[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REALIZING NATIONWIDE NEXT-GENERATION 911
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 29, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-21
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
25-782 WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
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 ENERGY AND COMMERCE
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
FRED UPTON, Michigan BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ANNA G. ESHOO, California
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas GENE GREEN, Texas
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi DORIS O. MATSUI, California
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey KATHY CASTOR, Florida
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
PETE OLSON, Texas JERRY McNERNEY, California
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia PETER WELCH, Vermont
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia PAUL TONKO, New York
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
BILLY LONG, Missouri KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
BILL FLORES, Texas Massachusetts
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana TONY CARDENAS, California
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma RAUL RUIZ, California
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina SCOTT H. PETERS, California
CHRIS COLLINS, New York DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
TIM WALBERG, Michigan
MIMI WALTERS, California
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
Chairman
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois PETER WELCH, Vermont
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky RAUL RUIZ, California
PETE OLSON, Texas DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida ANNA G. ESHOO, California
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
BILLY LONG, Missouri G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
BILL FLORES, Texas DORIS O. MATSUI, California
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Tennessee JERRY McNERNEY, California
CHRIS COLLINS, New York FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota officio)
MIMI WALTERS, California
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Tennessee, opening statement.......................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Hon. Michael F. Doyle, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................ 4
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, opening statement...................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 7
Witnesses
Trey Forgety, III, Director of Governmental Affairs, National
Emergency Number Association................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Answers to submitted questions...............................
Walt Magnussen, Director, Internet2 Technology Evaluation Center,
Texas A&M University........................................... 19
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Answers to submitted questions...............................
Mary Boyd, Vice-President, Regulatory, Policy and External
Affairs, West Safety Services, on Behalf of Industry Council
for Emergency Response Technologies............................ 29
Prepared statement........................................... 31
Answers to submitted questions...............................
Barry Ritter, Executive Director, Statewide 911 Board, State of
Indiana........................................................ 41
Prepared statement........................................... 43
Answers to submitted questions...............................
Steve Souder, Former Director, Fairfax County 9-1-1, Maryland
Emergency Number (9-1-1) Systems Board......................... 48
Prepared statement........................................... 50
Answers to submitted questions...............................
Submitted Material
Article entitled , ``Update to 911 issue in Dallas,'' Dallas City
News Releases, March 16, 2017, submitted by Mr. Long........... 81
Statement of the Peace Officers Research Association of
California, submitted by Mr. Long.............................. 84
REALIZING NATIONWIDE NEXT-GENERATION 911
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 2017
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Marsha Blackburn
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Blackburn, Lance, Shimkus,
Latta, Guthrie, Olson, Kinzinger, Bilirakis, Johnson, Long,
Flores, Brooks, Collins, Walters, Costello, Walden (ex
officio), Doyle, Welch, Clarke, Loebsack, Ruiz, Eshoo, Engel,
and Matsui.
Staff present: Ray Baum, Staff Director; Chuck Flint,
Policy Coordinator, Communications and Technology; Gene
Fullano, Detailee, Communications and Technology; Theresa
Gambo, Human Resources/Office Administrator; Giulia
Giannangeli, Legislative Clerk, Digital Commerce and Consumer
Protection/Communications and Technology; Kelsey Guyselman,
Counsel, Communications and Technology; Brandon Mooney, Deputy
Chief Energy Advisor; Mark Ratner, Policy Coordinator; David
Redl, Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; Dan
Schneider, Press Secretary; Hamlin Wade, Special Advisor,
External Affairs; Jeff Carroll, Minority Staff Director; Alex
Debianchi, Minority Telecom Fellow; David Goldman, Minority
Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; Jerry Leverich,
Minority Counsel; Lori Maarbjerg, Minority FCC Detailee; and
Dan Miller, Minority Staff Assistant.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Mrs. Blackburn. Good morning. The Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and Technology will now come to order and
the chair now recognizes herself for 5 minutes for an opening
statement.
The evolution in communications technology continues to
change the lives of Americans and for the better. The
transition to the internet protocol technology underlying next
generation 911 service from the circuit-based networks of
yesterday is a compelling example of this.
Traditional 911 services permitted a voice call through the
local phone company switch to be transferred directly to a
public safety answering point, or PSAP.
Next-Gen 911 takes advantage of the robust capabilities of
today's and tomorrow's digital networks and will allow the
lifesaving call to take the form of voice, text or video from
any wired, wireless, or IP-based device routed over a broadband
network.
Realizing Next Generation 911 services throughout the
nation is critical, but as with any large-scale transition
there are challenges to overcome. Issues regarding such matters
is funding, governance, ensuring the security of the network
are a few and the cost will be significant.
Yet, while funding is a challenge, studies reveal a
troubling pattern whereby some states divert money collected
from consumers intended for 911 services that could assist with
the transition. The FCC reports that approximately $220
million, or 8.4 percent, of the total amount of fees collected
by the states to fund 911 were diverted for non-911 purposes.
This was in 2015 alone.
Every member of this committee should agree to work
aggressively on this issue.
Our witness from the state of Indiana, Mr. Ritter, tells us
in his testimony that a state's approach to governance is an
important component of a successful transition.
The majority memorandum notes that approximately have of
the states have established 911 boards or similar entities. I
look forward to a better understanding of how this coordinated
command may facilitate transition.
And we are all aware the IP-based networks will be
vulnerable to cyberattack. The FCC has said that additional
work must be done to protect these networks including
encrypting data to ensure the integrity of traffic.
What more can be done and what is the best approach? With
that said, we should recognize that this transition is underway
and these challenges are not insurmountable.
According to an FCC report, 12 states report that NG911 is
operational in 100 percent of the state. My home state of
Tennessee is among those 12. A solid start for our nation but
well short of where we ought to be.
We have taken steps to facilitate the transition. Most
recently in 2012 this committee under Chairman Walden's
leadership was instrumental in passage of the Middle Class Tax
Relief and Job Creation Act, which not only created First Net
to bring state of the art communication capabilities to our
nation's first responders but also sought to further the NG911
transition.
Republicans and Democrats must agree that having a modern
911 emergency repose system is a national necessity. I look
forward to our conversation today and I yield the remaining
time to Ms. Brooks for an introduction.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Blackburn follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Marsha Blackburn
Welcome to the Communications and Technology Subcommittee's
hearing titled: ``Realizing Nationwide Next-Generation 911.''
Also, thank you to our witnesses for appearing here today to
offer your expertise.
The evolution in communications technology continues to
change the lives of Americans, and for the better. The
transition to the Internet Protocol technology underlying Next
Generation 911 service from the circuit-based networks of
yesterday is a compelling example of this. Traditional 911
services permitted a voice call through the local phone
company's switch to be transferred directly to a Public Safety
Answering Point or ``PSAP.'' Next Gen 911 takes advantage of
the robust capabilities of today's and tomorrow's digital
networks and will allow that lifesaving call to take the form
of voice, text, or video from any wired, wireless, or IP based
device routed over a broadband network.
Realizing NG911 services throughout the Nation is critical,
but as with any large-scale transition there are challenges
that must be overcome. Issues regarding such matters as
funding, governance, ensuring the security of the network are
but a few. The cost will be significant. Yet while funding is a
challenge, studies reveal a troubling pattern whereby some
states divert money collected from consumers intended for 911
services that could assist with the NG911 transition. The FCC
reports that approximately $220 million--or 8.4 percent of the
total amount of fees collected by the states to fund 911 was
diverted for non-911 purposes in 2015. Every member of this
Committee should agree to work together to tackle this issue
aggressively.
Our witness from the state of Indiana, Mr. Bitter tells us
in his testimony that a state's approach to governance is an
important component of a successful transition. The majority
memorandum notes that approximately half of the states have
established 911 boards or similar entities. I look forward to a
better understanding of how a ``centralized command'' may
facilitate the transition.
And we are all aware that these IP-based networks will be
vulnerable to cyberattack. The FCC has said that additional
work must be done to protect these networks, including
encrypting data to ensure the ``integrity'' of traffic. What
more can be done? What is the best approach as we move forward?
With that said, we should recognize that this transition is
underway and these challenges are not insurmountable. According
to an FCC report, twelve states report that NG911 is
operational in 100 percent of the state--my home State of
Tennessee among them. A solid start for our Nation but well
short of where I think we need to be.
We have taken steps to facilitate the transition. Most
recently, in 2012, this Committee, under the leadership of
Chairman Walden, was instrumental in passage of the Middle
Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act which not only created
FirstNet to bring state-of-the-art communications capabilities
to our Nation's first responders, but also sought to further
the NG 911 transition. In addition, to more in grant funding,
we called for a study of the costs to move to NG911 and annual
reports to keep us informed of progress. Unfortunately, we are
still waiting. Republicans and Democrats can both agree that
having a modern 911 emergency response system in place is a
national necessity. As our witnesses today share their stories
and expertise, we have an opportunity to learn what works best,
what is most efficient, and what will get us there quickly. I
look forward to working with my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle. Thank you.
Ms. Brooks. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I would like to
welcome a Hoosier to Washington, Barry Ritter, the executive
director of Indiana 911.
Along with Mr. Ritter, Kelly Mitchell, the Indiana state
treasurer also in attendance, and Treasurer Mitchell chairs the
state 911 board and is actually the only treasurer in the
country in this role. And so welcome, Ms. Mitchell.
Mr. Ritter originally joined the state as the director of
the Wireless 911 Advisory Board in 2010. He was an active
participant in the 2012 session of the legislature which
brought about fundamental changes in the funding model in
Indiana and operational responsibilities for 911 in Indiana,
most notably the creation of the statewide 911 board.
Prior to joining the board he served for 4 years as the
director of the Wayne County Consolidated Communications Center
in Richmond, Indiana.
He came into the world of 911 after serving more than 20
years as a police officer for the city of Richmond, and during
his career he held several assignments in the agency,
eventually serving as deputy chief of police.
Mr. Ritter earned his degree from Vincennes University and
received his emergency number professional designation through
the NENA Institute in 2009.
We welcome your testimony today, Mr. Ritter, and appreciate
you being here to provide this panel and to provide the other
members here with your background and expertise.
I yield back. Thank you.
Mrs. Blackburn. Gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Doyle, you are recognized for 5 minutes for an opening.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Doyle. Well, thank you to the witnesses for being here
today and thank you, Madam Chair, for calling this hearing.
The state and future of 911 systems in this country is a
critical issue. As we move forward with the deployment of the
national public safety broadband network for first responders
we need to recognize the importance of 911 service and then
need for modernization for both the people that take 911 calls
and those that are sent to respond to them.
While Congress has allocated billions in funding in
spectrum to leverage the construction and deployment of
FirstNet, we have only allocated $115 million for Next-Gen 911.
And while states and localities have an important role to
play, we need to ensure that they have a strong partner in the
federal government that is able to direct funding, expertise,
and scale at this challenge.
I am disappointed that we are sitting here today without a
clear idea of how much upgrading our nation's 911
infrastructure will cost or what the ongoing cost will be of
sustaining world class 911 infrastructure throughout the
country.
I think what's clear is that the current funding mechanisms
are not sufficient to meet current needs or to fund the next
generation of upgrades.
I would call on the majority to work with us to advance
legislation to address these issues. And while I commend the
work being done by the witnesses here to attack the problem, we
need national solutions because citizens will not adopt these
new technologies if they are not uniformly deployed and
uniformly functional on a national basis.
We are far past the time when localities should have a
patchwork of solutions where some accept text messages,
pictures, and videos and others are still working with
technology from the '70s.
Smart phones and smart devices are the present and the
future of emergency communications. As the testimony shows, the
future of Next Gen 911 are vehicle collision notifications
being sent to 911 call centers, and companies like Nest and
other smart home safety and security products which are already
warning consumers about incidents in their homes.
We need to be sure that both consumer, commercial and
municipal IOT infrastructure can communicate effectively with
first responders.
Recently, there have been a number of 911 outages in our
country. This month roughly 46 million AT&T customers lost
access to 911 service for five hours. Approximately 12,600
people tried to dial 911 and weren't able to get through.
More than AT&T's outage, a Dallas call center was
overwhelmed by abandoned 911 calls and we have reports of
similar cases throughout the country.
Some of these instances seem due to understaffing while
others the root causes are still not clear. What is clear is
that we are still facing challenges in places meeting basic
service standards.
I would just add that compromised smart phones have already
been used to attack the nation's 911 system. As the witnesses
point out, moving the 911 system to an IP-based system opens up
call centers to great cybersecurity challenges also.
Deploying Next-Gen 911 services isn't just about expanding
the ways people access emergency services. It's also about
making sure these services are more redundant, more reliable
and more useful.
