[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF FIRSTNET: STATE PERSPECTIVES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 1, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-71
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
27-974 WASHINGTON : 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
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
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee GENE GREEN, Texas
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey DORIS O. MATSUI, California
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky KATHY CASTOR, Florida
PETE OLSON, Texas JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia JERRY McNERNEY, California
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois PETER WELCH, Vermont
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida PAUL TONKO, New York
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
BILLY LONG, Missouri DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
BILL FLORES, Texas JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana Massachusetts
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma TONY CARDENAS, California
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina RAUL RUIZ, California
CHRIS COLLINS, New York SCOTT H. PETERS, California
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
TIM WALBERG, Michigan
MIMI WALTERS, California
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
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
Witnesses
Michael Poth, CEO, First Responder Network Authority............. 6
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Answers to submitted questions............................... 92
Christopher Sambar, Senior Vice President, AT&T.................. 16
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Answers to submitted questions............................... 105
John T. Stevens, Statewide Interoperability Coordinator, State of
New Hampshire.................................................. 28
Prepared statement........................................... 30
Answers to submitted questions............................... 117
Brian J. Moran, Secretary of Public Safety and Homeland Security,
State of Virginia.............................................. 32
Prepared statement........................................... 34
Answers to submitted questions...............................
Robert Legrande, II, Founder, The Digital Decision............... 43
Prepared statement........................................... 45
Answers to submitted questions............................... 123
Submitted Material
Statement of Verizon, submitted by Mr. Doyle..................... 78
Letter of October 23, 2017, from Governor Sununu of New Hampshire
to fellow governors............................................ 82
Executive order of Governor Sununu............................... 84
Statement of the Competitive Carriers Association................ 86
Statement of the International Association of Fire Chiefs........ 88
OVERSIGHT OF FIRSTNET: STATE PERSPECTIVES
----------
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2017
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:40 a.m., in
room 2322 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Marsha Blackburn
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Blackburn, Lance, Shimkus,
Guthrie, Kinzinger, Bilirakis, Johnson, Long, Flores, Brooks,
Collins, Cramer, Walters, Costello, Doyle, Clarke, Loebsack,
Eshoo, Engel, Matsui, McNerney, and Pallone (ex officio).
Staff present: Ray Baum, Staff Director; Kelly Collins,
Staff Assistant; Zachary Dareshori, Staff Assistant; Sean
Farrell, Professional Staff Member, Communications and
Technology; Chuck Flint, Policy Coordinator, Communications and
Technology; Adam Fromm, Director of Outreach and Coalitions;
Elena Hernandez, Press Secretary; Tim Kurth, Senior
Professional Staff, Communications and Technology; Lauren
McCarty, Counsel, Communications and Technology; Alex Miller,
Video Production Aide and Press Assistant; Evan Viau,
Legislative Clerk, Communications and Technology; David
Goldman, Minority Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology;
Jerry Leverich, Minority Counsel; Jourdan Lewis, Minority Staff
Assistant; Lori Maarbjerg, Minority FCC Detailee; Jessica
Martinez, Minority Outreach and Member Services Coordinator;
and Dan Miller, Minority Policy Analyst.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Mrs. Blackburn [presiding]. The Subcommittee on
Communications and Technology will now come to order.
I recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
I want to welcome everyone to this, as we continue our
committee's oversight of FirstNet, the authority charged with
deploying a nationwide interoperable broadband public safety
network. The First Responder Network Authority was an important
fixture of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of
2012.
There is a lot of work that has been done by this committee
and others, and it has gone into reviewing the recommendations
from the 9/11 Commission on how to better prepare our first
responders in times of crisis. Interoperability has long been a
challenge for our state and local authorities. In the wake of
the recent natural disasters and, of course, the terror attack
that took place in New York City just yesterday, we have
realized how incredibly important that it is that not only we
do this, but that we get this right. There is no room for error
when you are facing a disaster and need these communications.
I thank the witnesses for appearing today.
Mike Poth is the CEO of FirstNet. He now has both the
privilege and the pressure of this huge undertaking. We know
that it is going to be successful, and we look forward to
making certain that the implementation is smooth and that the
continuation is one of success.
Chris Sambar is a Senior VP at AT&T, and his company is the
winner of FirstNet's RFP to gain access to 20 megahertz of the
700-megahertz spectrum.
Our friends from the states include John Stevens, who is
the New Hampshire Statewide Interoperability Coordinator, and
Brian Moran, who is the Virginia Secretary of Public Safety and
Homeland Security. Their unique perspective of what states are
thinking will illuminate how to avoid a top-down approach that
could lead to failure.
Rob LeGrande consults now, but was the CTO for Washington,
D.C., in building out a public safety broadband network. I am
sure that he is going to be able to help us sort out issues
that the states and localities face, and perhaps can even give
us a little bit of a more granular view on how to address
challenges that are in our rural and tribal areas, and how we
work to calculate their decisions.
As you all know, this past September, FirstNet delivered
its network plans to the combined states and territories. Part
of what brings us here today is the December 28th deadline from
that notice for those states and territories to elect whether
they will accept the plan. Under the statute, states are
permitted to opt into their respective state plan or opt out of
the FirstNet network and build and maintain radio access
networks, or RANs, from other providers, but still meet
interoperability requirements set by the FCC.
I think it is also worth pointing out that, while AT&T will
build the FirstNet RAN in opt-in states or territories at no
cost to each jurisdiction, public safety entities will still be
responsible for paying subscription cost and end-user device
expenses. And they are not required to subscribe to the
FirstNet service. We must ensure that choice remains a
paramount principle as the states and territories proceed with
their decisonmaking and their implementation.
While there has been some debate on schedules and fees,
subscriber levels, device availability, and whether the network
will be able to deliver mission-critical-level services, I know
the panel today can help us sort through all of these issues to
further reaching this goal.
At this time, I would yield the balance of my time to Mr.
Lance.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Blackburn follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Marsha Blackburn
Welcome to the committee's continuing oversight of
FirstNet, the authority charged with deploying a nationwide,
interoperable broadband public safety network. The First
Responder Network Authority was an important fixture of the
Middle-Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. A lot of
work at this committee went into reviewing the recommendations
from the 9/11 commission on how to better prepare our first
responders in times of crisis. Interoperability has long been a
challenge for our state and local authorities, and in the wake
of the recent natural disasters they have faced, its importance
is as clear as ever.
I thank the witnesses for appearing today. Mike Poth is the
CEO of FirstNet. He now has both the privilege and the pressure
on this huge undertaking being a success, but I can assure
folks in this room we intend to be part of its successful
implementation. Chris Sambar is a senior vice president at
AT&T, and his company is the winner of FirstNet's RFP to gain
access to 20 MHz of the 700 MHz spectrum. Our friends from the
states include--John Stevens, who is the New Hampshire
Statewide Interoperability Coordinator, and Brian Moran, who is
the Virginia Secretary of Public Safety and Homeland Security.
Their unique perspective of what states are thinking will
illuminate how to avoid a top down approach that could lead to
failure. Rob LeGrande consults now, but was the CTO for
Washington, DC in building out a public safety broadband
network. I'm sure he can help us sort out issues states and
localities face, and perhaps can even be a bit more granular to
address challenges those in rural and tribal areas have to
calculate in their decisions.
As you all know, this past September, FirstNet delivered
its network plans to 53 states and territories. Part of what
brings us here today is the December 28th deadline from that
notice for those states and territories to elect whether they
will accept the plan. Under the statute, States are permitted
to opt-in to their respective State Plan, or opt-out of the
FirstNet network and build and maintain radio access networks,
also referred to as RAN, from other providers but still meet
interoperability requirements set by the FCC. I think it's also
worth pointing out that while AT&T will build the FirstNet RAN
in ``opt-in'' states or territories at no cost to each
jurisdiction, public safety entities will still be responsible
for paying subscription costs and end-user device expenses, and
they are not required to subscribe to the FirstNet service. We
must ensure that choice remains a paramount principle as the
states and territories proceed with their decision-making and
implementation.
While there has been some debate on schedules of fees,
subscriber levels, device availability, and whether the network
will be able to deliver mission critical level services, I know
the panel today can help us sort through all the issues to
further everyone's goal of making this a transparent and
successful process.
Mr. Lance. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Before I begin, let me say that our prayers are with the
victims of the terrorist attack in New York yesterday, the
worst loss of life in such an attack since 9/11.
Our 9/11 first responders from all over the tri-state area
responded to the unprecedented attack on the World Trade
Center. Several issues with their communications system,
including interoperability and resiliency, hindered the
coordination of these fine public agencies. The equipment and
networks used by the various departments that responded from
all over the area, including New Jersey, were in many cases
incompatible. These issues were recognized by the 9/11
Commission.
As New Jersey was one of the first states to opt into
FirstNet, I am interested in learning how our state and others
can work with AT&T and the providers to prevent future
challenges with interoperability and public safety agencies, as
well as improving the resiliency and security of our public
safety networks.
Thank you for being here today to discuss this important
topic.
I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
At this time, Mr. Doyle, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for holding
this hearing, and thank you to the witnesses for appearing
before us today.
FirstNet and the National Public Safety Broadband Network
have come a long way and made great progress in the 5 years
since the program was established. FirstNet has designated its
partner in AT&T. States have received their buildout plans, and
25 states and two territories have already opted to accept
FirstNet's plans. By the end of the year, all states will have
to decide whether to opt in or opt out of the FirstNet plans.
I am pleased with the progress that FirstNet and AT&T have
made, and I hope this program continues to perform well as more
states opt in and the buildout of FirstNet begins in earnest.
Now I know a lot of hay has been made recently about the
opt-out process and the costs for states to choose that route.
States looking into opting out seem overwhelmed by the
potential punitive cost and the risk they take on in building
and managing their own network. Companies seeking to get states
to opt out see this as a barrier to their entry into this
market and a stumbling block to meaningfully engaging with
states.
To my mind, the cost and risks placed on the states for
opting out are steep because building and maintaining these
networks is a hard and risky endeavor. Without access to tens
of billions of dollars necessary to build out a dedicated
network of their own, states that opt out need to gamble on a
private partner's ability to leverage private capital, utilize
a relatively small amount of shared spectrum, and undertake the
buildup of a hardened multibillion dollar communication
network. And they need to do all of this in a timeframe that is
competitive with FirstNet, using technologies and systems that
are fully interoperable.
To my mind, the monetary risk is so great because this is a
hard problem and the likelihood of failure is high. More to the
point, the risk to the public at large and first responders is
high if a state fails to meet its obligations. If building this
network wasn't hard, Congress wouldn't have needed to create
FirstNet; first responders wouldn't have died on 9/11 because
of communication failures, and the 9/11 Commission would not
have recommended the creation of a national interoperable
public safety communications system.
Building this network and deploying the service is a
serious challenge and we need serious solutions. States are
free to make their own choices, but they need to understand and
accept the risks. It is something I would encourage governors
contemplating an opt-out to strongly consider.
I have also seen reports of competitors seeking to sign up
individual first responders complaining about the requirements
of creating interoperable services with FirstNet. Let me say, I
am strong believer in the value of competition, but I also
believe that, if other providers want to offer services to
first responders, they need to be fully interoperable. Lower-
cost services and devices can't fix the problem first
responders face if they are not interoperable. We are still
seeing this issue today in Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, and the wildfires that affected the areas of
the West Coast.
Americans are lucky and grateful that so many people
volunteer to help when disaster strikes, and first responders
come from far and wide to help. What we need to do is ensure
that they have access to the best available interoperable
technologies. If a competitor can provide that, great. If they
can't and they are putting equipment in people's hands that
isn't interoperable, that is liable to create a problem rather
than solve one.
