[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF OUR NATION'S
PUBLIC ALERT SYSTEM
=======================================================================
(112-67)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 13, 2011
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
71-738 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey Columbia
GARY G. MILLER, California JERROLD NADLER, New York
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois CORRINE BROWN, Florida
SAM GRAVES, Missouri BOB FILNER, California
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
DUNCAN HUNTER, California RICK LARSEN, Washington
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
BILLY LONG, Missouri HEATH SHULER, North Carolina
BOB GIBBS, Ohio STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania LAURA RICHARDSON, California
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida
JEFF DENHAM, California
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN,
Tennessee
_____
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
Management
JEFF DENHAM, California, Chairman
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Columbia
Arkansas, HEATH SHULER, North Carolina
Vice Chair MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
BOB GIBBS, Ohio DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania BOB FILNER, California
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN, (Ex Officio)
Tennessee
JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio)
(ii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ iv
TESTIMONY
Damon Penn, Assistant Administrator, National Continuity
Programs, Federal Emergency Management Agency.................. 3
James Arden Barnett, Jr., Rear Admiral (Ret.), Chief, Public
Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission..................................................... 3
Suzanne D. Goucher, President and CEO, Maine Association of
Broadcasters................................................... 3
Christopher Guttman-McCabe, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs,
CTIA--The Wireless Association................................. 3
William Check, Ph.D., Senior Vice President of Science and
Technology, National Cable and Telecommunications Association.. 3
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, of the District of Columbia.......... 24
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Damon Penn....................................................... 26
James Arden Barnett, Jr.......................................... 32
Suzanne D. Goucher............................................... 38
Christopher Guttman-McCabe....................................... 51
William Check, Ph.D.............................................. 56
ADDITION TO THE RECORD
John I. Taylor, Vice President, Government Relations and
Communications, LG Electronics USA, Inc., letter and attachment
to Hon. Jeff Denham, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, December 13, 2011......................... 64
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF OUR NATION'S
PUBLIC ALERT SYSTEM
----------
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2011
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
Buildings, and Emergency Management,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:33 a.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jeff Denham
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Denham. The subcommittee will come to order. Today's
hearing is on the effectiveness of our Nation's public alert
system. Many of us recall the old Emergency Broadcast System
and periodic interruption of our TV viewing with an audio
announcement and very distinctive annoying tones.
Today we have the Emergency Alert System and EAS. However,
the backbone of that system is still largely based on 1960s
technology. Last month FEMA conducted the first-ever nationwide
test of the EAS. To be clear, after almost 50 years, we just
recently conducted the first nationwide test.
In 2009 GAO raised this as a serious issue: How can we
count on a national alerting system that has never been fully
tested? And the test revealed several shortcomings. Some
stations failed to rebroadcast; music of Lady Gaga seized some
airwaves; and apparent feedback affected the transmission of
the message to some locations.
With that said, I am sure FEMA expected some problems, and
thankfully we finally did a nationwide test so the problems
could be identified and corrected.
While a nationwide test is significant, the test only
included EAS and the components of the legacy system consisting
of TV and radio. Today it seems we are constantly bombarded by
information through not only broadcast TV and radio, but also
satellite TV and radio cable, cell phones, social networking,
and the Internet. It would seem that today if the public needed
to be alerted quickly to an impending disaster it would be
fairly easy to get the word out.
We saw just last week how important an effective alert
system is to saving lives. At Virginia Tech, the University's
Emergency Alert System kept students in place and out of harm's
way in the moments following the tragic shooting. And as
demonstrated this year with devastating tornados, hurricanes,
and floods around our Nation, improving alerting capability
will help save even more lives.
In 2006 former President George Bush signed an executive
order to direct our Nation's alert system was brought into the
21st century. There is no reason with modern technology for the
public not to expect that in a serious emergency, alert would
be sent through many communication mediums as possible, not
just TV and radio, but all communication devices. And modern
technology opens up capabilities that in the past were not
possible: transmitting information that can help facilitate the
alerting of those with disabilities and people with limited
English proficiency.
So the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System was
envisioned to be a system of systems, to use as many methods of
communication as possible, to reach as many people as possible.
Unfortunately, since IPAWS was conceived, there have been many
setbacks and lack of strategic direction. These concerns raise
serious doubts about whether we could properly warn the public
of a disaster.
Earlier this year, Ranking Member Norton and I introduced
the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System Modernization
Act. This legislation is modeled after the WARN Act that
effectively provided a framework led by the FCC for the
development of the Commercial Mobile Telephone Alerts, or CMAS,
the wireless components of IPAWS. CMAS, when fully deployed as
part of IPAWS, will transmit text alerts to wireless devices.
While adding wireless devices is a first good step, great first
step, ultimately sending more than simple text is what is
envisioned with IPAWS.
I hope today we can hear from FEMA and the FCC and some of
the key industries involved in the development of IPAWS to help
our subcommittee assess the work being done. At the end of the
day we all share a mutual goal: the safety of the public. That
is why Ranking Member Norton and I recently requested GAO
review the current status of the development of IPAWS. We must
ensure we have a reliable systems that will send a warning out
to as many people as possible. With modern technology there is
no reason we can't achieve that goal.
I thank the witnesses for being here today to address many
important issues. And I will allow Ranking Member Norton her 5
minutes as soon as she arrives.
Our first panel this morning: Mr. Damon Penn, assistant
administrator, national continuity programs, Federal Emergency
Management Agency; Mr. James Arden Barnett, Jr., chief public
safety and homeland security bureau of the FCC; Ms. Suzanne
Goucher, president and CEO of Maine Association of
Broadcasters; Mr. Chris Guttman-McCabe, vice president,
regulatory affairs for The Wireless Association; and Dr.
William Check, senior vice president of science and technology,
for the National Cable and Telecommunications Agency. I ask
unanimous consent that our witnesses' full statements be
included in the record. Without objection, so ordered.
TESTIMONY OF DAMON PENN, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL
CONTINUITY PROGRAMS, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY; JAMES
ARDEN BARNETT, JR., REAR ADMIRAL (RET.), CHIEF, PUBLIC SAFETY
AND HOMELAND SECURITY BUREAU, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION; SUZANNE D. GOUCHER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, MAINE
ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS; CHRISTOPHER GUTTMAN-MCCABE, VICE
PRESIDENT, REGULATORY AFFAIRS, CTIA--THE WIRELESS ASSOCIATION;
AND WILLIAM CHECK, PH.D., SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY, NATIONAL CABLE AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Denham. Since your written testimony has been made part
of the record, the subcommittee would request that you limit
your oral testimony to 5 minutes. Mr. Penn, you may proceed.
Mr. Penn. Good morning, Chairman, Ranking Member Norton and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, it is a pleasure and
an honor for me to appear before you on behalf of FEMA to
discuss the progress we have made in the Integrated Public
Alert and Warning System.