I hope this hearing is educational to our members. I look
forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses and I would
be happy to yield the remainder of my time to any member of the
subcommittee that wants to use it.
Seeing none, Madam Chair, I'll yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back and the chairman
of the full committee, Mr. Walden, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. I thank you very much and I thank you for
holding this very important hearing as we move forward in our
work in this area.
This morning we convene to examine the progress in the
deployment of Next Generation 911. As a matter of coincidence,
the timing could not have been better.
Yesterday, FirstNet announced that it took the next step in
its competitive bidding process. It's expected FirstNet will
soon execute a contract to form a public-private partnership in
order to deploy a single nationwide wireless broadband network
for our first responders.
Nearly 13 years after the 9/11 commission reported
highlighted grave deficiencies in the first responder
communications, the most up to date communications capabilities
will finally be at the fingertips of our brave men and women
who protect us daily.
Today, we all carry devices in our pockets. They allow us
to communicate by voice, by text, by email, by video and now
that we are at the threshold of deployment of FirstNet our
nation's first responders will have a dedicated network to do
the same. This is really important work.
But our 911 networks, which are based on the technologies
of the past, do not provide the seamless connection between the
two.
Only by bringing IP-based technology to the nation's public
safety answering points, the professionals that are the first
voice you hear when you call for help, can we bring the full
promise of modern technology to serve us in times of emergency.
In 2012 when we passed the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job
Creation Act, which created FirstNet, we also took steps to
facilitate the deployment of Next Generation 911.
We engaged the 911 implementation coordination office to
work with the state and local authorities, asked for a report
on the cost of NG911 and established a matching grant program.
We did all that as the work of this committee.
Unfortunately, for reasons that were never made clear, in
response to our bipartisan inquiries the prior administration
did not get that funding out the door nor did they produce the
report. They failed on both counts.
Today, I hope we can get a measure of how far the
transition to NG911 has come and some ideas about how to
accelerate it. We understand there will be costs involved in
the efforts of this magnitude.
This is big stuff. I realize that. We have done a lot of
oversight hearings over FirstNet and all of this along the way.
But FirstNet and its participating states have shown there
are smart ways to approach such complex public safety
undertakings. Some states report they are already Next
Generation 911 capable and many others are pursuing the
transition.
So these states should be applauded for their efforts.
However, while nearly every state collects money from their
citizens for 911, some states have taken moneys collected for
911 and then used it for other unrelated purposes. This cannot
continue, period.
Aside from the fact that this erodes the public trust, it
ultimately impairs the transition to NG911 for the nation as a
whole.
I look forward to the hearing, your testimony today. My
thanks to all of you for sharing your experiences and wisdom
with us and I hope we will leave with a better understanding of
what works and how we can use these lessons to move forward in
a manner that best delivers Next Generation 911 services to our
nations and our communities.
And I apologize in advance. I have got two subcommittees
meeting simultaneously and will be bouncing between the two.
Your testimony was terrific. We look forward to working with
you.
And I don't see Mr. Flores. I know he may be on his way but
he wanted to introduce one of our witnesses, Madam Chair. But
in absence of that if anybody wants the remainder of my time I
am happy to yield it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Greg Walden
This morning we convene to examine the progress in the
deployment on NextGeneration 911. As a matter of coincidence,
the timing could not be better. Yesterday, FirstNet, announced
that it took the next step in its competitive bidding process.
It is expected FirstNet will soon execute a contract to form a
public-private partnership in order to deploy a single,
nationwide wireless broadband network for our first responders.
Nearly 13 years after the 9/11 Commission Report highlighted
grave deficiencies in first responder communications, the most
up-to-date communications capabilities will finally be at the
fingertips of the brave men and women who protect us daily.
Today we all carry devices in our pockets that allow us to
communicate by voice, by text, by email, and by video. And now
that we are at the threshold of deployment of FirstNet, our
nation's first responders will have a dedicated network to do
the same. But our 911 networks, which are based on the
technologies of the past, do not provide a seamless connection
between the two. Only by bringing IPbased technology to the
Nation's Public Safety Answering Points--the professionals that
are the first voice you hear when you call for help--can we
bring the full promise of modern technology to serve us in
times of emergency.
In 2012, when we passed the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job
Creation Act, which created FirstNet, we also took steps to
facilitate the deployment of next-generation 911. We engaged
the 911 Implementation Coordination Office to work with state
and local authorities, asked for a report on the cost of NG911,
and established a matching grant program. Unfortunately, for
reasons that were never made clear in response to our
bipartisan inquiries, the prior administration didn't get that
funding out of the door nor did they produce the report.
Today, I hope we can get a measure of how far the
transition to NG911 has come and some ideas about how to
accelerate it. We understand that there will be costs involved
in an effort of this magnitude. But FirstNet and its
participating states have shown there are smart ways to
approach such complex public safety undertakings.
Some states report that they are already NG911 capable and
many others are pursuing the transition. These states should be
applauded for their efforts. However, while nearly every state
collects money from their citizens for 911, some states have
taken monies collected for 911 and used it for other purposes.
This cannot continue. Aside from the fact that this erodes the
public trust, it ultimately impairs the transition to NG911 for
the nation as a whole.
I look forward to hearing today's testimony. My thanks to
all of you for sharing your experiences and wisdom with us
today. I hope that we will leave with a better understanding of
what works and how we can use these lessons to move forward in
a manner that best delivers NG911 services to our nation's
communities.
Mrs. Blackburn. Does anyone seek the time?
Mr. Walden. Seeing none, I yield back to the chair.
Mrs. Blackburn. And we know that Mr. Flores wanted to
introduce this good Texas Aggie we have before us. But we are
going to welcome him anyway.
Ms. Matsui, you are recognized on Mr. Pallone's 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DORIS O. MATSUI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you
very much for holding this hearing today, and I want to thank
the witnesses for being here today and I look forward to your
testimonies.
This morning's hearing highlights the challenges facing our
911 system. Not only are we under funding our current 911
infrastructure, we are also failing to make investments to make
Next Generation 911 a reality.
As consumers, all of us have seen the incredible advances
in technology. In just the last decade we used our smart phone
to do so much more than make phone calls. These devices can
take pictures, send text messages and record video.
These tools could give first responders critical
information. But today, very few 911 call centers can receive
them.
It is critical that we accelerate deployment of the Next
Generation 911, 9-1-1, because it could improve access to
emergency services for so many Americans, like people with
disabilities and victims of domestic violence.
We need to work together because this technology could
truly save lives. At this time I'd like to yield time to my
colleague from New York, Mr. Engel.
Mr. Engel. Thank you. I thank my friend from California for
yielding to me. Earlier this month, millions of wireless
customers had to deal with the cascading nationwide failure of
911 service in my district in New York all the way to
Washington and California.
I look forward to the results of the FCC's investigation
into this incident. But it speaks to a much larger problem. Our
911 infrastructure is outdated, bordering on obsolete.
For some time now we have had the technology to do a much
better job of pinpointing the location of callers even within
buildings. 911 call centers could take texts and other media
and secure ESInets, could share information and even calls
across 911 systems.
But we haven't made these leaps in part because there has
been no commitment and in part because there has been no
funding. So this gets into an even broader story about aging
infrastructure across the board.
From roads and bridges to the energy grid to our national
cyberdefense, we need to make major investments in any number
of different areas.
Tax cuts and credits alone aren't going to cut it. We need
to make serious investments. I know that a lot of our witnesses
here today will be or less unanimous on the question of whether
we should be taking these steps on Next-Gen 911 and I hope the
subcommittee can come to some agreement about a smart way to
move forward with some of those much needed advances.
But it's important to remember through all this that e-911,
the main federal grant program that supports 911 services
across the country, is a joint program of the Department of
Commerce, specifically NTIA, and the Department of
Transportation, specifically NHTSA, and the White House's
budget proposal would slash these two departments by 16 percent
and 13 percent respectively.
Massive cuts at a time when we need to be making smart
investments, to me those two things aren't smart and don't go
together.
So I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony and
their commitment to helping keep Americans safe. I hope that
this hearing today can continue the conversation that we need
to have about investing in our infrastructure and I hope that
this subcommittee can take the lead on moving our
infrastructure into the 21st century.
I believe that support of our infrastructure should be, can
be, and will be a bipartisan move and I hope we can do that.
I thank you. I yield back, unless Ms. Matsui wants her time
back or anybody else.
Ms. Matsui. Anyone else want to have time?
I yield back, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady yields back and that
concludes our opening statements.
I remind all members that pursuant to committee rules all
members' statements will be made a part of the opening
statements record.
With that, we want to thank all of our witnesses for being
here today and for taking your time to testify before the
committee.
I also want to thank you for submitting your testimony well
prepared. Today's hearing will consist of two panels. Each
panel of witnesses will have the opportunity to deliver
statements and to answer questions.
So we will begin why welcoming Mr. Trey Forgety who, by the
way, has Tennessee ties. We like that. And Mr. Magnussen, I
would suggest that, being a Texan, you get to know the young
man. Wouldn't be a Texas without Tennessee.
So glad you all are seated next to each other and--well,
or Kentucky either. That's exactly right. We volunteer to do--
somebody's giving me the hook 'em horns back there. So put your
hand down. I saw it.
Mr. Forgety is the director of governmental affairs and
regulatory counsel at National Emergency Number Association.
Mr. Walt Magnussen serves as the director of the Internet to
Technology Evaluation Center at Texas A&M University.
Ms. Mary Boyd, who is the VP of regulatory policy and
external affairs at West Safety Services, Ms. Boyd is
testifying on behalf of the Industry Council for Emergency
Technologies.
Mr. Barry Ritter, who was so ably introduced by
Congresswoman Brooks, and she is leading our effort, Mr.
Ritter, as we look at NG911, she is leading that effort on
behalf of your subcommittee and the committee at large and we
thank her for that and we thank you for doing such a great job
helping to--her to understand and to grow and to know all about
this issue.
Mr. Steve Souder, who is representing the Maryland
Emergency Number 911 Systems Board--he was previously the
former director at Fairfax County 911.
We appreciate all of you being here. We will begin the
panel with you, Mr. Forgety. You are now recognized for 5
minutes for an opening statement.
STATEMENTS OF TREY FORGETY, III, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENTAL
AFFAIRS, NATIONAL EMERGENCY NUMBER ASSOCIATION; WALT MAGNUSSEN,
DIRECTOR, INTERNET2 TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION CENTER, TEXAS A&M
UNIVERSITY; MARY BOYD, VICE-PRESIDENT, REGULATORY, POLICY AND
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, WEST SAFETY SERVICES, ON BEHALF OF INDUSTRY
COUNCIL FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE TECHNOLOGIES; BARRY RITTER,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STATEWIDE 911 BOARD, STATE OF INDIANA;
STEVE SOUDER, FORMER DIRECTOR, FAIRFAX COUNTY 9-1-1, MARYLAND
EMERGENCY NUMBER (9-1-1) SYSTEMS BOARD
STATEMENT OF TREY FORGETY
Mr. Forgety. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and Ranking
Member Doyle for hosting this hearing. It's a great pleasure
for me to appear before you and an honor to appear beside such
an August panel here. I mean, you really have all of the heavy
hitters from the 911 industry sitting next to me here. So it's
great to appear with them.
The reason we are here, ultimately, is the way that we
communicate in the United States has changed radically over the
last 30 years.
We are now a nation that has more wireless connections,
more devices, more gadgets, more things that can connect to a
network than we have people. And all of those devices are being
used by consumers in ways that we could not have imagined only
a few short decades ago.
Already text and video communications, things like FaceTime
and WhatsApp and Facebook are overtaking voice. People don't
communicate with a telephone call anymore. For people in my
generation and younger, that is not our first instinct. When we
want to reach out and touch somebody we are more likely to make
a video call or send a text.
But 911 has not changed at the same time. Today's 911
systems are still using technology that was invented in the
'60s and '70s and deployed in the '80s and '90s.
These systems make it very difficult to move calls around
to ensure the availability and to defend networks against new
kinds of attacks.
The unfortunate thing about this, when you get right down
to it, in today's modern networks we don't move things around
my moving wires anymore. But for most 911 systems, if you want
to make a change that is literally what it takes.
Someone's got to physically go down to a telephone company
office and move some wires around on a panel. That's terribly
disappointing. It ought to be a lot simpler than that.
Well, NG911 changes all of that. It makes it a lot simpler.
