[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
E-911 IMPLEMENTATION ACT OF 2003
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE INTERNET
of the
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 2898
__________
SEPTEMBER 11, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-47
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
__________
89-469 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana, Chairman
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
JOE BARTON, Texas Ranking Member
FRED UPTON, Michigan HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio RALPH M. HALL, Texas
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
CHRISTOPHER COX, California EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
Vice Chairman BART GORDON, Tennessee
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming ANNA G. ESHOO, California
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois BART STUPAK, Michigan
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING, GENE GREEN, Texas
Mississippi KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
VITO FOSSELLA, New York TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
ROY BLUNT, Missouri DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
STEVE BUYER, Indiana LOIS CAPPS, California
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania TOM ALLEN, Maine
MARY BONO, California JIM DAVIS, Florida
GREG WALDEN, Oregon JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
LEE TERRY, Nebraska HILDA L. SOLIS, California
ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky
MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
DARRELL E. ISSA, California
C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho
Dan R. Brouillette, Staff Director
James D. Barnette, General Counsel
Reid P.F. Stuntz, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
______
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet
FRED UPTON, Michigan, Chairman
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JOE BARTON, Texas Ranking Member
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
Vice Chairman KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
CHRISTOPHER COX, California JIM DAVIS, Florida
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming BART GORDON, Tennessee
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico ANNA G. ESHOO, California
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING, BART STUPAK, Michigan
Mississippi ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
VITO FOSSELLA, New York ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire GENE GREEN, Texas
MARY BONO, California JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
GREG WALDEN, Oregon (Ex Officio)
LEE TERRY, Nebraska
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana
(Ex Officio)
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Testimony of:
Addington, Terry W., President and Chief Executive Officer,
First Cellular of Southern Illinois........................ 31
Berry, Tim, State Treasurer, State of Indiana................ 9
Haynes, Anthony C., Executive Director, Tennessee Emergency
Communications Board, Department of Commerce and Insurance. 23
Muleta, John B., Bureau Chief, W.reless Telecommunications,
Federal Communications Commission.......................... 14
(iii)
E-911 IMPLEMENTATION ACT OF 2003
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2003
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and the Internet,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m., in
room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Fred Upton
(chairman) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Upton, Shimkus, Terry,
Markey, Eshoo and Green.
Staff present: Howard Waltzman, majority counsel; Will
Nordwind, majority counsel and policy coordinator; Will Carty,
legislative clerk; and Peter Filon, minority counsel.
Mr. Upton. Good morning. First I want to say that the House
decided last night when we adjourned about 10, I guess it was,
or 11, that we would not have votes today, so a number of
members have gone back to their districts. We do expect a few
other members to show, and we decided that we would go ahead
with the hearing when they announced that there would be no
votes.
I want to welcome everyone to today's hearing. Of course
today marks the second anniversary of September 11, so it is a
day for sober reflection, particularly as we look at the clock
right now. But I thought that we would just start with a brief
moment of silence for the victims of the tragedy and their
families and so many that were impacted.
God bless them all.
As we get started today, I think of where I was 2 years ago
when the events of that fateful day began to unfold. Some of
you were with me that day. I was at a press conference on the
Senate side discussing the importance of E-911 phase II
deployment to the safety of the American people. The rest, as
they say, is history.
It is very fitting that today, precisely 2 years later, we
are holding a legislative hearing on a very important
bipartisan piece of legislation, the E-911 Implementation Act
of 2003, which was introduced by our able colleagues, Mr.
Shimkus from Illinois and Ms. Eshoo from California. I want to
commend them for their outstanding leadership on this issue,
and I am very proud to be an original cosponsor of this measure
along with numerous other members of the subcommittee.
To be sure, throughout the past couple of years, much
progress has been made on E-911 phase II deployment. By and
large, our Nation's largest wireless carriers have held up
their end of the bargain.
But, as we learned from our June hearing on this matter,
there are some significant hurdles which cry out for our
attention, and H.R. 2898 answers that call. First and foremost,
we need to help our Nation's PSAPs cope with the financial
demands of becoming phase-II-ready. This bill answers that call
by providing a significant grant program to States and
municipalities to help them procure their phase II equipment
and training.
Second, we need to ensure coordination and information
sharing at all levels of government and with other stakeholders
as they continue to sort through the maze of challenges that
lay ahead. This bill answers that call by not only
incentivizing States to have statewide E-911 coordinators, but
also establishing a new Federal E-911 coordination office.
Third, we learned that some of our Nation's rural carriers
faced unique challenges in complying with the FCC's accuracy
requirements. This bill answers that call, too, by directing
the FCC to address those challenges.
Fourth, we heard that some States have raided E-911
surcharge moneys collected from wireless customers for things
completely unrelated to E-911. This is nothing more than
picking the pockets of the consumers and stealing the funds
which should be going toward deployment of this lifesaving
technology. This bill answers that call by creating stiff
disincentives to States who raid their E-911 funds.
Finally, I want to say a word about which Federal agency
will house the Federal E-911 coordination office and distribute
the grant dollars. This bill would place these responsibilities
within the NTIA.
As many of the members of the subcommittee may know, we are
still awaiting a decision from the Bush Administration as to
which agency should control the activities required by the
legislation. We are told, we are led to believe, that that
decision may be made as early as next week. I would, therefore,
ask unanimous consent that any written communication from the
administration on this matter be included in the record of
today's hearing. And without objection, so ordered.
In closing, I want to mention that it is my strong desire
to mark up this legislation in the subcommittee in the not too
distant future, perhaps as early as next week. I look forward
to working with Mr. Markey, the authors of this legislation, my
colleagues on both side of the aisle as we seek to make a good
bill even better.
I look forward to hearing from today's panelists. I
particularly want to welcome Mr. Muleta back to the
subcommittee, and thank the other witnesses who have traveled
great lengths to be with us today. Your input will be of great
assistance to us as we prepare to move this bill through the
legislative process.
At this point I will recognize Mr. Terry from Nebraska for
an opening statement.
Mr. Terry. I will yield back my time. I want to hear from
the panelists before my plane.
Mr. Upton. All right. The gentleman defers. You get extra
minutes for questions.
I now recognize the gentleman from Illinois, soon to be a
Cub fan for the National League when the Cardinals fold, Mr.
Shimkus, original sponsor of the bill.
Mr. Shimkus. Never. I used to always say wait until
September. But I can't do that anymore. So there is always
hope.
Thank you, Chairman Upton, for calling this hearing this
morning. And I did talk to my colleague, Ann Eshoo. I think she
was planning on being here, so I think that we should expect
her to pop up. You know, a lot of members decided to go home,
go to memorial services, but I can't think of a better thing to
do than to be here in Washington and talk about this issue,
because as we have heard through the tapes and transcripts, and
know what we know about emergency responding, this is really an
appropriate hearing to have this day, Mr. Chairman. So I am
glad you decided to stay the course and be here.
While public safety answering points are able to know the
location of 95 percent of wireline 911 calls, we are here today
because only about 15 percent of the Nation's PSAPs are capable
of processing wireless 911 calls. Meanwhile, 50 percent of the
calls made to PSAPs each day come from wireless phones, and
that percentage is growing.
Our Nation's communication technology has changed, but our
emergency response infrastructure has not been updated. This
leads to many people needlessly at risk.
The most significant remaining hurdle to ubiquitous E-911
services is PSAP readiness; however, most of the remaining
PSAPs lack the funding necessary to upgrade their systems. And
many States have aggravated the situation by using the
subscriber fees collected on phone bills for E-911 services to
help cover budget shortfalls.
To address this growing problem, I join my colleague in the
House of Representatives, Ann Eshoo, and Senator Burns and
Senator Clinton to form the Congressional E-911 Caucus.
