)
Subscriber densities per cell site and cell site sector
Subscriber peak busy usage (the greatest concentration of
users projected to be attempting to access the network at a
given moment in time)
Blocking rate (especially with mixed use where public safety
will differ from commercial)
Frequency re-use factor (trade-offs on a per-site basis for
efficiency and performance)
Extreme emergency usage and capacity requirements
There are other variables but the aforementioned are the key
factors which influence the results of a 4G mobile network capacity
analysis. Capacity results from this type of analysis are translated
into an uplink/downlink Mbps requirement per cell site/per sector. From
this calculation normalization the stated capacity of the competing
technologies is then used to derive a bits per hertz performance
capacity that the 4G technologies will theoretically deliver. As there
are efficiency gains and detractors for technology types (e.g., OFDM-
MA), these must be factored in as well. The end result is that one
determines a technology can deliver ``X'' capacity per MHz and assess
that capacity delivery outcome against a capacity analysis that has
determined a ``Y'' capacity need. From this information, one derives
the overall amount of spectrum required for the envisioned design.
Cyren Call determined, based on the above factors, that 30 MHz was the
minimum required for its stated design requirements and business model
mixed subscriber (public safety and commercial) use cases.
In terms of risk and the viability of deploying a next-generation
4G network, Cyren Call has built a detailed plan that takes into
account the execution and funding challenges required to build and
operate the network. From a schedule and profitability perspective, it
is a viable plan and consistent with the state of the wireless industry
today. 4G is not a radically new concept or network but is an evolution
of the technologies deployed today.
Question 3. The proposal includes $10 billion in U.S. Government
loan guarantees. If it takes longer to build out the network or the
commercial operator does not sign up enough customers early on to
generate the revenues required to service the loans, what is the
exposure to the U.S. government? In the end, might the U.S. taxpayer be
footing the bill to build out a commercial network?
Answer. The primary purpose of the government guaranteed borrowing
authority granted in the draft legislation to the Public Safety
Broadband Trust (``Trust'') is to enable that organization to raise
sufficient funds in the capital markets to pay the Treasury for the
award of a license to the 30 MHz of spectrum. So, the Federal
Government itself (and derivatively, the U.S. taxpayers) will be the
initial and largest beneficiary of that borrowing authority. Moreover,
the draft legislation expressly provides that the license will be
pledged as collateral security for the guarantee obligations. It is
true that a significant liquidity problem in the future cannot be ruled
out (for the commercial lessees any more than for the commercial
carriers they may compete against), which could result in payment
defaults on the Trust's borrowings, and then in turn on a call on the
guarantees. Although those cannot be characterized as happy
circumstances, at least the spectrum license could be repossessed and
the spectrum could then be made available for other purposes, including
to provide purely commercial services, with the funds received from any
future auction of a license to this spectrum devoted to repay any
payments made on the government guarantees. The certainty associated
with such an outcome is traceable to the structure of the Trust. First,
it is a non-profit, non-stock corporation, meaning there are no
shareholders or others with a claim on any ``residual value'' that
might be argued to exist in the licensed spectrum. Second, it is highly
unlikely that (following a payment default and related call on the
guarantees) the Trust would have any significant creditors other than
the issuer of the guarantees--i.e., the government--and certainly would
have no other secured creditors, since the spectrum license will be the
Trust's only asset. Finally, only the Trust would have licensee
status--all other parties would have only contractual rights--and the
Board of the Trust will be originally constituted by, and could be
changed only by, Federal legislation (in contrast to a for-profit
entity license holder--which would have the ``bundle of rights'' that
licensee status confers on it, and whose governing body would be
selected by its shareholders--and possibly by other groups, e.g.,
holders of hybrid debt/equity instruments and even true creditors, who
may have rights to appoint directors or otherwise be represented on the
governing body of an entity if the entity defaults on amounts owed to
those groups). In short, in contrast to the very complex and
conflicting collection of interests that bubble to the surface in a
liquidity crisis (or even an insolvency scenario--the example in this
vein being presented by the NextWave debacle), the cast of relevant
characters here would be far more limited and predictable, thereby
realistically shortening the time (and increasing the assurance of the
relation) between the occurrence of the undesired circumstances and the
implementation of the desired consequences.
It is also important to note that the government loan guarantees
would cover only money borrowed by the Public Safety Broadband Trust.
The commercial lessees would not be entitled to make their own
government guaranteed borrowings, nor would the Trust borrow money on
behalf of those commercial lessees. In fact, it is expressly
contemplated in the Proposal that one of the critical obligations to be
undertaken by a commercial lessee is the obligation to finance the
network build out in its leased area. To the extent that the Trust
would borrow money not related to the acquisition of its spectrum
license, those borrowings first would need to be approved by the
Trust's Board, and then would need to be for purposes approved in the
draft legislation, which could include the funding of research and
development activities for products or services expressly for the
public safety users of the network, for providing financial assistance
to enable more widespread use of the network by public safety users
(e.g., to provide subsidies or financial assistance to law enforcement,
fire service or emergency medical services personnel in areas that may
not have the resources to make such payments themselves--such as
reservations or economically depressed areas), to pay (in whole or in
part) to extend terrestrial network coverage to areas not assigned to
any commercial lessee, and (less significantly) for the Trust's own
operating expenses. Moreover, as the borrowing authority sought in the
draft legislation extends until December 31, 2020, there is no reason
to think that all borrowing would occur in the early years, or that
most of the non-spectrum license related borrowing would occur before
views as to the network's viability could be based on a significant
period of actual network operations.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg to
Morgan O'Brien
Question 1. You have noted that commercial wireless broadband
networks do not meet public safety's needs today. What needs does
public safety have that are not met with current commercial networks,
and what assurance is there that the new network would meet these
needs?