NG911 has native support for voice, video, text, pictures, and
data and built-in resiliency and reliability features that
allow us to do things like reroute calls, efficiently visualize
and map where they are coming from in three-dimensions, which
is a big deal in bigger cities. And it also gives us new tools
to defend these networks, modern tools, that as long as we live
in the telephone network we simply won't have access to.
Another great point about NG911, this is homegrown high-
tech innovation-focused technology. It uses the same
technology, the same internet era technologies, that Apple and
Google and Facebook and Snap use underlying all of their
services like iMessage and Snapchat and Facebook Messenger.
That's a really powerful thing because if you want the
citizenry to have access to 911 in the way that they
communicate you've got to make it easy for the technology
developers and cheap to implement. It's got to be inexpensive.
If you can't do those two things you won't have widespread
adoption and you won't get the full advantage of these new
technologies that we have. When our folks went and looked at
how do we design Next Generation 911 for the future that was a
key design element.
It was let's make it easy, let's make it the commercial
off-the-shelf technologies that these folks use every day and
let's make it as inexpensive as possible.
This also represents a new export for the United States.
Already Next Generation 911 has been adopted as the target
goal, as the standard in Canada to our north and it's being
modified a little bit for use in the NG 112 systems that'll be
deployed throughout Europe.
So this is something that--our homegrown technology is now
being exported around the world in a way that will benefit our
industry and our global public safety community.
We need this technology now. We need NG911 now. The
transition costs for local governments if this transition is
delayed are going to explode.
Maintaining legacy infrastructure that you can't get parts
for anymore, that you can't get technicians who even remember
ever being trained on how to operate it, doing those things
long term is going to be devastating for the more than 2,000
counties and cities that operate the 6,800-plus public safety
answering points, or PSAPs, in the country.
Not only that, but delaying the transition will also darken
the outlook for our nation's field responders. A number of
members of the committee mentioned in their opening statements
FirstNet.
FirstNet is built on the same sorts of technologies as
NG911 and as consumer networks that are transitioning very
rapidly to all-IP basis whether it is wireline or wireless.
So we need to make sure that we have got the system in the
middle that sits between the IP networks for consumers and the
ones for FirstNet. Those need to be NG911.
They need to be all IP and they need to be that now.
Congress can accelerate this transition with a one-time
injection of federal capital to ensure a coordinated efficient
rollout of shared databases, networks, and systems and avoid
wasteful duplication and proprietary noninteroperable
technology deployment.
Madam Chairwoman, I thank you for holding the hearing and I
welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Forgety follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Magnussen, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF WALT MAGNUSSEN
Mr. Magnussen. Good morning, Chairwoman Blackburn, Ranking
Member Doyle and esteemed committee members.
It is a real honor for me to be here today and as was
mentioned earlier I've been the director at Texas A&M
University of the center since 2004.
And while it's seen a lot of progress over those years we
still have a long ways to go. However your support can and will
make a big difference in accelerating the nationwide NG911
transition.
I would also like to begin my testimony here this morning
by noting that my center does have a contract with the United
States Department of Justice for the NIJ, the National
Institute of Justice, and while I am testifying today on behalf
of my work at Texas A&M University, none of the statements that
I make today represent the policies of the United States
Department of Justice.
Other witnesses have either or will likely talk about what
is NG911 and why is it important. I would like to take my time
to discuss areas where the efforts of this committee and of
Congress can really have the most impact.
This information is based on a study that we did in 2004
that was funded by the ICERT, the same organization mentioned a
few seconds ago, and in essence there were four findings that I
have in my recommendations that were based on that study and
really two recommendations that come as subsequent issues.
So those six issues are number one again is to incentivize
states to establish an oversight coordinating authority. Most
states have already done this. Most states have coordination
within the states.
However, in some states the function of NG911 is simply a
matter of collecting the fees from the telephone companies and
passing it on down.
While it's possible for a state to implement NG911 within
the state without central coordination, it's actually very,
very difficult. So, again, anything you could do to resolve
that we would greatly appreciate it.
As Mr. Forgety, who, by the way, we have worked together
for 10 years now--it's been a fantastic relationship so a very
good person--the second one is really to require federal or
require federally assisted-provided funding to link to the NENA
I3 standard.
The I3 standard we began work on it in 2004. It's been
adopted by the majority of the 911 industry associations. It is
standards-based.
It is based on other standardized technology such as
standards that are adopted by the internet community and by
other standards organizations and in that sense it will
ultimately reduce costs and ensure interoperability and that is
very important for public safety.
Number three, provide interim funding. As Mr. Forgety also
just mentioned, while many of the states have been able to go
ahead and then get through the process of supporting e-911 on
their own, there is little doubt that in essence the transition
to NG911 is going to incur additional costs during the
transition process.
We probably can survive on our own once we get through that
transition but in essence getting through that transition could
require a little bit of additional support.
Number four is to establish a national authority and fund a
national NG911 network to provide interconnectivity between the
states.
The states are doing a fantastic job of managing resources
within the states. However, voice over IP is a national issue.
It's a national service, and there is a requirement in essence
for these state networks to be interconnected.
While simply peering between states is possible, it's not
the best solution. It's not practical.
The fifth one is one that basically comes out of a recent
FCC recommendation in the TFOPA document and it basically calls
for the establishment of a centralized or some centralized
cybersecurity centers.
The unfortunate reality today is that there's a significant
shortage of cybersecurity experts in the United States. There's
also 6,500 PSAPs and managing cybersecurity at the PSAP level
probably is not possible.
And then lastly is to coordinate international 911 efforts
between Canada and Mexico. Today, with the e-911 system we
actually have calls being routed to the wrong country as a
citizen that is close to the border is having lunch on the
other side of the border, makes a call and actually the call
gets routed to the wrong country. That's costing time and,
obviously, in emergency response time is money--or time is
lives.
Yesterday, as was noted earlier, was a big day for
FirstNet. FirstNet, in essence, now that they're going forward,
in essence they appreciate the fact--in fact, we were talking
about it on a panel yesterday--they appreciate the fact that
services that will come to them that will be delivered to first
responders, a lot of that information is going to come from the
citizens.
It will come through NG911. FirstNet is designed to be
voice, video, text. NG911 would be the mechanism to deliver
that.
So it is important that this effort happen.
Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to talk
today and look forward to question.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Magnussen follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Ms. Boyd, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MARY BOYD
Ms. Boyd. Good morning, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Blackburn. Microphone, please.
Ms. Boyd. Oh, thank you. My apologies.
Good morning, Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Doyle, members
of the committee. I am Mary Boyd, vice president of regulatory
policy for West Safety Service.
But I am honored to be here this morning really on behalf
of the Industry Council for Emergency Response Technologies,
often we call ICERT.
ICERT is appreciative of your interest in NG911 and
assisting in the advancing of this technology. I'd also speak
to you this morning from my heart.
I have been in this business 35 years at local state
government levels as well as the private sector but, more
importantly, my household is public safety.
My husband spent his career in law enforcement and our
youngest son, Derry, climbs in an Aerovac helicopter to respond
to rural Texas emergencies. So if we can give them the
technologies that keep them alive as well as the people they're
trying to save, let's partner to get this done.
We have talked this morning about the benefits of Next-Gen
911 but I'd like to just focus on a few of the elements that
could really help public safety do their job a little bit
easier.
The simple fact we talked about text, we take it for
granted that we can text to one another, text to our kids, our
grandchildren's photos. But, unfortunately, very few of our 911
centers in the country have the ability to receive a text to
911 call.
But yet our speech and hearing impaired community rely on
that communication to talk to their families but they also need
to talk to public safety.
We have very few, probably a thousand in the country, of
PSAPs that have deployed that. A Next-Gen infrastructure would
make that much easier to deploy throughout the community.
The technology companies are ready to do that. We just need
the partnership of government. Also, in an era of increased
sensitivity to security, national safety, first lines of
defense, information is critical.
So imagine the ability for a PSAP to receive the photo of a
suspect. I suspect any law enforcement entity in this country
would value that piece of information instead of getting the
verbal description of perhaps they were wearing a t-shirt with
blue jeans and a ball cap.
We have that technology available today to send the photos
in as well as video. Another benefit of Next-Gen on an IP
network is information about the scene.
A helicopter if flying into a rural area in your state in
the middle of the night. It would be wonderful for them to know
whether they were going to hit utility lines.
Are they going to have a fuel storage tank that they're
unaware of? Are your volunteer firefighters responding to the
same?
Next-Gen 911 affords our first responders wonderful
information when it is partnered with FirstNet. Another most
valuable benefit of an IP network is the redundancy,
resiliency, and basically the ability to move networks' voice
and data around.
Today, our 911 centers are tethered with outdated
technology from the '70s. We cannot move voice and data easily.
So if you have an overburdened 911 center with a spike of
call volume or you have a natural disaster--Vermont is a
perfect example with their Next-Gen system. When the hurricane
hit Vermont, they did not lose one 911 call but yet they did
have a PSAP impacted. So they easily changed the traffic to a
backup facility.
But as I said, unfortunately most of our technologies today
are outdated throughout our public safety agencies and they do
pose a risk when we are trying to advance technologies and aid
public safety.
ICERT believes that Congress can take a leadership role in
a consensus legislation that makes NG911 funding and
implementation a national priority and we applaud your efforts
to take this subject on.
We would also encourage you that if you have a much larger
discussion about broadband and funding that you place NG911 at
the core of those discussions.
It is important, as you indicated, that we do recall
Congress played a critical role in our country for the initial
deployment of 911. In fact, some of my systems we updated in
Texas were from the LEAA funds.
So we think it is very appropriate that you look at Next-
Gen 911 funding as indicated by Walt and Trey just for the
capital upfront cost for local--state and local government.
We are not asking Congress to endure the entire cost but we
do know that we have an impediment today because funds are
lacking at the state level to cover the upfront implementation.
So members, we want to thank you for your time this
morning. I know I am running very short and feel like I've just
given you a drink out of a fire hose.
But 911 cannot fall behind. FirstNet and NG911 should be
partnered. We thank this committee for this opportunity. We
look forward to working with you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Boyd follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you so much.
And Mr. Ritter, you are recognized. Five minutes.
STATEMENT OF BARRY RITTER
Mr. Ritter. Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle,
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
be here today. I am honored to share the story of success in
the great state of Indiana. Thank you, Ms. Brooks, for that
kind introduction.
In 1996, the General Assembly created the Wireless Advisory
Board, predecessor to the now statewide 911 board. Established
as a body corporate and politic, it is separate from state
government.
However, the board's powers constitute an essential
government function. This board is chaired by the state
treasurer, a single elected official which we credit for the
success that we have shared in Indiana.
As the state's 911 authority, the board has two primary
responsibilities. The first is to oversee the statewide 911
system that has been and will be deployed across the state.
The second is to administer the funding that supports that
uniform statewide 911 program. Established as a state trust
fund, the funds have a targeted use authorized by statute.
Our funds have never been diverted or raided in the state.
This governance model permitted the board to deploy wireless
911 service and now Next-Gen 911 service on a very aggressive
schedule.
Generation One of the original wireless network began in
2004 and was completed in 2006. This work brought the cost of
wireless 911 under control and began the goal of uniform
service.
Completed in 2010, Generation Two included the build out of
our ESInet and established connectivity to all bordering
counties in Michigan, Ohio and Kentucky.
Those bordering PSAPs now have the ability to transfer
calls and handset location information across state lines. In
2013, as part of the board's strategic plan for Next-Gen
services, the board commissioned a statewide study of the
PSAP's legacy networks and call processing equipment.
The estimated cost to replace the networks and the PSAP
equipment county by county was enormous. The decision was made
to manage the transition to Next-Gen 911 networks as a
statewide project under the authority of the board.
In 2014, the board published their first request seeking
proposals for Next-Gen service compliant with NENA's I3
standard.
In 2015, the board awarded contracts for dual networks. The
new IN911 network will operate as a public-private partnership
with two private vendors.
The dual network design was a cost effective solution and
leveraged efficiencies from two providers. ESInets operate
independently and are responsible for specific service areas.
However, they connect at the core to provide redundant
services. The board also required the primary vendor to deploy
a third tier disaster recovery service. This further ensures
that calls can be delivered statewide anytime.
And finally, the board contracted with a third party
network for monitoring and data analytics. Scheduled for
completion in the fourth quarter of '17 all PSAPs will be
served by the new Next-Gen networks.
Purchased as a service, the board's annual cost will only
be approximately $15 million to serve all 92 counties.
Indiana's statewide 911 program benefits from the efficiencies
provided by modern technologies such as hosted solutions. We
believe that our design and implementation can serve as a model
for other state and/or regional programs.
Our next priority will be to assist local government in
replacing their legacy call processing equipment, some of which
is not capable of processing the many types of emergency calls
that can be generated by the public today.