Together we have pushed legislation that will enhance
coordination of E-911 implementation in each State, discourage
the raiding of E-911 funds, and give local PSAPs additional
funding to help them finally achieve enhanced 911 capability.
H.R. 2898, the E-911 Implementation Act of 2003, will do
four major things to advance E-911 development: One, it
authorizes $100 million for 5 years to provide PSAPs with
matching grants to help them with much-needed upgrades.
Two, it penalizes States for diverting E-911 funds. Under
this legislation PSAPs will not be eligible for matching grants
until their States certify that they have stopped using their
E-911 moneys for other purposes.
Three, it creates an E-911 office at the National
Telecommunications Information Administration that will serve
as a clearinghouse for best practices in the deployment of the
E-911 and to administer the grant program.
And, four, it directs the FCC to review its E-911 accuracy
requirements for rural areas to determine if they adequately
address the complexities associated with providing E-911
services.
I would like to thank the distinguished panel for being
here this morning to give us perspective and guidance on this
legislation. I am especially proud to welcome my constituent
Terry Addington, who has traveled here from Mt. Vernon,
Illinois. You have heard me mention that community and his
company numerous times in this debate, where he is CEO and
president of First Cellular of Southern Illinois, a small rural
carrier. Offering service in rural areas presents unique
challenges, and Terry will be telling his story about how he is
working to provide E-911 service to all of his customers and
roamers who use his network.
And with my remaining time, Mr. Chairman, I also want to--
and I mentioned to my staffer Courtney Anderson that every time
I have minutes to speak, I am also going to take the time to
talk about kids.us which on September 4, 2003, Newsstar began
taking registrations for this child-friendly space on the
Internet.
The Smithsonian was the first to put up the kids site.
Disney is not far behind; after having called them, there are
positive signals. And I encourage all of you on this
subcommittee to join me in setting up child-oriented
congressional home pages. We are working with Bob Ney and House
Administration Services.
And I want to challenge anybody out there who is a
corporate entity, nonprofit, parent that I think this kids.us
site is one of the exciting things that we have done here in
the last Congress. But the whole supply and demand equation, it
will only work if there is supply out there, which means people
on the service, and demand, parents demanding a safe site for
kids to surf on the Internet.
And I am going to talk to my good friend Mr. Largent, who
is going to be involved with the CTIA, and encourage him to be
involved with kids.us.
With that I yield back my time.
Mr. Upton. We thank you for your leadership on that, and
virtually every member of this subcommittee, as we pushed that
legislation through last year. I am going to have an
upton.kids.us site. I have got two kids. You have got a couple
of kids. I know Lee Terry has got three kids. I think it is a
wonderful opportunity.
I would note that we have C-SPAN covering this hearing
today, so hopefully millions of listeners will see that as
well.
At this point I would like to recognize my colleague, Mr.
Green from Texas, for an opening statement, and one that I was
standing next to 2 years ago on this fateful day over on the
Senate side on this same issue.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
calling this hearing, particularly on this day. Like you said,
2 years ago you and I were at a 911 event with Senator Burns on
the Senate side, E-911, talking about how important it is to
have an expanded 911 system. And we learned that day here in
Washington, as well as New York, like we learned pretty often,
about how we have holes in our system still.
And I again, I think it is fitting that our committee today
is taking care of the public safety business before we gather
on the Capitol steps in an hour or so. E-911 is saving lives
right now in my hometown in Houston. We are blessed with a
great local 911 organization, the Greater Harris County 911
Emergency Network, led my John Melcher, who has testified
before our committee before, who is also president of the
National Emergency Number Association.
I congratulate the authors of 2898, both my colleague and
friend Ann Eshoo, and my basketball partner sometimes, John
Shimkus, for working hard to get this legislation together and
moving so we can get this going across America and save more
lives from accidents, crime and terrorism. And I am proud to be
an original cosponsor.
All of our major carriers, AT&T Wireless, Cingular,
Verizon, Nextel, Sprint, and T-Mobile, deserve credit for
moving forward with E-911 at a time of many competing
regulatory demands. But that is not the whole story, which is
why our legislation is going to help the smaller and rural
carriers handle this responsibility through grants and
encouraging regulatory flexibility.
Back in the 2001 hearing, we thought that we would get
nationwide E-911 by 2005. Now we are hearing 2006. And it is
vitally important that we do it earlier or are at least on
time. And, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to moving this bill to
the floor, both from our committee, but also to the Senate so
the President can sign and we can get this on track.
I know in an urban area, we went through this problem
earlier. When we created our 911 in the 1980's in an urban area
in Houston, I had constituents, when we created the statewide
one, say, why do I need to pay to the statewide system, because
we are paying here locally? And I said, well, every once in a
while in Texas you do go out to deer hunt in west Texas, and I
think you would like to probably have--if you have an accident
on that road, you would like to be able to have someone to
respond to you by using 911. Even though you are paying twice--
you are paying in an urban area and statewide--because we need
to have that seamless network not only statewide, but we need
to have it nationwide.
With that, Mr. Chairman, again, because of the day and the
side benefit that we need 911 because of the terrorism response
and its primary purpose in communication during accidents and
crimes. So thank you again for holding this hearing.
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
I would like to recognize now for an opening statement one
of the two prime sponsors of the bill, Ms. Eshoo from
California.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And good
morning to you and to all of my colleagues that are here,
certainly to the witnesses that are here as well. I want to
thank you for holding this hearing.
Today is an important day in the life of our country as we
commemorate American lives lost, and I think that one of the
lasting memories of that day was the use of wireless phones,
where people that were trapped in the buildings called their
loved ones. And it was the last time that they heard their
voices, and it was the last words that they expressed either to
their husband, wives, their loved ones. So it is with mixed
emotions that--not about the legislation, but about the
sobering aspects of today that we have gathered.
I appreciate what you have done to help move this along. I
want to salute my wonderful partner in this, John Shimkus. He
really has been a longtime partner and terrific to work with.
I think that also that it takes time for issues to mature
in the Congress. I started out on this journey in 1996. And E-
911, I guess, was related to ET at the time. I mean, people
thought that, you know, what has this Member of Congress
thought of? And yet steps have been taken, and now we are here
with what I think is a very sound bill. Certainly it is a
starting point, but it is more than a serious starting point,
because the issue has grown in the Congress.
There is a huge appreciation on the part of the American
people where over 140,000 wireless 911 calls are made every day
in our country. That represents over half of all 911 calls that
are made, and each one of those calls for so many is the single
most important call that that individual will make.
So clearly the use of wireless helps to save lives, does
save lives. But we have some holes in the system. And the work
of the Congress, since our country was attacked, was to improve
our public safety system. If, in fact, we are going to have
homeland security, we have to have hometown security. So in the
towns and cities all over our country, this system needs to be
solidified.
Our bill, the E-911 Implementation Act of 2003, creates an
E-911 implementation and coordination office at the NTIA to
facilitate coordination between the three levels of government,
the Federal, State and local emergency communication entities.
It authorizes $500 million in grants over 5 years to
enhance emergency communications systems. This is going to take
an investment. If, in fact, it is going to work, it is going to
take an investment. The investment is going to pay off. If we
can ask the private sector to make the investments that they
have had to make, along with the regulatory system, then the
Congress collectively has to see to it that we invest public
dollars in this as well. These grants would be administered by
NTIA and would require a 50 percent State match, and it would
also prevent States from misusing the funds that are collected
for E-911 services for other purposes.
That is part of the problem. And this is not to play
gotcha, but we have to be fair and recognize that people are
paying into this, and that it benefits each and Every State in
our Union if, in fact, the funds that are paid are directed to
what their original purpose is for.
So I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman. I
thank you again for holding this hearing; to John Shimkus, to
the original cosponsors, to all of the sponsors of the
legislation from the House Energy and Commerce Committee. I
think we are going to have a very important and proud product
to present to the full committee and to our colleagues on the
floor of the House.