Answer. Public safety's communications needs are many and as a
nation we continue to put life and property at undue risk by not
addressing them comprehensively. Two general matters are solved by the
Public Safety Broadband Trust proposal (``Proposal''). First, this
solution will put public safety in control, nationally, of their
communications capabilities and provide them with a state-of-the-art
network that can be refreshed over time as new technologies and
capabilities are developed. This, for the first time, puts public
safety at the head of the table in terms of telecommunications
innovation--and today that means providing them with the enhanced
communications capabilities--specifically, access to data-intensive
applications, such as remote access to databases, large file transfer
and real-time video applications--that only a next-generation mobile
broadband network can deliver. Additionally, a public/private
partnership will create the right combination of incentives on all
sides to create the kind of network needed by public safety. Perhaps
most importantly, the Proposal will leave public safety in the ultimate
position of control, as the Trust (which is controlled by public
safety) alone will hold the license of the spectrum used in the
network, while assuring that that network is self-funding, costing the
American taxpayer nothing to construct and generating a reliable and
consistent ongoing source of revenue (largely from significant
commercial usage of the network) that eliminates the need for public
safety to go to all levels of government, hat in hand, each year, first
looking for the money to build, and then looking for the additional
money to support, their communications systems.
Second, commercial wireless networks cannot and will not meet the
needs of first responders. First responders need a public safety-grade
system that has the coverage, reliability, redundancy and functionality
to respond in emergency situations wherever they might be. Commercial
wireless carriers operate their networks as required to comply with the
conditions of their licenses--which frankly do not require those
carriers to orient their activities very much differently than they
willingly would do anyway--and otherwise operate them to maximize their
returns. So commercial wireless carriers offer commercial service with
coverage holes, with 98 percent call completion rates, and with
commercial grade construction standards (hours' long battery back-up
power at cell sites, limited backhaul redundancy, limited duplication
of core network elements) not necessarily because they could not cure
those situations and still make a profit, but because they can make
bigger profits by leaving those situations uncured. Since the existing
carriers have no incentive to take actions that would lower their
returns, we think it unlikely that they will restructure or retrofit
their networks to meet public safety's stringent needs and
requirements. So the Proposal was designed to create something that
first responders don't have today: a robust, hardened, interoperable
network that provides broadband capabilities that they can depend on
when they need it most, while still leaving enough attractive
commercial potential to present commercial lessee applicants with the
opportunity to earn an acceptable rate of return.
Question 2. How much would it cost to build a nationwide broadband
network that meets public safety's coverage and other needs, and how
much more costly would this be than building a broadband network based
on current commercial standards?
Answer. Cyren Call estimates the cost to build a public safety-
grade network could total approximately $20 billion over 10 years.
Cyren Call further estimates that about 30 percent of that total (or,
using $20 billion as the relevant total figure, about $6 billion) would
be attributable to meeting public safety needs in terms of network
redundancy, reliability and enhanced coverage. However, it is important
to note that many of these extra expenses also should be regarded as
drivers of additional revenues--and not just from the public safety and
allied (e.g., critical infrastructure users) communities--either
directly (i.e., if the public safety-grade network has coverage in
locations where the commercial networks do not, it likely will have
customers and generate revenues from those areas that the commercial
networks do not) or indirectly (i.e., a network exhibiting enhanced
reliability and redundancy--more ``up time''--may encourage users to
drive more ``high-value'' traffic over it, such as encrypted
communications and other premium applications).
Question 3. The new broadband network that is envisioned would need
enough capacity for both government and commercial use. Are you
confident that a commercial entity would build the network, and how
much of the network would need to be available for commercial use to
encourage a company to build it? In any given day, how much capacity
would need to be for public safety vs. commercial use?
Answer. A commercial entity would build the network, under an
arrangement that would provide it with the right economic incentives to
do so. Our research and discussions with investors indicate that there
is a genuine appetite in the market to fund the public safety broadband
network. We believe that, in addition to the public safety user base
for which it intentionally would be designed, the network also would be
attractive to a significant customer base composed of users in the
critical infrastructure industries, as well as to a large number of
high-end commercial customers that would be attracted to the network
not only for its ubiquitous coverage features but also for the
security, reliability and other benefits of a hardened communications
network. In order for the business case to work, however, 30 MHz is
needed to provide sufficient capacity for both public safety and
commercial user groups. It is also important to note that the Public
Safety Broadband Trust provides the most efficient use of radio
spectrum under these circumstances, whereby sufficient spectrum is
available to public safety when it is needed in emergency situations on
a priority basis and the balance is made available for commercial use.
On any given day--assuming absence of a truly catastrophic public
emergency situation--the commercial use of the network should be more
significant than the public safety use of the network, and the number
of commercial users being supported on the network will be far more
than the number of public safety users. In our modeling exercises, we
have projected that the network--at full coverage build in 2018--would
generate sufficient capacity to meet (simultaneously) the
communications needs of a total customer base of 35 million, comprised
of 27 million commercial users, 6 million critical infrastructure users
and 2 million public safety users. Of course, when the urgent
communications needs of public safety require that they be able to
claim a greater share of network resources and available capacity, the
priority assignment that automatically is given to public safety
traffic on the network will assure that they can--in the most extreme
circumstances--pre-empt all other traffic on the network, if required.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jim DeMint to
Morgan O'Brien
Question 1. In your testimony, you explained at length the benefits
of your proposal to the public safety community. During the Committee's
hearing, we also discussed the fact that your proposal is a for-profit
venture. Does Cyren Call have outside investors, and if so, could you
share with the Committee the information you furnished to potential
investors regarding possible returns on their investments?
Answer. Cyren Call has derived most of its financial support--apart
from initial start-up funding amounts supplied by its founders and a
small group of ``friends and family''--from investments made in Cyren
Call by a number of venture capital firms. Both leading up to those
investments and subsequently, in regular review sessions, Cyren Call
has shared with those firms (and has sought and received their input
on) the business and financial models that Cyren Call has created to
describe and depict the overall shared public safety-commercial
broadband network business and its financial characteristics.
In the simplest terms, the depiction of the overall network
business, and its presentation in the related financial model, is an
amalgamation of two distinct, but inter-related businesses and
financial models: (1) a business, and related financial model, that
pertains only to the commercial network operator(s) (``Lessee(s)'');
and (2) a business, and related financial model, that pertains only to
an entity referred to as the PSBT Authorized Agent/Public Safety
Liaison Agent (``Agent''; this is that role that Cyren Call intends to
seek for itself). The amalgamation of these two distinct, but inter-
related businesses, and the resulting related composite financial
model, we refer to as the ``eco-system.'' We characterized and
presented the business in this way because it would be essential for
any investor to focus not only on whether the Agent's business plan and
prospects appeared reasonable, sensible and viable, but also whether
the overall network business of the Lessee(s) (in which context the
Agent's business activities would occur and on which they would depend)
also had a plan and prospects that appeared reasonable, sensible and
viable.