It is important to understand that funding alone is not
enough to achieve Next-Gen in the U.S. Leadership,
collaboration and cooperation between local, state, and federal
government and between industry partners and industry
associations is a must.
That leadership needs to start here at the federal level.
911 will continue to be a local service but it needs strong
leadership and a spotlight on the methods that are proven to
get results.
Sustainable funding, strategic planning, and advocacy for
non-proprietary standards support Next-Gen initiatives. We
recognize that Next-Gen networks, while separate from FirstNet,
will serve a critical role in the larger public safety
initiative.
Citizens reporting an emergency could improve public safety
using video, pictures, or other data which can be processed and
delivered to the PSAP.
A FirstNet-connected PSAP could then relay the same
information to and receive from first responders' data to
improve public safety.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here and I look forward
to answering any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ritter follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Ritter.Mr. Souder, you are
now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF STEVE SOUDER
Mr. Souder. Madam Chairman, good morning. Members of the
committee, good morning. Thank you again for having me here. It
is my pleasure to be here.
I am pleased to say, I am proud to say that I have been in
911 since the first 911 call was made on February 16th of 1968.
I could replicate by reading my testimony many of the remarks
that my colleagues have made before me. But I am instead, with
your permission, going to speak from my heart.
In the 20 minutes that we have been testifying here, there
have been 5,000 911 calls made in the United States of America.
By the end of this day, there will be 240,000 calls made and by
the end of this year, 87 million calls made.
911 is the most recognized number in the United States. It
is a go-to number every time there is an emergency. It is
predicated upon technology that was developed in the 1960s. If
any of us had an antique car that was built in the 1960s we
would be proud to have a license plate that had adorned to it
antique.
That's exactly what our system is today. It is old, it is
still reliable but it no way is as good as it needs to be. In
my hand and in your pocket we probably have a smart phone.
Residing in that smart phone is computing power greater than
was used to launch Apollo 11 to the moon in 1969, one year
after 911 was deployed.
And yet for all of us here if we had to call 911 from this
room we would simply put 9-1-1 and all we would get would be a
voice connection. We could not in any way utilize this
technology which each of us and each of our citizens across
this nation have to identify where we are, to send photographs
or videos or medical data that is relative to where we are or a
patient's condition.
Yesterday morning at the Commerce Department auditorium I
had the privilege with other public safety professionals to
attend the FirstNet authority's board of directors meeting when
they approved the awarding of an award that will allow the
FirstNet network to be built out.
After that was announced, a number of public safety law
enforcement, fire rescue, EMS chiefs and so forth got up to
speak and each of them said that with this technology they will
be able to in the future provide a higher level of information
and technology to field forces that are responding to an
emergency and that is absolutely true.
But 911 has to stay paced with that and Next Generation 911
gives the 911 community and your citizens the ability to access
and to provide that information in the future.
How much it will cost I do not know. I do know this, that
in 1972 the United States government as a means of promoting
and advocating and encouraging the deployment of basic 911 back
then established, as Mary Boyd said, through the Law
Enforcement Assistance Administration a grant program that
would allow for communities to be funded so that they could
kickstart their initial 911 system.
That was then and this is now, and I would suggest to you
that America's 911 systems need another kickstart, the
kickstart that can start right here in the Congress of the
United States.
To Mr. Walden's comments earlier, I noted with interest his
comment about fee diversion. There is a list of those states
that divert fees.
I know when I get my phone bill and probably when you get
yours there is listed a 911 fee, a charge or a tax. It's called
different things in different communities. But the expectation
is by you, me, and us that that 911 fee or tax is going to go
to funding and improving the 911 systems.
If that money is being diverted for whatever the reason
that is not good and I, like my colleagues, welcome your
remarks in the future and thank you again for the opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Souder follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, sir.
At this time I will recognize myself for 5 minutes for
questions as we begin that part of our hearing.
Mr. Souder, I want to stay with you, if I may. You talk a
little bit about the antique model that we have existed under
and needing to kickstart something to boost the NG911 and in
your testimony you talked a little bit about economy of scale
and the deployment of NG911.
I want you to talk just a moment about that economy of
scale and why you think that is important to the discussion.
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much.
Yes, economy of scale--we all know what is behind that
term. But as it applies to 911 it means this. Currently, there
are 6,800 911 centers in the United States. By and large, each
of them have within their facility equipment that drives the
911 system within that 911 center, if you will.
When we move to Next Generation 911 through various
technologies there is the ability to have those same centers
now simply provide the service but have it hosted by a
computer, a router or whatever the equipment would be that
would be centrally located and really providing the
connectivity and the network to those 911 centers that
ultimately use it.
So if we think smart and go about this in a way that
capitalizes upon the power that we have today with technology,
we can deploy Next Generation 911 in a more cost effective way
and that we won't have to replicate every single piece of
equipment in every PSAP that exists today.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Magnussen, you mentioned cost studies in your testimony
and the FCC did one in 2011. It wasn't comprehensive but I
noted that there was a substantial difference in outcomes
between the estimate based on the current 911 system at the
time and one where there was a consolidation of the PSAPs and
the PSAPs opted for hosted solutions. And I think the dollar
difference was $2.68 billion versus $1.44 billion.
I would love for you to talk for a moment about hosted
solutions, what that means in context and how that will help to
drive the cost lower.
Mr. Magnussen. Consolidation has been a controversial term
in the 911 community for a long time because there's always
been a desire to have the call takers be locally hosted,
locally available.
However, as was just mentioned a second ago by my esteemed
colleague, in essence by putting the technology in a cloud
architecture in that sense you can still do the local call
receiving, local call taking but you're really doing resource
sharing and that is really what it's all about.
The technology is all about--it's the bigger part of the
cost. Keep in mind that most of the costs borne in the PSAPs
actually from the staffing level and the building level is
really done locally anyway. It's not typically out of the funds
that we are talking about that really end up funding 911 here.
So, realistically, being able to provide the local control
of the people and another big difference needs to be understood
in this too and what we are talking about doing cloud services
for the most part these are done in what we call a private
cloud.
It really scares the public safety community when you start
talking about doing it on the internet because of the security
issues and everything else there.
The emergency services' IP networks that we are talking
about are based on the same technology and infrastructure as
the internet but they're not the internet.
It's a private internet connection. So, in essence, we can
still manage the security and reliability but have the benefits
of the resource sharing. That's the whole premise of NG911
Mrs. Blackburn. So you're tying back to what Mr. Souder
said on economies of scale?
Mr. Magnussen. Exactly. Yes.
Mrs. Blackburn. OK. Mr. Forgety, I saw you shaking your
head as if you wanted to add something to the discussion.
Mr. Forgety. So I want to completely agree with and
associate myself with the remarks made both by Mr. Souder and
by Mr. Magnussen. We have evidence already that economies of
scale can tremendously benefit the 911 community.
In the state of Washington they have deployed an existing
sort of e-911 solution but they've moved it into a hosted kind
of fashion where instead of buying 80 or 90 widgets they buy
three of them, put them in secure high-reliability data
centers, connect folks to them with redundant connectivity and
their connectivity costs, even engineering that for redundancy
and so forth, fell by half.
That is a tremendous, tremendous, tremendous savings and a
tremendous benefit to public safety by moving to hosted
systems, shared services, shared databases. These things don't
have to be unique around the country.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you for that.
And in Tennessee we would say that falls in the category if
it ain't broke don't fix it.
Mr. Forgety. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Blackburn. All right. My time has expired.
Mr. Doyle for 5 minutes.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you. My first question is to Ms. Boyd
specifically or also to anyone else on the panel that feels
qualified to answer.
What are the major challenges to integrating emerging
internet of thing technologies into our 911 systems? Do you
think that the current and emerging standards will support the
types of technologies and volumes of data that are being
anticipated?
I know that, for example, technologies like Nest Home
Protect, while the device will notify the consumer of an
accident it's still up to the consumer to call 911.
How do you see this dynamic evolving and do you anticipate
Next-Gen 911 systems being able to accommodate these
technologies?
Ms. Boyd. Yes, sir. Mr. Doyle, the IP infrastructure in a
Next-Gen environment allows the technologies that you've just
mentioned to be able to come into the 911 network or into the
public safety communications center.
Today in that analog world it's very limited just to a
telephone number and an address, basically. When you have a
collision, the crash notification data that can all come in
through the network in secure and also manageable ways so that
the communication centers are not overwhelmed with the amount
of data.
That is the concern you might hear from public safety is
how do I manage all this additional information. It will be
basically parsed and perhaps the street doesn't need that
information right now as first responders but yet it's
available to perhaps investigators that need it later.
So an IP infrastructure really allows in a secure protected
private network environment the transmission of alarm system
information, crash notification data, personal medical
information. Did I answer your question, sir?
Mr. Doyle. Yes. Does anyone else want to add to that? Mr.
Forgety?
Mr. Forgety. I will jump in here just to say that----
Mr. Doyle. Forgety. Sorry.
Mr. Forgety. That's all right. I will jump in just to say
that the internet of things is something that for a long time
has generated a lot of angst in public safety.
We are worried about, do we really want every smoke
detector out there able to call 911, and I think historically
the answer would have been no simply because the only thing it
could do was detect whether two wired had crossed or a beam of
light had been broken or something like that.
Today, though, we are getting to the point where sensors
don't work on a one-off basis. We are getting to the point
where you can have a collection of sensors in a house or an
apartment that notice with high confidence that there's a fire.
If the sprinkler water is flowing, if you see a heat flare,
if there's smoke detectors and so on, you put all those things
together and you can come to the conclusion that yes, there
might really be a fire there.
There is still a lot of work that needs to be done on that
but we absolutely believe that in the future we'll have that
ability to take in IOT alerts like that and process them
intelligently. We have to make sure that we do that so that the
PSAPs are not overwhelmed, as Mary said. We've got to bring in
those new automation tools into public safety as well. NG911
allows us to do that.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
Mr. Ritter--oh, I am sorry. Mr. Souder, did you want to add
to that?
Mr. Souder. Mr. Doyle, thank you.
Two years ago the Federal Communications Commission
established the task force on optimal PSAP--public safety
answering point--architecture. It had nothing to do with brick
and mortar but it had everything to do with the technology
infrastructure that would allow for the very items that you
talk to be accommodated in a Next Generation world.
That task force is comprised of 40 people from the 911
profession and industry representing 800 years of 911
experience, and they produced in December of last year a road
map for all practical purposes--a road map for any elected,
appointed or local official to follow to help in deploying Next
Generation 911 and to consider and accommodate all of the
various points that you made, and thank you for making it.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Souder.
Mr. Ritter, in your testimony you noted that while Next-Gen
911 is separate from FirstNet, the two are somewhat connected
in the larger public safety broadband initiative. I believe
Next-Gen 911 is an essential link in this chain. You have
people who, more often than not, are contacting 911 through a
smart phone and you will have first responders using FirstNet
smart technology on the other end.
The 911 call center is what connects these two pieces
together. Could you elaborate a little bit more on what Indiana
is doing with its FirstNet project and how that fits into your
state's Next-Gen 911 plans?
Mr. Ritter. Yes. Thank you.
The state of Indiana, through their single point of
contact, is led through the Integrated Public Safety Commission
that is responsible for the LMR system across the state and
through that agency I serve on the executive committee as we
have began to do our analysis and the draft of the state plan
that has been submitted for review.
We anticipate that in the future should the Indiana
governor make the decision to opt in or opt out of this
initiative. Our Next Generation system will be in place and
operable for citizens to be able to communicate the
technologies that has been spoken of here today to the PSAP.
We envision then the FirstNet network, or broadband
initiative, to be the tool that delivers the data from the PSAP
to the first responders and in turn what a first responder may
encounter back to the PSAP.
Mrs. Blackburn. All right. Mr. Latta, you're recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you very
to our witnesses for being here today. It's a very important
topic and I would like to start, if I could, Mr. Ritter.
I have five counties that run parallel or I should say are
down the Ohio-Indiana line. I was kind of interested when you
were talking about the counties across the state line with
Indiana, how you're working with them.
Now, how does that work so--for calls coming in and out?
Because, again, just about halfway down the state of Indiana
that I have a border with you all.
Mr. Ritter. Yes. The current vendor who operates the
original wireless network in the state at the request of the
counties not only in Indiana but those in Ohio we are
encountering a large number of transfers from the motoring
public when the call comes from a wireless device and we had no
way to transfer other than voice. And between the PSAP managers
and elected officials in those jurisdictions we agreed to build
our existing network to those individual PSAPs in Ohio that
would provide the telecommunicator the opportunity to not only
transfer the voice in a 911 call but the associated call data
today, the ANI and the ALI, to that adjoining PSAP in the event
that the motorist was to travel into Ohio. And we are limited
to the ability to transfer that specific data today on our
existing network.