I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses and the
discussion here today.
With that, Madam Chair, if there is no one on my side that
would like my time, I will yield what I have left to Mr.
McNerney.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the ranking member for
yielding.
The recent wildfires in my home State of California shed
light on the critical role of our nation's first responders and
the need for first responders to be effectively communicating
and receiving information during these emergencies. It is
essential that we have a resilient and redundant interoperable
broadband network, so that our first responders are equipped to
carry out their duties during natural disasters.
But it is also important that this network be secure and
able to withstand attacks from the various actors. We cannot
afford for cybersecurity to be an afterthought in these
scenarios because the consequences could be fatal.
I look forward to the hearing and learning about FirstNet,
what FirstNet is doing and the progress that it has made so
far.
And I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
Madam Chair, I would like to introduce for the record an
op-ed by Montgomery County's chief of police entitled, ``For
police, first responder communications network is much needed
good news''.
And also, I would like to introduce the written testimony
submitted by Verizon.
Mrs. Blackburn. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mrs. Blackburn. And as we permit this, I would just like to
say I noticed that there are several first responders in the
audience today, and we recognize your presence and we thank you
ever so much for your service. You are, indeed, on the
frontlines.
Chairman Walden is not here. Does anyone on the Republican
side seek his time?
[No response.]
No one is seeking that time. Ranking Member Pallone is not
here. Anyone else seeking time?
[No response.]
No one else is seeking time. Everybody has got a sugar coma
going on, I know. Yes, too much of that candy.
[Laughter.]
And we do thank all of our witnesses for being here today.
We are grateful for your preparation, for your opening
statements that were submitted in a timely manner, for your
insights into what is before us.
As you can see, this is something where there is bipartisan
agreement. Doing our due diligence in conducting oversight is
important. So, we welcome each of you.
I previously recognized you. Michael Poth, who is the CEO
of FirstNet; Chris Sambar, who is the Senior VP at AT&T for
FirstNet Business Solutions, Global Public Sector; Rick Kaplan,
who is the General Counsel and Executive VP of the National
Association of Broadcasters. John Stevens is the Statewide
Interoperability Coordinator for the state of New Hampshire,
and Robert LeGrande, who is the former CTO of Washington, D.C.,
now a consultant.
Again, we appreciate that you are here. We will begin our
panel. Mr. Poth, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF MICHAEL POTH, CEO, FIRST RESPONDER NETWORK
AUTHORITY; CHRISTOPHER SAMBAR, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, AT&T;
JOHN T. STEVENS, STATEWIDE INTEROPERABILITY COORDINATOR, STATE
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE; BRIAN J. MORAN, SECRETARY OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND HOMELAND SECURITY, STATE OF VIRGINIA; AND ROBERT LEGRANDE,
II, FOUNDER, THE DIGITAL DECISION
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL POTH
Mr. Poth. Great. Thank you, Chairman Blackburn, Ranking
Member Doyle, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for
inviting me to testify today.
I am Mike Poth, the Chief Executive Officer of FirstNet,
and I am pleased to be here to provide an update and progress
on this important initiative for our nation's first responders.
FirstNet is committed and accountable to this committee and
Congress, but, first and foremost, to public safety. And it is
the mission of serving public safety that drives my team toward
exceeding the goals that you set out for us when you
established FirstNet.
I, too, would also like to thank the members of public
safety who are in attendance today. We really appreciate their
focus and commitment.
We have faced an enormous task in developing this system
over the past few years. Nothing like this has ever been done
before, but thanks to the support of Chairman Walden, Ranking
Member Pallone, and all of you here today, we are closer than
ever to providing public safety what they have long asked for,
a dedicated network that will save lives.
We have spent the better part of 3 years consulting with
our partners in the states and territories and tribal nations
to ensure that we have gathered the needs of local first
responders. This is a very complex technical, operational, and
logistical effort to meet the needs and expectations of public
safety.
Since our contract signing that Chairman Blackburn attended
a little over 7 months ago, significant progress has been made.
I am happy to report that AT&T has met or exceeded all of its
required deliverables. There is a clear line of sight and plan
for a successful implementation in the coming years, depending
on the final determinations of the remaining states completing
their due diligence on their options.
We have now established a binding contractual mechanism to
ensure the successful buildout in the 56 states and territories
of a nationwide public safety broadband network and the
financial sustainability to support this effort for the next 25
years.
It is important to note that we are holding AT&T
accountable while ensuring that we support their efforts. Their
success is critical in order for this to work. If they fail,
then we have to go back to the drawing board.
It is important to remember and give context that, through
this contract, AT&T is already contractually obligated to build
out the system in the 56 states and territories to the plan
that has been submitted to each of those states. This includes
spectrum lease payments, adoption targets, disincentive and
termination fees, if they fail to meet the terms of the
contract. Only in those states that decide to pursue building
their own radio access network is that obligation lifted from
AT&T. FirstNet, along with our board of directors, the
Departments of Commerce, Justice, Homeland Security, and the
Office of Management and Budget continue to work alongside AT&T
to ensure that they meet all the contractual requirements.
Over the last 3 years, FirstNet has gone to great measures
to make sure that all the states and governors fully understand
the opportunities, risks, and challenges to opting out. It is
important to note, however, that FirstNet will do everything
possible to make sure that an opt-out is successful. This
process is involved, as failure, as has been previously
mentioned, at the national, state, or local levels is not an
option for our first responders.
We have delivered the final plans to the states and
territories. Twenty-eight governors have approved and opted in,
and another state will actually be announcing its opt-in choice
this afternoon. This is truly an exciting time while the
remaining 27 governors have 58 days left to make their final
determination to either accept the FirstNet/AT&T's solution or
assume the risks associated with opt-out.
It is, again, important to note that FirstNet has been open
and transparent in every step, ensuring that everyone who is
involved in this process has as much information as possible.
We built in new steps as needed that allowed the states and the
business communities to step up and become true partners.
Ultimately, each state and governor have all the information
possible to make an informed decision.
The public and first responders need us to be successful.
Lives will depend on this network. This is the standard against
which we will be measured. When you look at the recent storms
that brought devastation to Texas, Florida, and Puerto Rico,
and the inconceivable tragedies that took place in Las Vegas
and now New York, communications are a vital part of any
response and recovery.
We are proud of what we have achieved thus far, but we also
know that we have a long way to go to deliver to public safety
what it truly needs and deserves. This has never been done
before. And FirstNet will continue to work with each state and
territory to get it right for them and for public safety.
Thank you again, and I look forward to answering your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Poth follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Sambar, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER SAMBAR
Mr. Sambar. Thank you.
Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, members of the
committee, I am Chris Sambar, AT&T Senior Vice President. I am
responsible for AT&T's fulfillment of the FirstNet project, a
special opportunity for AT&T and its dedicated employees to
demonstrate their continued commitment spanning two centuries
to public service and public safety.
I am proud to affirm to this committee that AT&T is on
track to deliver on its commitments and has, in fact, met the
first set of milestones identified in the FirstNet contract, as
Mr. Poth mentioned. We have also launched the FirstNet
application ecosystem, including an application store for
America's first responders, as well as the first ever developer
program geared specifically for first responders.
And now, again, as Mr. Poth mentioned, we have over half of
the states and territories having made the decision to opt into
FirstNet. AT&T is delivering on the promise of a dedicated
interoperable network that will give first responders in those
states and territories the technology they need to effectively
communicate and collaborate across agencies and jurisdictions.
Before FirstNet, first responders frequently lacked the
ability to communicate with each other and to coordinate
incident response activities across agencies and jurisdictions.
Relying on over 10,000 radio networks as well as the same
commercial networks that Americans used today, first responders
have been hampered by a lack of interoperability and network
congestion during times of significant emergency.
The recent unprecedented sequence of natural disasters and
public safety incidents over the past couple of months have
reinforced the wisdom of the widespread bipartisan consensus of
Congress in 2012 to establish the First Responder Network
Authority, FirstNet, as an independent authority within NTIA,
to provide emergency responders with the first nationwide high-
speed broadband network dedicated to public safety.
AT&T is honored to have been chosen to build and manage the
FirstNet network. We committed to spend about $40 billion over
the life of the FirstNet contract to build, operate, and
maintain the network. AT&T also committed to connect the first
responder network to our best-in-class telecommunications
network, valued at over $180 billion, with a wireless network
reaching 99.6 percent of the U.S. population.
Moreover, AT&T submitted a plan that ensures that local
commanders in opt-in states can adjust the access in times of
emergencies to the services, featuring priority and preemption,
allowing others such as bus drivers during pre-storm evacuation
or medical personnel after the storm has passed to have access
to the same services in time of need. Priority access means
just that. In times of network congestion, our first responders
will have communications precedent for primary users, be able
to preempt other users off of the AT&T and FirstNet network.
In earning the FirstNet contract, AT&T demonstrated its
particular competencies with respect to world-class national
disaster recovery. The national disaster recovery team at AT&T
recently demonstrated its value in preparation for and during
the aftermath of the devastating hurricanes that recently hit
Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and, most
recently, the California wildfires.
We helped, and are continuing to help, restore
communications in these areas by deploying an array of
equipment, including portable cell sites, cell on light
trucks--we call those COLTs--generators, charging stations,
evacuee centers, and emergency communications vehicles. We used
ships and chartered cargo flights to deliver this equipment to
our NDR personnel in Puerto Rico. In northern California we
were able to move mobile restoration assets in quickly and
place them in areas where fire had destroyed our communications
equipment and where first responders needed them most.
In the meantime, there are significant and immediate
benefits to states that opt into the FirstNet network. Opting
in eliminates long-term risks associated with funding,
building, and for the next 25 years maintaining a network that
interoperates with the FirstNet network. Public safety entities
in states or territories that opt in can purchase, at
competitive rates, service with key features such as quality of
service, priority access, and preemption. Notably, preemption
over the AT&T LTE network for primary users is expected by this
year's end.
In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that Congress
intended for FirstNet to provide the public safety community
with what it demanded for years, a single interoperable public
safety network. That network that AT&T is building for opt-in
states and territories brings security, priority, and
preemption.
And I look forward to answering any questions you have
today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sambar follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Stevens, you are recognized, 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOHN T. STEVENS
Mr. Stevens. Madam Chair, good morning. Members of the
committee, good morning. I certainly appreciate the opportunity
to speak here today.
Let me preface my remarks by saying that there is no
greater advocate for FirstNet than the State of New Hampshire.
As a former state police commanding officer, what often would
keep me up at night was knowing that troopers, police officers,
firefighters, and EMS personnel were in the field in some areas
with little or no communications. So, when I came back to state
service approximately 10 years later, many of the
interoperability communications issues still existed. In my
first conversations with FirstNet, approximately about 3 1A\1/
2\ years ago, New Hampshire was going to receive a
significantly small footprint. As one of the last
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, FirstNet was created
and Congress appropriated $6.5 billion to build a nationwide
network, a nationwide, dedicated first responder network, not a
national network.
Even though FirstNet was under an edict to develop in rural
areas, we recognized early on that there would be many areas of
the country that would be underserved. Having the opportunity
to see FirstNet maps that illustrated limited coverage, and
looking at New Hampshire maps, that certainly the northern part
of the state was not being addressed, we looked at possible
other opportunities.
Knowing the information and being familiar with FirstNet
advertised timelines of 90 days for a governor to make a
decision, and 180 days to develop an RFP, award an RFP, and
create an alternative plan that would need to be submitted for
approval, the timeline that was provided was unrealistic and
unattainable for New Hampshire and probably many other states.