Wherever possible, we have attempted to verify that our financial
model is based on or is consistent with publicly available information
on matters such as current industry trends, analysts' forecasts,
equipment manufacturers' estimates on costs, and published data
concerning performance capabilities of evolving technologies which are
not yet available for commercial deployment. We also have engaged in
some degree of cross-extrapolation from other industries or businesses
that we considered to be similar or related to the domestic commercial
mobile wireless industry such as wireline broadband networks, existing
wireless high-speed networks in the U.S. and wireless broadband
networks in other countries. The assumptions that are reflected or
incorporated in our business plans and in the related financial models
include a number of important topics, such as:
Addressable market sizes and compositions
Subscriber penetration rates
Product and service adoption rates
Product and service pricings
Subscriber profiles
Network capacity utilization rates
Technology performance and availability
Network and subscriber equipment costs
Funding timing and availability
We have prepared presentations that summarize the key points of the
business plans and of the related financial models described above.
Those presentations include the derivation of un-levered internal rates
of return for the respective businesses of the Lessee(s) and the Agent
that comprise the eco-system over the ten-year period of time covered
by the models. We have shared those presentations with governmental
bodies (such as personnel in the Congressional Budget Office), with
staff personnel from various Members of Congress, and with members of
the media, although we have done so in face-to-face meetings that
permitted us to supply additional explanatory detail. We would, of
course, be willing to deliver the same type of presentation to you and/
or your staff, as well as to any other members of the Committee or
their staffs, much as we have done and continue to do for other Members
of Congress.
Question 2. It seems as though your entire business plan is based
on Congress passing legislation to grant 30 MHz to the Public Safety
Broadband Trust in the next several months. What happens to Cyren Call
if the DTV transition and auction goes forward as planned?
Answer. The company's founders and employees came together around
the commonly-held vision of making this shared public safety-commercial
mobile broadband network business plan a reality, and the commonly-held
belief that this was a task worthy of the effort. The financial outcome
to the company might be no different if Congress passed legislation
granting the requested 30 MHz to the Public Safety Broadband Trust
(PSBT), and the PSBT then decided to select someone other than Cyren
Call as Agent, than if the Congress failed to act and the auction went
forward as currently legislated. We continue to believe that the DTV
transition itself should occur on the same timetable and with the same
end results--i.e., the commercial TV broadcasters vacating the upper
700 MHz spectrum they currently occupy by the February 2009 deadline,
and the Treasury receiving sufficient aggregate proceeds, in exchange
for the award of licenses to the 60 MHz of 700 MHz spectrum, to meet
all related existing budget allocations and spending commitments--
regardless whether Congress adopts legislation to implement the Public
Safety Broadband Trust proposal or whether Congress fails to act and
the 700 MHz spectrum proceeds to commercial auction as contemplated
under existing legislation.
Cyren Call is led and staffed by talented persons, and as much as
an innovative business concept and a well crafted business plan
undoubtedly played a role in Cyren Call's ability to attract investment
capital, the human resources associated with formulating that plan and
seeking to have it implemented played a large role as well. With those
resources, if its focus must be re-directed away from the business plan
and the vision it has been pursuing and advancing for the past year,
Cyren Call can turn its attention to investigating other opportunities
that may hold the prospect of an interesting business and the potential
for a return on its investors' capital. But we remain focused on what
we perceive as a critically important goal--putting public safety at
the forefront of the next generation of the wireless broadband
technology, product and service evolution.
In any case, Cyren Call believes it is more important to consider
the outcome for public safety should Congress not act to provide them
with the means to acquire the necessary financing to create, and the
assurance of ultimate control over, a mobile broadband network built to
meet their needs. If Congress does not act, we believe that our first
responders will lose the last realistic opportunity to gain access to a
reliable privately funded business case for, and ultimate control over,
the public safety-grade broadband network that they need and deserve.
If the only spectrum that is both available now and uniquely suited to
such a purpose is auctioned for purely commercial use, the critical
ingredient necessary to create a viable, privately funded and self
sustaining interoperable, public safety-grade broadband network will
forever be lost--and such a regrettable outcome could come to pass all
too soon. When the next disaster strikes America and our first
responders cannot communicate among themselves or access advanced
technology that could save American lives--including possibly yours or
a member of your family--we will carry that burden as a nation.
Congress has the choice of perpetuating the status quo or creatively
using opportunities present today to solve our country's public safety
communications problems once and for all. The clock ticks relentlessly
and a decision must be made quickly.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
Hon. Steve Largent
Question 1. Opponents of the Public Safety Broadband Trust (PSBT)
proposal claim that it would delay the February 2009 DTV transition
deadline. However, the auction of the remaining 30 MHz could proceed in
January 2008, allowing the analog switchover to occur as planned in
February 2009. Mr. Largent, could you explain why you believe the
Public Safety Broadband Trust proposal will delay the February 2009 DTV
transition deadline?
Answer. The Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act
requires the auction of 60 MHz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band. The
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the auction would
result in a net increase of auction receipts of $10 billion. The Public
Safety Broadband Trust (PSBT) proposal would prevent the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) from auctioning 30 MHz of that
spectrum.
Rather than simply reduce the net increase of auction receipts by
half of CBO's estimate, the PSBT proposal would result in an even
greater reduction in net auction proceeds because the PSBT proposal may
result in potential auction participants opting to lease spectrum from
PSBT rather than bid at auction. Thus, there would be even less than $5
billion in net auction proceeds. In addition, reducing the amount of
spectrum in the 700 MHz band available for commercial use would likely
cause the FCC to reduce the number of large-block licenses, which yield
greater receipts as compared to smaller-block licenses on a per-MHz
basis. And the loan guarantees required by the PSBT would reduce the
net auction proceeds even further.
The Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act mandates
that $7.363 billion of the net auction proceeds be transferred to the
general fund of the U.S. Treasury. In addition, in accordance with that
legislation and the Call Home Act of 2006, $1 billion of the net
auction proceeds must be used to establish a grant program to assist
public safety entities in the acquisition of, deployment of, and
training for the use of certain interoperable communications systems,
and that money must be allocated no later than October 1, 2007.