Mr. Latta. OK. Now, does the existing or does the county
have to have--years ago I was the county commissioner in Ohio
and we were also responsible for 911 systems and working with
them.
Do they have to have the equipment or how--what else does
an Ohio county have to have?
Mr. Ritter. So they were able to use their existing
equipment through their 911 system service provider and the
connection occurs between our vendor and Indiana and the
service provider in Ohio.
Mr. Latta. OK. Thank you.
If I could ask Mr. Souder a follow-up, when you were
talking in regards to our more antiquated system that we have
out there you said if you have a vehicle back from 1968 being
antique--actually, in Ohio after you hit 25 years you get an
antique plate.
But how do we go forward? Because you were mentioning
especially, again, with if you're out someplace and let's say
there's an accident, can't you triangulate from a cell phone
through an enhanced 911 to that spot today under the existing
system that we have?
Mr. Souder. The existing system that we have today relative
to mobile phones, who, by the way, are the source of about 80
percent of 911 calls received in the United States, in a way it
was one of the greatest things that ever happened to 911--
wireless phones.
But it also had its own drawbacks because now instead of
getting one call reporting a traffic accident on an interstate
now you get a hundred phone calls reporting a traffic accident
on an interstate. But in this case, more is better than less.
But to your point, the cellular tone today integrates very
well into the legacy network. However, and this is a big
however, it does not bring with it the absolute location of
that particular call.
If you were to call 911 from your home wireline phone, if
you had one, there's no doubt about it that the 911 call will
be received with the exact address from which that wireline
went.
But in a wireless world that's not the case at all. At a
previous hearing in this building in this room I tried a 911
call from within this chamber and it identified me as being on
Independence Avenue Southeast.
Not a very good thing if you're having a heart attack, and
that is one of the big drawbacks that goes with wireless 911
calls in a legacy network. Wireless 911 calls in a Next
Generation network will bring to you the absolute location of
that phone.
Today, you might not or maybe would be surprised to hear
that if you were to call a pizza in to Papa John they would
know where you are. But if you were to call 911 they may not
know where you are.
Mr. Latta. OK. Well, it's a very, very important topic and
when I was a commissioner we worked very closely with our
sheriffs because our sheriffs were the ones that run the 911
system in the State of Ohio and, again, as you say, we have an
interstate highway system that runs through our county and my
district and so in order to get those calls it's so important
for our law enforcement and especially our sheriffs because
they are the ones that are running it. But I really appreciate
you all being here and your testimony today. Thank you very
much.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Ms. Eshoo, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you to each
one of the witnesses for the work and the experience of your
life that you bring to us. It's very rich and it is enriching
to us in your testimony.
There are a couple of things that I want to mention that I
am really very, very proud of. John Shimkus was here earlier
but has left. At that time it was called the E-9-1-1 Caucus in
the House and it was also established in the Senate with
Senator Conrad and Conrad Burns and Senator Clinton at that
time.
So we are still the originals around here for that caucus
and proud of it, and we have been able to bring many of the
issues that we are talking about today forward.
I also am proud of the fact that while Congress had dealt
with the recommendations of the 9/11 commission there was one
that Congress had not made good on and that was to establish a
nationwide interoperable public safety network, and I carried
the legislation successfully and it became law.
So now here we are. We have got different parts of
different systems and different technologies and there is
something unsettling to me about it because it's 2017.
And I don't think that we have made the headway that we
should. This is not fault or blame. I would recommend, Madam
Chair, that at some point we have a hearing where we bring in
the NTIA and NHTSA and FirstNet because they are the
implementers of this.
And I think it needs a revving up. I really do.
So having said that, we have 6,800 PSAPs in the country, I
think. I think it is someone's testimony or maybe the committee
memo.
Let me ask, Mr. Souder, how would you characterize the
progress being made over that landscape--the 6,800?
Mr. Souder. Each state and each community within it has the
option as to how they will utilize 911, as we have noted in the
past, and I would suggest to you, looking to the future, that
control of 911 should still be a local effort, whether it be at
the county at the local level.
Ms. Eshoo. Where I come from--I come from county government
so I am very familiar with the operations locally.
Mr. Souder. Right, and it is for them to decide whether or
not they need whatever they have currently, if you will. To
several of our witnesses that commented that you can continue
to have your local 911 center staffed by local people. However,
it can be hosted by technology that is far removed from that.
So you have the dual benefit, if you will, of local
engagement but at the same time an economy of scale by nature
of the way you deploy the hardware.
Ms. Eshoo. I was going to repeat the story of your making
the telephone call from the Rayburn Building. And your call was
answered but you were told by the public safety operator that
your location could not be determined.
Now, this is from a traditional landline multi-line
telephone system. This is not uncommon in our country, and I
think Congress really needs to push hard on location technology
because we comfort ourselves that we have an emergency system
in the country but if the first responders can't find the
person that's experiencing the emergency, really, what kind of
a system is that? What kind of a system is that?
So I think we need to ride hard on that. Mr. Souder, what
would you recommend to us to do about fee diversion?
Mr. Souder. The issue of fee diversion is monitored closely
by the Federal Communications Commission, again, because 911 is
funded locally. It is the decision of local policy makers as to
what to do with that money.
I would only imagine that various statutes that give rise
to the figure of the tax or the surcharge can be interpreted
one way or another at a local level as to whether or not they
really have to divert all of that money into 911 or maybe they
can redivert it into something else.
Clearly, for those states that have that interpreted
flexibility I would ask that they go back and they look at that
with a close eye. We all know the economy that we work in. We
all know how tight funds are. But it's very, very important
that as a taxpayer if you are paying tax for a particular
service that that's in fact where that tax goes.
Ms. Eshoo. Well, what would you do, though? You explained
how it's working.
Mr. Souder. Well----
Mrs. Blackburn. Gentlelady's time has expired.
Mr. Souder. I don't know what I would do but I could make a
couple of suggestions, that to the degree that the Congress in
its wisdom sees fit to establish perhaps a Next Generation
grant program that there could be embedded in that grant
program criteria that would say that if you are eligible for
the grant there are certain things that you have to comply with
or cease to do and if there was current fee diversion going on
you're not eligible for a grant until that is addressed.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Blackburn. Mr. Guthrie, 5 minutes.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Dr. Magnussen, are you familiar with the FCC's 2013 report
to Congress regarding Next-Gen 911? I am sure it was a best
seller--widely read.
Mr. Magnussen. Yes, sir. I am.
Mr. Guthrie. OK. And so according to that report, some of
the participants called for the federal government to establish
certain databases to support Next-Gen 911. Could you briefly
describe those databases and the function they provide?
Mr. Magnussen. OK. Thank you. I appreciate it.
One of them actually is what we refer to in the industry as
a forest guide. The forest guide gets to the point that I was
talking about having a national level database that understands
the interconnection points between the states.
Again, it is really important that within the states they
manage their call routing and everything else. But what is
often the case today is if, for example, you have a visitor
here in Washington, D.C. but their home service is back in
Texas and when that happens actually that call is routed back
to Texas and the Texas service has to understand where that
person is.
So, again, we use the system called the forest guide where
at the local level they try to determine the PSAP to route it
to. If it can't determine at the local level, it goes to a
higher level.
And that higher level then would take it to Washington,
D.C. and say, where is Walt right now, and the call would be
routed appropriately.
The database that understands the relationships between the
states and is able to handle the call processing between the
states is what we call the forest guide and that is something
that currently doesn't exist and, unfortunately, one of the
larger issues is it really doesn't have a home today.
In other words, is it a responsibility of the U.S.
Department of Transportation through NHTSA? Is it OEC? That
hasn't been determined.
Mr. Guthrie. Good. I know that a lot of these reports do
get produced and it's good to have people read them, understand
them and can give expert testimony. So we appreciate the value
of that.
Mr. Ritter, you mentioned FirstNet. FirstNet is an IP
network and we were talking about IP networks when we talk
about Next-Gen 911.
Do you have any thoughts on how these networks should be
integrated and do they have to be integrated?
Mr. Ritter. From Indiana's perspective, I would envision
the integration being at the PSAP level--that our current Next-
Gen network would operate independent from a FirstNet broadband
and the integration is through the workflow in the PSAP to the
first responder.
Mr. Guthrie. To the PSAP? So what is that? Could you
explain that a little bit?
Mr. Ritter. The 911 center.
Mr. Guthrie. OK. The 911 center. OK. Thank you very much.
And Ms. Boyd, and when you get a question prepared--Mr.
Souder almost talked about this but I'd like for you to talk
about it as well--you said you agree with Mr. Ritter. You seem
to agree with Mr. Ritter that a greater federal role is needed.
It seems to me your focus is on the funding side of it and
Mr. Ritter has testified that funding alone is not the answer.
And my question is you agree with that and you state that
you're a strong supporter of local government control but call
for more federal involvement.
And just is funding alone is not the answer and do you
agree? And the second one is how do you reconcile a greater
federal role but keep it local? And then Mr. Souder kind of
talked about that a minute ago but just to reemphasize.
Ms. Boyd. Mr. Guthrie, our company and the members of ICERT
are very large supporters of local control. But what we are
void of right now is a policy authority that would set a date
and a time to actually put our country in the Next-Gen 911
technology.
If you look historically for any deployment of technology,
whether it was the TTY deployments with the Americans with
Disabilities Act, whether it was wireless, whether it was
void--even our state planning, I think Barry would agree.
We had dates that we had to meet. So Congress could be the
policy authority that helps with the initial grant funding and
also sets the expectation as a policy body that we have to
achieve these deployments. So it's multi-faceted and do that
also on a regional and statewide coordinated basis so we can
get the economies of scale and that also works parallel with
FirstNet.
Mr. Guthrie. I understand the local and the coordinating
because as Dr. Magnussen said, if I called 911 now it would go
through and--I don't know.
Somehow it would think I am in Kentucky. That's my local
exchange, and you have to have all these systems work together.
We appreciate this. It's been very informative to me, someone
who's certainly not a expert in this at all.
But it's very informative and I appreciate your testimony.
I yield back 5 seconds.
Ms. Boyd. Thank you, sir.
Mrs. Blackburn. Mr. Pallone, you're recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I understand that FirstNet is on the verge of an historic
announcement of a private partner, and despite a lot of
doubters along the way this announcement is the culmination of
years of work and will begin the next phase of deployment.
Getting us this far toward a nationwide interoperable
public safety network was a signature accomplishment of the
Obama administration.
So, Ms. Boyd, I wanted to ask you how important is the
successful implementation of FirstNet to the transition to
NG911?
Ms. Boyd. Mr. Pallone, in my opinion, coming both from
government and 911 background as well as from the industry
perspective, they are very important and they should be
partnered.
When our citizens call 911, that's coming in from a voice
or could be a text connection. But without integrating into
FirstNet, which is the radio network, our first responders will
not have all that wonderful data that we are able to transmit
through smart devices.
So they need to be planned and integrated together. One
without the other will basically be somewhat ineffective in
terms of maximizing the efficiencies of those technologies.
Does that make sense?
So as Barry had indicated, at the 911 center when you have
voice and data coming in it's the radio network that's actually
getting the information out to the first responders. So through
911 that data would be handed off and integrated into the radio
communications network.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Ms. Boyd. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Pallone. We have also noted how states put a fee on
their citizens' phone bill that says it is for 911 but too many
states, including my own, then use that money for different
purposes and I think that's deceptive and dangerous.
So, Mr. Souder, can you please tell us why diverting 911
fees is so harmful to the lifesaving transition to Next
Generation systems?
Mr. Souder. Anytime a 911 system is dependent upon tax
dollars they are dependent upon all of the tax dollars that
were intended to be received.
When you divert funds from that revenue stream, you
obviously are going to have an impact in one way or another in
the operation of that 911 center whether it's technology,
whether it's administration, whether it's personnel or what it
may be.
So to pinch that revenue stream and reduce it by varying
degrees has a definite correlation to the efficiency of the 911
center and the level of service that they can provide to the
very citizen that paid that tax, expecting that all of it would
go to the center.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Thanks.
I wanted to ask you another question. In your testimony you
indicate that ignoring Next Generation 911 is ``Not an option''
and I agree. I also understand that money alone will not solve
the problem.
But I think adequate funding is the foundation for any
serious conversation about upgrading our systems and that's why
I think passing a national infrastructure bill presents us with
a unique opportunity get this done the right way.