With that in mind, the State of New Hampshire, through the
Statewide Interoperability Executive Committee and its Data
Communications Working Group, began to develop an RFP in July
of 2015. That, in and of itself, turned the industry upside
down. Industry people were taking every opportunity to dismiss
New Hampshire and its intentions for putting the RFP on the
street in December of 2015.
On September 7th, 2016, the governor and council awarded a
no-cost, no-obligation contract to Rivada Networks. Why?
Because the proposal that was submitted was so intriguing that
it could not be ignored. From September 2016 to September 2017,
the State of New Hampshire along with Rivada Networks developed
an alternative state plan that was delivered to Governor Sununu
on or about the same date as the FirstNet/AT&T state plan was
delivered. Today we are the only state in the country that has
an alternative plan in place.
I mentioned early in my testimony that there was no greater
advocate than New Hampshire because it is an officer safety
issue and it means increased capability to provide services to
our citizens and visitors. So, it is unclear to us why
FirstNet, NTIA, and now AT&T, would wish to make the reality of
an opt-out decision so onerous and difficult.
At the beginning of last month, October 2017, New Hampshire
SEIC made a unanimous recommendation to opt out. Why? Because
the alternative plan was far superior to the FirstNet/AT&T plan
that was delivered in regards to coverage and price. We are
operating in good faith and we understand that there are
regulatory permissions that need to be reached. However, based
on what we know and what we have been dealing with, we feel
threatened by policy and procedure, not by law. We will not
allow this opportunity to fail, and we have every confidence in
the proposed network that is being proposed.
Was that the intent of the law that created FirstNet or was
the intent to provide to the first responder an unprecedented
opportunity to communicate in the most difficult of situations?
It is unfortunate, from our perspective, that in some ways
FirstNet seems to have lost its intended mission.
When we first looked at this, we looked at this as a win/
win situation. New Hampshire would secure an investor to build
the infrastructure at no cost to FirstNet, where FirstNet could
invest the $6.5 billion elsewhere, and then, New Hampshire
would enter a fair and reasonable leasing agreement with
FirstNet for the utilization of 20 megahertz of 700 spectrum.
We have done our due diligence. In regards to due
diligence, I would be remiss in my responsibilities if, in
fact, we did not go down this road to try to create an
alternative plan.
FirstNet demands our transparency, but fails to be
transparent themselves. AT&T says it wants to work with the
state, but says it will only negotiate pricing when the state
opts in. NTIA says that it may take up to 2 years to approve an
alternative plan.
I applaud Governor Sununu and all the work that has been
accomplished in New Hampshire, which has also provided
direction for many states who are weighing in on their options.
When the scales seem to be tipped, when pressure is enhanced,
and when there are unprecedented obstacles, which can all be
seen as threatening states to opt in, we believe it is worthy
of review.
In conclusion, New Hampshire has done its due diligence,
and our only mission is to make FirstNet successful in New
Hampshire.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stevens follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you.
Mr. Moran, 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF BRIAN J. MORAN
Mr. Moran. Well, good morning, Madam Chairman Blackburn,
Ranking Member Doyle, members of the subcommittee. On behalf of
Governor Terry McAuliffe, I would like to thank you for this
opportunity to discuss FirstNet and our mutual desire to equip
our first responders with the interoperable communication
capabilities necessary to respond to all hazards.
Governor McAuliffe is proud that Virginia was the first
state in the nation to opt into FirstNet. Virginia decided to
opt in in July after a thorough review in order to provide
public safety subscribers with the benefits of priority service
at no cost to the Commonwealth and to proceed with the buildout
of Virginia's portion of the National Public Safety Broadband
Network. We also viewed the decision to opt in as a way to
promote competition within the public safety communications
marketplace in order to reduce costs and drive innovation for
public safety agencies.
The option to opt out was thoroughly reviewed through in-
depth engagement with our public safety stakeholders across the
Commonwealth. But the unknown costs of network construction,
maintenance, and operation were neither feasible nor determined
to be in the best interest of Virginia.
Virginia has long been a leader in the field of public
safety interoperable emergency communications. Our success is
based on a belief that first responders and emergency
communications experts should lead the effort to identify
solutions, as they are the ones who best understand the unique
threats we face and the resources needed to respond.
I am joined here today by local public safety professionals
from Virginia who have been instrumental in promoting
interoperability and guiding our decision to opt in. Fire Chief
Richard Bowers from Fairfax County is leading the effort to
leverage the benefits from our decision to opt in, and I know
Loudoun Chief Brower and others from Arlington County are here
as well.
Fairfax Fire now has interoperability between their public
safety radio system and broadband with a push-to-talk
application. When Fairfax Fire deployed to Houston to support
Hurricane Harvey response efforts, they were able to utilize
priority service.
Terry Hall from York County serves as the Chair of the
Statewide Interoperability Executive Committee. Through the
SIEC, they have facilitated a collaborative multidiscipline
process to engage our local governments.
Virginia's unique geography, critical infrastructure, and
emerging threats require the Commonwealth's public safety
community to be prepared for a wide range of threats. Since the
attacks at the Pentagon on 9/11, the goal has been, and still
is today, to ensure continued interoperable communication among
our first responders.
We saw the importance of this this past June when
Representative Scalise and his colleagues were victims of a
horrible violent attack in an Alexandria ballpark. Again, in
August, our Commonwealth was attacked when a large
demonstration of white supremacists and neo-Nazis and
counterprotesters descended on the city of Charlottesville for
a rally that resulted in the death of Heather Heyer and two
state police troopers.
It is tragic situations like these that highlight the
importance of equipping our first responders with the tools
they need to save lives. We believe that our decision to opt in
creates the opportunity to realize the ultimate goal of
creating a dedicated, safe, secure, and reliable network for
public safety in the least risky manner.
Moving forward, we will continue to work collaboratively
with FirstNet and AT&T to maximize the benefits of the network
for the Commonwealth's public safety community. Essential to
this collaborative effort is ensuring adequate coverage and
reliability, especially in rural areas. We must ensure FirstNet
and AT&T prioritize mission-critical voice and enhanced
location capabilities in order to protect our men and women in
uniform.
As more states determine their best way forward, I know
that the public safety community will continue to provide
feedback to Congress, FirstNet, and AT&T. Virginia's decision
to opt in marked another significant step forward as we advance
interoperable emergency communications and public safety, and
we look forward to the work ahead.
Thank you again, and I look forward to answering your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moran follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. LeGrande, 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT LEGRANDE, II
Mr. LeGrande. Good morning, Chairman Blackburn, Ranking
Member Doyle, and members of the subcommittee.
My name is Robert LeGrande, and I am the former Chief
Technology Officer with the District of Columbia government. I
am a former program executive for the National Capital Region's
Interoperability Program. In this role, I led the District's
Land Mobile Ready upgrade and, also, led the development of the
nation's first citywide 700-megahertz wireless broadband
network for first responders. This network was considered a
model for the nation and served as a testbed how broadband
applications can be shared among public safety agencies.
I left the D.C. Government in 2007 and formed The Digital
Decision. My firm leverages lessons learned from the District,
the Land Mobile Ready, as well as the 700-megahertz wireless
broadband deployments, to help states, locals, and even
commercial customers prepare to deploy public safety broadband
communication networks.
I appreciate the committee's ongoing efforts to address
this critical issue, and I thank you for the opportunity to
present my views on FirstNet. It is important to remember that
FirstNet was created to address the communications problems
that have plagued public safety for many years, especially the
lack of interoperability, which we have spoken about so many
times already, among our first responders.
Along with my public safety colleagues, I believe that a
dedicated public safety broadband network was what was needed
to address the public safety requirements. In discussions with
this subcommittee prior to the legislation being passed, I
referenced my previous experience when working with a Seawolf
Class nuclear attack submarine. No one would disagree that the
Navy and our fleet is America's first line of defense. By the
same token, no one should disagree that our first responders
are our last line of defense, including their communication
systems.
Now, we would never consider a U.S. Navy and a Carnival
Cruise Line partnership in order to cover the operating cost of
a nuclear attack submarine. So, why would we rely on anything
less than a fully-funded dedicated public safety broadband
network for our first responders? Well, of course, that was not
possible, given the limitations of the available funding. That
would have been $50 billion or more. But Congress was able to
provide FirstNet, and they did a good job of putting this
together, with the spectrum and funding to support the
development of a public safety broadband network and establish
provisions to encourage the private sector involvement.
Now, while many public safety officials, including myself,
fought for a true dedicated public safety broadband network,
what we actually got from FirstNet is access to AT&T's network
with public safety features and functions along with it. Now,
while that may have been necessary, and it was, given the
limitation of funding, it also means that we must look at this
network and its competitive options for states to make sure
that they have viable means to opt out from this commercial
offering, because it is truly a commercial offering.
Now, unfortunately, I do not believe, as Mr. Stevens had
mentioned earlier, that the opt-out requirements established
under FirstNet adequately preserve the states' rights to make
their own decisions and consider competitive options for the
network providers. This is especially troubling, given that
half the FirstNet spectrum came from state and local
governments. That sacrifice in spectrum makes state and local
governments investors in FirstNet.
At a minimum, states should have the same ability as
FirstNet to develop a public-private partnership. States should
be able to choose their preferred network provider and use that
provider's core to serve its public safety users as long as
that network core complies with industry standards and is
interoperable with AT&T's network. If states are required to
use a network core provided by AT&T, then that means that AT&T
must provide service to their public safety users.
This is not the kind of opt-out provision that public
safety had in mind. States should not be subjected to stricter
limitations or harsher penalties or fees than AT&T. Competition
is the reason why the United States has the most advanced
commercial LTE networks in the world, and competition must
continue to ensure public safety benefits from the tremendous
innovation and advances in communications. If there is one
thing that the public safety communications industry needs, it
is competition at every level.
FirstNet decided that a public safety broadband network, a
dedicated one was not achievable, but, instead, chose a
commercial solution. FirstNet should, therefore, ensure that
this approach is implemented on several key principles.
First, it should support vibrant and fair competition. It
should include open and nonproprietary devices and applications
that are available to all providers. It should ensure that
interoperability for all networks--I'm sorry, let me say that
again. It must ensure interoperability for all networks that
satisfy a minimum public safety standard. It should create
incentives, not penalties but incentives, for private sector
involvement that encourages broader industry support, and it
should ensure a level playing field for the states' opt-out
process.
With that, I really appreciate the committee's time, and I
look forward to answering the questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. LeGrande follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back. That concludes
all of our opening statements, and we are going to move to the
question-and-answer portion.
For all of our colleagues that are here today, Mr. Doyle
and I have discussed how we want to stay right to that 5-minute
questioning. And if you get to the end of your 5 minutes and
you have got a question, if you will submit it for a written
response, that will help us to be mindful of everyone's time
and finish the hearing prior to votes being called.
So, I recognize myself for 5 minutes for questioning.
Mr. Sambar, I want to come to you first. Cybersecurity and
cybersecurity measures are something we continue to talk about
here in this committee. So, as you are looking at this network
and the buildouts and the integration, do you all have a strong
cybersecurity plan? What type of encryptions or firewalls do
you have that will prevent some malicious cyberattacks?
Mr. Sambar. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate the question.
I will start with Mr. LeGrande's point that he just made on
interoperable cores. I think that feeds right into your
question.
Part of this is a nationwide interoperable network. Part of
the strength in that nationwide interoperable network is
reducing what I call seams or vulnerabilities as much as
possible. When you try to have cores interoperating and force
interoperability between cores, you introduce seams. That is
why the interpretation of the law that was passed, the RFP that
was issued, and the FirstNet Authority, as I have said publicly
recently, core-to-core interoperability is not something that
they are interested in because they don't want to introduce
those vulnerabilities. So, that is really the first step in
cybersecurity.