Furthermore, up to $1.5 billion of the net auction proceeds must be
available to assist consumers in the purchase of over-the-air digital-
to-analog converter boxes.
Even assuming that, under the PSBT proposal, a $5 billion payment
would have to be made to the Treasury for the right to manage the PSBT,
with the decrease in auction proceeds resulting from: (1) the absence
of 30 MHz from the auction and (2) the availability of spectrum for
lease by the PSBT, there would not be enough money to pay for the
converter box program. The absence of the converter box program would
jeopardize the February 17, 2009 transition date because Members of
Congress would likely be unwilling to require broadcasters to turn off
analog signals without Federal assistance to purchase converter boxes.
With the decrease in net auction receipts caused by the PSBT, Congress
would also be unable to fund the other initiatives, such as the
assistance provided to New York broadcasters and the low-power
television and translator conversion program, that are viewed as
necessary for a smooth and timely completion of the digital television
transition.
Question 2. Mr. Largent, you state that public safety has more than
enough spectrum to build and operate a network that will support
broadband applications, and you specifically note that the FCC has
allocated 50 megahertz to public safety in the 4.9 gigahertz band for
broadband applications. Do you believe it is economically feasible to
build a nationwide broadband network in that band?
Answer. The FCC has worked closely with the public safety community
to adopt regulations for the 4.9 GHz band that will create
opportunities for affordable broadband networks in that band. The FCC
determined ``that the 4.9 GHz band will be able to accommodate a
variety of broadband applications, including technologies and
operations requiring varying bandwidths and operations that are both
temporary and permanent in nature.'' In November 2004, the FCC
promulgated rules that will allow wireless manufacturers to leverage
technology already available in the commercial wireless sector in order
to provide reliable, affordable, and interoperable broadband equipment
to our first responders. As industry watchers have noted, the
``potentials are enormous'' for use of this new technology.\1\ Numerous
companies have already rolled out or begun development on 4.9 GHz-
compatible equipment, as well as designing mesh network systems that
will increase signal penetration and system redundancy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Computer Assisted Pre-Coordination Resource and Database
System, Nat'l Institute of Justice, 4.9 GHz Frequency Database Module,
http://caprad.nlectc.du.edu/caprad/f_main
.Public49?p_cOpt=3 (Mar. 14, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brookline, Massachusetts has already taken the first step in
installing a 4.9 GHz system, contracting with wireless providers to
create a network that will allow immediate access to police reports and
crime incidents, provide remote video surveillance, and do geographic
information system (GIS) mapping. The city expects to achieve 95
percent signal penetration on the street and 90 percent in buildings--
despite the numerous hills, trees, and old apartment buildings dotting
the landscape--and to manage costs by eventually merging with
commercial WiFi networks in the area. The Brookline system provides an
example of the potential for interoperable broadband networking in the
4.9 GHz band.
Question 3. One issue that continues to vex policymakers is the
buildout of wireless services in rural areas. Could you discuss this
issue, and how either the proposal suggested by the FCC or the Public
Safety Broadband Trust proposal would address these concerns?
Answer. There is no reason to believe that the FCC's current
auction regime--which encourages the highest and best use of spectrum
licenses--will not result in buildout to rural areas. Licensees have a
strong incentive to obtain the maximum return from their use of
spectrum, including that portion of the spectrum serving sparsely-
populated areas of the United States. Currently, 98 percent of
Americans live in counties served by at least three wireless providers,
and the FCC recently concluded that ``CMRS providers are competing
effectively in rural areas.''
Significantly, the PSBT proposal does not guarantee increased
buildout to rural areas or alter the market forces that will inevitably
drive or hinder rural buildout. The PSBT proposal covers only 99.3
percent of the U.S. population--the same percentage that already has
access to wireless services. Furthermore, as Morgan O'Brien has
recognized, the PSBT proposal depends on the assumption that commercial
wireless providers will find it profitable to build out the network in
rural areas. This assumption is not a guarantee, nor is it unique to
the PSBT: it is simply a recognition of the market trends that are
already enhancing wireless communications coverage in rural America.
While Mr. O'Brien has theorized that the same carriers that will build
the PSBT in densely-populated areas will subsidize deployment in rural
areas, there is no guarantee that carriers that would build parts of
the PSBT network in more-populated areas would build networks in rural
areas if they currently already are not building in those areas.
To the extent that the PSBT proposal depends on economies of scale
and redistributive policies to decrease the costs of buildout in rural
areas, the same advantages are present in the FCC's current proposal to
allocate 12 MHz of the current public safety spectrum in the 700 MHz
band to one national licensee that would manage national public safety
broadband development, enhancing first responder-industry relationships
and making money through a program of leasing access to the public
safety spectrum to commercial interests on a preemptible basis. Like
the PSBT proposal, the FCC proposal also does not provide any guarantee
that current market trends combined with an enhancement of the public
safety community's increased purchasing power will result in rural
buildout. It does, however, pursue this goal without disrupting the
hard-fought regime of the Digital Television Transition and Public
Safety Act, which provides sufficient spectrum to public safety while
also providing 60 MHz of new spectrum for commercial use in rural
areas.
Beyond the issues related to the PBST, let me make clear that CTIA
recognizes the desirability of ubiquitous coverage in rural areas. The
wireless industry is spending billions of dollars to improve network
coverage, capacity, and quality across the United States. The Federal
Universal Service Fund has played an important role in improving rural
access to wireless service, and as coverage expands, more and more
residents of rural areas are turning to wireless to meet their
communications needs. Unfortunately, the failure of the Federal
Communications Commission to address wireless carrier petitions for
Universal Service support in a timely manner effectively denies
Universal Service funding to wireless carriers, depriving consumers in
these rural areas the full benefits of competition. Universal service
support mechanisms should be administered on a competitively- and
technology-neutral basis. Senator Stevens' Universal Service bill, S.
101, would impose a six-month deadline for consideration of these
petitions. CTIA supports this provision of S. 101.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to
Hon. Steve Largent
Question 1. If Congress chooses to go ahead with commercial
auctions of the full 60 megahertz of spectrum from the digital
television (DTV) transition--instead of dedicating 30 megahertz to the
proposed ``Public Safety Broadband Trust''--what guarantee is there
that commercial wireless carriers will build out their wireless
broadband networks in rural areas?