So, Mr. Souder, you mentioned in your testimony ways to
fund the transition by using an NG operational paradigm model.
Can you explain to us what that means?
Mr. Souder. Yes, I would be happy to.
Generally speaking, Next Generation 911 is viewed as a
technology initiative. But the reality is that it is, in my
opinion, a three-pronged initiative.
One, technology for sure, and that has consumed most of
what we've talked about today. But the other two parts of that
are the governance of that and the funding of that. We've
talked a little bit about the funding but very little about the
governance.
So I think it's very important because Next-Gen 911 is
administered locally and should be--you have heard that said
many times--that we use this opportunity to take a fresh look
at the way in which we both fund, the way in which we govern
and the way in which we deploy technology so that the three are
working in harmony with each other for the collective benefit
that they will bring.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you. I want to get one more
question in to Mr. Forgety. Senate Democrats recently unveiled
a bill that could help finally deliver on the promise of Next
Generation 911.
Well, tell me what you think about that bill, if you could.
Mr. Forgety. Congressman, I think there's a lot to like in
the discussion draft that was circulated in the Senate. You
know, we certainly came out strongly supporting that language.
I think there are other things, certainly, that we'd like to
see, you know, in a bill like that as well and we are certainly
willing to work with the committee on that.
One of the things that Chairwoman Blackburn mentioned
earlier was the success of states that have 911 boards, and I
think coming from a Tennessean that speaks particularly
powerfully to me because in my home State in Tennessee our
former 911 director, Lynn Questel, wherever she went she would
tell people, if you want 911 to be successful get people from
the legislature, from the regulators, from the industry, from
public safety professionals, get them together and work on it
collectively and you'll be much more successful. So those are
the kinds of things we think can make the bill even stronger.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, and thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back and Mr. Shimkus,
you are recognized.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Madam Chairman. It's great to have
you all here.
Mr. Forgety, I want to just follow up on Ranking Member
Pallone's question because I don't know the answer on this.
But the question is premised on that some states'
regulations are based upon legacy technologies. Does the Senate
bill address this issue or how do you think that challenge can
be addressed?
Mr. Forgety. The FCC report required by the Middle Class
Rax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, something that report
addressed based on our comments, actually.
In your home state, the counties of southern Illinois--I
think it is a 17-county region--they got together and said we
want to put together a Next Generation 911 networking system.
We want to go out and be first on this issue.
They ran into a regulatory morass. They spent years trying
to figure out how can we do this as counties--how can we go out
and build this thing collectively, because they didn't fit
neatly into the right boxes.
They weren't a telecom. They weren't a phone company and
historically the rules were written so that you had to be a
phone company to do some of these things.
So I think one of the things that we talked about in our
comments to the FCC was that we may need some kind of backstop
in federal regulations that say look, this is new technology
and the old regulations, if they are not done away with at some
point, we've just got to say look, you can petition the FCC or
you can just go and build. But you've got to be able to deploy
these new technologies without these legacy barriers.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much, and I don't want to beat
up on my own state but this does give me the platform to do
that every now and then and I don't think that's bad policy
sometimes.
We are one of the diverting states now. We didn't used to
be. We held firm. But we are such a dysfunctional state,
budgetary wise.
So I think the report says about 5.2 percent transferred to
the general fund. So I am just calling my state out on that.
Mr. Ritter, though, in your testimony, because you're my
neighbor, you mentioned Michigan, Ohio and Kentucky. But,
obviously, you left out interoperability across the state lines
in Illinois.
In fact, I pulled out your Exhibit A and drew this big
circle and that's my district--it abuts all of southwestern
Indiana. Do you want to comment on that? Why are you not
helping Illinois out, I guess, is----
Mr. Ritter. It's not personal, sir. Much to Trey's comment,
when we began to look at Illinois to partner with--as we had
the other states, we hit regulatory issues and there were
limitations that inhibited our ability to build our network on
our dime into your state to provide those critical services.
Mr. Shimkus. I guess that's it. Thank you.
And let me finish up with Dr. Magnussen. If the federal
government were going to be involved even--there is that
debate, right? We've done FirstNet. There is a pot of money. I
think their question is, is there going to be another pot of
money?
Do you have any idea, a ballpark soup to nuts, of how much
to get us to where a lot of people in this sector would like us
to be, what that would be?
Mr. Magnussen. The center that I direct has been working
for several recent months on an interim study.
The interim study basically is what I am going to call a
back of the napkin type study because of the fact that the
challenge we are running into is when you start to look at what
it's going to cost you really need solid data and, again, so
few states have really done this and there is so much variance
in what it would cost from state to state. Coming up with an
accurate number is very difficult.
I would anticipate that probably within about the next
three or four weeks our interim study will be ready. Now, the
interim study is only that.
In essence, right now there is a study being done by the
NG911 office that will be out later on this fall and that will
be the authoritative study.
That one actually has been funded and will in essence
really give a much, much better determination of what those
total costs are.
I have worked with the people that are doing it. They've
got some really, really very good people working on it. They do
have the same challenge we did, though, and that's when you do
a study and you don't have a whole lot of solid data to base it
on it's hard.
Mr. Shimkus. I appreciate it.
Madam Chair, I yield back my time.
Mrs. Blackburn. Ms. Clarke, you're recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member. I
thank our expert witnesses for lending your expertise to this
very important issue for our nation.
This question is for Mr. Magnussen. The 911 call centers by
design are an interconnect point for the public to first
responders. As such, they could be an attractive target for
possible cyberattacks that can have serious repercussions to
the public.
We have already seen current analog systems compromised by
simple cyberattacks such as telephoning denial of service and
radio frequency jamming. Next-Gen 911 will not be immune to
attacks. We must plan for a strong cyberdefense sooner than
later.
And clearly assuring that Next-Gen 911 systems is secure
will save lives. During your testimony this morning, you made a
number of references in this regard.
Have these issues been taken into account when planning
Next Generation 911 systems and is there a need for additional
funding necessary to ensure security is baked into the Next
Generation 911 systems?
Mr. Magnussen. Thank you for the question.
If you look at the architecture that NG911 is based upon,
one of the devices you have at the edge of the network is
called a BCF. It stands for border control function, and in lay
person's terms that's basically a firewall on steroids.
So yes, it is designed into the architecture. Yes, it will
be built in and a BCF is pretty much a required function of
every one of ESInets.
The centralized monitoring facility though that I talked
about a little bit earlier is really kind of a key function
behind that. It's in essence a second layer up, because there
will be a large number of ESInets. Each one of those ESInets
will have one of these border functions.
Unfortunately, hackers are very smart and they seem to have
a lot of time on their hands. So what in essence the problem is
is an attack on one hardened area could easily be moved to
another area.
So the function of the central monitoring facilities would
have a global view and as an attack occurs in essence that
attack would be understood what's going on to help shut things
down but, more importantly, also to make sure that that same
attack is not invoked on the neighboring PSAP.
Ms. Clarke. And so the concern then becomes information
sharing, right? So we witnessed an attack in one part of the
system that there is a mechanism in place so that that
information is shared in real time. Is that also part of what
you envision or part of what is being discussed and planned?
Mr. Magnussen. Exactly, because, again, attacks typically
are almost like a virus. They keep changing themselves to do
what they were intended to do, which is damage, and in essence
you have to stay--it has to be a real time active process.
Ms. Clarke. Did anyone else want to add any comments to
that? Mr. Forgety.
Mr. Forgety. So I appreciate your asking about
cybersecurity because this is something our organization has
been focused on for about the last 2 years very intensely.
Even before that, our standards developers created
something called the NG-SEC, or Next Generation 911 security
standard.
It goes far beyond just firewalls and border control
functions, establishes defense in depth. This is a key point.
Today's telephone network systems are vulnerable to attack. For
a long time we thought they weren't and we acted like they
weren't in the PSAP community and we didn't defend them.
The challenge is we don't have tools to defend them in the
telephone network. People have said well, won't the move to IP
introduce new vulnerabilities, new attack surfaces, and so
forth and the answer to that is yes, of course it will.
But the other thing that it does, the most important thing,
is it gives us tools to fight back. It gives us tools to defend
our networks that in the telephone world we simply don't have
and that's another reason it's so important that we move to
Next Generation 911 soon.
Ms. Clarke. Very well. This question is for Ms. Boyd. In
your testimony you discussed the need for Congress to take a
bipartisan approach to develop legislation to make Next
Generation 911 a national priority.
Can you please elaborate on what this legislation should
look like and how Congress can take the appropriate steps?
Ms. Boyd. Yes, ma'am. Thank you for the question.
If I were going to frame the policy I would establish, one,
the grant system that allows for the upfront non-recurring
capital investment for the areas.
I would also consider that in that you establish planning
time frames and deployment time frames working with the states.
It's always partnered with the states and local government.
But I would also encourage Congress not to just focus
funding the initial up front for areas that haven't deployed. I
think it's only fair that you also look to perhaps Mr. Ritter
in Indiana.
He may have elements that are still needed within his Next
Generation 911 infrastructure that he could use funding and
grant assistance for.
So the policy framework really would be enabling grant
distribution, setting a time frame for deployment and the
expectation that our country is going to be NG911.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Bilirakis, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it. I
want to thank the panel for being here as well today.
I am the former chairman, as is Ms. Brooks as well, of the
Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness Response and
Communications under the Homeland Security Committee. So we
really are interested in this subject.
Mr. Forgety, can you briefly explain the particular
benefits of the Next Generation 911 for the blind, deaf,
visually impaired, hearing impaired that are not currently
available through the analog 911 services?
Mr. Forgety. That's an incredibly important question, Mr.
Bilirakis, and I really appreciate your bringing it up.
In the United States today there are more than 38 million,
I believe, deaf, hard of hearing or speech-impaired
individuals.
Historically, their access to emergency communications was
greatly restricted by limitations of networks and systems. It
was only after the federal government mandated that TTY
technology, the ability to type characters over the telephone
line using analog tones--only after that was required that that
service became available over 911.
The great thing is if you look at the work that our
standards developers did with NG911, they baked those
functionalities in deeply into NG911, support not only for
message-based texts but for real time texts character by
character that has the same conversational flow as a TTY, the
ability to do multi-party video calling so you can have a sign
language interpreter available so that you can do things like
interact with someone who is blind and sort of be their eyes
for them if need be.
All of those things are natively supported in NG911 and
from the standpoint of the PSAP community it makes it far
easier for our members to provide service to these more
vulnerable aspects of our population in the ways that they
communicate already and that's the key thing is we want to make
911 service available to people in the way that they're used to
communicating.
It shouldn't be some rare oddball thing. It should just
happen the way you do it every day and that's very important to
us.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. My district represents a
significantly large population--in the Tampa Bay area--of
seniors, as compared to most congressional districts.
What benefits do the Next Generation 911 provide for our
nation's seniors who are most likely to request emergency call
centers and need emergency services?
Mr. Forgety. So I will point to two things in particular.
Contrary to some media characterizations, senior Americans are
some of the fastest technology adopters.
They actually end up using video calling and text messaging
just as quickly as the average teenagers do and love the
technology.
I mean, you know, video calling with your grandmother is
now, you know, a common everyday thing. So these technologies
will benefit seniors.
The other thing that was mentioned before is the internet
of things. We are seeing a phenomenal growth in new wearable
technologies that principally focus on health and security. I
mean, these are things that Americans care about and that our
innovators are building products for.
As that happens, as more of those things come online and as
we get used to them in the 911 community, I think there is
going to come a point where because the standards allow for it
we are going to start to see alerts coming in from those things
so that we can respond and so that we can know, for example--
and this is a big NG911 feature--if a consumer wants to make
health data available when they call 911, something like hey, I
am a diabetic, hey, I am a hemophiliac, I have a heart
condition, whatever that is, they can do that securely through
a trusted third party.
They don't have to share their data with the government up
front and that makes it much easier for responders in the field
to provide good service.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. Anyone else want to respond to
this subject matter, whether it's disabled in general, senior
population, what have you? Anyone else want to----
Ms. Boyd. Could I just----
Mr. Bilirakis. Yes. Please go ahead. Yes.
Ms. Boyd. I think another benefit as we do have an aging
population and want to live at home, right, added to the
medical information that they can personalize and send to 911
and the first responders is also the ability to notify a third
party if they wanted to.
So you say, my parents, if they were living, they dial 911,
I could know they had called and they could set that up in pre-
plan.
So, once again, the Next Generation technology affords so
much added benefit and data.
Mr. Bilirakis. Is that technology available currently?
Ms. Boyd. Yes, sir. It is.
Mr. Bilirakis. Oh, great. Sorry to interrupt.