Next, beyond that, we are building a separate public safety
core. So, to say that this is going to be traffic on our
commercial core is not correct. From a technical standpoint, we
are building a separate interoperable public safety core
network, which means all of the traffic for first responders
that flows across this network will be on that core, not on our
commercial core. So, that is the next level of security. That
core network will be encrypted from end to end, and we have
designed that encryption, at the direction of the FirstNet
Authority, to comply with various state and federal
requirements.
And then, the last piece of this--well, there is actually
another one. I could probably go on for 10 minutes, but I want
to----
Mrs. Blackburn. No, I have only got 5. That is OK.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Sambar. I understand. So, I will respect your time.
The next piece is the device itself in the first
responder's hand. So, we do self-certification on all of our
devices, but the FirstNet Authority has a lab in Boulder,
Colorado, where they will also be certifying the devices.
Then, the applications on the device, oftentimes
vulnerabilities are introduced to a device through the
applications on a device. That is why we have set up a public
safety app store specifically for public safety--you have to
authenticate to get into this app store; it is not open to the
public--where we can validate the security and functionality of
those applications.
And then, the last piece of this, the Security Operations
Center. So, AT&T operates a Global Security Operations Center.
We are standing up a separate Security Operations Center,
roughly 100 people that will do nothing but 24 hours a day, 7
days a week, 365 days a year, monitor the traffic on this core
network, the first responder traffic.
So, as you can see, multiple steps that we are taking to
ensure cybersecurity is job 1 on this network.
Mrs. Blackburn. OK. Mr. Stevens, I want to come to you and
Mr. Moran.
There are several of us on this panel that have rural
areas, and I am sure Mr. Loebsack is going to talk to you about
some of this. And when we look at the expectation of buildout
schedules, you talked a little bit about the timeline on the
RFP end. So, on the expectation of the buildout schedule for
these rural and remote areas, as you are reviewing proposals,
do you think that we should be confident they are going to be
able to make these schedules? Should we be apprehensive? Should
we change how we are reviewing and monitoring some of this
ourselves? What do you think the expectation is here? And is
FirstNet being helpful to the process or not?
Mr. Stevens. The State of New Hampshire certainly is a
rural state and it is divided by a number of different
sections. The southern part of New Hampshire is considered
really metropolitan Boston. We have a major rural area in the
western part of the state and in the northern part of the
state.
When we originally looked at the maps that were being
provided by FirstNet early on in the process, much of the
northern part of the state was ruled out as far as development
was concerned. In fact, FirstNet said to us at that point in
time that primarily they would be looking at building out from
Manchester and Nashua, which are the two largest cities in New
Hampshire.
Now, since that time, we have had a number of meetings in
regards to buildout and price. I will have to say that the
meetings that we had with AT&T and FirstNet were extremely
constructive, and we felt that the buildout was much larger
than we had originally sought from the original plans. However,
what we were able to ascertain from our alternative plan was
the alternative plan was providing for us statewide coverage
from the northern part of New Hampshire to the southern tip and
east to west.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you.
Mr. Poth, I am going to submit a question for the record
for you on NTIA. I want to get some answers there.
Mrs. Blackburn. And, Mr. LeGrande, I will submit one to you
having to do with your work as state and local authorities. We
have got a couple of points there.
The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
Mr. Moran, you look like you are a much younger, better-
looking version of former Congressman Jim Moran. Are you
related to him?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Moran. I am not sure. Will you accept my comments based
on my answer?
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Blackburn. We could tell by your voice the minute you
started to talk.
Mr. Doyle. Welcome. Tell Jim we say hello.
Mr. Moran. Will do.
Mr. Doyle. Mr. Poth, if a state opts out and contracts with
a third party and the network fails or fails to meet its
obligations, what are the risks and what are the obligations to
FirstNet and other states?
Mr. Poth. That is a great question, and thank you for that.
As you point out, if a state that has opted out at any path
along the way of that 25-year period is unable to continue
because of the contractor, or for whatever reason, we are going
to instantly start working with that state to try to minimize
the impacts to that state and, most importantly, to public
safety in that state, to reconstitute the network and try to
move it forward.
As you mentioned in your opening statement, this is a very
complicated network with a lot of moving parts. And if a state
that opts out--and we are fully supportive of that--has those
problems, then we are going to have to figure out ways to
recover costs. FirstNet will not have the cost. AT&T is not
obligated to put any money into that to help recover the cost
in that state that has run into the problem. So, we are going
to be working with the state on how to quickly minimize.
If they have, for example, received some grant funding,
from NTIA that hasn't been completely expended, that may be an
opportunity to use some of those funds to help get the network
back to a point where it is, once again, nationwide and
operable.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
Mr. Stevens, I understand Rivada has conducted projects
here and around the world and has some valuable experience, but
I also understand that Rivada is not currently operating a live
radio access network in the United States or, for that matter,
anywhere else in the world. I understand they made you an offer
you couldn't refuse, but I am just curious, are you a little
bit nervous contracting with a company that doesn't currently
operate a network anywhere in the world?
Mr. Stevens. Well, based on the information that we have
been provided through the alternative plan, and with the
safeguards that we have enacted through the negotiation with
Rivada as far as having performance and surety bonds in place,
we feel that, as we move forward and actually develop a service
contract, if, in fact, there should be a decision in New
Hampshire to opt out, then we feel that New Hampshire is
confident that we would be able to continue and provide a
statewide application to FirstNet for all our first responders.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
Let me ask Mr. Sambar and you, Mr. Stevens, we have seen,
with the recent devastating hurricanes in Texas, Florida,
Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, as well as what has happened
in California with the wildfires, that communications can go
down during disasters because of a lack of electricity and for
other reasons. I would think a state would want to be assured
that the FirstNet network is supported by a carrier with the
wherewithal and the experience to recover communication
services during disasters.
Let me ask you, what experiences does Rivada have in
restoring communications during hurricanes and fires and other
natural disasters of this magnitude? And I would ask Mr. Sambar
the same question.
Mr. Stevens. Are you asking me, sir?
Mr. Doyle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Stevens. The only thing that I am familiar with in
regards to communications that were set up based on a natural
disaster was Rivada's commitment to the State of Louisiana
after Katrina.
Mr. Doyle. Mr. Sambar?
Mr. Sambar. So, from AT&T's standpoint, Congressman, you
are probably aware of the last four hurricanes, all the
restoration efforts. I could go into details of tornadoes,
wildfires in California. We have extensive experience. Our
natural disaster recovery program has been funded at over $600
million over the past 20 years. So, we have a significantly
large program.
And I will note, just in the Q3 earnings that AT&T released
last week, we noted a 2-cents-per-share earnings hit or
earnings cost to AT&T based on the recent disasters just in the
quarter. That equates to roughly $200 million in impact to
AT&T. So, obviously, a large company with the wherewithal to
absorb impacts like that is probably very important to this
program, and we think we are that company.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
Madam Chair, I see, in the spirit of what we are trying to
accomplish here, that I will not ask my other questions, but
submit them for the record for answers.
Mrs. Blackburn. Quick learners.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
Mrs. Blackburn. Mr. Lance, you are recognized, 5 minutes.
Mr. Lance. Thank you very much, Chair.
Mr. Poth, as I mentioned in my opening statement,
interoperability issues faced by the first responders on 9/11
was a significant factor in the creation of FirstNet. The law
allows state and local public safety agencies to make their own
communications decisions, regardless of the state's opt-out
decision. Consequently, it is likely that some public safety
agencies will continue to use other network providers beside
AT&T. Does FirstNet intend to establish agreements with other
providers to enable interoperability across multiple networks
and, if not, how would that have an impact on public safety
communications?
Mr. Poth. So, the current system will allow the
interoperability. So, another carrier provider to public
safety, those devices will be able to talk to a FirstNet/AT&T
device. We are not going to be pursuing contractual
relationships with other providers for that, since the
interoperability is a requirement and it is a standard.
We are also, as part of our statute, requiring open
standards for the devices and applications, as Mr. Sambar
mentioned earlier, for public safety. So, we think that that
addresses the needs if a public safety agency all the way down
to a local firefighter decides that the better solution for
them is to go with another solution set other than the FirstNet
one.
Mr. Lance. Thank you.
Mr. Sambar, would you like to comment on that?
Mr. Sambar. Yes. Thank you, Congressman.
So, I would say, to make it brief, there are international
standards which govern the wireless industry around the world
called 3GPP standards. We have committed to FirstNet Authority,
which they asked us to commit to, that we will maintain those
standards. We have for the past 40-plus years in the wireless
industry and we will continue to do so.
It is the reason that, when I text you on your phone,
regardless of what provider you have, we can get a text across
with no problem. We can send an email. We could talk to each
other. And it works that way around the world.
We will continue that. We are very interested in open
interoperable.
Mr. Lance. Thank you.
And, Mr. LeGrande, could you please comment on what the
public safety implications would be in the case of failure to
enable interoperability?
Mr. LeGrande. Well, we need no, unfortunately, looking
further than what happened in New York. That was tragic.
And when I started my work here in Washington, D.C.,
believe it or not, in 2001 we didn't have any public safety
communications at all in the WMATA tunnel systems. That was a
program that I led--I think there is a member of the fire
department here--proudly, with Chief Ramsey and Chief Thompson.
I think it is important to note that what Mr. Sambar was
referring to with regards to interoperability and 3GPP
standards, yes, carriers have interoperability that they do
every day. There are partners that AT&T has around the world.
Core-to-core interoperability is what they do as a standard
practice.
What I am advocating for is to make sure that we have
established a swim lane internationally and nationally how
carriers operate, and that we should not alter that because we
have a commercial system that we are leveraging. We are not
leveraging a dedicated network only for public safety. It is a
shared network with the public. Now it is segregated at the
core, as he mentioned, but it is certainly shared at the RAN,
which is the lower part of the architecture.
I don't want to be too technical. I don't want to go too
far on this answer. But it is important that we continue to
allow the carriers who exist to fight for public safety's
business. The bottom line, the biggest barrier of entry--and I
have been around the country talking to folks, sir, and Frank
Gianetti in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where I am from--the
biggest barrier to entry is cost. And the best way to drive
down cost and to drive up innovation is competition. And, oh,
by the way, to ensure that the carriers follow the way they
have already done business, which is to interoperate through
those standards, and core-to-core is a part of that.
Mr. Lance. Thank you very much, Mr. LeGrande.
And, Chair, I yield back 50 seconds.
Mrs. Blackburn. There you go.
Mr. Loebsack for 5 minutes.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have abused the 5-
minute rule in the past. I promise I won't do it this time.
Thank you very much. I readily admit that.
[Laughter.]
I really appreciate this hearing today.
Mr. Moran, I had the same thoughts--thank you very much for
being here today--about your relation.
I do greatly appreciate FirstNet's vigilance to ensure that
rural areas of the country gain access to the nationwide public
safety broadband network, including by specifying a 15-percent
geographic requirement for the prime contractor to partner with
existing rural telecom providers. And we have a lot of those
folks in Iowa. We do all over rural America.
So, to Mr. Sambar and to Mr. Poth, where is AT&T in its
progress toward that 15-percent geographic requirement? Is
there any public information that AT&T and/or FirstNet can
share with us on this issue?
Mr. Sambar. Thank you, Congressman.
The 15 percent is a requirement contractually between AT&T
and the FirstNet Authority. I will tell you, the network build
is just beginning. So, I can't give you a number today because
we haven't actually built it yet. But I have no problem in the
coming months and years of providing that information, whether
it is in this forum or in a different forum.