Answer. There is no reason to believe that the FCC's current
auction regime--which encourages the highest and best use of spectrum
licenses--will not result in buildout to rural areas. Licensees have a
strong incentive to obtain the maximum return from their use of
spectrum, including that portion of the spectrum serving sparsely-
populated areas of the United States. Currently, 98 percent of
Americans live in counties served by at least three wireless providers,
and the FCC recently concluded that ``CMRS providers are competing
effectively in rural areas.''
Significantly, the PSBT proposal does not guarantee increased
buildout to rural areas or alter the market forces that will inevitably
drive or hinder rural buildout. The PSBT proposal covers only 99.3
percent of the U.S. population--the same percentage that already has
access to wireless services. Furthermore, as Morgan O'Brien has
recognized, the PSBT proposal depends on the assumption that commercial
wireless providers will find it profitable to build out the network in
rural areas. This assumption is not a guarantee, nor is it unique to
the PSBT: it is simply a recognition of the market trends that are
already enhancing wireless communications coverage in rural America.
While Mr. O'Brien has theorized that the same carriers that will build
the PSBT in densely-populated areas will subsidize deployment in rural
areas, there is no guarantee that carriers that would build parts of
the PSBT network in more-populated areas would build networks in rural
areas if they currently already are not building in those areas.
To the extent that the PSBT proposal depends on economies of scale
and redistributive policies to decrease the costs of buildout in rural
areas, the same advantages are present in the FCC's current proposal to
allocate 12 MHz of the current public safety spectrum in the 700 MHz
band to one national licensee that would manage national public safety
broadband development, enhancing first responder-industry relationships
and making money through a program of leasing access to the public
safety spectrum to commercial interests on a preemptible basis. Like
the PSBT proposal, the FCC proposal also does not provide any guarantee
that current market trends combined with an enhancement of the public
safety community's increased purchasing power will result in rural
buildout. It does, however, pursue this goal without disrupting the
hard-fought regime of the Digital Television Transition and Public
Safety Act, which provides sufficient spectrum to public safety while
also providing 60 MHz of new spectrum for commercial use in rural
areas.
Beyond the issues related to the PBST, let me make clear that CTIA
recognizes the desirability of ubiquitous coverage in rural areas. The
wireless industry is spending billions of dollars to improve network
coverage, capacity, and quality across the United States. The Federal
Universal Service Fund has played an important role in improving rural
access to wireless service, and as coverage expands, more and more
residents of rural areas are turning to wireless to meet their
communications needs. Unfortunately, the failure of the Federal
Communications Commission to address wireless carrier petitions for
Universal Service support in a timely manner effectively denies
Universal Service funding to wireless carriers, depriving consumers in
these rural areas the full benefits of competition. Universal Service
support mechanisms should be administered on a competitively- and
technology-neutral basis. Senator Stevens' Universal Service bill, S.
101, would impose a six-month deadline for consideration of these
petitions. CTIA supports this provision of S. 101.
Question 2. In lieu of creating a ``Public Safety Broadband
Trust,'' what is the wireless industry's solution to providing public
safety with a nationwide broadband network?
Answer. CTIA and its members fully support the creation of an
interoperable wireless broadband public safety network. The challenges
faced by first responders are not based on a lack of spectrum, however.
CTIA's largest carriers use, on average, 50 MHz of spectrum--almost the
same amount of spectrum used by public safety agencies to provide voice
and data service to 3 million first responders \1\--to provide both
voice and broadband data services to more than 50 million customers
each.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This does not include 50 MHz of spectrum allocated to public
safety in the 4.9 GHz band, which some public safety officials have
argued is better suited to high-speed, broadband public safety
applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The challenge of building a nationwide public safety broadband
network derives from the balkanization of public safety spectrum, the
resulting lack of interoperability, and the inability of local
jurisdictions to work together to coordinate frequencies or to achieve
economies of scale. CTIA has submitted comments in support of the FCC's
current proposal to remedy these problems by allocating 12 MHz of the
current public safety spectrum in the 700 MHz band to broadband
interoperability. Under the FCC proposal, one national public safety
licensee would be responsible for allocating, managing, and building
out the public safety broadband network. This licensee would also work
with the commercial wireless industry by leasing access to commercial
interests on a preemptible basis, thereby gaining additional funds and
cooperative partnerships with commercial entities.
CTIA believes that the commercial wireless industry can and should
provide the public safety community with invaluable information and
expertise to improve efficiency and interoperability of the existing
public safety spectrum. To this end, CTIA is sponsoring a program
through which leaders from the public safety world and experts from the
commercial sector can come together to find the best solutions to our
first responders' broadband and interoperability needs. CTIA members
have already committed themselves to this important effort, which
begins on April 9, 2007.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
David Billstrom
Question 1. Mr. Billstrom, in your testimony, you note that the
military has moved to IP radio technologies. Are these same
technologies currently available to local first responders, and if so,
what are the major obstacles preventing wider adoption? How can we
promote greater coordination among local first responders?
Answer. Chairman Inouye, your questions get to the heart of the
issue before us. Yes, the very same technologies used by the U.S.
military are available now for first responders at the state, county
and local level throughout the United States.
This is not really a ``new'' technology; it is only ``new'' to
public safety. As you know, Voice-over-IP also known as ``VoIP'' has
existed in commercial form, embedded in many telecommunication
products, for more than a decade. The variant of this technology used
for military and public safety radio communications, Radio-over-IP
(``RoIP'') is more than 5 years old--a very long time in the technology
world. Production implementations of RoIP are used every day, 24/7, for
mission-critical applications throughout the U.S. military--including
with special forces--and in certain applications by the U.S. Coast
Guard. These systems are, in many cases, available for inspection and
review by public safety officials.
At this point there are numerous vendors offering ROIP. We
generally recommend to public safety agencies that they pursue
software-only ROIP vendors in order to avoid the trap of proprietary
hardware. It is my understanding that both the Department of Defense
and the U.S. Coast Guard have deployed software-only ROIP solutions,
but obviously I cannot speak for any of these users.