FEMA serves as the Nation's focal point for Government
continuity planning, guidance, and operational support. We are
also responsible for ensuring the President is able to address
the Nation under the most extreme circumstances, and IPAWS is
the capability we use to accomplish this task. Our vision for
IPAWS has not changed. We are tasked to provide timely and
accurate alerts and warnings to the American people in the
preservation of life and property. We do this by relaying a
single message over multiple dissemination platforms to ensure
redundant pathways to alert the public by multiple means. IPAWS
is an integrated capability, accessible to all levels of public
safety officials.
We have made significant progress since I last testified
before the subcommittee 2 years ago. We have adopted and
accepted the common alert protocol to ensure all alerts and
warnings equipment is compatible. We have extended the primary
entry-point program from 36 stations to 63 stations, and we
will increase that number to 77 by the end of next year.
We have established, tested, and fielded the IPAWS
aggregator, and that is the device that takes a single message
and distributes it to the different alert disseminators. And we
have developed and fielded a training program to help message-
originating authorities produce valuable alerts and warnings
and meet the standard criteria of urgency, certainty, and
severity.
Our two latest achievements are the fielding of the
Commercial Mobile Alert System, CMAS/PLAN, and the conduct of
the first nationwide Emergency Alert System's testing.
And I would like to take a moment to expand on both of
these projects. Adding to the CMAS/PLAN capability allows
trained and authorized emergency management officials to pass a
text message alert directly through IPAWS to participating
wireless carriers, to any CMAS-capable cell phone or handheld
device located in the geo-targeted area. CMAS/PLAN technology
is immune to wireless call congestion so cell phones can
receive emergency alerts even if wireless towers in the
location are overwhelmed and can no longer support cellular
phone calls or subscriber-to-subscriber text messaging.
Additionally, by using IPAWS-compatible software, State,
local, territorial, and tribal officials can, at no cost, use
CMAS/PLAN to alert and warn individuals in particular areas
about imminent threat events as well as AMBER emergencies.
This is not emerging technology, but a capability that is
currently being fielded. Thanks to overwhelming support by the
wireless industry, the first capability of the system has been
fielded in New York City and in the Washington, DC, area. Final
testing will be conducted in DC later this month and final
testing in New York City will take place on Thursday of this
week. The initial capability will be available 4 months ahead
of the originally mandated schedule. Nationwide, the deployment
will continue over the next 2 years.
Thanks to our partnership and support from the FCC, NOAA,
radio and television providers, the cable industry and the
satellite industry, emergency managers across the Nation, we
conducted the first-ever nationwide test of EAS. The test was a
success and an essential step in moving forward to improving
the EAS system. Although data from the field will not be
available until the end of the month, we have already begun
work to solve some technical issues discovered during the test.
We learned that parts of the system worked as envisioned or
better. But more importantly, we learned what didn't work.
For example, message propagation through the PEP stations
was better than anticipated, but we also discovered that we
have work to do to improve audio transmission quality and to
improve the accessibility of the text to serve the deaf and
hard-of-hearing community. And we have already done some work
to begin addressing those issues. I can further explain during
questions and answers if you would like.
From here we will analyze results, determine root causes,
develop and implement corrective actions, and retest as
necessary to ensure we have a system that serves our whole
community of Americans.
Developing strategy for success in the future requires a
shift in our basic approach. IPAWS moved from a requirements-
based single technology network approach to an application-
based open platform approach. This ensures that IPAWS can
easily integrate with a broad range of information processing
technologies, networks, and equipment from existing private
sector communication systems.
To support people with access and functional needs, FEMA
remains engaged with agencies, organizations, and conferences
and private industry to promote the IPAWS capability and
integrate alerts and warning technology into their communities.
We have also partnered with private and public organizations to
demonstrate products and incorporate CAP-enabled technologies
to alert persons with access and functional needs.
In conclusion, the IPAWS vision of providing timely alert
and warning information to the American people and the
preservation of life and property remains clear and consistent.
And, FEMA is fully committed to IPAWS and recognizes the
importance of the whole community of American public.
Thank you, sir, for the opportunity to appear and testify
before the committee, and I will be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
Mr. Denham. Thank you.
Mr. Barnett.
Mr. Barnett. Chairman Denham, members of the subcommittee,
thanks for the opportunity to come and talk to you today about
the FCC's recent work in alerts and warning the public.
One of the FCC's primary statutory obligations is to
promote the safety of life and property through the use of wire
radio communications. The FCC has a singular commitment to
protection of the public through constantly evolving alert and
warning systems. We recognize that this should be a team
effort.
I am very pleased to be here with my friend and colleague,
Damon Penn, of FEMA. The FCC works closely with FEMA, with our
other Federal partners, the National Weather Service, with
telecommunications industry, to bring the future of alert and
warning systems to consumers now.
So pursuant to the WARN Act, the FCC in 2008 adopted rules
for what we call the Personal Localized Alerting Network or
PLAN, also as Chairman Denham mentioned CMAS, an emerging
alerting system that wireless carriers sign up for voluntarily
which will transmit emergency text-like alerts to subscribers'
cell phones. Under the FCC's rules the carriers, the
participating carriers, must begin to plan deployment by April
7th of 2012. But in May of this year Chairman Genachowski, FEMA
Administrator Fugate, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg,
and top executives from four of the major nationwide wireless
carriers. AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon Wireless
announced that PLAN would be available in New York City by the
end of the year, months ahead of schedule.
PLAN will serve as an important complement to the other
alert and warning systems, like the Emergency Alert System,
EAS. The alerts will be geographically targeted, ensuring that
they will reach the right people, at the right time, with the
right messages, and this will ensure that alerts reach only
those people who actually are in danger. It creates a fast lane
for emergency alerts so that vital information is guaranteed to
get through, even if there is congestion in the network.
Moreover, PLAN has the additional feature of neither the alert
originator nor anyone administering the system will know who
receives the alert. PLAN cannot be used to monitor wireless
devices or a consumer's location. Pursuant to the WARN Act,
subscribers may opt out of receiving all but the national
emergency alerts.
The FCC has also taken action to enhance the EAS system.
Last month the FCC, with FEMA, did in fact, as Damon mentioned,
conduct the first-ever nationwide top-to-bottom test of the
EAS. The purpose of the test was diagnostic, to allow the FCC
and FEMA to determine how well the system would work if
activated during an actual national emergency. Prior to the
test, the FCC and FEMA, along with EAS participants, State and
local governments, and other stakeholders took significant
steps to educate the participants, public safety and other
State, tribal, local governments, and consumers about the test.
For example, the FCC released a step-by-step guide for EAS
participants to use during the test. Some materials were
briefed over 40 organizations representing State, tribal, and
local governments about the test, and over 100 community and
consumer organizations, including those who represent the deaf
and hard of hearing, and people who do not speak English as
their primary language.