Again, E-911 does save lives, but in order to save more and
to do more, we have to do more. And I think that is what this
legislation represents. So thank you again, and I look forward
to the hearing.
Mr. Upton. Thank you very much.
Again, I just want to say that because the House will not
be having recorded votes today, a number of members are leaving
this morning to go back to their districts for the weekend. And
at this point I would ask unanimous consent that their opening
statements, those members not here, be made part of the record.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
[Additional statements submitted for the record follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul E. Gillmor, , a Representative in
Congress from the State of Ohio
I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to consider H.R. 2898, a
measure that helps ensure cell phone users can be located during
emergencies. As an original cosponsor of the E-911 Implementation Act
of 2003, I again applaud the work of Representatives Shimkus and Eshoo.
As we know, 911 calls from wireless telephone users have increased
and delays in implementing E911 capabilities persist, emergency after
accident across the country. Van Wert County in my rural Ohio district
is currently implementing Phase I of E911, essentially providing a
nearby dispatcher the caller's cell phone number and nearest cell
tower, narrowing the person's location to a couple blocks in a city, or
in my district, within a few square miles. Less than 3% of counties in
Ohio have implemented Phase II deployments.
Furthermore, I support H.R. 2898's aim to improve the coordination,
communication, and cost issues of implementing E911 to all parties
affected. I look forward to debate and remain optimistic that we will
soon produce a meaningful measure for the House floor.
Again, I thank the Chairman and yield back the remainder of my
time.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Barbara Cubin, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Wyoming
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank you for holding this hearing to examine H.R.
2898, the E-911 Implementation Act of 2003, and build on the progress
we made during our hearing on wireless E-911 implementation earlier
this year. With over 140 million Americans owning wireless phones
today, there is no question that the deployment of wireless E-911 is a
pressing priority and part of the foundation of homeland security.
Additionally, with an increasing number of folks disconnecting their
landline telephones, and being fully untethered, the benefits of
America's mature wireline E-911 are available to fewer and fewer
households each day.
In our previous hearing on this topic, we outlined the hurdles that
block the road to ubiquitous E-911 coverage. Since then, through the
leadership of Representatives Shimkus and Eshoo, co-chairs of the E-911
caucus, a bill has been introduced that will help get all stakeholders
on the same page and marching to the same drum beat. I also wish to
thank Chairman Upton for playing an important role in moving the ball
down the field and calling the Subcommittee together to tackle the
problems facing E-911. I am looking forward to hearing testimony from
our broad-based panel about whether this legislation will help the
industry, the public safety answering points and emergency responders
come together to clear the hurdles that have impeded the rollout of
ubiquitous E-911 coverage.
I understand that the marketplace does not always meet a federal
agency's expectations, especially when it involves technological
innovation--or service to rural America. I also understand that some
state bureaucracies have diverted funds earmarked for E-911 to other
state spending programs, which is troubling. But despite these
challenges, we must press forward with this urgent national security
priority.
As a result of this hearing, I want to know what further steps, if
any, are needed in this legislation to help stakeholders run the last
mile of this marathon and give wireless consumers the safety and peace
of mind that wireless E-911 promises. I also want to ensure that there
is not an antagonistic relationship between wireless carriers and the
FCC. Instead, there needs to be cooperation among all parties to ensure
the proper final implementation of wireless E-911 while preserving the
rich variety of competitors providing wireless services across the
nation.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Charles W. ``Chip'' Pickering, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Mississippi
First, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing
today on such an important safety and security issue affecting the
wireless telecommunications industry and the general public. As we
reflect on this second anniversary of one of the most devastating
attacks ever on American soil, we should recognize the importance of
wireless services on that fateful day and how such services aided in
responding to the catastrophe. While Enhanced 911 (``E-911'') service
was important to our country before the terrorist attacks of September
11, 2001, the importance of this service is magnified exponentially in
today's environment. According to the National Emergency Number
Association, at the end of the 20th century, nearly 93% of the
population of the United States was covered by some type of 911
service, with 95% of that coverage constituting E-911 for wireline
customers. While we have made substantial progress in implementing E-
911 service for landline facilities, access to E-911 for wireless
customers is still in its infancy. Therefore, I applaud the Chairman
and this subcommittee for once again addressing wireless E-911
implementation and for considering the proposed legislation introduced
by my colleagues here on the Subcommittee, Congressman John Shimkus and
Congresswoman Anna Eshoo.
The E-911 Implementation Act of 2003, H.R. 2898, would address some
of the major hurdles faced by wireless carriers in implementing E-911
service for its wireless customers. Because it is anticipated that by
the year 2005 the majority of 911 calls will be from wireless callers,
the implementation and feasibility of E-911 service for wireless
callers is paramount. H.R. 2898 is a proper response to the hurdles
that wireless carriers face, by establishing a national implementation
and coordination office at the federal level; creating a grant program
to assist state and local officials in implementation of Phase II of E-
911 service; providing a punishment for states diverting E-911 funds
from E-911; and requiring the FCC to study its E-911 accuracy
requirements, specifically with regard to problems faced in rural
areas. This bill is a necessary component of an overarching strategy to
properly implement E-911 throughout the country.
My district is predominantly rural and served by small wireless
carriers. These companies are very important to the wireless industry
and to the rural customers which they serve, providing competitive
pricing and technological innovation in an otherwise neglected segment
of the country. It is imperative, both to the industry and to
consumers, that we consider the needs of these small regional wireless
providers and ensure they continue to be viable competitors in the
marketplace. These small wireless carriers that choose to operate in
rural areas, where costs are high and profit margins are thin, are
struggling to implement E-911. Whether dealing with uncooperative
vendors or attempting to meet almost impossible accuracy requirements,
the problems faced by small, rural carriers are something which we must
address legislatively before wireless E-911 can become a reality in the
rural areas of the country. While there is currently a waiver process
in place at the FCC, most small, rural carriers feel that the process
is wholly inadequate, as it provides no specific guidance as to the
criteria required to be granted a waiver and it contains no timeline in
which the FCC is required to make a decision upon such an application.
With such uncertainty faced by small, rural carriers--and all carriers
for that matter--it is no wonder that most small, rural carriers find
this regulatory process inadequate. Therefore, while this legislation
does seems to address the accuracy problems faced by small, rural
carriers, I feel that we should also confront other problems faced by
wireless carriers and search for ways to ameliorate these obstacles so
that small, rural wireless carriers can continue to provide quality
service in these areas that otherwise would not be served, while also
providing E-911 emergency service and all the safety benefits that that
service entails to all Americans. While our goal in this hearing is to
consider the benefits of wireless E-911, we must be careful to
implement policies that are realistic and achievable. We must remember
that wireless E-911 in rural areas is not possible without the
existence of rural wireless carriers in the first place. Thank you
again, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's hearing and I look forward to
working with you and your staff on this issue.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Chairman, Committee
on Energy and Commerce
Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing today. September
11th is unfortunately an appropriate day to hold a hearing on this
bill.
September 11th was an eye-opener on many fronts. One of them was
the weakness of our public safety communications systems. One of the
cornerstones of that system is E911 services, especially the ability to
pinpoint the location of a caller using a mobile phone who is involved
in or a witness to an emergency situation.
I commend Representatives Shimkus and Eshoo for introducing H.R.
2898 so that we can put E911 deployment on the fast track. This
legislation will greatly improve the coordination of E911 activities
within and among states. It will also facilitate greater communications
among the various stakeholders.