There are two obstacles to wider adoption by the public safety
community. First, many ``new'' technologies in public safety are first
acquired with Federal grant dollars. Despite SAFECOM recommendations
consistent with the use of ROIP, most potential grant applicants in the
public safety community are uncertain whether a request for grant
funding for ROIP will be favorably regarded by grant program officers.
It would help if Congress provided direction to DHS, NTIA, HHS (and
other Federal agencies with grant programs) that Federal grant programs
should consider ROIP grant requests.
It would be a tremendous improvement just to achieve a ``technology
neutral'' position for grant dollars--as the current perception is
heavily lopsided toward ``buy more radios from traditional radio
manufacturers.'' That is an approach that obviously isn't working, and
is quite expensive relative to the software alternative.
The other obstacle to adoption by the public safety community is
more controversial. The traditional vendors of vertically-integrated
radio systems for public safety actively discourage the use of ROIP by
public safety in many ways, but most outrageously by opposing any
attempt to connect their proprietary communication systems with ROIP
from other vendors.
By ``vertically-integrated'' I mean radio communication systems
that are manufactured by a single company, and by the use of patented
and/or trade secret protected technology, prohibit the use of radios
made by any other company on their systems. Motorola, for instance,
makes fine products, some of the best in the world, but the trunking
radio systems they sell to public safety (and have installed throughout
the United States in many of our largest metropolitan areas) do not
permit the use of radios from any other manufacturer. This is a classic
example of a vertically-integrated product--public safety agencies must
purchase the system, including repeaters, dispatch consoles, and all of
the radios in the system, from a single (often sole-source) supplier.
Although vertically-integrated systems are no longer available in the
computer industry (IBM was the best-known example) because they were
superseded by the open market approach, they are status quo in public
safety for radio systems.
The disadvantage of vertically-integrated radio systems when used
in public safety is that the radios are fundamentally not
interoperable, since every radio on a system must be provided by the
system's sole manufacturer. It would be as if Dell laptops could only
send e-mail to other Dell laptops; e-mail destined for a HP laptop
wouldn't get through. The result is that if you must send e-mail to
someone with a Dell, you must buy a Dell laptop even if you already own
an HP laptop. I know public safety officials with two or even three
radios mounted in their vehicle in order to overcome a similar
limitation imposed by the radio system manufacturers.
It is my opinion that most of the current public safety radio
system manufacturers are strongly motivated to avoid or even prevent
interoperability, in order to preserve their proprietary market
position. From my business background I find this impressive; as a
first responder I find this deplorable.
In the same way that these radio system manufacturers have
absolutely prohibited the use of radios made by any other manufacturer
in their vertically-integrated systems, they have also prevented their
radio systems from being interconnected with ROIP technology made by
any other company.
Wider adoption of ROIP by public safety would be encouraged if DHS
refused to fund any radio system purchases (or even upgrades) if the
radio system was not open to ROIP technologies, specifically including
ROIP products from vendors other than the radio system manufacturer.
Question 1a. Are these technologies sufficiently robust and
reliable?
Answer. The answer is simple, Radio-over-IP (``RoIP'') is as robust
and reliable as the computer network equipment used to implement the
technology.
Even with this fundamental axiom, I have seen some confusion and
misunderstanding regarding ``reliability'' and even ``security'' of
ROIP. This is surely because these critics are confusing ``public
safety grade'' IP networks with the DSL Internet connections many of us
use to check e-mail at home. It is completely different. A network can
be completely closed, secure, and protected from disruption. The
Department of Defense, the U.S. Coast Guard, and many private and
public corporations have billions of dollars at stake as well as
millions of lives on their computer networks. These organizations use
secure and redundant IP networks on a 24/7 basis. The equipment used to
install and operate those networks is the exact same equipment used in
ROIP systems. Public safety grade IP networks are not only reliable and
robust, but they are more reliable and more robust than the proprietary
radio systems built by traditional radio manufacturers.
This is because there are more users--millions of more users world-
wide--for secure computer networks than there are police and fire radio
users. History shows that technology innovation is driven most
effectively when millions of users push the products and technology to
its limits, and vendors are inspired to drive quality up and costs
down. The serious customers of IP networks such as military services,
governments, and corporations, have driven technology innovation and
reliability in IP network equipment for decades now. The resulting
competitive market (unlike the sole-source market of traditional public
safety radio system manufacturers) has led to higher quality and lower
price.
Not only is ROIP more robust and more reliable, it is generally
less expensive than traditional radio systems.
I will reiterate my testimony in front of your committee: RoIP is
not perfect and does not solve all public safety communication
problems, but it is a tremendous step forward toward increased
interoperability. And it is affordable.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
David Billstrom
Question 1. Mr. Billstrom, thank you for making the trip across the
country from that other Washington to be with us today. You have an
ideal background to speak to the issues the Committee is exploring at
this hearing. You are the CEO of a high-tech company that provides
systems integration services for public safety organization and you are
yourself a first responder in your local community in the San Juan
Islands.
As you may know, a number of Washington State public safety
officials in the counties closest to Canada have expressed concerns
regarding Nextel's re-banding of public safety radios within the 800
megahertz public safety band. In particular, for the re-banding to be
successful on our side of the border, there needs to be corresponding
changes on the other side of the border we share with Canada and a
revision to our existing treaty. Putting on your hat as a first
responder, are you concerned about the slow progress the State
Department is making with its Canadian counterpart with respect to
modifying the existing treaty addressing this spectrum issue? How
important is it to get this done in a timely manner as the region
prepares for the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver?
Answer. Thank you Senator Cantwell for your kind remarks, and thank
you for the opportunity to respond to these important questions.
Even without the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver approaching,
this is an important issue for public safety responders in Washington,
and in all States along the Canadian border with the United States.
With the Olympics, this important issue has become a critical factor in
the ability for first responders in the region to be ready.
The problem is that radio systems--antennas on mountain tops and
tall buildings--take time to design, manufacture, and install. Almost
all of the equipment used in a radio system is highly specific to the
radio frequency used. As a consequence, a new radio system needs to
know which frequencies it will use more than a year before the system
is to be used.