Mr. Loebsack. Yes, we would like to keep track of that as
we are progressing.
Mr. Sambar. Yes, and we are happy to. What I will tell you
is that, based on the network designs that we have today--and
again, only half, just over half of the states have opted in--
but should all of the states opt in, or close to all of the
states, we actually think we will exceed the 20 percent mark.
So, 15 percent is the bare minimum that we need to attain. We
are actually looking at over 20 percent at this point. So, we
are very confident in our ability to hit that target and use
those rural providers.
Mr. Loebsack. As you both know, Iowa has opted in.
Mr. Poth. Right, right.
Mr. Sambar. Thank you.
Mr. Poth. And it is important to note, also, that in our
contract they are required to build out rural in each phase of
the contract. They can't wait until the other areas that they
wanted to build or built and, then, start rural. The next phase
they have to have 20-percent rural buildout; the phase after
that, 60 percent; 80, and all the way up to 100 percent.
Mr. Loebsack. So, how do we define a rural partner in
situations like this? How does AT&T define it or FirstNet
define it?
Mr. Sambar. I am going to give the quick answer, and he
will give the detailed answer. We define it based on their
definition, and he will tell you their definition.
Mr. Loebsack. All right. Go ahead.
Mr. Sambar. You are the boss.
Mr. Poth. So, we required in the RFP that they identify
rural TELCO partners in each of the states that they had
intended to partner with. And then, that is what we are
measuring them against, to make sure that those relationships
have, in fact, been consummated.
Mr. Loebsack. So, it is determined at the state level who
rural is then? Is that----
Mr. Poth. No, not at the state; at AT&T who, as all the
bidders had to, identified rural partners in each of the
states.
Mr. Loebsack. Right.
Mr. Poth. Some have multiple TELCOs that they may be using.
We are measuring them against what they committed to in their
proposal.
Mr. Loebsack. I have to throw it back to you, Mr. Sambar.
Mr. Sambar. Sure.
Mr. Loebsack. So, how do you define rural?
Mr. Sambar. Sir, I think you are looking for a definition
of the word ``rural''?
Mr. Loebsack. Yes, right.
Mr. Sambar. FirstNet Authority defines, because we were
curious when we signed the contract, FirstNet defines it based
on the Rural Electrification Act.
Mr. Loebsack. Right.
Mr. Sambar. And it is 20,000 population in a given
geography.
Mr. Loebsack. OK.
Mr. Sambar. So, we are following that definition.
Mr. Loebsack. OK. Thank you so much.
Mr. Sambar. Yes, sir.
Mr. Loebsack. And to you, Mr. Sambar, does AT&T's rural
partnership efforts include only wireless networks and towers
or is AT&T also planning to leverage fiber-back, all assets?
Mr. Sambar. Yes, sir, it will be wireless, wire line. That
includes cable, microwave, and fiber. So, it will be all of the
above.
Mr. Loebsack. OK. Great. Thank you.
Still some time left, Madam Chair?
It will be essential that FirstNet is able to roam onto
existing rural networks before the MPSBM is available. Mr.
Poth, how are you ensuring that devices are developed that can
successfully roam onto Tier 2 and Tier 3 rural wireless
networks?
Mr. Poth. That is a great question. I think I will defer to
Mr. Sambar since they are the ones that have to implement the
technology.
Mr. Loebsack. A lot of deference today.
Mr. Sambar. We do defer back and forth, don't we?
[Laughter.]
So, the way the wireless world operates today is you have
no issue when you go into different areas around the country--
and I travel every week--whether it is a rural carrier in one
area, and depending on what the backhaul is or the fronthaul
with the wireless network; it doesn't matter. We will continue
to do the same thing on the FirstNet network.
And again, it is based on the 3GPP standards that I
mentioned earlier. Those are international standards. So,
whether you are on a domestic wireless network owned by AT&T or
a rural provider or international--say you are in Mexico, South
America, or somewhere in Europe--you will be able to roam on
any provider's network and it won't be an issue.
Mr. Loebsack. OK. And again, respecting the Chair's request
that we finish up in a timely fashion, I do have a question
about affordability, but I think we can probably submit that
for the record.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
And, Mr. Shimkus, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am wondering how Loebsack got all my questions. How did
you get my questions over there?
Mr. Loebsack. I lucked out. I was before you.
Mr. Shimkus. OK. Yes.
Mr. Loebsack. Not normally am I, but----
Mr. Shimkus. That is almost word for word. So, he covered a
lot of the rural concerns that I had.
But I guess I would want to follow up with the question of
overbuilding that may occur. And that would be to Mr. Sambar.
How do you protect from what we have seen, overbuilding in
other areas and other aspects of communication? So, what about
overbuilding?
Mr. Sambar. Sure. Thank you, Congressman.
I should have started off my comments with rural, which
everywhere that I have traveled over the last year and a half
around the country, whether it is a governor or the governor's
staff, public safety entities, some of the gentlemen back here,
the first responders--thanking them for coming--but some of
them have mentioned it to me. You need to cover rural areas.
So, we have gotten the message loud and clear. We absolutely
understand that.
We are embarking on an aggressive build plan to build out
rural areas. Some of that will be AT&T building it, and some of
it, that would be considered us building. And in some cases we
will be using rural providers to build that out.
The topic of overbuilding, the 15 percent was set because
they believe that is an attainable goal. If our goal was to go
and overbuild repeatedly, we would never hit the 15 percent and
we surely would not a hit a 20-percent number, which is what we
are projecting.
There will be some cases where we can't come to commercial
agreement with a rural provider, but in those cases we will
look to other rural providers to see if they are interested, so
that we can maintain that percentage with rural. So, our goal
is to use rural providers as much as possible. In many cases
their economics are better than ours, and it just makes sense
for us to do that.
Mr. Shimkus. Great. Thank you.
Let me go to Mr. Stevens from New Hampshire. I pulled up
the FirstNet website. So, maybe you can help explain this to
me.
The state has released a plan, and the state plan's review
is under consultation. Is that how you view that?
Mr. Stevens. Yes. Yes.
Mr. Shimkus. So, part of this plan is your opt-out? That is
part of the plan that you have submitted to FirstNet? Or using
an outside provider other than AT&T?
Mr. Stevens. No. We are in the process of reviewing all
aspects in regards to opt in and opt out. No decision has been
made by New Hampshire at this point in time. And basically, we
are comparing the two plans, the alternative plan and the state
plan provided by FirstNet, to ascertain what is best for New
Hampshire.
Mr. Shimkus. OK. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Mr. LeGrande, AT&T and its partners did a bid for this to
FirstNet, and then, obviously, they won the bid. In your
opening statement are you proposing that the bid specifications
should be now modified?
Mr. LeGrande. No, I am not suggesting that the bid should
be modified.
Mr. Shimkus. As far as the responsibilities, the
agreements, and what they are supposed to do?
Mr. LeGrande. No. What I am suggesting, just so we are
clear, that FirstNet, if we were to join a dedicated network,
meaning when I say ``dedicated,'' I mean----
Mr. Shimkus. No, we have got it. We have had that debate
here. We did this because we didn't have the money and we
wanted to leverage the success of the private sector.
Mr. LeGrande. In fact, the exciting thing about it is there
is a real opportunity where FirstNet can say, well, OK, I agree
that you may not want to establish any contracts or agreements
with the other carriers, but certainly try to meet with them to
bring them and incent them. Take out the penalties from AT&T;
incent them.
When I was a CTO here, my biggest problem is I couldn't get
these guys in my office because we are a small market piece
now. The great thing about it, the great thing about what is
going on with FirstNet is they have created an opportunity
where FirstNet can act as a regulatory----
Mr. Shimkus. I only have 50 seconds left.
Mr. LeGrande. Right. Sorry. I'm sorry.
Mr. Shimkus. So, I know you are very passionate.
Mr. LeGrande. Absolutely.
Mr. Shimkus. And I appreciate it.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Sambar, do you feel that some of these proposals may
provide different goals and objectives than what was laid in
the original bid?
Mr. Sambar. I can't speak for the states and their goals
and objectives. Over half of them have opted in, so they are
completely aligned with our goals and objectives. When we go
into the states, we negotiate with them on where they want
additional infrastructure, where they want generators, what
areas they want covered. And we leave the decision largely up
to them. So, I think our goals are 100-percent aligned.
I think there are some states that may have other goals in
mind, not just a first responder network, but monetization, for
example, to get money for the state budget. That is not what
this is about. This is not a rural broadband initiative. This
is for first responders, which does overlap into rural,
thankfully. But I think we need to focus on first responders.
That is what we are building this for. This is not a money-
making scheme. This is not a spectrum deal. This is for first
responders for the next 25 years.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. Mr. Pallone, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
FirstNet implementation is essential for creating a state-
of-the-art nationwide public safety network, and this is
critical during emergencies. This week marks 5 years since
Superstorm Sandy swept through my district, and the lessons of
that storm are as applicable today as they were then. And 5
years later, I can say there are three things we need to focus
on to make sure we are better prepared for the next major
storm.
First, we need to keep our networks online during these
emergencies, and that is why I drafted the SANDy Act to give
our network operators the resources they need to repair our
networks during disasters. And that is also why I worked with
the wireless industry to create the Wireless Network Resiliency
Cooperative Framework, to ensure people can call for help
during an emergency, even if their network goes down.
And second, we need to upgrade our 911 networks to be more
secure and resilient and to handle the information required of
a 21st century network. Among other things, that means ensuring
that 911 knows your location when you place a call.
And third, we need to get FirstNet operational as quickly
as possible to give our first responders the tools they need to
better protect us and coordinate emergency responses.
I wanted to mention specifically that New Jersey was one of
the first states to opt in, which makes sense, given
JerseyNet's success as a proof-of-concept for FirstNet as a
whole.
So, I wanted to ask Mr. Poth, are there lessons learned
from New Jersey's experience that can benefit the nationwide
network?
Mr. Poth. Absolutely, and New Jersey was a great example.
The state did opt in. We have been working with them for years.
But what actually happened with the recent hurricanes down in
Florida, New Jersey, who had already opted in with their assets
from JerseyNet, asked if they could respond down to Florida to
help another state using those assets. So, the nationwide
response for public safety was happening in real time. So, I
think that was a great example of taking advantage of an early
builder and of New Jersey's ``can do'' attitude, that really
helped Florida with FirstNet assets that were residing in New
Jersey. And we hope to see that that model replicates itself
throughout the country.
Mr. Pallone. Well, thank you.
I wanted to clear up some questions about the bipartisan
law that we passed in 2012 that established FirstNet. First,
when Congress passed the law, we made clear that states could
opt out of the wireless portion of the network, but they are
prohibited from building a different core of the network.
So, again, Mr. Poth, is that your understanding of the law
as well?
Mr. Poth. Yes, and, as it was discussed earlier, one of the
other complications with any additional cores is around that
cybersecurity. That is something that we cannot have any
leniency. This must be a robust, secure network. But a single
core is the intent, and that is what we are executing to.
Mr. Pallone. Well, thank you.
The second thing, when we passed the law, some of us were
concerned about the way states divert 911 fees to other
projects. And to stop that from happening to FirstNet, we
required all fees raised by the states to be invested only back
into the network.
So, let me ask Secretary Moran, if I can, can you walk us
through the financial considerations you took into account when
Virginia decided to opt into the network?
Mr. Moran. Well, first of all, in Virginia we don't raise
fees. So, it's a low-tax state, very competitive for business.
[Laughter.]