Under the FCC rules, EAS participants have until December
27th, 2011, to submit test result data to the FCC. Once we
receive this data, in conjunction with FEMA, we will analyze it
to determine what worked and what didn't, and make
recommendations for improvements as necessary.
Some improvements actually are already scheduled. The first
step to modernize the EAS will take place next year--or has
taken until next year with introduction of work transmissions
using common alerting protocol, or CAP. Once implemented, CAP-
based alerting will enable the migration of the current EAS to
a next-generation learning system to provide a host of features
not possible under the current technology.
The FCC will continue to explore whether other
communication technologies can provide ways for Americans to
receive alerts and warnings about imminent threats to safety of
life. As recommended by the national broadband plan, the FCC
will examine the role of broadband technologies, social
networks, and other Internet-based tools and how they can play
in emergency alerting. We will continue to work closely with
FEMA and the National Weather Service, industry, and State and
local governments to ensure that the public has access to
emergency alerts, warnings and information over multiple
communication technologies.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and
I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Denham. Ms. Goucher, you may proceed.
Ms. Goucher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished
members of the committee. My name is Suzanne Goucher. I thank
you very much for your interest in improving emergency
communications to the public. I am honored to be here with you
to share the valuable, often life-saving public service that
full power local radio and television stations provide during
times of crisis.
When disaster strikes, Americans know they can turn to
their local broadcasters for news and information. When the
power goes out, when phone service and the Internet go down,
broadcasters move heaven and earth to stay on the air,
delivering vital information to their audiences. Through
wildfires, floods, tornados, hurricanes, everywhere across our
Nation, local communities depend on their broadcasters to keep
them informed before, during, and after disaster strikes.
Broadcasters are also proud of our keystone role in the
Emergency Alert System. For 60 years, from the CONELRAD days of
the Cold War, through the Emergency Broadcast System, to EAS,
and now on to the next generation of alerting, broadcasters
stand ready to be America's first informers. We consider the
delivery of timely alerts and warnings to be the highest and
best use of our spectrum, our facilities, and our resources.
For example, after the abduction and murder of Amber
Hagerman in 1996, Dallas area broadcasters initiated the
creation of the first AMBER Alert program. The Oklahoma
Association of Broadcasters subsequently developed the first
statewide AMBER plan which became the model for similar
programs across the Nation. To date, AMBER Alerts have aided in
the successful recovery of 542 abducted children across the
U.S.
The hot new buzz in the alerting community is social
networking, and broadcasters are also leveraging their news
dissemination capabilities across these pathways. When you
receive an email, a text alert, or a Facebook message from your
local radio or TV station, you know you are getting reliable
information from an authoritative source.
The nationwide EAS was tested for the first time last
month, and in my view the test was a success. It was the first
time an official national alert message was purposely deployed
end to end throughout the system. There were technical problems
with the origination of the message, and there were also a few
scattered problems with reception of the test message through
the primary entry-point network. This is precisely why systems
should be tested on an ongoing basis.
We fully support the plan by FEMA and the FCC to test the
nationwide EAS on a regular basis going forward. EAS is tested
weekly by each radio and TV station, and monthly within each
State. Such tests allow message disseminators to confirm that
their equipment is working properly or to diagnose and fix any
problems. It only makes sense that we should also be regularly
testing the ability of the Federal Government to send an alert
message throughout the Nation.
The ongoing effectiveness of EAS depends on a few important
factors.
First, a training program for State and local public safety
officials on how to use EAS is desperately needed. The
knowledge and expertise of some local authorities as to how and
when to deploy EAS is currently at what we consider an
unacceptable level. We stand ready to deliver the message, but
first we need someone to deliver it to us. We applaud our
friends at FEMA for undertaking the development of a training
program which will certify State and local officials to send
alerts through the Federal IPAWS gateway.
While this is a good first step, it does not address those
State and local officials who don't have the fundamental
understanding of or willingness to use EAS in the first place.
Some sort of incentive for them to take this training, such as
incorporating it into the National Incident Management System,
would encourage a greater understanding of the beneficial uses
of the system.
Secondly, we thank the committee for considering H.R. 2904,
which would direct the creation of a national advisory
committee on emergency alerting, and we respectfully urge that
this committee be made permanent. Governance authority for our
national warning system is divided among several Federal
agencies, while the primary use of the system is at the State
and local level. At present there is no mechanism to bring all
of the message originators and the message deliverers together,
except on an ad hoc basis. As a result, the system not being
used as effectively as it as could be.
Creation of a permanent advisory committee would help to
ensure that problems get addressed and ideas for continual
improvement of the system are brought to the fore.
The overarching significance of H.R. 2904 is that it also
authorizes the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System in
law. This demonstrates your recognition of the vital importance
of this system. It a crucial step forward in ensuring that all
parts of the system--broadcast alerts, cell phone text
messages, and other communications pathways--will be developed
as a unified whole that becomes greater than the sum of its
parts.
I am grateful for this opportunity to share my views on
emergency communications to the public and the indispensable
role of broadcasters. And I look forward to working with you
toward our shared goal of keeping the American people safe
through timely alerts and warnings. Thank you.
Mr. Denham. Thank you.
Mr. Guttman-McCabe.
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman
Denham and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for affording
CTIA the opportunity to participate in today's hearing.
My name is Christopher Guttman-McCabe, and I serve as the
Association's vice president for regulatory affairs. In that
capacity I have been involved in the wireless industry's
efforts to implement the commercial mobile alert service called
for by the WARN Act. And I am pleased to have the chance to
share with you today that the wireless industry is doing what
is necessary to deliver a state-of-the-art alerting system by
early 2012.
The approach taken in the WARN Act was consistent with and
built upon previous public-private partnerships that led to the
successful creation of both wireless priority service and the
AMBER Alert program.
In the WARN Act Congress secured the participation of
interested nongovernmental parties in the development and
deployment of what has been envisioned as a 90 character, geo-
targeted, succinct alerting capability that would let consumers
carrying a wireless device know that there is an imminent
threat to health or safety.
From CTIA's perspective it appears that Congress' vision is
working as designed. In the first year after the WARN Act
became law, the FCC established the Commercial Mobile Service
Alert Advisory Committee, comprised of more than 40 individuals
representing tribal, local, State and Federal Government
agencies, communications providers, vendors, broadcasters,
consumer groups, and other technical experts.
I served on the advisory committee on behalf of CTIA. Over
11 months the committee generated more than 600 documents, held
hundreds of meetings, and spent thousands of man-hours to
develop a thorough, workable, commercial mobile alerts systems
plan. Following delivery of the advisory committee's
recommendations, the FCC has issued orders initiating the
process.
Among other things, the FCC's orders set forth the alerting
service architecture proposed by the advisory committee, and
concluded that a Federal entity should aggregate, authenticate,
and transmit alerts to the participating wireless providers.