There is one issue in particular that this bill addresses that is
critical to speeding E911 deployment. Too many states have been raiding
E911 funds for other governmental purposes. I can think of few things
that are as irresponsible as diverting funds designated for E911
deployment. Such an action is a fraud perpetuated on consumers, who pay
fees purportedly for E911. And it may be costing lives by slowing E911
deployment. Local governments will never be ready for E911 deployment
if states continue to divert funds designated for such deployment.
That is why I am delighted that this bill penalizes states that
divert funds. Hopefully, this bill will demonstrate to states that are
diverting funds that the federal government will hold them accountable
for jeopardizing lives.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for holding this hearing. I look
forward to a speedy markup and to the enactment of this bill.
Mr. Upton. At this point we will be hearing from our
witnesses. We thank you all for submitting your testimony early
so that we had a chance to look at it last night. Your
statements will be made part of the complete record, and we
would like you to limit your remarks, opening statement now,
your oral presentation, to no more than 5 minutes.
We welcome the Honorable Tim Berry, the State Treasurer
from the State of Indiana. All of us extend our prayers to your
Governor, who is, we hope, recovering. Mr. John Muleta, the
Bureau Chief, Wireless Telecommunications, from the FCC; Mr.
Anthony Haynes, Executive Director of the Tennessee Emergency
Communications Board; and Mr. Terry Addington, president and
chief executive officer of First Cellular of Southern Illinois.
At this point, we are prepared to listen to your statement.
We will start with you, Mr. Berry. Thank you for being here
this morning.
STATEMENT OF TIM BERRY, STATE TREASURER, STATE OF INDIANA
Mr. Berry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. As Treasurer of the State of Indiana, the elected
State Treasurer of Indiana, I also serve the role as chairman
of Indiana's Wireless 911 Advisory Board, a board that is made
up of both PSAP representatives as well as carrier
representatives, and it is that board, it is my fellow members
of NENA and APCO, that I am here with you as well, members of
NENA and APCO both in Indiana and across the country.
Today is a day that, as you have all said, a day that we
honor the courage and the selflessness of emergency responders,
particularly those who represent 911. September 11, 9/11, 911
reminds us of the importance of the work of our first
responders. And today, especially in this committee hearing, we
talk about our first responders of--first responders, our 911
leaders.
As I said, as Treasurer I am the chairman of Indiana's
Wireless 911 Advisory Board, a board that gives me oversight of
Indiana's wireless 911 implementation, but also the opportunity
to work with public safety officials, private sector leaders
and others on a very, very important issue, for it was in a
NENA/APCO member, Mr. Ken Lowden, who serves as communications
director in Steuben County, Indiana, who, moments after my
election back in 1988 as State Treasurer, brought me aside and
said, I want to talk to you about wireless 911.
Now, as State Treasurer you also might be wondering about
the issues that States face, and as you have mentioned, many of
you have mentioned already this morning where States have been
diverting funds meant for 911 implementation across their
States, diverting those funds to use to balance their State
budgets, and that is an issue that concerns me greatly as a
fiscal officer. It is an issue that concerns me greatly as a
member of the 911 community, and it is an issue that I think
needs to be directed and approached.
In far too many cases our PSAPs are not ready to receive
wireless 911 capable information because money that was
intended to go to 911 services is being spent on over
government needs that may or may not pertain to 911. Instead of
paying to deploy 911, these funds are misappropriated,
misallocated, or flat out diverted away there from their
intended purpose long before a dime or even a nickel can be
spent on helping a PSAP.
Several States have begun a disturbing trend as Governors
and legislators balance their books with funds collected for
911 implementation. While I know the committee is keenly aware
of these abuses and practices, allow me to illustrate a point
of what happened recently in North Carolina, the home State of
NENA president Richard Taylor. In the waning days of the
General Assembly in North Carolina, they diverted or raided $58
million of funds that were meant to deploy--assist PSAPs in
deploying wireless 911. This is something that needs to stop.
This is something that we need to make sure that we do not
promote in the future.
But I think it is also important that we remember who is
diverting these funds and not penalize those that are not
responsible for that. And by saying that, I mean let's not
penalize our PSAPs who have no role in what the State
legislators, what the Governors are doing. They have no
control. They cannot stop them from doing that. Let's not
penalize the PSAPs with grant moneys that were meant for them
in those States where those moneys have been raided, but rather
let's work to foster a relationship that penalizes those States
who have not utilized the funds appropriately, but also rewards
those communities, those PSAPs who are wanting to deploy
technology.
And in so doing we need to create innovative ways to foster
relationships and to foster utilization of grant dollars. 911
is not a one-size-fits-all scenario. As a result, many small,
poor rural communities have fixed costs that they need for the
development and deployment of 911 technology. As a result, they
may need a higher grant ratio than a 50/50, whereas in other
communities a lower grant relationship, percentage
relationship, might be more appropriate.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
today, and I look forward to your questions and moving forward
on wireless 911 in the United States.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Tim Berry follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tim Berry, Indiana State Treasurer
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, Congressman Upton, thank
you very much for providing me with this opportunity to appear before
you today. My name is Tim Berry, and I serve as the Treasurer for the
State of Indiana.
I'm honored to appear before the Subcommittee today. Especially
today--a day that is set aside for reflection and remembrance of the
tragedies and lives lost two years ago on this very date. It is a day
to honor the courage and selflessness of all emergency responders,
particularly those who represent 9-1-1. September 11, nine-eleven or
simply nine-one-one, reminds us all of the importance of our work.
Let us not dwell upon the infamy of the anniversary, but rather
ever more dedicated to taking one of the many steps needed to improve
our nation's ability to respond to all emergencies, starting with the
first responders among first responders, our 9-1-1 leaders.
As the state-elected Treasurer, I have the pleasure of serving as
the Chair of Indiana's Wireless 9-1-1 Advisory Board, which gives me
not only oversight of Indiana's wireless E9-1-1 implementation, but
also the opportunity to work with public safety officials, private
sector leaders and others on this very important issue.
I'm here in part, to represent my colleagues in public safety: most
notably those who are members of the National Emergency Number
Association (NENA) and the Association of Public Safety Officials
International (APCO), the two groups that have guided much of these
discussions to date.
[Attached to my testimony and of which I offer to the record with a
full endorsement is NENA and APCO's joint position paper on E9-1-1
legislation before Congress].
I am a member of these organizations. NENA and APCO have been an
invaluable resource and service to my efforts in Indiana, and they are
why I'm here before you today. It was a NENA/APCO member, Mr. Ken
Lowden of Steuben County, Indiana who emphatically pushed me to get
involved, almost minutes after I was first elected in 1998.
Initially responding to a legislative duty and constituent request,
E9-1-1 has become one of my top priorities as an elected official,
politician and parent.
It is this priority that is guiding me in making Indiana a model
state in E9-1-1 deployment, and nationally working for the needs of Ken
Lowden and his many colleagues in Public Safety Answering Points
(PSAPs) throughout our nation.
My testimony, which is that of a state-elected official, is equally
the story of the thousands of 9-1-1 leaders in this nation and their
needs to help make 9-1-1 work like it should.
In discussing the E9-1-1 Implementation Act of 2003, I will ask:
how is this going to help Ken Lowden of Steuben County and his
colleagues all across the nation--the thousands of PSAPs who are
dedicated to one thing, saving lives.
E9-1-1 Fiscal Responsibility: End Abuse of 9-1-1 Monies
In far too many circumstances our nation's PSAPs are not ready to
receive wireless E9-1-1 capable information because money that is
intended to go to E9-1-1 services is being spent on other government
needs that may or may not pertain to 9-1-1. Instead of paying to deploy
E9-1-1, these funds are misappropriated, mis-allocated and flat out
diverted away from their intended purpose, long before a dime or even a
nickel can be spent on helping a PSAP.