So, Mr. Congressman, it was at no cost. That was one of our
primary reasons for opting in, was that it was at no cost to
the Commonwealth. In assessing and evaluating the options for
the state to build out the network, it would have been cost-
prohibitive. And obviously, our primary responsibility, as
yours is, is to provide that dedicated network to our first
responder community. So, we saw the no cost being one of the
primary factors to make that decision. So, there is no cost to
the Commonwealth.
Mr. Pallone. I don't know if anybody mentioned it; you look
a lot like your brother, but you sound just like him when you
spoke.
Let me ask Mr. Sambar, going back to the three priorities I
mentioned earlier--next-generation 911, network resiliency, and
FirstNet--as the only carrier testifying today, what are you
doing to further these goals?
Mr. Sambar. So, your three goals, I will hit them in order.
Networks online. If you use Hurricane Harvey in Texas as an
example, at anytime we had no more than 4 percent of our
network down at any given time throughout Texas. That is when
the hurricane hit through the week following with the floods.
So, we are pretty proud of our ability to keep networks online,
and that is hundreds of thousands of people working very hard
to keep the network going.
Secondly, the 911 networks. AT&T is one of the largest
carriers investing in the 911 networks or next-generation 911
in the United States. And we feel really good about the natural
synergies between the next-generation 911 that we are offering
and the FirstNet network, and the ability to go from the call
that the citizen is making into the 911 PSAP and out to the
first responder over the FirstNet network. There is some real
natural synergies there that work really well.
And then, getting FirstNet up and operational, and that is
possible by a big carrier like us. We do start with our
commercial network as the foundation. So, states that have
opted in, we already have subscribers signing up for FirstNet.
They do start on our commercial core and our commercial
network. They will graduate in March of next year to the
FirstNet network, but we want to get it up and operational as
soon as possible. We don't want states to have to wait 2, 3, 4,
and 5 years.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Mr. Sambar. So, I think that hits all your priorities,
Congressman.
Mr. Pallone. It does. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Blackburn. Mr. Johnson, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
And it is a really important hearing. I represent a
district in Ohio that is very, very needy in terms of
broadband. There are many places throughout my district where
we have high school children who have to go to the neighboring
town to get to a Tim Horton's or a Panera Bread, where there is
wifi, so that they can do their homework assignments, or to a
public library to get to a computer. Some schools even give out
laptops, but the students don't have any connectivity to the
outside world with which to do their work. So, it is a really,
really important issue for me.
And when you think about the opportunities and the
economics of it, companies aren't going to come into a region
and set up facilities if they can't get access to their
customers, to their suppliers, recruit employees, et cetera, et
cetera. So, the urban/rural divide is a very real thing from a
broadband perspective.
Mr. Sambar, first of all, thank you for your service. I
appreciate that. I have a number of Navy SEALs in my district
back in Ohio. I could probably throw their names out there. And
I worked for Admiral Tom Steffens. I don't know if you remember
him.
Mr. Sambar. Yes, sir.
Mr. Johnson. But he was my last boss when I was on active
duty at Special Operations Command.
So, thank you for your service.
The buildout of rural broadband, obviously, is a priority
of mine. I have held multiple roundtables in Ohio to discuss
with stakeholders the benefits and challenges of broadband
deployment.
If a state such as Ohio opts into FirstNet, how will it
impact the broadband buildout in rural areas?
Mr. Sambar. Thank you, Congressman. Thank you for your
service as well, especially helping my brothers and sisters at
the Special Operations Command.
Mr. Johnson. You bet.
Mr. Sambar. I appreciate that.
So, as I mentioned earlier, it is not a rural broadband
initiative, but the benefits for rural customers and those in
rural areas are unbelievable when it comes to FirstNet. And I
will give you a specific example. I won't give you the state.
But a state in the South that has opted in, one of the main
requirements that they put on us was they said, ``We want every
school in our state covered with coverage, wireless coverage.''
And they are not all today. They told us specifically which
schools were not covered, and we went out and did wireless
surveys to ensure that they were. And they said, not only do
first responders go to those areas, but in a lot of those areas
those are the severe weather centers where people evacuate to.
So, we said, absolutely, and we fulfilled that requirement for
the state.
So, this goes back to the flexibility of the program and
the ability of the states to negotiate where they want the
incremental coverage. The public-private partnership between us
and the FirstNet Authority makes it possible. You noted the
challenging economics in some cases to cover rural areas. The
economics of this program make that less challenging and easier
for us to do, so that we can fulfill the requirements and the
desires of the states.
Mr. Johnson. Sure, and I am sure I don't have to tell you
and the rest of the panel how important first responders being
linked in is to a rural community. I mean, it takes a long time
sometimes to get from point A to point B when something goes
down, whether it is a natural emergency or criminal activity,
or whatever, an accident, whatever that may be. Having first
responders as a part of that is critically important.
For the entire panel, first and foremost, we must provide
our first responders with a reliable network and the tools they
need to prepare for and respond. We just talked about that. Can
you describe the benefits for first responders in rural areas
if the state chooses to opt into FirstNet? Let's just go down
the line here.
Mr. Poth. Through our exhaustive proposal process, we set
out a solution to do just that for public safety, all 56 states
and territories where there is rural or urban. And we are
absolutely confident that through the solution that we have
picked, based on public safety's feedback and the solution
provider, in this case AT&T, we will be able to meet that
objective.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Anybody else care to address that one?
Mr. Sambar. Sure. I will give you 10 seconds of your 17
seconds.
Mr. Johnson. OK.
Mr. Sambar. The benefits to the state of jobs and
infrastructure, the rural broadband benefits to the state, and
then, features like priority, preemption, mission-critical
voice, all those things that public safety has been asking for
for years.
Mr. Johnson. Do you view it as a negative? If a state
chooses to opt out, will it be a negative impact to first
responders if a state opts out?
Mr. Sambar. I think there are some significant challenges
if a state chooses to opt out. Of course, we will be happy to
work with them. That is our charter, and we will do everything
we can to be interoperable with that state. But there are some
challenges as far as the time it will take them to build it
out, the reliability/redundancy of that network,
interoperability, security of that network. There are some
significant hurdles that they need to get over. Again, we are
happy to work with them, but I think there would be a lot of
concerns there.
Mr. Johnson. All right. Well, thank you, gentlemen.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Ms. Eshoo, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Thank you to all of the witnesses and to the first
responders here. With all due respect to everyone else in the
room, including myself, I think you are the most important ones
here.
When the 9/11 Commission made its recommendations to
Congress, which is a very long time ago now--we have been at
this for some time; it was 16 years ago that the country was
attacked--there was one recommendation that Congress had not
made good on, and it was to build a nationwide interoperable
public safety network. And I was bound and determined that we
would get that done. I am proud of the legislation, proud that
we moved ahead, and that the Congress passed it.
But I think that, in light of what the country has
undergone in just the last handful of months, and most recently
in my home State of California--I spent last Saturday from 6:30
in the morning until 9:30 at night touring, meeting with the
public officials, public safety officials, first responders,
victims, in Sonoma and Napa Counties.
I really think that we need to go back to the air raid
system because there really wasn't anything that worked or
very, very little. And this is the second decade of the 21st
century. So, we have a lot of work to do.
In California, relative to AT&T's existing coverage
throughout the state and the interoperability of the public
safety broadband network with other cellular networks, how is
AT&T dealing with coverage areas where you are not the dominant
carrier in that area? Just very quickly.
Mr. Sambar. Yes, Congresswoman.
So, we are in the process of negotiating with California.
As you know, they haven't opted in.
Ms. Eshoo. I know that.
Mr. Sambar. We are in the process of negotiating.
Ms. Eshoo. They have some problems with you. But how are
you dealing with coverage areas where you are not the optimum
and others are?
Mr. Sambar. So, we have given them a significant number of
sites that they can move around in the state and give us
priority areas, so that we can cover those areas that are not
covered today where other carriers are dominant. In those areas
where other carriers are dominant----
Ms. Eshoo. Now wait a minute. What does that mean?
Mr. Sambar. That means we are----
Ms. Eshoo. You want the state to tell the ones that are
more dominant than you what?
Mr. Sambar. No.
Ms. Eshoo. Tell me how that works.
Mr. Sambar. We are going to build big cell towers in the
places where we don't have coverage, so that we can cover
ubiquitously throughout California to give them the coverage
they are asking for. California has come to us and said, ``We
need coverage in these areas.''
Ms. Eshoo. OK. All right.
Mr. Sambar. And we said, OK, we will build those areas out.
Ms. Eshoo. How are you going to ensure interoperability
with the public safety network with the jurisdictions that use
other networks?
Mr. Sambar. So, just like we do today, if you have a
different carrier than I have on my phone, we can talk to each
other. That is called interoperability. And we will maintain
that in the future. This will not be a locked-in proprietary
network.
Ms. Eshoo. Why are there penalties? Did the Congress do
that or is it part of your contract? It is my understanding
that in California's case, I think relative to the RAN, the
penalty would be in the area of $15 billion. Who came up with
that? How do you make that determination?
Mr. Poth. No, that----
Ms. Eshoo. And why are there penalties?
Mr. Poth. Excuse me. There aren't any penalties right now.
What that $15 billion----
Ms. Eshoo. Well, that doesn't make me feel too good.
Mr. Poth. Right.
Ms. Eshoo. You just said ``right now''. Are there going to
be? And where did this $15 billion, approximately, come from?
Mr. Poth. So, that was FirstNet's attempt at trying to make
sure in our full transparency. So, in the State of California,
as we talked about earlier, if they opt out and they have a
problem where they have to default and they are not able to
continue to work, the estimates could be as high as that
number.
Ms. Eshoo. But I don't understand. Is this a penalty for
not opting in?
Mr. Poth. No, absolutely not.
Ms. Eshoo. Well, what is it for?
Mr. Poth. So, we have tried to share with the states what
we thought, because of this very involved, complex project, if
we had to reconstitute the network from zero after a state,
implementation didn't work, that it could be as high as that.
That is where I have said earlier, and I qualified, we are
working with every state, including California, to minimize any
of those impacts. And hopefully, they would never even get to
that point.
So, in our zeal to make sure that----
Ms. Eshoo. But why even talk about penalties? Obviously, if
something doesn't work, the state is going to be responsible
and has to build up a system.
Mr. Poth. That is what that number is. It is not a penalty
or fine if someone opted out and weren't able to complete it.
Ms. Eshoo. Let me just ask--thank you for your leadership--
--
Mr. Poth. Right.
Ms. Eshoo. Did you say, Mr. Sambar, that AT&T does not make
any money on this?
Mr. Sambar. No, I----
Ms. Eshoo. You said, ``We are not in this for profit.''?
Mr. Sambar. We are a----
Ms. Eshoo. It is a wonderful notion, but it is a real----
Mr. Sambar. That would be nice, it would be nice if we were
a philanthropist, but----
Ms. Eshoo. It is a stunner to me.
Mr. Sambar. Yes, we have shareholders that we are
accountable to. So, yes, we do have to make a profit off of it.
So, it is profitable.
Ms. Eshoo. But why did you say it is not----
Mr. Sambar. It is a public-private partnership, and our
primary commitment going into this wasn't to make money.
Ms. Eshoo. All right. All right. Yes. Well, OK. Good.
It is great to have a Moran here.
[Laughter.]
Either over there or at this part. It is just wonderful.
Thank you for your leadership in the state.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Kinzinger, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Madam Chair.
There is nothing wrong with making money. It is capitalism.
I want to thank you, Chair, for yielding and for holding
this hearing. And given the events that unfolded yesterday in
New York that are currently being investigated as a terrorist
attack on our country, I think this hearing is especially
timely today.