Ms. Boyd. No, no, no. That's fine.
Mr. Bilirakis. Keep going.
Ms. Boyd. So as Trey had indicated, it's the ability if you
choose to share the information with first responders we can
arm them as they're en route to know that I have medical
emergencies or that I have a third party to be notified and
that would help them as they are also trying to find loved ones
and notify them. Thank you.
Mr. Bilirakis. Absolutely. Anyone else?
Yes, please.
Mr. Souder. I did. Thank you. Health care is changing in
the United States of America, legislation aside. There are
technologies presently available and on the horizon that will
allow and mandate that health care of the future is as
different in the future as 911 will be different in the future.
It is incredibly important that as that technology
advances, for all segments of our population that they can take
full advantage of that technology when they need to call 911.
Whether it's body-worn technology, whether it's pre-entered
profile technology, whether it's medication technology,
whatever it may be but the next generation of 911 when deployed
will be able to communicate that both to the first responders
that we spoke about earlier through the FirstNet network but
also to the hospital staff so that when a patient arrives at
the hospital there are many things about that patient that will
already be known by the attending people in the ER. Very, very
important.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. Thank you very much.
I yield back, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Blackburn. Gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Long for 5 minutes.
Mr. Long. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Boyd, your testimony mentions the benefits of Next
Generation 911 including providing increased reliability and
resilience of the network, particularly in times of emergency
and high use, and I know that in my district that when we had a
tornado that killed 161 people in a town of 50,000, right.
After I had been here for 5 months I know how important the
911 is and you explained how Next Generation 911 could provide
such increased reliability and resilience.
Ms. Boyd. Yes, sir. In an IP advanced architecture
different than what we have today with the legacy analog,
today's networks are very tethered. That's the best way to
explain them. They are fixed. They are not dynamic and they
don't move.
So in a Next-Gen world, in an IP world, we regionally plan
or statewide plan in Missouri for Next-Gen. If you have another
unfortunate event, as the tornado, that impacted PSAP, one, has
its neighboring communities that can help back it up both from
call volume or if you had to abandon that PSAP, that 911
center.
They can already have pre-planned backup from your
neighboring counties. You have redundancies in these IP
networks that do make them more resilient but at the same time
they also add that flexibility.
Mr. Long. OK. Thank you.
And also another question for you.
Ms. Boyd. Yes, sir.
Mr. Long. Your testimony mentions the dangers of
technological obsolescence of the current 911 network, which
often rely on 1970s technology and, yes, I remember the '70s.
You mentioned that--you mentioned that these data
technologies pose significant public safety risks due to higher
maintenance costs, system malfunctions and outages and
increased cybersecurity vulnerability.
Focussing on the cybersecurity, can you explain how Next
Generation 911 technology is less vulnerable to cybersecurity
attacks than the legacy 911 network?
Ms. Boyd. Yes, sir.
In a Next Generation environment, it's also vulnerable but
the difference is, once again, the intelligence. It's either
putting cybersecurity detection devices at the edge of those
new IP networks or it's also with the work Steve Souder and I
did with the FCC TFOPA work we actually have a full report that
we published this past December that speaks to cybersecurity
for public safety and the risk and we make a recommendation to
introduce an added element not only just for 911 purposes but
also for general public safety systems where they can have the
added protection, detection, aversion, and also the
notification feature.
Oftentimes, I think, as Mr. Forgety mentioned, our public
safety agencies don't know they're even in an attack today.
Those companies that do networks for 911 we have cyber elements
and we monitor and detect that they can actually infiltrate the
PSAPs themselves. And so in an IP world we can actually
strengthen that ability to hopefully divert those attacks on
the systems.
Mr. Long. OK. Thank you.
And Mr. Forgety, my next question is for you. The Middle
Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act required a report on the
legal and regulatory framework surrounding Next Generation 911.
Do you agree with that report's recommendations?
Mr. Forgety. And that's been some time ago so I can't
recall all of the recommendations yet.
Mr. Long. Four years, I think.
Mr. Forgety. But I do recall that quite a few of the
recommendations actually in that report followed comments that
we had provided to the FCC and we certainly support everything
that we said then just as much as we did then. It's all very
important.
We need comprehensive liability protection for not just
network providers but also originating service providers. That
was something we mentioned in there.
If you want folks like Apple and Google and Facebook to get
in and 911-enable their services, they've got to have the same
assurances and, frankly, at a national level that telecom
carriers and the wireline and wireless world get at a state
level. That's very important.
As Walt mentioned earlier, you've got to have things like a
national forest guide, an ability to credential PSAPs with a
cryptographic certificate authority.
There are things like that that the FCC took our
recommendations on, reported those to Congress. We agree with
all of that.
Mr. Long. Do you think the 911 coordination office needs to
submit the cost study required by the Middle Class Tax Relief
and Jobs Creation Act in order for Congress to adequately
evaluate the needs to be done to complete the transition to
Next Generation 911?
Mr. Forgety. That's a hard question, Congressman.
I always think it's better to have a report in hand when
you're going to do something. However, the clock is ticking.
Every day, every week, every month that we wait to get this
process started the costs for local and state governments are
going up and the outcomes for consumers and field responders
are going down.
That is an untenable state of affairs and it's one that we
need to fix. So while I always want that if I can get it, I am
not willing to say we should just wait continuously.
Mr. Long. OK. Thank you.
Before I yield back, Madam Chairwoman, I have a couple of
articles I'd like to submit for the record--update to 911
issues in Dallas and mobile not at fault for ghost 911 calls.
Mrs. Blackburn. So ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Ms. Brooks, the leader of our NG911 efforts, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Brooks. And thank you, Madam Chair, and as we have
heard from my colleague from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis, we have
been involved in, as chairs of subcommittees in Homeland
Security on emergency preparedness response and communications.
So we have both been involved as have a number of folks on
the subcommittee and these issues because it's so very
critically important and I look forward to working with each of
you in the future as we continue to explore these issues. I
want to thank all of you for coming in.
I want to, of course, ask Mr. Ritter and I want to applaud
your leadership in Indiana, and we have prioritized emergency
communications in a big way in our state whether it's from not
diverting funds out of our trust fund, which I realize now is a
much bigger deal than maybe I fully appreciated, having a
statewide 911 board that's overseeing rapid deployment.
But you also mentioned public-private partnerships and you
were the only one that mentioned public-private partnerships.
You described that as our approach in Indiana do you
believe that we've saved money by pursuing Next-Gen 911 in this
deployment model and whether--what other advantages do you
believe it brings? And then I would be curious in hearing from
other experts here what their thoughts are on the public-
private partnership model. Mr. Ritter.
Mr. Ritter. Yes, thank you.
You know, when I came to this job seven years ago I was a
staff of one, and the--to the wisdom of the general assembly
when they created the wireless board they chose to pursue a
version then of the public-private partnership.
My colleagues around the country, there were varying models
of state-run networks operated within state agencies. However,
we chose, in Indiana, to maintain the course in this public-
private partnership and that we did not have the infrastructure
build in our own state for a public safety grade network to
move 911 to.
We knew that that would be cost prohibitive to start a new
initiative to build and therefore we chose to leverage the
economy of scale, the expertise and technology, if you will,
from the private sector to provide to us a design as to what
they could build and provide to meet the needs of our citizens
in the state.
Ms. Brooks. How many partners would you say you have in
the system?
Mr. Ritter. The two primary vendors that will be providing
networks are at the top of that list. However, their
requirements to connect with other systems service providers in
the state add to that count as well as the vendors who operate
the equipment inside of the PSAPs.
So as we build this network the list of those partners
continues to grow.
Ms. Brooks. And have you discussed this model, and I am
curious from your other colleagues across the country--is this
a model? Have we saved money in part because of this? Found
efficiencies and relied, I would guess, on the expertise from
the private sector?
Mr. Ritter. I'd like to say that yes, we have saved money.
When the general assembly asked me how much it was going to
cost to build these networks in Indiana my answer was, I have
no idea--trust me.
And it came out at the end of the day that we estimate that
it will cost us, from the state's perspective for the networks
right in the area of $15 million.
Now, this process required one of the vendors to build a
network in the state and to participate. Their cost to build
that network is not a number that they have shared. But I am
sure that it was quite extensive from a private investment for
that company to build and the state's going to reap the cost
savings of that.
Ms. Brooks. Would anyone else like to comment on whether or
not states and other areas have contemplated this? Mr. Souder.
Mr. Souder. Thank you for that very insightful question.
As I attended the FirstNet board meeting yesterday at which
they announced approval to go ahead with the contract with a
private-public partnership, it really struck me as being an
excellent way in which the deployment of Next Generation 911
could be looked at as well.
We are going to need a new network. In our world, we call
it an ESInet--an emergency services integrated internet
network.
The ESInet will not be telephone poles and wires between
them nor manholes in the street. It will be in the cloud, if
you will.
There is no need at all for any 911 center to build its own
ESInet. There are ways in which they can avail themselves of
the private sector to deploy that ESInet.
So I think that there are a lot of opportunities that exist
as we look to deployment as to how we do that, and I go back
again in the most cost effective way possible.
Ms. Brooks. Thank you, and thank you all for your
expertise.
Mr. Magnussen. And if I could add to that too, the State of
Texas is doing the same type of thing in that we have selected
vendors to work with us and partner in that.
Rarely is it ever going to be a state employee that's
actually going to be running the switches and managing it.
There will be a vendor or service provider backing us.
Ms. Brooks. Thank you all. I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Kinzinger for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you all
for being here with us today. We really appreciate it.
Mr. Souder, as you said earlier, one of the most important
components of a successful response to a 911 call is knowing
the location of the emergency.
Responders need to know, for instance, that we are in this
room if it's called. You made that clear last time. Do you
agree that a quicker response times are a benefit of Next-Gen
911 and can you describe how Next-Gen 911 can help with
location, accuracy and mapping for first responders?
Mr. Souder. Thank you, and unquestionably.
There are appropriate standards within the 911 world as to
how quickly a 911 call is answered and once answered how
quickly a unit that needs to be dispatched is dispatched.
In an ideal world, if the information that was provided
initially through networks provided the exact location of the
caller it would save a huge amount of time. The reality is that
on a typical 911 call in my former position took about 40
seconds of a one-minute time frame in which to get the dispatch
achieved, 40 seconds to ensure that you had the right address.
That doesn't leave a whole lot of time for triaging the
call taker about the emergency being reported. So yes, in the
Next Generation world there will be a very, very large decrease
in the amount of time to verify and confirm the address from
which the call was coming and consequently how quickly units
can be dispatched to that call.
Mr. Kinzinger. And you also indicated that the cost of
Next-Gen 911 depends on each deployment, and I read that
statement to imply that some states might wind up with
deployments that are better than others.
Given the network architecture underlying Next-Gen 911,
would that undermine the deployment of Next-Gen 911 nationally?
Mr. Souder. I do not believe so. I think that all of us at
this table have said repeatedly that 911 should be a local
issue, whether local at the state, county, or local level.
But it's very important that these principal fundamental
guidelines that are already established through the task force
on PSAP architecture are followed because they are designed in
a way to give options and alternatives to the way in which Next
Generation 911 is deployed, allowing for differences that exist
in different communities.
Mr. Kinzinger. Mr. Magnussen, do you have any thoughts on
that?
Mr. Magnussen. Yes, I do. The location accuracy isn't
necessarily a complete 911 issue. The problem is that our
location information depends heavily today upon network
equipment and satellite location and, unfortunately, in-
building location is a real problem.
There are efforts going on right now within NIST and within
the FCC and a number of organizations to try to figure out a
better technological way of increasing or improving in-building
location accuracy without breaking the bank because,
unfortunately, a lot of the solutions that are out there today
would be exorbitantly expensive and would not be able to be--
would not be implemented.
So while this is somewhat a policy and a funding issue,
there are also some very significant technical hurdles and,
quite frankly, if we could find a perfect in-building location
solution that was somewhere between next to nothing and free,
we would have done it. But I don't think that solution exists.
Mr. Kinzinger. Keep searching.
Mr. Forgety, we have heard that a central authority of some
type at the state level is critical to accomplishing the
transition in an efficient and timely manner.
Ms. Boyd suggested in her testimony that the local
government should be in control. This dichotomy reminds me of
some of the discussions around FirstNet.
What are your observations regarding this? And from what I
had gathered anecdotally, the single point of contact model at
FirstNet seems to be working pretty efficiently.
Mr. Forgety. So having known Mary for a long time, I think
I would say that there is no air between us on this issue. We
agree that local control is very important. State coordination
is equally important.