FEMA has agreed to play this role.
The FCC has also required that participating providers must
transmit three classes of alerts--Presidential, imminent
threat, and AMBER Alerts--and consumers be permitted to opt out
of the latter two, but not the first.
Following issuance of the FCC's order, wireless carriers
had to elect whether they would participate in the delivery of
wireless emergency alerts well in advance of finalizing the
technical specifications for implementing those alerts. I am
pleased to report that approximately 100 mobile providers,
representing 97 percent of wireless subscribers, have elected
to provide emergency alerts, demonstrating the success of this
public-private partnership. Moreover, this figure is likely to
increase as additional carriers elect to offer the alert to
their customers once the system is rolled out.
Since providers made their initial elections in September
2008, the wireless industry has been working in close
consultation with both FEMA and the FCC to make the investments
and modifications necessary to enable the wireless Emergency
Alert System to be operational by April 2012. And I am pleased
to report that providers have deployed and tested the elements
of the wireless Emergency Alert System within their control,
and currently have the capability to deliver wireless emergency
alerts to New York City by the end of this year.
While we believe the wireless industry is hitting all the
marks necessary to deliver on the promise of the WARN Act,
there are two key areas beyond wireless carriers' control that
must be addressed if a seamless national deployment is to occur
and be operational next year.
First, FEMA must continue its hard work to stand up its
wireless emergency alerts gateway and be capable of receiving
and distributing alerts to all participating wireless carriers.
The wireless industry has worked closely with FEMA and the FCC
for well over a year to move this deployment forward, and we
commend both agencies for their efforts to date.
Second, substantial and ongoing care must be taken to
ensure that potential alert at the State, county, and local
levels are properly trained about when and how alerts should be
originated. This is crucial because it is these alert
originators who are responsible for disseminating critical
information to the public in a timely manner. If consumers
receive confusing, irrelevant, or overly frequent alerts, then
even the best alerting system ultimately will fail.
We urge you to exercise your oversight authority to ensure
that these objectives are achieved. The wireless industry is
committed to delivering wireless emergency alert capability
next year and to working with FEMA and the FCC to ensure that
subsequent generations of the system support additional
functionality and granularity. With this in mind, we do not
believe the wireless carriers that participate in the Emergency
Alerting System should be subject to new requirements that
emanate from the implementation of IPAWS.
While IPAWS may help to modernize the distribution of
alerts on other communications platforms, CMAS is the proper
path to deliver and modernize emergency alerts provided over
wireless networks. We hope you will keep this in mind as you
consider legislative efforts like H.R. 2904.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear on today's panel. I
look forward to your questions.
Mr. Denham. Thank you.
Dr. Check.
Mr. Check. Good morning, Chairman Denham and members of the
subcommittee. My name is Bill Check. I am the senior vice
president of science and technology, and the chief technology
officer at the National Cable and Telecommunications
Association, NCTA, the principal trade association representing
cable operators and programming networks. Thank you for
inviting me to testify today.
Cable operators have been active participants in providing
emergency alerts to their customers since the 1960s, and we
recognize our role in ensuring that the public receives timely
information during crises situations.
By way of background, cable operators don't originate or
alter emergency messages. FEMA transmits a message to a primary
entry-point broadcast station, called a PEP, and then those
stations transmit that message to local primary stations. Cable
operators receive the message from these local primary stations
and transmit it to their subscribers using automated equipment
in the cable headend.
Cable operators were among the participants in the recent
November 9th first-ever nationwide test of the Emergency Alert
System. Prior to the test, cable operators undertook
significant outreach efforts to ensure that consumers were
aware of the test. These efforts included running public
service announcements, notices in customer bills, and the use
of social media outlets. Our programming network members aired
additional public service information about the test as well.
We are still in the process of gathering and analyzing the
test results from our member companies, and they expect to
provide a full report to the FCC by December 27th. But
preliminary analysis shows that most cable operators were
successfully able to receive the transmitted Emergency Action
Notification signal, known as an EAN, and to disseminate the
EAN message to their customers.
Some operators did experience various issues within their
service areas, although most of the major problems originated
upstream from cable systems. For instance, some cable providers
didn't receive the emergency message from broadcast stations
that they are required to monitor. And sometimes when cable
systems did receive the emergency message, the message audio
was muffled or distorted.
Our companies also encountered some other technical issues
that can be remedied. Cable operators look forward to
continuing to work with the FCC, with FEMA, and others in an
effort to resolve these issues.
NCTA also appreciates efforts to further modernize our
Nation's Emergency Alert Systems. And we support the goals of
H.R. 2904. We support the initiation of a training program, the
creation of an advisory committee, and that cable would be
represented on this committee.
We respectfully suggest, however, that legislation should
take into consideration the work that has already been done in
this area. The cable industry has devoted significant resources
towards complying with the upcoming June 30th FCC deadline that
requires systems to be able to receive emergency messages in
what is known as the Common Alerting Protocol, or CAP. Any new
standards, technology, and operating procedures should
recognize and incorporate the work that has already been done
and be consistent with existing regulatory directives.
Finally, cable companies currently transmit the information
as they receive it. While cable operators would, of course,
pass through any alerts for non-English speakers and the
hearing impaired, legislation should make clear that the
obligation to make messages accessible should rest with the
message originator.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you
today on this important issue. We stand ready to work with the
subcommittee, Congress, FEMA, and the FCC to meet our
responsibilities. I would be pleased to answer any questions
that you have, thank you.
Mr. Denham. And thank you for your testimony.
We now turn to Members for opening statements. The chair
now recognizes Ranking Member Norton for a 5-minute opening.
Ms. Norton. I am simply going to ask, since I apologize
that I could not be here at the opening of this hearing, a very
important hearing, I am going to ask that my opening statement
be included in the record.
Mr. Denham. Thank you.
Mr. Crawford.
Mr. Michaud?
Mr. Michaud. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would
like to thank all the witnesses for being here. I particularly
would like to recognize Suzanne Goucher who is the president
and CEO of Maine Association of Broadcasters. Suzanne has been
part of of the Maine Association of Broadcasters since 1994.
She has also served as cochair of the Maine Business
Association Roundtable, and is former president of the Alliance
of State Broadcasters Association. I have had numerous
opportunities to work with Suzanne on a range of issues, and I
have always found her to be a dedicated and thoughtful
advocate. It has been an honor to work with Suzanne in the
past, and have no doubt that the Maine broadcasters greatly
appreciate her as their representative. I want to thank you for
being here today, Suzanne, as well as the rest of the
witnesses.
I yield back. Do you want to do questions now?
Mr. Denham. We will start with opening questions. The first
question I have, I have a number of different questions on the
nationwide test that we did. But it has come to my attention
that yesterday there was an unannounced test in New Jersey. The
text messages warning came out with a civil emergency and a
call to action to take shelter. Was that a FEMA emergency?