The 800 MHz Rebanding is a complex and difficult issue, but at the
highest level, the program is a mandatory change of every 800 MHz
public safety radio system in the United States. In a program approved
by the FCC, argued in the courts, and in development for years, every
public safety radio system using 800 MHz in the United States must be
re-built and re-deployed on new frequencies. The program is behind
schedule, in part due to the inability to acquire new frequencies for
the public safety agencies on the border with Canada.
It has always been difficult to acquire frequencies for public
safety agencies in Canadian border areas (which reach down from the
border farther south than Seattle). In fact, the Blaine, Washington
police department doesn't even have one frequency approved, they are
forced to use radios from the U.S. Border Patrol since they cannot have
their own.
The slow, and sometimes impossible, process of coordinating
frequencies with Canada has impeded the safety of public safety
personnel for years. Now it is preventing the 800 MHz Rebanding program
from forward progress.
Because it takes time to install new radio systems, and the new
systems must be built for the exact frequencies approved by the U.S.
and Canada, the 800 MHz Rebanding needs to resolve frequency allocation
with Canada immediately. I cannot provide an exact timeframe, but I
would estimate that if the logjam with Canada is not broken within the
next 4 to 6 months, it will be impossible to complete the 800 MHz
Rebanding before the Olympics. This in turn will endanger public safety
responders and the general public.
Question 2. Let me shift to the OPSCAN project funded by the
Department of Homeland Security that coordinated communication of over
forty local, state, tribal, and Federal agencies operating in the
Olympic peninsula. My understanding is that the project relied on a
microwave backbone, mutual aid bases, Radio-over-Internet-protocol
technology, gateway devices, and really focused on tying together
legacy communications systems operating in different frequency bands.
Would you say the key to the project was new hardware or open
standards-based software? Based on your experience, do you believe that
OPSCAN is a successful model for addressing the legacy equipment issues
facing public safety agencies in numerous jurisdictions across the
country?
Answer. Yes, OPSCAN is a model for public safety agencies across
the country for the simple and incredibly important reason that it
dramatically improved interoperability by using ROIP (or IP Radio)
without requiring a single first responder to buy a new radio.
This is because OPSCAN ties together existing radio systems, and
the radio users in any one of those radio systems simply keeps using
their existing radio, on their existing system, but can reach radio
users on other radio systems.
OPSCAN was an ambitious project, with at least three major
objectives: to improve coverage, to improve reliability, and to improve
interoperability.
Coverage was improved by adding new radio towers. Reliability was
improved by installing ROIP as the method of controlling base station
and repeater radios. As discussed in my answer to Chairman Inouye's
question about reliability, the use of industry-standard IP network
hardware in the OPSCAN radio network increased OPSCAN's reliability.
The digital microwave backbone was improved, with redundancy, to host
the IP network. The OPSCAN objectives of improving coverage and
reliability are typical of what is needed with many of the public
safety radio systems across the U.S., particularly in rural and
suburban areas.
OPSCAN's interoperability objective was met when the ROIP system
incorporated the radio system of participating public safety agencies
(47 agencies so far). Not only can radio users on any one system reach
radio users on the other system(s), but 911 and dispatch centers
throughout the region can all access the radio systems on the network.
``Interoperability'' between dispatch centers is perhaps more important
than interoperability between radio users in the field.
In my experience, I have never heard of a radio system upgrade of
this scope--that is, with 40+ agencies and a wide geographic area--that
didn't require all of the participants to buy new radios for every
officer, every vehicle, and every dispatch center. By using standards-
based software and standards-based IP network hardware, this radio
system upgrade was accomplished without requiring a massive mobile and
handheld radio purchase.
This is a model for interoperability that is within the scope of
most state (and even some county) budgets across the United States.
Question 3. As you know in the Pacific Northwest, we are all very
excited about the economic potential of the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver
British Columbia. This event presents a number of challenges with
respect to coordinating land, air, and sea communications across local,
state and Federal agencies in two nations. In your view, what does San
Juan and other border counties need to do with respect to interoperable
communications in order to prepare for the 2010 Olympics and all of the
expected visitors?
Answer. This is an excellent question, and not only is this a very
real issue for the 5-6 counties that will be directly impacted by the
huge influx of welcome visitors over many months, but it also serves as
a model for any high-impact, high-volume tourist event in the U.S.
First, the aforementioned logjam between the U.S. and Canada on the
authorization of new frequencies in the 800 MHz band for public safety
must be resolved completely within the next 4-6 months in order for
construction required by the 800 MHz Rebanding to begin, and then
finish prior to the Olympics.
Second, the 5-6 counties in the region should receive immediate
funding for a ROIP (or IP Radio) system implemented across the region,
and incorporating Federal U.S. agencies and of course provincial and
national Canadian agencies. This should be an OPSCAN-like system,
although there is no longer enough time prior to the Olympics to build
new radio towers for coverage (OPSCAN suffered lengthy delays due to
tower construction).
Third, a comprehensive training program should be conducted
throughout the region so that the first responders that make up the
bulk of the response to any critical incident associated with the
Olympics (or the influx of visitors to the Olympics) will have the
interoperable communication skills. While Federal funding has been
provided for training and drills in the most recent 2 years, it has
primarily benefited the readiness of large metropolitan areas. The 5-6
counties in the region affected by the Olympics are primarily rural and
small towns, with much of public safety emergency response provided by
volunteers. We need to get communications training to those volunteers.
I know my colleagues in San Juan County are ready for emergencies;
they respond every day and provide professional service. But in the
past several years, the Federal agencies around them such as the U.S.
Coast Guard, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, and other DHS responders have all acquired new radios
and new radio systems. These new, proprietary systems are incompatible
with the radios used by first responders in most of the region affected
by the Olympics. Without an OPSCAN-like IP Radio system to interconnect
the existing first responder radio systems with the new Federal radio
systems, we face the potential for another massive failure of first
responder communications as seen on 9/11 and during Katrina.
With the I-5 freeway corridor passing through small towns and rural
countryside for most of its length between Vancouver and Seattle, and
with the Washington State Ferry System passing through the rural San
Juan Islands, we must prepare our rural and small town first responders
with interoperable communications--but not by buying all of them new
radios.
Question 4. Is there a standard for public safety personnel to
exchange data? To exchange video? Should any standards developed be
open standards? What is the danger of not having open standards?