I am a member of FirstNet's PSAP and I can tell you from
first-hand experience that the single point of contact model
has worked extraordinarily well.
It has been a feature of FirstNet's design that allowed
states to move forward with this process in a coordinated
fashion.
I think you have heard everyone sitting here today say that
doing things in a shared hosted coordinated environment is far
better for us than trying to go out and build 6,800 unique
snowflake systems. That just isn't going to work. That's not
the modern way.
So we absolutely at NENA believe, and I don't think we'll
get too much disagreement from anybody else here, that that
model is quite effective.
Mr. Kinzinger. OK. Well, thank you.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. Gentleman yields back.
Mr. Johnson, 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Dr. Magnussen, we have been talking about the transition to
Next-Gen 911 and I want to dig in a little bit more into the
transition and how that occurs.
I assume there isn't a flash cut. Could you explain what
the transition means in terms of the legacy networks that we
are now leaving and how that factors into the costs of the
transition in the short and the long term?
Mr. Magnussen. Yes. Thank you for the question.
And the transition within a local entity really has got
four major steps that we had identified in the study that we
did in 2014, again.
First one is really setting up the organizational
structure, making sure that somebody has responsibility for
seeing it from beginning to end.
Second one is transitioning existing databases to NG
databases because they are fundamentally different and in
essence the format, and it sounds simple but there's
complications in the way we currently read names and streets
and things like that.
And the third one is really to go ahead and actually create
the state or local ESInets, and then the fourth one is to
convert the local call centers.
As you said, that's not going to be a flash cut. We are not
going to suddenly wake up next Friday morning and say the state
of Texas has transitioned over.
During that transition period one of the really
complicating issues is the fact that we have to have these
things called legacy gateways. So if a call originates in this
call center and it's NG but it needs to be transferred to this
call center and it's legacy, how do I do that transition?
That's where a lot of the cost complications are going to
come in but it's almost like you're translating two different
languages and you got to make sure that you don't really screw
up the translation because that, again, is where you start
running into problems. So----
Mr. Johnson. Yes. I am just curious. Do we have companies
that are building a bridge? I am a software engineer by trade
and so when we implement large software systems we sometimes
have to have legacy interfaces from legacy systems to the new
systems during the transition period. So do we have
capabilities built in now to bridge the current 911 systems to
the Next-Gen systems so that you can make that crossover
transition?
Mr. Magnussen. Yes, sir. Not only do we have companies that
are building them but they're also defined into the
architecture.
One of them is called an LNG, a legacy network gateway. The
other one is an LSRG, a legacy selective router gateway. So one
is NG to legacy. The other one is legacy to NG.
So both of those architectures--both of those transitions
are defined and they--there are several companies that are
building them.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Great.
Ms. Boyd, your testimony mentions the dangers of
technological obsolescence of the current 911 network, which
often relies on 1970s technologies.
You mentioned that these dated technologies pose
significant public safety risk due to higher maintenance costs,
system malfunctions, outages and increased cybersecurity
vulnerability.
Focussing in on the cybersecurity aspects, can you explain
how Next-Gen 911 technology is less vulnerable to cybersecurity
attack than legacy 911 networks are?
Ms. Boyd. Yes, sir. Not that IP networks aren't
vulnerable--I'd like to clarify that--I think the difference is
when you have an intelligent IP network you have the ability to
introduce cybersecurity elements.
That exists today in companies that provide 911 network
services. They do a lot of good work to detect and divert.
However, the public safety agencies themselves don't have those
technologies.
Recent work that Mr. Souder and I did with the FCC on the
TFOPA report published we have a full section on cybersecurity
and the recommendations on what we do in a Next Generation
network to ensure that our PSAPs are secure.
Mr. Johnson. OK. All right.
Mr. Forgety, military installations--the people, their
families on bases throughout the United States--rely on their
smart phones in many cases just like ordinary citizens do.
Do you know if the transition to Next-Gen 911 capabilities
is underway on military bases and should it be?
Mr. Forgety. As a matter of fact, Congressman, it is. In
fact, our organization is working very closely with the
Pentagon to make sure that as they do roll out NG911 they are
not only looking at the technological aspects of it but also
the operational pieces of it.
For the longest time the telecommunicators and dispatchers
in the military context--the military does operate PSAPs just
like civilian jurisdictions do. They have not had standards for
training and call answering and so forth. We are working with
them to fix that.
Mr. Johnson. Great. Madam Chair, I was a communication
squadron and deputy commander in the Air Force and I can tell
you that our military folks will be very concerned about this
transition and that it's done right.
Mrs. Blackburn. I agree with you on that, and I recognize
Mr. Flores for 5 minutes.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to thank the
witnesses for joining us today, and Dr. Magnussen, I am sorry I
wasn't here to formally introduce you. We had an Energy
Subcommittee hearing at exactly the same time.
But that said, I do appreciate all the great work that you
do at the Internet 2 Technology Center at Texas A&M and also
applaud the work you've done with public safety LTE and the
roll out of Next-Gen 911.
Continuing with Dr. Magnussen, one of the things you
discussed in your testimony is the need for a national layer to
interconnect state NG911 networks. Can you explain the national
background and what it brings to the transition?
Mr. Magnussen. Yes, sir. And the question, basically, I
think we have addressed already part of it was the fact that we
really need a method for the state to be able to interconnect
and transfer information from state to state.
But another large, large benefit of having a national
backbone or a national interconnection point is things like
FirstNet--are they going to really connect at every PSAP or are
they going to connect in every region or are they going to
connect at three or four places across the state.
Some of our large companies such as our large service
providers typically have got five or six major call centers
across the U.S. So if we have to basically require for them to
connect in every single state which, quite frankly, in an IP
world makes no sense, right, so if we can really go ahead and
have a system that can aggregate some of those connections
it'll be more effective for 911, actually be more effective--
cost effective for the vendors as well and it also could serve
basically as the--we were talking a little bit earlier about
the shared services--the private cloud type concept--because,
again, if I am going to have my services out in the cloud if
that cloud is protected and that cloud is basically designed
under the same types of premises that that Ms. Boyd was talking
about, then in essence I have a higher level of confidence in
it. If it's across a commodity internet you're going to have a
hard time selling that one to public safety.
Mr. Flores. Right. Right.
One of the things I noticed in the research prior to this
hearing is that there are certain state laws and tariffs and
regulations that are inhibiting or actually I'd say
inadvertently inhibiting the migration to an IP-enabled 911.
Do you have an example of that and more importantly than an
example, what would you recommend that Congress consider doing
to try to help the states alleviate those impediments?
Mr. Magnussen. And, again, some of my colleagues can speak
to that as well. But one example, again, in the case of
Illinois was an issue where the state regulations required that
911 services be purchased under a tariff.
Well, in an era where telephone companies are deregulating,
tariffs are going away. So it's things like that that, in
essence, trying to check that block just don't work.
Mr. Flores. Right. In your testimony, you talked about the
missed routing that can occur when you're calling from close to
the border on either side of the border. How will NG911 help to
alleviate this problem where the calls are misrouted to the
wrong country?
Mr. Magnussen. The current system actually is based on a
concept where for wireless calls I route on the location of the
tower and that's initially how the--how the call routing is
performed.
So the scenario is this. I am a U.S. citizen and I am on a
cell plan with the U.S. telephone company. I cross over the
border to go ahead and have lunch. Let's say I am going into
Canada. When I make that call, since--if I am right on the
border my call could actually still be homed to a U.S. tower.
That call actually could very easily and would in fact be
routed to a 911 call center, let's say, for example, in upstate
New York.
Well, if I am sitting in Canada there is nothing the call
center in upstate New York can really do to resolve that issue.
So what they are doing right now is what they call a blind
transfer where I just dial the 10-digit number of the call
center on the other side of the border, and that's the thing
that Mr. Ritter was saying that we are trying to eliminate in
the state crossings.
Well, that's prevalent across the Mexico and Canadian
systems as well. Obviously, Canada has implemented 911 and
Mexico recently had another number. Mexico recently had
actually adopted 911 as their national number as well. So the
dialing sequence is the same but, unfortunately, the networks
are not interconnected.
Mr. Flores. Right. Right.
And lastly, in your testimony you talked about the need for
better interstate connectivity. We know, obviously, why the
connectivity is needed.
Now that we have got cloud technology it makes it fairly
simple. Well, I am oversimplifying simple. But that said, I
have run out of time. So I would ask you to supplementally
answer, if you can, what actions Congress should take to help
facilitate that interstate connectivity.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. Gentleman yields back.
Mr. Costello is batting cleanup and you are recognized.
Mr. Costello. Thank you.
A couple observations and then Mr. Magnussen, I have a
question for you. I previously served as a county commissioner
and in a very populated high-growth county in southeastern
Pennsylvania where it seemed every year we got a little bit
less from the state 911 fund because more counties are getting
in the game of providing their own 911 call centers rather than
going to a regional approach, and that's because the state
essentially enables counties to do what they'd like with it.
I always felt that you should have some sort of population
threshold in order to have your own 911 center or some sort of
formula because to a point that was made earlier there is just
so much duplication that it becomes very frustrating because in
high need counties that do need to operate their own call
centers there is less revenue in order to draw from.
The other observation that I had is Pennsylvania is not one
of the states that does not use their 911 money for what it
should be used for. I think I saw there's five or six states.
And I am just having a little bit of difficulty. I will
just put this into the record. In a county you have a county
controller. At least in Pennsylvania it's referred to that. I
am sure in other states it's referred by another title. It's an
elected position.
And you have to sign off and verify that the funds are
being utilized for a lawful purpose. If it's at the state level
I presume it would be a comptroller or auditor general or
something to that effect.
So I am having a little bit of difficulty how 911 funds are
used for something other than 911 purposes. I think that we
should all scrutinize that a little bit closer because
somewhere along the way I think somebody is signing a check
that they are not allowed to sign.
In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the PSAP inventory
report from 2016 identified challenges to regionality. In some
counties there are frequent interstate mutual aid
considerations across borders in New York, New Jersey, where I
am in south Jersey, which is part of New Jersey, but if you're
from New Jersey obviously I think there's a north Jersey and
south Jersey--Delaware and also northern Maryland.
The report also noted that many of the design and
deployment phases for regional projects involve a sizeable time
investment which burdens the available administrative staff
from each PSAP.
Mr. Magnussen, I noticed your testimony also focused on
collaborative interstate connectivity layers in order to
alleviate 911 technology operation and policy issues such as
the Midwest's interstate play book.
One, could this be a model used for other areas of the
country, specifically in the crowded northeast corridor where
my district is, and two, can you please further explain how
this interstate layer--where interstate layers ties into
national level service providers?
Mr. Magnussen. OK. The collaborative effort that the states
have done in the play book makes a lot of sense for what they
are doing today because in fact there is no national
interconnectivity system to really be able to manage that.
So what they are really doing is doing a peering
relationship with bordering states. Two problems with that.
Voice over IP is not based on bordering states.
Voice over IP, I could very well be talking to a company
that has a call center in California even though I am sitting
in Texas. So the bordering state concept really starts to fall
apart there.
But more importantly, we run into a network and we call it
the N+1 problem. So everybody that gets those routes needs to
propagate the routes across everybody else.
With four states you can do that. With five states it
becomes more difficult. With 50 states it becomes impossible
because you're having to constantly update all of your
information independently and that model is just not scalable
and that is just across the United States. Keep in mind this
architecture is really designed to go globally.
So while it would be next to impossible in the U.S., you
are not going to do it across the entire globe.
But there is also--and as far as the global efforts--we
have the honor over the last 3 years of being involved with the
CAUSE experiment. CAUSE stands for U.S. Canada Resilience
Experiment and it involves DHS, SNT and the Canadian DRDC.
So it involves homeland security of both countries and what
we do there is actually an experiment where we build networks
and then we look at cross border issues.
CAUSE 5 is scheduled for November of this year and it will
have a significant NG911 component to it because, again, we
need to better understand how U.S. and Canada are going to be
able to work together in an NG911 environment.
Mr. Costello. Thank you. Yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
That concludes our hearing as we have no further members
who want to ask questions of our witnesses. And Mr. Doyle and I
were just sitting here having a conversation based on the
comments that you have made for us today.
You have been excellent. We look forward to working with
you as we continue to move forward and look at how we achieve
those economies of scale, how we utilize the ability to build
on work that has been done so that we deploy a little bit
faster. And I want to thank you all for being with us today.
I would remind members you have 10 days to submit
additional questions for the panel and I have no doubt there
will be some. And I would ask that each of you please respond
in writing within 10 days of receipt of those questions.
And there being no further business to come before the
committee today, we stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]