Mr. Penn. Mr. Chair, no, that was a provider doing some
testing for our release of CMAS later this week and the test in
New York City. One of the providers had a technological glitch
where they connected the testing platform to the production
platform and broadcast the message.
Mr. Denham. So that was something that was coordinated with
FEMA?
Mr. Penn. No, sir, it was not. It was not part of their--
the message origination did occur from us in the testing
environment. The problem occurred when the carrier crossed the
testing environment with the production and output, and that is
what caused the message to be released.
Mr. Denham. So the message was never supposed to be
released?
Mr. Penn. That is correct. The message was only working in
a closed environment when we were doing final testing for
Thursday's test. And, when they crossed it with their normal
broadcast, that is when the message got released.
Mr. Denham. Thank you. Mr. Guttman-McCabe.
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is
correct. One of our carriers was in the process of the runup to
the full test in New York City on Thursday. And as part of that
they were testing their end, and a FEMA-originated message was
unfortunately--found its way to the test gateway of one of the
carriers. And as a result, it went out to several customers--to
customers in several counties in New Jersey. And this I think
was the result of both FEMA and the carriers working tirelessly
to get ready 4 months in advance to deliver the service to New
York. Hopefully, as soon as this Thursday, have it up and
operational.
Mr. Denham. When there is such a test, whether it is
internal or external, are the local law enforcement agencies
normally notified?
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Yes. I will defer to Mr. Penn, but
usually they are. In fact, they will be notified in advance of
Thursday's test. This was FEMA-designed, sent a message, and
they thought it was only within their system; unfortunately,
Verizon was testing their system at the same time and had the
gateway inadvertently opened. And so this wasn't designed to be
an actual test of the system by either party. It was an
unfortunate event that happened, sort of in the leadup to
Thursday.
So it wasn't designed as a test. In a standard test
authorities would be alerted and people would be made aware. We
have something set up already for Thursday to alert authorities
to let consumers know what is happening.
Mr. Denham. Mr. Penn, as a followup. Even in an internal
test we would still notify local law enforcement, would we not?
Mr. Penn. Yes, sir. But again, this was really a test
designed to be directly between FEMA and the carrier and never
to be rebroadcast. So, during the test that we are having on
Thursday, the New York City Office of Emergency Management has
put together a very comprehensive notification plan, to the
effect that areas within the city and to the public, and have
what I think is more than adequate preparation of the public to
receive the message. But the one yesterday was an anomaly and
was never intended to be broadcast at all. It was intended to
stay within the testing environment, as Mr. Guttman-McCabe
mentioned.
Mr. Denham. Anything we learned from it?
Mr. Penn. Yes, sir, we did. And that is just the technical
aspects of keeping the production environment and the testing
environment separated. I don't want to go into a lot of
technical mumbo jumbo about exactly how it worked, but, yes,
there is something to be learned from it, and I think we have
taken those lessons. And, not just the one carrier affected,
but the other three carriers have that message loud and clear
as well, and understand what happened and how to prevent it
from happening in the future.
Mr. Denham. How about the community, the citizens in New
Jersey that inadvertently received the message from a FEMA
standpoint? Anything we learned from the action of taking
shelter and working with local law enforcement as that message
went out?
Mr. Penn. I think most citizens did the correct thing, and
they immediately went to their 911 or to their local emergency
managers and asked a question about what to do and how to
react, and I think the city and the providers concerned took
appropriate actions and immediately released some press
information. And I think they got the whole message quelled
fairly quickly.
Mr. Denham. Thank you. Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank you for
this hearing. This has been a subject of considerable interest
to this committee for some years.
Now, this was, of course, the first test ever done. But you
can't know if there are problems if you don't do a test. So we
weren't looking for a perfect test. We were looking to find out
what the problems were, so we could figure them out before the
next thing was not a test but the real deal.
Do you expect to do another test in the near future?
Mr. Penn. Madam Ranking Member, if I could, I will answer
that. Yes, we do. When exactly, I am not sure. A lot will
depend on the information that we get on the 27th of December
that we share with--that we will work with the FCC on to
determine what the problems were and how to address them. It
may be a call to do some localized testing, maybe a call to do
a national test again. But we really won't know the timing of
that until we get the full information assembled and analyzed
and make sure that we solve the correct problem, that we don't
solve the wrong problem. But we do look forward to regular
testing in the future and think that it is a vital part of the
Emergency Alert System.
Ms. Norton. I was interested that this test lasted only for
30 seconds and wondered what you would learn from a 30-second
test, since FEMA itself believed that a 3-minute test was
necessary.
First, explain why you decided to go with a 30-second test.
I would like to know whether a 30-second test gave you any data
that would be considered reliable upon which to draw
conclusions; for that matter, if any of the rest of the panel
considers that the 30-second test feedback is information we
should rely on.
Mr. Penn. Ma'am, if I could, I will start. The decision was
made to reduce the test from 3 minutes to 30 seconds because
there was quite a bit of concern that the public would not get
the message that it was a test and would overreact, thinking
that it was an actual emergency. So the decision was made at
FEMA and DHS to reduce the amount of time for the test.
Two things that we wanted to test that we were not able to
test by reducing the duration. The first is that the Emergency
Alert System is normally limited to 2 minutes to broadcast a
local alert. That is not supposed to be the limitation for
Presidential alert. The Presidential message is supposed to
continue until it is terminated. So one of the reasons that we
wanted to have the test for 3 minutes was to test to see if
that automatic turn-off happened at 2 minutes, or whether the
message continued. So we were obviously not able to do that.
The other part that we wanted to test with a longer
duration was the stability of the system, and that once we
brought it up and that once the rebroadcasting happened, that
the system would stay up and stable for an extended period. We
were not able to test that either. But those are certainly two
objectives for future tests.
Mr. Barnett. Ranking Member Norton, the major thing that
the FCC really wanted to get out of the test and that we set up
for with our rules for the EAS participants to report back to
us, had to do with the connectivity. As Ms. Goucher mentioned,
there are weekly and monthly tests, there are all sorts of
tests like this, but the thing that has never been tested
before in that 50 years is that connectivity from FEMA down to
the primary entry-point stations, and then cascading down
through all the EAS participants until you get full coverage.
That is what we were able to get with a 30-second test. And we
are going have to wait until December 27th to get really full
data to report to you on exactly what we can learn in the steps
going forward.
We do know that the test was received and retransmitted to
a large majority of the Nation. But there were, as we
anticipated--and we anticipated because we had two prior tests
that FEMA conducted in Alaska, so we knew that there might be
some glitches. That is exactly what we wanted to concentrate
on.
Ms. Norton. But my question for both of you is,
particularly given your answer about 3 minutes being necessary,
I am struck by, other than the connectivity of the system,
whether you could have learned anything from a 3-minute--a 30-
second test. And I am concerned that there be a test, a
realtime test of 3 minutes, and what do you think it would take
to alert the public so we can get a real test.