Answer. There is extensive discussion on the topic of standards for
(digital) data exchange among public safety agencies, but there is no
``open'' standard. As I have outlined previously with the open
standards used in IP networks, an open standard for public safety data
exchange will encourage participation by many providers and vendors,
which in turn encourages innovation and drives costs down.
Without open standards, we will face the usual monopoly, or at best
duopoly, of a single vendor's proprietary standard. This will keep
costs up, and leave quality and product features at a mediocre level at
best. There is also an aspect of ``interoperability'' with data
standards, including video, that would impede the exchange of crucial
information during an emergency, in the same way that public safety
voice radio communication interoperability is impeded today by the
dominance of mutually-exclusive proprietary radio systems.
Question 5. Many communities rely on the Department of Homeland
Security's SAFECOM guidance in guiding purchase and requests related to
facilitating interoperable communications. Do you believe that
historically DHS has focused too much on hardware solutions? Do you
believe that DHS guidance in the past has chilled local governments
from pursuing IP-based solutions?
Answer. I find it awkward to criticize an agency that has provided
essential and valuable funding for public safety agencies, but it is an
objective truth that the first years of SAFECOM guidance focused on the
relatively obvious solutions, from the relatively obvious traditional
communications vendors. Understandably, those traditional radio system
vendors, with decades-long experience and track record with hardware,
proposed hardware solutions.
It is not an accident that one of the first innovations for public
safety interoperability came from a defense contractor--an
``interoperability switch'' that could be used at the emergency scene.
I think it is notable that this solution did not emerge from
traditional radio system manufacturers. These interoperability switches
(also called ``gateways'') are hardware-intensive solutions, and have
numerous limitations, but play an essential role. SAFECOM has
recommended gateways for some time, which was appropriate given the
resistance to interoperable radios. At the time, it was well-known in
the public safety community that gateways could be acquired easily in
DHS grant programs.
During the past 2 years SAFECOM has essentially been silent on the
topic of software generally, and IP Radio (or ROIP) software in
particular. This should be surprising to everyone, as the U.S.
continues to lead software innovation in all sectors, and in nearly all
industries, relative to every other country. Where is the comprehensive
review of software technology as it applies to Homeland Security, and
to interoperable communication? I believe that there is a faulty, but
widespread belief that communications is a ``hardware'' problem despite
extensive evidence to the contrary, including but not limited to the
U.S. as a leader of VoIP phones used in both business and residences.
And yes, SAFECOM has negatively influenced the use of IP-based
solutions by local governments. Let me be clear; it isn't that SAFECOM
needed to endorse or promote ROIP technology (it hasn't). The issue is
that the program has largely remained silent on the issue, which has
had the same effect as condemning it.
Local governments already perceive new technologies as risky, which
is a healthy perspective. However ROIP is only ``new'' to public
safety; it has been in use for sometime in the military. We can't
expect local governments to be aware of technology deployments in the
military and Coast Guard, and use that information to guide their
decisions, but I do think we should expect DHS to do exactly that.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
Matthew J. Desch
Question. Mr. Desch, in your testimony, you discuss the role that
satellite communications can play in improving the redundancy of
emergency communications capabilities. Is cost the major obstacle to
more redundant communications systems? Are there other obstacles?
Answer. I do not believe that cost is the major obstacle to the
deployment of redundant communications systems. Iridium and other
satellite communications providers pride themselves on their efforts to
offer first responders redundant communications solutions at reasonable
prices. Iridium, for example, continues to bring satellite handsets to
the market at prices that make satellite an affordable option for first
responders and public safety personnel, as well as for the private
sector. In fact, Iridium prides itself on its partnerships with
government agencies, like the Department of Defense, and the private
sector to develop redundant devices and services. Iridium is committed
to continuing to do so, as our recent partnership with Raytheon
demonstrates--offering public safety an integrated interoperable and
redundant communications package.
Instead, one of the most significant obstacles to a redundant
communications system for public safety is the lack of funds for the
purchase of these devices. Public safety organizations often function
within very limited budgets and lack the means to purchase
interoperable and redundant communications systems. This Committee has
already taken great strides toward ensuring that first responders have
the funds necessary to purchase advanced, interoperable, and redundant
communications equipment. The $1 billion you allocated in the DTV Act
was a good first step in this direction, and the additional provisions
in S. 385 that allow for the purchase and pre-positioning of
communications equipment and communications service, including
satellite, will help make sure that first responders will have access
to redundant communications equipment. Both policymakers and public
safety concede, however, that $1 billion is not enough to guarantee
that all the public safety organizations in the Nation can purchase
satellite-based devices for those times when terrestrial networks are
ineffective or inoperable.
Another significant impediment to the development of a truly
effective redundant communications network for our Nation's first
responders has been the lack of an integrated emergency communications
plan that embraces satellite. The communications failings on September
11 prompted an examination of the need for communications
interoperability amongst first responders. It was not until the
communications failings caused by the Gulf Coast hurricane disaster,
however, that the Nation realized that communications redundancy for
first responders was also needed in our emergency communications
planning. Any truly effective national emergency communications plan
must include both interoperability and redundancy--interoperability is
fruitless when the terrestrial communications networks that the
interoperable system is built on no longer exist.
This need for an integrated national emergency communications plan
has been embraced by this Committee and this Congress. The Department
of Homeland Security communications reforms passed last fall in the
Department's Fiscal Year 2007 Appropriations bill direct the Department
to begin exploring and developing this national plan. Iridium strongly
supports the provisions in S. 385 that direct the FCC to study the
development of a national emergency communications back-up system,
particularly because that study must include an examination of the use
of satellite communications for such a system. Satellite is the only
logical choice for that back-up system because it is the communications
fail safe for first responders, and I hope that the FCC will conclude
as much if the study is conducted.
The benefit of development of this national communications plan
does not stop with first responders. As the public sector begins to
acknowledge the need for redundant communications solutions in
emergency situations, the private sector will do so as well. Iridium
has already begun to partner with private corporations, like MedStar
Health, to develop devices that will function in worst-case scenarios.
I believe that other private sector organizations will follow the
government's and public safety's lead once satellite redundancy is
embraced as part of a national emergency communications plan.