Several states have begun a disturbing trend, as Governors and
state legislatures, balance their books with funds collected for E9-1-1
implementation. While I know the Committee is keenly aware of these
abuses and practices, allow me to illustrate a point by sharing a
recent example that occurred this past summer, in North Carolina, a
state that is home to NENA's President, Richard Taylor.
North Carolina, like many states during these lean economic years
has found it difficult to balance the state's budget. Conversely, the
state's Wireless 9-1-1 Fund has experienced a relative ``boom economy''
in the form of a steady stream of revenue from state 9-1-1 fees
collected on phone bills for the deployment of E9-1-1. Given the number
of wireless subscribers in North Carolina, the fund has accumulated a
balance of nearly 58 million dollars. A somewhat anonymous program a
few years back, this balance has not lasted long. Raiding the fund in
previous years, the North Carolina state legislature became even more
presumptuous during the last few days of this year's legislative
session. Typical of most state legislatures at the end of a session the
North Carolina Legislature was engaged in a heavy budget battle;
striking a direct hit on 9-1-1.
Late in the evening of June 30th, 2003, all 58 million dollars of
the state's Wireless 9-1-1 Fund was erased with a stroke of a pen, in
passing the balanced budget for the new fiscal year. This was done
without consultation of the state's Wireless 9-1-1 Board, which is
comprised of wireless carriers and PSAPs, much less any of the 9-1-1
professionals in the state. The results of this action, were to
discontinue funding to PSAPs for the next two years, virtually erasing
the state's 9-1-1 program and the path to E9-1-1 progress.
My friend, colleague, and president of NENA, Richard Taylor could
do very little to stop the legislature. A state appointed employee,
Richard serves at the pleasure of the Governor, and his hands were
tied. The only hope was an eleventh hour amendment, pushed by the state
members of NENA and APCO to offer a technical correction giving
authority back to the Wireless 9-1-1 Board.
The technical amendment was finally passed, but even today, the
Board still must provide the requested money to the general fund.
H.R. 2898, the ``E9-1-1 Implementation Act of 2003'' is a positive
first step to change the behavior of states like North Carolina. Like
my colleagues in NENA and APCO, I support the withholding of federal
grant monies from states and political subdivisions that divert or
misappropriate 9-1-1 monies from their intended purpose.
As a state-elected official, former county official and
particularly a fiscally conservative treasurer, I find the act of
diverting E9-1-1 funds reprehensible and irresponsible. Not only is it
careless accounting, its poor public policy, robbing public safety and
our citizens from one of the most important functions of government;
the ability to call for help.
While I equally encourage advising Congress and the publishing of
information regarding states that divert these funds, I draw caution to
the revision of FCC regulations that might hinder the ability of a PSAP
to request E9-1-1 implementation or challenge our ability to deploy
more rapidly throughout the nation.
Under the proposed legislation, Section 4 would inevitably penalize
PSAPs, as it would relieve wireless carriers of their obligation to
provide E9-1-1 if a state diverted 9-1-1 monies. Ultimately this would
punish the wrong party, for something, as in the case of North
Carolina, the PSAPs had no control over, the state legislature. The
revision of the FCC regulation, doesn't help Richard Taylor of North
Carolina or Ken Lowden of Indiana get money to deploy E9-1-1, it gives
the wireless carrier another opportunity for delay.
I respectfully request that Committee remove the section from
consideration.
Federal Grant Monies for 9-1-1
Consistent with the policy goals of the Wireless Public Safety Act
of 2003 and the work of NENA and APCO before this Committee, I support
and encourage the availability of federal grant monies for 9-1-1.
The costs of maintaining and operating a 9-1-1 system are
significant and necessary. Technical, operational and financial
resources are required from both the public and private sector.
Reliability, redundancy, innovations and challenges in modern
communications are constantly re-defining 9-1-1 costs and economies of
scale.
Just this past June, a blue-ribbon task force of Nobel laureates,
U.S. military leaders, and other experts called for a $10.4 billion
dollar investment in 9-1-1 services over five years. The call for
increased 9-1-1 funding was part of a homeland security budget analysis
issued by the Independent Task Force on Emergency Responders, led by
former Senator Warren Rudman and former White House terrorism and
cyber-security chief Richard Clarke.
NENA's Strategic Wireless Action Team (SWAT), in which I'm
participating in, is producing similar large dollar amounts to improve
our nation's 9-1-1 system.
Unfortunately, it's hard for local communities, and in some cases,
states, to keep up. Sometimes a one shot infusion of capital is needed
to get the community over the hump, other times a long term systemic
plan is required to ensure the most basic of service. The key is not to
limit a grant program to just giving money to those in need, but rather
to implement an investment strategy to reward success, cooperation,
integration and interoperability within our nation's 9-1-1 system.
To illustrate this point further, allow me to revisit my friend Ken
Lowden, back in my home state of Indiana. As I stated before, Ken runs
the PSAP in Steuben County located in northeast corner of our state. To
the north of Ken, is Michigan, to the east of Ken is Ohio, to the west
and south of his border are several rural Indiana counties. Steuben has
a moderate to small population, with a large summer tourist crowd and a
consistent stream of travelers on two of our nation's busiest
Interstates: Interstate 69, going north and south and Interstate 80
going east and west. In regard to 9-1-1, Ken and Steuben County are
bona fide leaders.
Under Ken's leadership, the state NENA chapter helped pass
legislation to create Indiana's Wireless Enhanced 9-1-1 Advisory Board,
on which Ken presently serves. This local leadership has given Ken the
opportunity to lure carriers, vendors and emerging technologies to
deploy in Steuben. A model community in APCO's Project Locate, Ken and
Steuben County are in the ninetieth percentile when it comes to our
nation's PSAPs. Yet a few miles down the road in Ohio, they have had
difficulty in passing cost recovery legislation, up north in Michigan
PSAPs have struggled with regulatory challenges, and some of Ken's
neighbors in Indiana have yet to request Phase II. However, the public,
and specifically wireless subscribers, are unaware of these
shortcomings in our emergency communications network as they travel in
the tri-state area; they do not know which community is safer and which
is not.
It's this region and Ken that come to mind when I think of federal
grants for these purposes; not based strictly on need, but leadership
and the willingness to work with all stakeholders to improve emergency
communications.
Our nation's 9-1-1 system needs an inclusive planning process,
rewarding success and cooperation in PSAP readiness. The Ken Lowdens of
9-1-1 should be encouraged and replicated. We need more planning, not
just on the state level, but on the local level as well.
How do you implement a 9-1-1 grant program that fosters leadership,
instead of a handout from the federal government? How do you drive 9-1-
1 deployment and increase the awareness for integrated approaches? I
believe the answer is twofold: support coordination and implement
grants with match threshold that encourages diversity.
Whether or not this coordination occurs on a state, local or
regional level, the need is clear, coordination breeds success.
Recognizing that the legal authority over 9-1-1 varies from state to
state, we as a nation would be well served to encourage grants that
support national standards and integration and include actual leaders
of emergency response for PSAPs, 9-1-1 and emergency communications. We
also should support a lowering of non-federal matches to maximize E9-1-
1 deployment and reward PSAP readiness, first adopters and pioneering
technology. This should help us accelerate deployment in regions
stymied by fiscal hardship, while simultaneously encouraging 21st
century-technology thinking. Ultimately, this might require a 10/90
non-federal to federal match in some regions and an 80/20 in others,
with the principle that we support larger federal matches in specific
cases and lower matches in others. And in a state like Indiana, where
we have a large number of E9-1-1 deployments, these matches could be
varied to speed up the process of PSAP readiness in the last remaining
hold out regions.
A grant program built around these fundamentals, coupled with a
diverse set of match threshold requirements is likely yield more
positive results. Done correctly, our nation is likely to have more Ken
Lowdens when it comes to deploying modern emergency communications.