Mr. Penn. Yes, ma'am. As Mr. Barnett mentioned, the ability
to make the basic connection was our primary reason for the
test, and 30 seconds was long enough to make the basic
connection and for the PEP stations to receive the message
rebroadcast to the broadcast stations, and broadcast stations
then to send that down to the other stations that they connect
with. So the duration was 30 seconds for the message, but the
actual propagation of the message lasted longer as it worked
its way down through the chain. So if I sent the message to Mr.
Barnett, the message went for 30 seconds. If he sent it to Ms.
Goucher, that was another 30 seconds. So that part was in fact
a 30-second duration, but the time that it took to propagate
the message down lasted longer than 30 seconds. But that did
answer our first question, and we will find out the full
results at the end of the month; and that is, how many people
were able to receive a message and interrupt their broadcast
and rebroadcast the message?
Mr. Denham. Thank you. Mr. Crawford.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, if I could say, I think this is
important to do, to see if the system is connected at all. This
is not a test. This is not a test in the sense that we meant
when we said the system should be tested. I understand why it
is done this way, but I think we have to look forward to a test
of the system, a 3-minute test. Thank you very much.
Mr. Denham. Mr. Crawford.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to ask Mr.
Barnett about digital capabilities. IPAWS envisions more than
just text and audio being transmitted. Additional data such as
video or other visual aids may be transmitted in the future.
What is FCC doing to ensure upgraded equipment is capable of
transmitting and receiving more than text and audio?
Mr. Barnett. Yes, sir. So you are talking about the total
system, IPAWS. And the FCC is very much into the next
generation technologies on this user broadband. That is why we
have been working closely with FEMA on calling and alerting
protocol. This was starting our rules back in--all the way back
in 2007. Those rules indicated that EAS participants would have
to have CAP ability to receive CAP alert messages. One hundred
eighty days after FEMA adopted the technical standards that
occurred in September 2010, within a couple months we actually
issued another order, because we actually realized it was going
to take a while for the manufacturers to actually be able to
create the equipment or EAS participants to be able to
incorporate that equipment. So in essence we waived it until
the fall of 2011.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking in essence to
shift over to the CAP system. It was an absolutely necessary
precursor to IPAWS to be able to use that type of technology.
And so we have an open rulemaking on that right now.
I think the rules, also have also extended the deadline for
EAS participants to do that until June 30, 2012, because we
also realize there are other things that are involved. We want
to deal with the question of certification--whether these
things need to be certified--training. But I think you will see
the rules come out very soon, within a matter of weeks.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, sir.
Ms. Goucher, thank you for being here. I am a former
broadcaster myself in my previous life, so thank you for being
here.
You mentioned States are developing their own systems such
as the one in your home State that you talked about. How would
you envision the State system is working with IPAWS?
Ms. Goucher. Seamlessly. I would hope that would be
seamless. It is my understanding that IPAWS will be an
Internet-based system. We do think that Internet connectivity
may pose some problems in some areas where, for example, a
broadcaster may have their EAS equipment at their transmitter
location. As a former broadcaster, you have been out to the
transmitter site. You know that they can be remote. So we are
looking at ways around that issue.
We are hoping that some redundancies will be built into the
system, particularly for Presidential alerts, such as possible
satellite delivery, so that, you know, we ensure we have
multiple redundant pathways to get the message through.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, ma'am.
Mr. Penn, I want to talk about Internet and social media
and some of the things that you are doing to integrate there.
What we haven't spoken a lot about is using the Internet and
social media to alert the public. Talk about how the Internet
and social media will be incorporatedin the development of
IPAWS in the future.
Mr. Penn. Thank you, sir. We have done quite a bit of work
already with the Internet providers and the ability for them to
receive and rebroadcast the message. The technical part of that
is actually not exceptionally difficult. The integration with
them we think will be smooth and seamless.
They also have a much greater capability to geo-target than
we originally thought when we started dealing with them; that
they do have the capability to target smaller areas and not
just send a nationwide message. So that part has been very
positive as well.
We have just started our work with social media. Several of
the major social media networks have come on board. One has
even created some software that will help us integrate into
them, but I think that is really the next big step for the
program where we need to go from here and how we use those.
In some recent trade shows, too, it became apparent that we
not only have the general public with the State and local alert
officials needing to be involved, but we have a separate niche
involved when we talk about security for campuses throughout
the country. And there are several products that we are testing
to integrate in our system now to focus on the ability of that
community on the campus to be able to alert itself. So maybe a
Wi-Fi connection, where the campus can use social media and
their own internal alerting, that would only go to the campus
and not necessarily affect the surrounding county and the
surrounding neighborhood.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Guttman-McCabe, real quick. Is there an app for that?
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Yeah, there is. And we saw it to some
extent in the recent shootings in West Virginia. I think what
we will see is a continuing evolution and almost a layered type
of service, whether it is broadcast radio, cable, wireless, or
social media. And I think that is exactly how this service
should evolve. We should see that layer, because you are not
always in front of a radio or a television or Internet
connection, or don't always have a wireless device in front of
you. And so what we are seeing is, as a runup to the launch of
the wireless service, we are seeing some creative people
putting together services that will work in the interim. We
hope they continue to act as a complement to a wireless
service, to a fully deployed IPAWS service.
Mr. Crawford. Excellent. Thank you, sir. I yield back.
Mr. Denham. Thank you. Mr. Michaud.
Mr. Michaud. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Goucher, what factors set apart States where the
national tests were--and States where they have experienced
obstacles?
Ms. Goucher. Thank you, Congressman. There were some
technical issues with the national test, as Administrator Penn
and Admiral Barnett have noted. There were some connectivity
issues. A couple of primary entry-point stations didn't receive
the message or failed to relay it. I think I would like to
drill deeper down in that question, though, and give you an
answer about why EAS works very well in some places and not in
others on a State and local basis, which of course is the
primary use of the system.
We have a very good system in Maine. Our officials there
have been very cooperative in setting up the system and testing
it rigorously. We have a very easy one-hop system that relays
the message throughout the State from end to end. It should be
noted, as well you know, that it is a farther distance from
Kittery to Fort Kent than it is from Kittery to Philadelphia.
We have a lot of territory to cover, and we set up a very
simple, elegant system to be able to do that.
Buy-in in other States in terms of EAS is spotty, which is
why we are so emphasizing the creation and deployment of the
training program. Because as of right now, until this training
program rolls out from FEMA, the only training that public
officials receive on how properly to use the EAS is the
operator's manual that comes with their EAS box, which only
tells them how to plug it in and turn it on. We need rigorous
training for these folks on how to use the system, when to use
the system, how to properly craft an alert message. I think
that is going to go a long, long way toward improving the
overall use of the system.
Mr. Michaud. Thank you.