Broadly speaking, we need to get this system operational
and running efficiently, so that we can respond to both natural
disasters and, frankly, the next attack that is going to happen
in the future. We know this is a generational fight we find
ourselves in the middle of. It will probably last for the rest
of my lifetime.
But, in that vein, Mr. Sambar, during recent emergencies,
cell towers have become overwhelmed by the volume of calls and
texts. Will first responders avoid similar communications
hurdles using the network that AT&T and FirstNet are planning
to deploy?
Mr. Sambar. Thank you, Congressman.
Yes, that is exactly one of the primary purposes of this
network. It is so that first responders are not on the typical
commercial networks, subjected to the same congestion that they
would be otherwise subjected to on a commercial network.
So, there are two features called priority and preemption.
Priority means that their data goes faster than anyone else's.
So, if they are trying to get a picture of a subject to another
first responder to let them know what is going on, if they are
trying to get a picture of a fire to a fire captain, so that he
knows the nature of the fire, how many engines he needs to
send, that data will go uninterrupted through the network. That
is priority.
Preemption, the next one, means that, if a first responder
is trying to get on the network and it is congested, which can
happen any time you have a crowd of people in an area,
preemption will actually move someone on our commercial network
off to another frequency band on our commercial network, and
allow that first responder on immediately. The only call that
it won't preempt is a 911 call. So, we will not take regular
commercial citizens and kick them off if they are on a 911
call, but it will preempt other users off. So, they will have
an uninterrupted network experience.
Mr. Kinzinger. Excellent. That is really good to hear.
Switching gears a bit, Mr. Poth, with regards to the lease
terms that FirstNet sent to the states, is there a process for
appealing FirstNet's terms or are these effectively ``take it
or leave it''? And how did you develop those terms?
Mr. Poth. So, the spectrum management lease is just a
draft. We tried to provide that information early, so the
governors and their teams could review what would be a working
document that we would negotiate probably 2 years from now.
Unfortunately, based on the statute and the regulatory
requirements that first go into the FCC for approval of an
alternative plan, then to NTIA, literally, it would be probably
about 2 1A\1/2\ years. So, this was just a draft of some of the
concepts that are important as the license-holder, FirstNet, to
be able to lease that portion of the spectrum to a state. So,
absolutely, we are going to work with the states now and
through this entire process to make sure that they feel
comfortable and their questions are answered.
Mr. Kinzinger. So, it is not ``take it or leave it''? You
are saying this is an early draft and----
Mr. Poth. Yes, this is a working draft because we wanted to
provide--we didn't want states to get through a 2 1A\1/2\ year
process and, then, start looking at terms and say, ``Well, why
didn't you tell us this 2 1A\1/2\ years ago?''
Mr. Kinzinger. OK, and I understand that NTIA has yet to
issue a Notice of Funding Opportunity, which would, presumably,
provide the states with detailed information regarding the
process that NTIA intends to use in its review for state
applications for spectrum and construction grants. States now
have less than 2 months to make a decision on opting in or
opting out, and they are missing some pretty important data.
When is NTIA going to release that notice?
Mr. Poth. Talking to NTIA as recent as yesterday, they have
published those into the system and it is going through
clearance. So, they hope within the next few days it will come
out, that guidance.
Mr. Kinzinger. OK. Hopefully. That would be good.
And last, let me ask you, in the FirstNet press release
dated June 19th of this year it stated that the FirstNet state
plan ``comes fully funded and will require no additional
resources for the states to deploy or operate the network.'' It
would seem, then, that opting into FirstNet is more economic
for states than opting out. However, there are still some
unanswered questions with respect to processes and
determinations that have been made. In order to fully ensure
that FirstNet is the best and most economic option, we do need
more answers. So, will you commit here today that you will work
with Congress, the states, and stakeholders, to provide these
answers to the best of your ability?
Mr. Poth. Absolutely.
Mr. Kinzinger. Excellent.
Mr. Poth. We have met with some states over 30 times over
this process, and we are going to continue to do that for the
life of this program, to make sure that all their questions are
answered, no matter what.
Mr. Kinzinger. Great.
And to the five of you, thank you for being in here. Thanks
for giving us your time.
And with that, I will yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. McNerney, you are recognized.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I just want to say to the Chair that I
appreciate enforcement of the 5-minute rule, being on the lower
end of the committee here.
Mr. Poth, we have recently seen a series of natural
disasters in California, flooding, earthquakes, and wildfires,
including the devastating wildfire we had a couple of weeks ago
in which 120 cell phone towers, cell towers, were down and
destroyed. In planning and building out and hardening this
system, the resiliency of the system, how does FirstNet plan to
account for those types of disasters?
Mr. Poth. We require of AT&T via the contract that the
installations are public safety hardened. And how we are
measuring that is against reliability and up time. But, even
with that, unfortunately, Mother Nature, in particular, no
matter what hardening is done, can affect those towers.
One of the other requirements that we have is--and Mr.
Sambar alluded to it--deployables and the ability to quickly
recover into an area. They are contractually obligated
throughout the 56 states and territories in those areas where
their existing assets go down to restore the network as quickly
as possible.
Mr. McNerney. OK.
Mr. Poth. And we are going to hold them to that.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Mr. Sambar, do you plan to provide ways to ensure that
communication continues when cell towers go down during the
process, before the minis can be in place?
Mr. Sambar. Absolutely. As Mr. Poth mentioned, reliability
and up time on the network is our priority. So, whether that is
something happens to the tower, which that will always happen--
you can't keep a tower from burning up, right? That is going to
happen. But the deployables, as you mentioned, I actually have
a picture of one here in the wildfires in California. So, this
is a mobile, 1-ton truck that you pull out----
Mr. McNerney. So, you are saying that that can be in place
almost immediately?
Mr. Sambar. Yes, it is. You can see the fire in the
background. So, this was actually put up immediately after the
fire passed through, burned the tower down. We drove this in,
so that the first responders in the area had communications.
Mr. McNerney. Very good.
Mr. Sambar. Thank you, sir.
Mr. McNerney. All right. Device security, which you have
already responded to, to a certain degree, to the chairwoman's
questions, it is very important to me. I introduced a bill, the
Securing IoT Act, which requires that cybersecurity standards
and certifications be established for wireless devices. What
cybersecurity or industry standards or guidelines is AT&T
considering in developing FirstNet?
Mr. Sambar. So, similar to my response earlier, just to
recap, the cybersecurity starts at the device level, the
applications on the device as well as the device itself. So,
AT&T will be certifying all the devices. The FirstNet Authority
has a lab in Boulder, Colorado. They will certify the devices
as well.
Mr. McNerney. So, what standards are they using?
Mr. Sambar. AT&T has our own proprietary standards.
FirstNet has developed their own proprietary standards that
they will be certifying the devices based on.
Mr. McNerney. So, is there any acceptance of those
standards?
Mr. Poth. Yes, and what the FirstNet standards were drawn
from is with NIST, the Department of Justice, OMB, DHS, and
some of our fellow federal agencies to make sure. We are also
capitalizing and requiring that AT&T bring private sector best
practices to bear on the cyber approach, too.
Mr. McNerney. OK. Well, I understand that volunteers, first
responders, can bring their own devices?
Mr. Sambar. Yes.
Mr. McNerney. What steps are going to be taken to make sure
those devices are cyber-secure?
Mr. Sambar. So, they can bring their own devices, and it is
up to them what device they use. If they are purchasing an AT&T
device, again, it will be certified and they will know that.
The applications on that device are definitely a point of
vulnerability, and we will be certifying all the applications,
putting them into a public safety application store, so that
they can ensure that an application in that store is secure
from a cybersecurity standpoint, as well as it functions
correctly.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Mr. LeGrande, do you believe that FirstNet with AT&T can
ensure competition at every level?
Mr. LeGrande. I think they have the opportunity to do that.
I think we should not treat this like it is, again, a dedicated
public safety broadband network. I think we set up a
competitive environment, in that FirstNet leverages its
position to, again, incent other carriers. To wildfires, to the
hurricanes, the bottom line is what is in the best interest of
public safety is all the carriers competing to drive down costs
and create the best possible environment. So, I think they are
in a very good position to do that, yes. That would be my
answer.
Mr. McNerney. Do they need additional incentives to make
sure that they assure competition?
Mr. LeGrande. I think that FirstNet has the opportunity to
reach out beyond AT&T. They have got their contract with AT&T
continuing. I am not questioning that. But there is an
opportunity to embrace the other carriers and say, ``Look, if
you come up with these levels of standards and you bring your
networks up to this, then we can have all of these guys
competing.'' Because, again, the best thing for public safety
is low cost and greater innovation, and competition is what
gets us there.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thirteen seconds.
Mrs. Blackburn. You are doing well.
Mr. Bilirakis, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it. I
will stay under the 5 minutes as well. No guarantees, though I
will try. Thank you again for having this hearing.
Governor Scott, my State of Florida has issued a Notice of
Information to review the FirstNet proposal as compared to
other options the state may have. While we do not know the
outcome of this inquiry, I do support the governor's due
diligence to subject the proposal to competition in the
marketplace and ensure it is right for our state.
My question is to Mr. Sambar. I am a representative of a
coastal community in the Tampa Bay area, and it is subject to
hurricanes, as you know, with limited evacuation routes,
unfortunately. I am intrigued by the shifting of first
responder priorities you discuss in your written testimony. Can
you elaborate on the benefits of the selective ability to at-
risk communities such as mine, please?
Mr. Sambar. Absolutely, and I believe you are referring to
the priority and preemption services. Those are actually
features that will be in the network. Priority exists today. We
have been providing that to commercial customers for 2 years
now.
Preemption is a new feature that will only be available for
first responders, and that will be by the end of this year.
Preemption is really the one that first responders have been
asking for. And that provides the ability in an area where a
network is congested, if it is a coastal community, prior to,
during, and after a storm, and there is a significant amount of
congestion. Maybe some of the towers aren't working properly.
There is a limited amount of bandwidth. It ensures that first
responders have first rights to that bandwidth. So, they can
actually move others off of a network, and they will have a
seamless network experience wherever the network exists. So, a
terrific benefit for first responders who have been asking for
it for a long time, and we are going to be providing that to
them very soon.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. Thank you.
Mr. Stevens, under the 2012 act that authorized FirstNet,
Congress directed FirstNet to develop a plan for each state to
deploy the network. From your perspective, has there been
sufficient engagement from FirstNet with the states?
Mr. Stevens. Yes. We have had good conversations with
FirstNet along with AT&T along the process. However, we took
advantage of the opportunity that the law provided that we
would go down the road by developing an alternative plan. As
you said, sir, New Hampshire has done its due diligence and we
have two viable plans that we are looking at for comparison.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. Thank you.
And I will yield back, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Ms. Matsui, you are recognized.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I thank the
witnesses for being here today.
As you know, the FirstNet contract requires a 25-year
performance period. That means that the life cycle of this
contract will see the deployment of next-generation wireless
broadband networks for both consumers and first responders.
Mr. Sambar, could you discuss how auctions that would
deliver spectrum suitable for 5G networks also could be
critically important for the continued upgrades necessary for
the first responders on your network?
Mr. Sambar. Thank you, Congresswoman. I appreciate that
question because, when the RFP was initially written by the
FirstNet Authority, it spoke to the Band 14 spectrum, that one
piece of 20-megahertz spectrum that was allocated, and putting
up that spectrum and making that available to public safety.
And we changed it around a little bit, and we said, yes, we
will do that and we are going to cover a significant percentage
of the population with it, but we are also going to make
available all of our spectrum bands.