National Coordination: The 9-1-1 Priority
Enhanced 9-1-1 is a national imperative, and we need to think of 9-
1-1 as part of our nation's frontline to emergency response and
communications. Improving our nation's 9-1-1 system is long overdue.
While some states and a few communities have had success in wireless
E9-1-1 we are still a long way away from modern ubiquitous emergency
communications that is needed in today's environment of mobile
communications and national security.
While I'm a strong advocate of state rights and leadership, I
recognize the different roles and leadership structures within
government. To date, the greatest burden of E9-1-1 has fallen on the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC). As the chief regulatory body,
the FCC has demonstrated a commitment to implement E9-1-1 to best of
their expertise and charter; commissioning the Hatfield report,
organizing a coordination initiative, supporting consumer awareness,
and now planning for the involvement of the National Reliability and
Interoperability Council (NRIC). With all due respect to the Commission
and the wonderful work they do in leading our nation's communications
policies, we all know that the FCC can't do it alone.
The Administration recognized the challenges of the FCC and was
able to engage the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT)
through the Wireless Implementation Program, surveying state and county
9-1-1 coordinators and providing national information on readiness of
states, counties and PSAPs for wireless E9-1-1. The program has evolved
over time and has brought the bully pulpit of Secretary Mineta's office
into the campaign.
As a state leader, I can attest firsthand to the need for federal
guidance in coordination and planning. I can equally attest that
despite the tireless efforts of the FCC and USDOT, more needs to be
done.
Consistent with the policy objectives of the Wireless Public Safety
Act of 1999, I believe it is absolutely necessary for the federal
government to begin coordinating 9-1-1 planning and support for the
deployment of modern technologies.
I support a national Coordination Office, to serve as a ``project
manager'' for 9-1-1; to help set national expectations, standards and
improved deployment timelines for E9-1-1 services. More than anything,
as a project manager, the national office should help in the nationwide
role out of services that have come to create national expectations for
consumers. As a coordinating body within government, this office would
help us better utilize our national resources in deploying 9-1-1
technologies.
Equally, I support the convening of an ``Emergency Communications
Task Force'' as proposed by HR. 2898's counterpart in the Senate,
S.1250. An Emergency Communications Task Force as outlined in the
Senate bill recognizes the roles of various federal agencies, Federal
Communications Commission, Department of Transportation, Department of
Commerce, Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, as
well as national organizations. As a task force, our nation's PSAPs,
telecommunications providers and technology services could help in the
future planning for all 9-1-1 services. This task force would support
the NENA mantra: 9-1-1 capabilities at anytime, any where from any
device.
Consumer Expectations: Educating the Public and Review of Accuracy
Requirements
When I first got involved in E9-1-1, I was amazed at the lack of
public information available about this life-saving service. And I had
been a politician long enough to know, that if we were going to make a
difference in Indiana, we would have to start educating the public. We
started with a few public service announcements on the radio for the
fans of Indianapolis 500, and now have blossomed into a comprehensive
website, that provides county by county, carrier by carrier information
of all E9-1-1 deployments in our state. Known simply as
``911COVERAGE.ORG'', this website has generated consumer demand and
knowledge on available E9-1-1 services in Indiana. Consumers now have
the E9-1-1 choice and information in the purchasing wireless services.
It's making a difference in our state deployments.
In supporting consumers, I feel it's equally important we provide
the same access for all consumers. I can not consciously accept a lower
standard for rural America, when it comes to E9-1-1.
Section 5 of HR. 2898 would ask the FCC to review rural accuracy
requirements for rural carriers and I believe this to be a mistake.
While I'm sympathetic to the challenges of rural E9-1-1 deployments,
I'm troubled by the initial requests and excuses by rural carriers to
repeal progress. We have had success in Indiana with our rural carriers
and that success has been built on the premises of partnership, with us
emphasizing what you can do, and the opportunity to do it, not what,
can not be achieved.
Closing Comments
As the state-elected treasurer of Indiana, I am tasked with being
the fiscal officer for the state's monies, which include 9-1-1. At the
same time, I've dedicated my professional life to serve the people. For
me, fiscal responsibility and the opportunity to serve the public, at
perhaps the most desperate hour, is an honor I take quite seriously.
While I don't have the same tenure and background in 9-1-1 as many
of my colleagues in public safety, I do have the same passion. I know
what's at stake, I know the sacrifices that must be made, I know the
outcomes if we don't succeed.
Unfortunately, far too often I share a different perspective than
my fellow state elected officials on this issue. This needs to change.
I ask the committee to review my comments on 9-1-1, with an eye on
improving the proposed legislation, but equally on improving the
relationship with all state-elected officials. For this, I ask the
Members of the Committee to meet with your respective state colleagues
next time you're home and encourage responsible fiscal guidance when it
comes to 9-1-1 and emergency communications.
9-1-1 saves lives. It's an essential part of our nation's homeland
defense, our safety and security, our neighborhoods and towns, our
families and our future.
Again, I thank the Committee for the opportunity to testify today
and look forward to the work before us.
Mr. Upton. Thank you very much.
Mr. Muleta, welcome back.
STATEMENT OF JOHN B. MULETA, BUREAU CHIEF, WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Mr. Muleta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr.
Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I do welcome this
opportunity to appear before you on behalf of FCC to testify on
the deployment of E-911 wireless services on this second
anniversary of the tragic day that imprinted 911 in the
Nation's consciousness and changed its meaning forever.
On that day there was no congressional hearing about the
rollout of E-911, but there was testimony of a different sort
about the importance of wireless telecommunications to our
Nation.
Aboard Flight 93, the passengers chose to die a heroes'
death, fighting to protect their fellow Americans after hearing
on their cell phones about what was going to happen. Civilians
trapped inside the World Trade Center spoke their last words to
their loved ones on cell phones that were their only connection
to the outside world. Since that day, since that attack on our
homeland, there has been a wakeup to many to look more deeply
at the vital roll that telecommunications plays in our Nation's
response to emergencies.
But E-911 wireless services are inseparably linked to the
FCC's work on other public safety issues, including wireline
infrastructure, first responder and public safety access to
spectrum interoperability and network security.
Our work is part of a larger picture that involves many
Federal agencies, State governments, and every local
jurisdiction in the country. There is an urgent need to
recognize this interlocking of interests to foster cooperation
and communication from top down as well as from bottom up,
across agencies, between individuals and among public and
private interests and the greater interests of the American
people.
Providing telecommunications service to meet our Nation's
public safety emergency response and homeland security needs is
not the job of the FCC alone, and/or of any one Federal agency.
Moreover, it will require public and private partnerships to do
the job right. Only when all of us work together will we be
able to bring about the full deployment of enhanced wireless
services such as E-911.
As this subcommittee has recognized, the full deployment of
enhanced 911 wireless services will require leadership and
vision of Congress. Indeed this subcommittee, through this and
past hearings and its legislative initiatives, has been
indispensable in advancing E-911. I especially commend you as
well as Representatives Shimkus and Eshoo and other members of
the Congressional E-911 Caucus for their leadership and vision
in this crucial area.
The leadership of this Congress will be critical to meeting
the E-911 challenges facing us to complete this vital link
between the first responders and the civilian population which
is an essential part of our homeland security efforts.
Since I last spoke to the subcommittee, the pace of E-911
has quickened to bring wireless location technology to the
Americans where they live and travel. According to our August
1, 2003, reports, phase II deployment has increased by 50
percent over the prior quarter. The six nationwide carriers
have brought online over 65 percent of their enabled markets in
the last 6 months.
Every nationwide carrier using handset-based location
technology is offering customers a location-capable handset.
Both Sprint and Verizon offer their customers 10 or more
locational-capable handsets. Sprint alone has sold over 11.6
million such phones. But this is just the beginning. We will
not rest until all consumers of wireless services are assured
that 911 has been deployed and the technology is available, and
that this technology reaches every PSAP and every urban and
suburban community across the Nation.