Mr. Penn, can you give us an example of the time that the
Emergency Alert System wasn't activated in an emergency?
Mr. Penn. Sorry, sir, I am not sure I understand your
question. Did you mean the results of the test or when the
system has been used before?
Mr. Michaud. Well, no. In an emergency, has there been a
time that the system has not worked?
Mr. Penn. From a nationwide level, sir, prior to the test
last month, the system had never been tested across the Nation.
There are some States that use part and portions of the
Emergency Alert System to do local and State message but no
national message. And, I do not know of any specific cases
where anyone at the State and local level has tried to use
equipment and it hasn't functioned. But I am sure there are
some instances where it did at least not fully function.
Mr. Michaud. Ms. Goucher, in your former position and what
you know, can you give us an example of a time that the
Emergency Alert System wasn't activated in an emergency, either
in Maine or in other States?
Ms. Goucher. Not in Maine, no, I am happy to say. There
have been situations in other States, however, when the system
could have been used and it wasn't. My counterpart in Texas
tells a very sad story about two women who burned to death in
wildfires because they lived half a mile down a dirt road, and
the local officials needed to warn people that the fires were
heading their way, and the only thing they could think of to do
was to drive up and down the road with a bull horn saying,
evacuate, evacuate. These women were soap opera fans and they
were probably watching TV at the time, and an EAS message would
have reached them and told them to evacuate.
Now, the times when we see that the system is not used when
it should be, or not used properly, is generally as a result of
a lack of training, buy-in, knowledge on the part of the
issuing authorities.
Mr. Michaud. Thank you.
Mr. Barnett, do you know of any example, other than what
Ms. Goucher had mentioned?
Mr. Barnett. No, sir, I don't. Training is something we are
obviously concerned about, particularly if we move into the
CMAS/PLAN area, because that is another tool for local and
State officials to be able to use. But I would direct it back
to Mr. Penn with regard to that training program that FEMA has
developed.
Mr. Michaud. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Denham. Thank you. Mr. Hultgren.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Guttman-McCabe,
you highlighted so far that 97 percent of wireless customer
base is represented by companies that have agreed to
participate in CMAS. I wondered what your thought is, first of
all, how difficult that was to get to that 97 percent, and if
you see it growing, higher, hopefully to 100 percent.
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. It was sort
of a leap of faith to get to 97 percent because the way the
statute was organized, carriers had to make a decision to
participate before they knew what they were participating in
and before the technical elements or characteristics of the
service were actually defined.
And so I was, as someone who participated and testified
numerous times on behalf of support of the WARN Act, I was
ecstatic when we saw the number get up to 97 percent. I do
believe it will get up higher than that, and hopefully 100
percent, as sort of the costs and the benefits of scale from
some of our larger carriers flow down, so equipment and
certainty and understanding get to our smaller carriers.
But right now the upside and why we think it is so
beneficial to add wireless as an element to alerting is it
does, as I said earlier, it adds a layer. And getting 97
percent of consumers access to this is a tremendous, really,
benefit to the alerting capabilities.
Mr. Hultgren. Mr. McCabe, geo-targeting. You mentioned that
briefly. I know that is an important element of alerting. How
will CMAS allow for targeting alerts and tell me a little bit
more how you see that playing out and why that is so important.
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Certainly. Right now, the way that the
advisory committee established the recommendations, it was
based on a county level. We believe the technology ultimately
will allow to have even more targeted alerts, although I think
as part of the group that was sort of investigating this, we
realized that more often than not you probably don't want to
alert something smaller than a county when you are talking
about mobile consumers. If you take Virginia Tech's example,
you don't want to just alert the campus. You want to be able to
alert outside the campus so no additional people come into
areas of danger.
And so that is why we initially chose counties. And the
reality is, I think we envision that alert originators will
over-alert because of the mobile nature of our customers. And
so from our perspective, we believe the granularity will
improve over time as part of the evolution of the service, and
yet it is quite possible that it is never a--you know, a more
granular, more targeted message is potentially never used
because of the mobility of the consumer base.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you.
Mr. Penn, I wondered, GAO issued a report on IPAWS back in
2009. At that time, GAO criticized the lack of strategic
planning and direction. I wondered if you can talk about how
that has been addressed and where you feel like we are at as
far as some of the strategic planning and direction goes.
Mr. Penn. Yes, sir. Thank you. I took over shortly after
that report was released. My vision and focus has not changed.
And we have assembled a great team together. Some of the
accomplishments that I listed in my opening statement show how
dedicated that team is and where we are headed.
So the strategic focus is there. That is on delivering
alerts and warnings. And the people that you see at the table
and the organizations that they represent are fully in step
with us on moving forward with the system. We have actually
exceeded our expectations in many different areas.
As an example, we were at a trade show recently, and a
gentleman from National Public Radio service came forward. We
did a demonstration with creating a message and disseminating
it through our test booth. He had a piece of equipment that he
took and plugged into an old weather radio. We initiated a
regular alert. That piece of equipment he had took the audio
message, turned it into text, and turned the text into Braille.
That is the kind of technology that we have embraced. That is
what the common alert protocol gives us, is the compatibility
of existing equipment and the ability to use it.
Our change from trying to build a single piece of equipment
to solve a single problem, moving from that to an applications-
based approach where we have a platform that people can bring
technology into and plug into, I think has been the difference
in our program. So now we can welcome a gentleman like the one
from National Public Radio. We have done some work with some
geo-targeting and plume modeling to develop alerting. And the
list goes on and on. So I think that basic change is what makes
a difference for us.
Mr. Hultgren. Great.
Again, thank you all for your work. This is very important,
obviously. We all hope we don't have to use this much, but it
is so important to have it there and it really does, I think,
bring that confidence of some of the steps that are moving
forward. So thanks for the work and I look forward to working
with you as we move forward on this.
I yield back.
Mr. Denham. Ms. Holmes Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have only one
further question.
I was interested, Mr. Penn, in the notion that you
indicated in your testimony about educating the public that the
test was coming and the overreaction that you were trying to
guard against. I am not certain I, as a member of the public,
received that education. So I would like some more detail about
how you educated the public that a test was in the offing and
when it would be occurring.
Mr. Penn. Yes, ma'am. Really, we had an actual campaign for
releasing information and a lot of the work was actually done
on a voluntary basis by the broadcasters, satellite providers,
and the cable providers. They provided public service alerts to
their individual communities as well as broadcasting alerts
that we did from FEMA and that Mr. Barnett did from the FCC.
Also, the news and media outlets were all involved. They
had quite a campaign as well for publishing it in local
newspapers and other media outlets. As well, the administrator
of FEMA went on the air with the major morning news programs
and broadcast not really a public service announcement, but had
interviews and warned people of the impending test and what it
was going to amount to and what they could expect to see.
If you would like, I can submit to you the entire package
and the entire campaign and show you what other steps we took
in some detail.