So, as we move into a 5G world, millimeter wave technology,
small cells on street corners, the first responder may connect
to Band 14 on a tower a quarter mile or a half mile away, but
they may connect to the street corner small cell, which is a 5G
small cell. It may not be Band 14. It may be something else,
but it may give them 10 times the speed that they would have
had on the Band 14 connection a quarter or a half mile away.
So, we are really opening up our network, so that first
responders have the best possible connection.
Ms. Matsui. OK. OK, great.
Mr. Moran, what is the importance of deploying next-
generation wireless broadband networks to states?
Mr. Moran. Well, it is critically important, as has been
noted throughout this hearing, to provide our first responders
the latest and greatest technology. It is critical to
responding to what is an expanding and even more dangerous
threat environment. Being in this position, recognizing whether
it be natural disasters or hurricanes and tornadoes, to now
more manmade disasters, if we can provide our first responders
with the technology, and the firefighters the location
technology, they can be in a building and be located
immediately, as well as the victims that might be present. I
mean, it is critically important.
So, that is why we opted in, because we just saw the
positive benefits and with no cost. And so, though we
thoroughly reviewed the decision, we think it is the right
decision.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Thank you.
Mr. McNerney talked about the wildfires that cut through
northern California, which we visited this last weekend. In my
district we also have quite a few flooding risks also. And
California is currently in a review process and considering how
to evaluate its decision.
Mr. Poth, what network assets will FirstNet be able to
provide that will assist first responders in my district to
meet such a diverse set of emergencies, such as fires and
extreme flooding? I mean, we have both.
Mr. Poth. Right.
Ms. Matsui. And maybe in earthquakes, too. So, you never
know.
Mr. Poth. And that is part of the process that the state is
looking at right now and the proposals that we have on the
table that AT&T is working with. The state has also identified
those areas that are high risk to them because they are
responding to those areas. Based on that feedback from public
safety, the people that are actually having to do the work, is
what is informing AT&T's solution as to where to put fixed
assets or to ensure that there is closer responsive
deployables.
Ms. Matsui. All right. OK. Thank you.
Now, with FirstNet having delivered plans to states at the
end of September, governors and state single points of contact
are currently reviewing FirstNet's maps of wireless broadband
coverage. A critical piece in the success of FirstNet is its
ability to provide public safety officials and first responders
with access to communications in even the most rural and remote
areas of our states and districts. These maps must represent
where coverage does and doesn't exist, so these areas are not
left behind.
Mr. Poth, what steps did FirstNet take to ensure these
coverage maps are accurate? And is it possible to use the
lessons learned from that effort to furnish the committee's
larger efforts to gather more accurate broadband data?
Mr. Poth. Yes. So, we have been, for the last 3 years, in
particular, but since the inception of FirstNet, working with
all the states to understand their coverage, their perception
of coverage, and what the actual coverage they believe. Now,
with the plans, we delivered earlier, 3 months prior to the
actual September date, drafts of those plans with the coverage,
so that they could start seeing it to validate against what
they know. And that is what has been driving a lot of the
conversations as to where they want it to go and what they need
to do.
We are using those coverages, and, ultimately, it will be a
buildout. It is not going to be day one where all the coverage
needs are met. It won't even be met by year five, but it will
continue to grow. And that is what the states are looking at.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Thank you very much.
And I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. Ms. Walters, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. Mimi Walters of California. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Thank you to the subcommittee for holding this hearing and for
our witnesses for their testimony,
My home State is California as well, and I know that many
of my colleagues have discussed that we are particularly
susceptible to widespread natural disasters, including
wildfires, earthquakes, and flooding. As you all know because
we have been discussing it in recent weeks, California
experienced the most devastating wildfires in the state's
history. Forty-three people died, nearly 9,000 structures were
destroyed, and it will take years for the areas impacted by the
fires to fully recovery. Canyon Fire 2, which occurred in my
district, required the evacuation of thousands of residents.
California is vulnerable to both natural disasters and
terrorist attacks. Given the size of the state and its large
population, it is critical that California's first responders
have a reliable public safety network.
And one of the problems of sitting in this front row is
that many of your questions get asked already because you are
low man on the totem pole. So, I am going to ask Mr. Sambar, do
you have any comment on the testimony you have heard here today
from your colleagues or the statements filed by others in this
hearing?
Mr. Sambar. Generally speaking, I appreciate the dialog.
There was some testimony submitted by Verizon at the beginning,
and I know it was not read out today. But there are a couple of
points in there that I think are important to address in front
of this committee.
One is the interoperability of core networks. I think we
have beat that horse to death. But serious reasons why
cybersecurity becomes an issue when you interoperate the cores.
And that won't be allowed, it doesn't sound like, not by our
rules, but by others, including the original legislation.
There is also a portion of this testimony where--and I will
quote from it real briefly here--``The FirstNet RFP was
established as a spectrum deal''. And further quoting, ``We
have never had an interest in FirstNet's spectrum and could not
justify the investment required to build out spectrum that we
had no intention of using commercially.'' So, this is from
Verizon's testimony.
I personally take exception to this. So, it was noted
earlier my military service. I spent 23 years between active
and Reserves in the military. This job and this task is
personal to me. This is not a spectrum deal.
To the Congresswoman's point earlier, AT&T is going to make
money off of it. We are a for-profit company. I am not trying
to hide that fact. But this isn't about the spectrum and a
spectrum deal. This is about serving first responders, the
folks that are behind me. We are building something really
special here, and we are giving them something they haven't had
in a long time, that the 9/11 Commission said that they needed,
that you said that they needed. And that is what we are doing
here.
So, I just want to set a level playing field and let
everyone know this isn't a spectrum deal. That is really not
the right way to talk about this. We feel very passionately
about that.
Mrs. Mimi Walters of California. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Sambar. Yes.
Mrs. Mimi Walters of California. Mr. Poth, in addition to
having to cover termination fees, in the case of California, as
it was reported, to spend $15 billion, are there any potential
risks of a state opting out of FirstNet?
Mr. Poth. The risk is not whether they opt out or opt in.
If they opt out, we are going to do everything we can to make
them successful. The risk is that the state that pursues an
opt-out truly has a robust solution with financial
sustainability. Twenty-five years is a long time, and this is a
very complex project. Billions of dollars are being spent. We
are investing; the Congress has allowed us to invest $6.5
billion in the spectrum. So, this is not a trivial exercise.
And the length of the program and the complexity create a risk,
but it is something that FirstNet realizes and we will work
with the state, whether they opt in or opt out, for the next 25
years to make them successful. But the integration and the
complexity and the delays of an opt-out state just by statute
complicate matters certainly.
Mrs. Mimi Walters of California. Thank you.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Engel, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Thank you to all the witnesses.
And let me start with Secretary Moran. Virginia was the
first state to opt into FirstNet. And Virginia, like New York,
has withstood some devastating and high-profile disasters over
the years. So, let me ask you, now that Virginia has opted in,
what additional tools will it have to respond to these
disasters?
Mr. Moran. Well, I referenced the ability of Fairfax County
and their fire, when they went to Houston to respond to
Hurricane Harvey, and some of the additional technological
benefits that are obtained from the FirstNet opt-in.
But I would say, I very much appreciate this hearing
because it has brought to mind all of the issues with respect
to our opt-in decision, all the things we discussed. But we
need to maintain vigilance, and I say ``we'' in terms of
Congress has to be vigilant because this hearing has identified
a number of ongoing discussions we are having with AT&T.
And I would second Mr. Stevens' point that their
availability to us has been excellent. And we have had those
discussions, the rural concerns. But having access to what they
are offering is critical to being able to respond to the ever-
increasing and emerging threats. So, we just have to make sure
that relationship with AT&T remains robust, so that we can have
access to all what they have promised.
Mr. Engel. Well, talking about the various tools, when
would you expect to see those tools come online?
Mr. Moran. Congressman, one of the reasons we adopted so
quickly in July is because Fairfax and other localities that
already had access to AT&T could immediately gain access to the
expanded broadband capabilities. And so, some of that has gone
on.
Now, in full disclosure, AT&T does not have the coverage of
other providers in Virginia. And so, it has to be a significant
buildout of the AT&T services in Virginia for all of our
localities to be able to benefit.
Mr. Engel. Thank you.
Mr. Poth, I have a few questions for you. For states that
decide to opt out, I understand that FirstNet will require
those states to meet certain subscriber targets. I guess that
is true, right?
Mr. Poth. Yes. What we are trying to achieve is the purpose
of this is for public safety, and we are not requiring the
states, but the state's contractor to make sure that the
solution that they provide will meet public safety's needs in
that state and that they adopt to be able to take advantage of
this nationwide interoperable network.
Mr. Engel. How closely do the state requirements mirror
AT&T's requirements in the national contract?
Mr. Poth. They are very comparable, absolutely.
Mr. Engel. Comparable with what?
Mr. Poth. We are not asking the state any more than what we
require of AT&T currently, but it is under contract.
Mr. Engel. What if a state falls short? What penalties will
they face?
Mr. Poth. We had the discussion a little. That is
impossible for us right now to try to determine. We have tried
to place a range, but we don't know what the nature of a state
that would have a default. We don't know what the technology
will even be, say, in year 12. So, the only thing that I can
absolutely say for sure is that we will be working with the
states during that entire time, and if there is a problem or a
default, then we will work with them quickly to try to recover
and restore that network at the minimal impact to all, on
behalf of that state and public safety.
Mr. Engel. Now FirstNet was started within the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration, which is
part of the Department of Commerce. Am I correct about that?
Mr. Poth. Yes. Yes, sir.
Mr. Engel. Yes. So, the legislation that created FirstNet
envisioned it being spun off to operate independently at some
point in the future, is that true?
Mr. Poth. Well, I am not sure it was ever intended to be
completely spun off, but we are an independent authority and we
work very effectively with our partners at NTIA and Commerce
and all the other federal agencies.
Mr. Engel. So, can you briefly discuss the pros and cons of
FirstNet operating as an independent entity?
Mr. Poth. Well, we have had a lot of flexibility and speed
to deployment that we like to say because of this procurement.
Although people may argue it has been impossibly long since the
statute was passed, we have accomplished a great deal in a
short time, and we attribute a lot of that to the independence,
that we are able to work within the rules and requirements in
the federal government, but in a much more quick and nimble
way.
Mr. Engel. Are we reaching that point in the near term as
an independent entity?
Mr. Poth. I don't see a particular need right now because I
think we are addressing all the needs to make the states and
public safety successful, and we are certainly in a position to
make AT&T successful within the constrains of the contract.
Mr. Engel. So, what needs to happen first if we are not
there yet?
Mr. Poth. I think the thing that we need to do is we have
got to execute. We have got to make sure, on behalf of the
federal government and public safety throughout this country,
that the promise is actually fulfilled. And we think we have a
good way of achieving that through this contract.
Mr. Engel. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Before I conclude, I ask unanimous consent to enter a list
of documents into the record: an op-ed from Thomas Manger; a
letter that was submitted by Mr. Doyle by Verizon; a letter
from Governor Sununu of New Hampshire to his fellow governors;
Governor Sununu's FirstNet Executive Order; a letter from the
Competitive Carriers Association; chairman and ranking member's
statements for the record; Mr. Sambar's picture--we need that--
of the mobile tower in front of the wildfire, and the
International Association of Fire Chiefs' letter. Without
objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mrs. Blackburn. Seeing there are no further members wishing
to ask questions for the panel, I want to thank all of you for
being here today.
Pursuant to committee rules, I remind members that they
have 10 business days to submit additional questions for the
record. And I ask that witnesses submit their responses within
10 business days. Seeing no further business before the
subcommittee today, without objection, the subcommittee is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:31 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]