As an institutional matter, we have learned that progress
sometimes requires the use of an enforcement stick. The
Commission has not hesitated to use its enforcement when
stakeholders are delaying deployment in violation of law. Each
major carrier is now subject to binding deployment schedules
with automatic penalties if they fail to comply again. Since I
last testified, both Cingular Wireless and T-Mobile have
entered into consent decrees that include firm timeliness for
implementation.
At the last hearing we discussed extensively Dale
Hatfield's report to the Commission. One of the key issues that
Dale's report identified was the lack of coordination and
information flow between and among relevant stakeholders. In
response to this, we have started the FCC's E-911 Coordination
Initiative.
FCC's second meeting is targeted to take place on October
29 and 30. At that session we will sound the call to action to
our colleagues at the State level. There, for the first time,
we will convene E-911 designees for the State governments. We
also plan to provide them with resources to provide leadership
and coordination in the E-911 deployment efforts in their
States.
The second coordination initiative will also look at
accuracy challenges and about additional public education
efforts. That Hatfield reports discussion of special and
technical and economic challenges facing rural carriers and the
issues raised with respect to rural carriers.
In the rural session of our first initiative, we have
continued to focus on E-911 deployment in the rural settings,
particularly among smaller wireless carriers, such as the one
represented by Mr. Addington.
These issues are being addressed in the context of a
broader Commissionwide effort to examine the multiple wireless
issues affecting rural carriers, consumers and other rural
stakeholders.
With regard to rural E-911 deployment issues, we have
worked with all of the stakeholders to ensure that information
is shared between and among the various interests involved. As
you know, we have before us various petitions for relief from
certain implementation benchmarks in rural areas. The
Commission will decide these issues as quickly as possible
consistent with determining an equitable balance. That is very
important, an equitable balance between the public safety
community's needs and the technical and commercial hurdles that
rural carriers face in deploying location technologies that
comply with the Commission's time and accuracy requirements. We
are encouraging all stakeholders to work with us and with each
other to find the best path to full compliance with the
Commission's rules.
In addition to the coordination initiative the Chairman has
recently announced that, as Mr. Hatfield recommended, a set of
technical activities to figure out more information about how
we can improve these standards that we have set. Measuring and
improving the accuracy of E-911 location information will be a
key priority, but we will do that in the context of the broader
framework that we are facing, such as--and we will do it in the
context of the Network Reliability and Interoperability
Council, NRIC, which will continue to focus on homeland
security issues under a new charter. We will begin laying the
foundation of these inquiries at the second coordination
initiative in October. In January we will also devote the FCC's
Technical Advisory Committee meeting to 911 technical issues.
We are pleased to announce that Dale will again help us with
these issues.
We have identified accuracy measurement as an issue that
must be effectively resolved in all environments, whether
rural, urban, or some other unusual environment, so that all of
our consumers are equitably treated, and all consumers are
assured of effective location technology in their service area
and when they travel outside of it.
One area of investigation is the method by which the
Commission will measure carrier compliance with our accuracy
rules. The Emergency Services Interconnection Forum has
established a working group to examine methods for testing
location accuracy. The working group's goal is to develop a set
of minimum and practical requirements that will ensure that
individual test methodologies will provide consistent, valid
and reproducible results in the variety of environments that
wireless carriers face.
Now, in addition to all of these technical issues, we are
also focusing, under the direction of the Chairman, to make
sure that the public has a central role in making sure that E-
911 is rolled out to their individual communities. Consumers
need to ask carriers, do you provide E-911 phase II capability?
How accurate is E-911 capability in my handset, and what is
your deployment schedule in my area?
Consumers also need to ask whether their State and local
government public safety answering points are phase-II-capable.
Again, if the answer is no, we all need to ask why not. This is
a national priority, one that deserves a national dialog at all
levels about the responsibilities of each stakeholder in making
it work.
We are, at the Commission, very committed to the nationwide
deployment of E-911, both through outreach, education and
implementation. The Chairman and the fellow Commissioners will
be leading this effort to ensure that consumers have reasonable
expectations about E-911 and can make informed choices about
their cell phone service.
I would like to also just close by saying that any effort
at a national level, on a coordinated basis, especially at the
congressional level, that addressees all of these issues that I
have specified in my testimony would be of a great boon to the
public and also to the FCC in accomplishing its mission.
With that I would like to close and again thank you for
your leadership and the leadership of the other members in
helping roll out E-911 services to the public. Thank you, sir,
for the time.
[The prepared statement of John B. Muleta follows:]
Prepared Statement of John B. Muleta, Chief, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I
welcome this opportunity to appear before you on behalf of the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) to testify on the deployment of
Enhanced 911 (E911) wireless services, on this, the second anniversary
of that tragic day that imprinted 9-11 in the nation's consciousness
and changed its meaning forever.
It was exactly two years ago today that Tom Sugrue, then Chief of
the Wireless Bureau, was scheduled to testify before this very
subcommittee on the state of E911 deployment. FCC staff, preparing for
the hearing, saw the smoke rise from the Pentagon from the window of
the FCC building as they listened to news reports about the attacks on
the twin towers. There was no Congressional hearing on that day about
the roll out of wireless E911. But there was testimony of a different
kind about the importance of wireless telecommunications to our nation.
Aboard Flight 93, passengers, communicating by cell phone, learned
what the hijackers had in store for them and chose to die a hero's
death fighting to protect their fellow Americans. Civilians trapped
inside the World Trade Center spoke their last words to loved ones on
cell phones that were their only connection to the outside world.
I. INTRODUCTION
The September 11, 2001 attacks on our homeland were a wake-up call
to many to look more searchingly at issues of homeland security, and,
in particular, at the vital role that telecommunications plays in our
nation's response to emergencies. Implementation of Enhanced 911 for
wireless communications devices is central to that response. But E911
wireless services are inseparably linked to the FCC's work on other
public safety issues, including wireline infrastructure, first
responder and public safety access to spectrum, interoperability and
network security.
Before and since September 11th, the Commission has developed
policies to secure our nation's telecommunications infrastructure and
network reliability, to create analogous emergency location
capabilities for wireline and wireless telecommunication services, to
balance the needs of the public safety community and the private sector
for access to spectrum. These are all part of our mission to serve the
public interest by developing and implementing communications policies
to meet the needs of first responders and of our civilian population.
Our work is part of a larger picture that involves many Federal
agencies, State governments, and every local jurisdiction. Enhanced 911
wireless services are an essential part of the larger, interconnected
telecommunications infrastructure that supports homeland security,
public safety, and citizen activated emergency response capabilities.
There is an urgent need to recognize this interlocking of
interests, to foster cooperation and coordination from the top down and
the bottom up, across agencies, between individuals, and among public
and private interests, in the greater interest of the public good.
Providing telecommunications services to meet our nation's public
safety, emergency response, and homeland security needs is not the job
of the FCC alone or of any one Federal agency. It involves cooperation
and coordination among many Federal, State and local authorities.
Moreover, many public and private partnerships will be needed. Only
when all of us work together will we be able to bring about the full
deployment of enhanced wireless services in the service of the nation's
homeland security. Chairman Powell called for a new ``Era of
Cooperation'' on E911 at the FCC's first E911 Coordination Initiative
meeting in April. If all stakeholders heed the Chairman's call to
action, together we can build this era of cooperation into a ``New Era
of Accomplishment'' for enhanced wireless telecommunications services
in every region of the United States.
As this Subcommittee has recognized, the era of accomplishment in
which we will achieve the full deployment of enhanced 911 wireless
services will require the leadership and vision of the Congress.