Ms. Norton. I think that would be useful, Mr. Penn.
We note that with the early results that are in, you saw
some gaps or lapses in audio. That would be concerning because
of the effect on particularly vulnerable populations like the
elderly and the disabled. How will you ensure in the short term
that you are able to reach such vulnerable populations?
Mr. Penn. Yes, ma'am. We think we have corrected the major
problem that we had with the audio quality, and that was a
feedback loop that occurred when one of the encoder/decoders at
the primary entry-point station rebroadcast a message backup
stream into the message flow. So even though they got a very
clear message, towards the end of the message started hearing
in the background the repeat of the message. That is an easy
fix. All we have to do there is mute the return phone lines so
nobody can broadcast the message back in to us--something we
never thought would happen, something that we didn't prepare
for, but a lesson learned that is an easy fix.
We have also already had a Webinar with the industry and
discussed some other technical issues about the audio. And we
think we have actually moved forward on that as well. So if we
had to initiate it again right now, I think the audio would be
much better. I can't give you a real feel for how much ``much
better'' is, but by solving the first major problem we think
that that took care of the biggest part of the problem that we
had.
The other issue, as you go further down line andrebroadcast
the message, you lose some of the message quality anyway. So if
you start with a bad message, the message quality continues to
get worse. So by correcting it at the source, we think that is
going to solve most of the problem.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Denham. Thank you.
Mr. Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My first question
is for Ms. Goucher.
Ms. Goucher, as you know, FEMA is in the process of
increasing the number of PEP stations. These are stations which
are hardened to operate during disasters. However, in places
that are down the daisy chain of transmissions, there are risks
that they won't receive a broadcast. Once all the anticipated
PEP stations are complete, how much of the country would
receive a broadcast directly from a PEP station?
Ms. Goucher. It is my understanding that FEMA's goal is to
be able to reach 90 percent of the population. Not 90 percent
of the land mass of the United States, but 90 percent of the
population.
Mr. Fleischmann. Would any other witnesses like to confirm
that?
Mr. Penn. Yes, sir, that is correct. We started with 36
stations. We have increased to 63. Our final plan is to go to
77 stations by the end of next year. We think that will give us
90 percent.
If I could say as well, part of what we learned during the
test was that the homework prior to the test is as important as
the test is. And a lot of the work that Ms. Goucher mentioned
earlier by the broadcasters, cable industry, and providers
getting ready, I think set the tone for us to be able to have a
much better message propagation capability than we had before
the test.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Penn.
My next question is for Dr. Check. As you have pointed out,
the message is sent from FEMA to the PEP stations and then
rebroadcast to other stations. Where does cable fall in this
distribution chain? And as a followup, do cable operators
receive broadcasts directly from FEMA or from the PEP stations,
sir?
Mr. Check. Cable operators' receivers are at the end of the
chain. This may be, for example, the Mid-Atlantic area, just to
give you an example here. So FEMA would send a message out to
the PEP stations. In the Mid-Atlantic area, that station is
WBAL in Baltimore. That resends the message out then to local
area stations in the Washington, DC, area. That would be WTOP,
the news station, and WMAL, an AM radio station. Then cable
operators here in the Washington, DC, area listen to those two
local Washington stations to receive the signal.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Thank you.
Mr. Denham. Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. No further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Denham. Mr. Penn and Mr. Barnett, recently the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting entered into apublic-
private partnership to begin a pilot program to test out a
mobile emergency alert system which would use the existing
mobile digital TV, the DTV systems, for alerts. That system
would be able to send not only text and audio but also maps,
videos, and photos. Are you aware of this pilot, and do you
believe this could be incorporated into the IPAWS system?
Mr. Penn. Sir, I am not personally aware of exactly the
program that you are talking about. But there is, as I
mentioned before, a lot of parallel development that is going
on in the private industry for different products. We have a
test lab that is set up through Science and Technology at DHS,
where we can take technologies like that and ensure that they
are compatible with the Common Alert Protocol and then label
them as such so that the emergency managers in the field will
know that they have a product that is capable of interfacing
with IPAWS. That particular product, I am not aware of.
Mr. Denham. Mr. Barnett.
Mr. Barnett. Yes, sir, I am aware of the tests that have
been going on. Nevada is one of the places I know where they
have done some testing with that concept of being able to get
maps and things out to first responders and those types of
things. I don't know that they are having discussions about how
that would work in the IPAWS, or if it would.
Mr. Denham. Ms. Goucher, you briefly talked about theDTV in
your opening statement. Can you expand on that a little bit?
Ms. Goucher. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, spoke about?
Mr. Denham. Mobile DTV.
Ms. Goucher. Mobile DTV and how that fits in. Absolutely.
Broadcasters are rolling out mobile digital television
capabilities throughout the country. It is available right now
in Washington, DC. It is coming to more and more markets every
day. And what this does is give just one more enormous
capability of being able to stand on a street corner with a
mobile device and watch a streaming TV signal with news and
information and emergency alerts.
During the earthquake and subsequent tsunami in Japan,
people were standing on the street in Tokyo watching this
unfold live. It is an enormous capability and broadcasters are
just extremely pleased to be able to deliver that capability to
the American people, because we think it is just one more
important pathway and an important enhancement to our ability
to inform people in times of emergency.
Mr. Denham. Thank you.
And Dr. Check, you mentioned in your testimony limited
ability of cable operators to alter the message received. For
example, if a language translation is needed, IPAWS envisions
data being transmitted that may contain information that
includes translations, video, or other forms of information. Do
you believe the upgraded equipment will allow cable operators
to receive more than just short text or audio?
Mr. Check. Well, for multilingual messages, we will
certainly be happy to pass that information through, and
certainly with the IPAWS CAP system there is the ability for
enhanced text messages. We believe, though, that
formultilingual, the responsibility ought to be with FEMA or
the message originator, either at the national or State level,
to provide those different messages.
Mr. Denham. Thank you.
Mr. Penn.
Mr. Penn. Yes, sir, I agree. That is a challenge that we
are working now, is how to integrate languages other than
English into the system. A large part of the solution is going
to be local, though, because local communities have different
requirements and different languages that they need to speak.
So our initial vision is that there will be the broadcasting of
some standard message in different languages that tell people
that there is an emergency and that they need to consult their
local emergency service providers. We haven't broken the code
and we haven't gotten to the point now where we feel
comfortable being able to give a multilingual message across
the Nation.
Mr. Denham. Thank you. I would like to thank each of you
for your testimony today. Your comments have been very
insightful in helping today's discussion.
If there are no further questions, I would ask for
unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing remain
open until such time as our witnesses have provided answers to
any questions that may be submitted to them in writing, and
unanimous consent that the record remain open for 15 days for
any additional comments and information submitted by Members or
witnesses to be included in the record of today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
I would like to thank our witnesses again for the testimony
today. And if no other Members have anything to add, this
subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:44 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]