Indeed, this Subcommittee, through this and its past hearings and
exploration of legislative initiatives, has been indispensable in
advancing E911. I especially commend Representatives Shimkus and Eshoo
and the other members of the Congressional E911 Caucus for their
leadership and vision in this crucial area. This hearing is an
important opportunity to work on furthering the era of cooperation with
regard to one of the most critical public safety matters of today and
tomorrow. The leadership of this Congress will be critical to meeting
the E911 challenges facing us, to complete this vital link between
first responders and the civilian population, which is an essential
part of our homeland security efforts.
II. NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND CHALLENGES
The substantial progress that we have made since I spoke to this
subcommittee in June is the best demonstration of how the pace of E911
deployment has quickened since the Chairman called for cooperation
between stakeholders in April. The data support our belief that our
efforts are starting to produce tangible results. In partnership with
all the stakeholders--we are making substantial progress in bringing
wireless location technology to the American people in the regions in
which they live and to which they travel.
Deployment Statistics
According to the August 1, 2003 Reports, Phase II information is now
being provided by at least one wireless carrier in
approximately 480 markets to more than 1200 PSAPs, an increase
of 50% over the prior quarter.
For the six nationwide carriers, over 65% of their enabled markets
have come on line in the past six months.
Every nationwide carrier using a handset-based approach is offering
at least one compliant handset. Both Sprint and Verizon offer
their customers at least 10 location-capable handset models.
Sprint alone has sold over 11.6 million such phones.
According to the NENA's statistics, 10% of PSAPs--643 of 6,121
PSAPs--already have Phase II service, a jump from 299 between
February and May of this year, with the numbers steadily
growing as carriers and PSAPs gain expertise.
And right here in our own neighborhood, in Alexandria, Virginia, E911
Phase II service has become a reality. Chairman Powell saw this
technology working first hand at an E911 Public Safety
Answering Point (PSAP) call center in Alexandria, Virginia. The
Chairman spoke with great enthusiasm about the tremendous job
Deputy Chief of Police Baker, Lt. Pellegrino, and the center
supervisor, Marietta Robinson, did demonstrating how the E911
capabilities functioned to locate callers.
So the bottom line is, E911 is working right here in the Washington
area. But this is just the beginning. We will not rest until all
consumers of wireless services are assured that their carrier has
deployed E911 location technology and that this technology reaches
every PSAP, not just in the Washington, D.C. area, but in every urban,
suburban and rural community across the Nation.
Remaining Challenges: FCC Actions and Initiatives to Meet Them
It is clear today that E911 technology works--and can save lives.
It is, unfortunately, also clear that when funds earmarked for the
deployment of E911 are diverted to other uses because of budgetary
pressures or other causes--lives can be lost. Thus, much more remains
to be accomplished.
Experience is the Best Teacher
I have learned first-hand that when location technology is not
available in an emergency, rescue is delayed. I spent several hours
stranded in a gondola in Colorado last month, waiting for help to
arrive, unable to tell the PSAP that responded to my 911 wireless call
my location on the mountainside as strong winds gusted around me. I am
happy to say that the competence of the local public safety responders
brought help quickly. Luckily, in this instance, I was only
inconvenienced.
Enforcement Actions as Consequences of Non-Compliance
As an institutional matter, we have learned that our progress
requires the use of an occasional stick. The Commission has not
hesitated to use its enforcement power when wireless carriers are not
justified in delayed deployment. Within the past fifteen months, we
have taken a number of actions where carriers have failed to comply,
including entering into consent decrees with multiple national carriers
who did not adhere to their deployment schedules. In addition to
substantial fines, each carrier is now subject to binding deployment
schedules with automatic penalties if they fail to comply again.
To recap enforcement actions described in my previous testimony:
The Commission entered into consent decrees with AT&T Wireless (June
2002) and Cingular Wireless (May 2002) regarding deployment of
E911 over their Time-Division Multiple Access (TDMA) Networks,
notwithstanding the fact that both carriers plan to phase out
much of their TDMA networks as they transition to the Global
System for Mobile Communications (GSM) standard. These consent
decrees require AT&T Wireless and Cingular Wireless each to
make a $100,000 voluntary contribution to the U.S. Treasury, to
deploy E911 Phase II technology at their TDMA cell sites, and
to provide Phase II service in response to PSAP requests by
specified benchmark dates. The consent decrees also require the
carriers to make automatic penalty payments for failure to
comply with deployment benchmarks and to submit periodic
reports on the status of their compliance efforts. Both
carriers have met their benchmarks to date: AT&T Wireless has
deployed Phase II technology to over 2,000 cell sites, with
nearly 1,200 of those sites currently providing Phase II
service, and Cingular has deployed Phase II technology at over
2,400 cell sites, with Phase II operational in nearly 1,700 of
those sites.
After issuing a Notice of Apparent Liability against AT&T Wireless
for apparent E911 violations concerning its GSM network, the
Commission and AT&T Wireless entered into a consent decree in
October 2002 to address these apparent violations. This decree
requires AT&T Wireless to make a $2 million voluntary
contribution to the U.S. Treasury, to deploy E911 Phase II
technology at its GSM cell sites and provide Phase II service
in response to PSAP requests by specified benchmark dates. The
consent decree also requires AT&T to make automatic penalty
payments for failure to comply with deployment benchmarks and
to submit periodic reports on the status of its compliance
efforts. AT&T Wireless has met its benchmarks to date,
reporting that it has deployed Phase II technology to 2,000
cell sites on its GSM network.
Enforcement Actions Since June Testimony
On June 12th, the Commission adopted an Order approving a consent
decree resolving possible violations of the enhanced 911 (E911)
Phase II rules by Cingular Wireless LLC (Cingular Wireless). As
part of the consent decree, Cingular Wireless has agreed to
make a voluntary contribution in the amount of 675,000 to the
U.S. Treasury.
Cingular Wireless has also committed to a timeline for deployment of
its network-based location technology within its Global System
for Mobile Communications network (GSM network) and to make
automatic payments to the U.S. Treasury should it fail to meet
the deployment benchmarks set forth in the consent decree.
Cingular Wireless has also agreed to submit Quarterly Reports
to the Commission on its progress and compliance with the terms
and conditions of the consent decree and the E911 Phase II
rules.
In July, the Commission adopted an Order approving a consent decree
resolving possible violations of the enhanced 911 (E911) Phase
II rules by T-Mobile USA, Inc. (T-Mobile). As part of the
consent decree, T-Mobile has agreed to make a voluntary
contribution in the amount of $1.1 million to the U.S.
Treasury.
In addition, T-Mobile has committed to a timeline for deployment of
its network-based location technology within its Global System
for Mobile Communications network and to make automatic
payments to the U.S. Treasury should it fail to meet the
deployment benchmarks set forth in the consent decree. T-Mobile
has also agreed to submit Quarterly Reports to the Commission
on its progress and compliance with the terms and conditions of
the consent decree and the E911 Phase II rules.
The Hatfield Report: FCC Implementation of Recommendations
We have taken further steps to implement the recommendations made
by Dale Hatfield 1 with regard to the technical
implementation issues and challenges associated with E911. In many
ways, the ``Hatfield Report'' has become our guidebook in working
through many of these issues. Some of the major issues identified in
the Hatfield Report include:
\1\ Mr. Hatfield is currently an independent consultant and Adjunct
Professor in the Department of Interdisciplinary Telecommunications at
the University of Colorado at Boulder. Between December 2000 and April
2002, Mr. Hatfield served as Chair of the Department. Previously, Mr.
Hatfield was the Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology at
the Commission, and immediately prior to that, he served as the Chief
Technologist at the Agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wireless carrier implementation issues, such as particular technical
and economic challenges in rural areas.
ILEC cost recovery and technical issues.
Cost recovery and PSAP funding issues.
Ongoing need for PSAP education, assistance, and outreach.
Lack of comprehensive stakeholder coordination.
Commission Implementation of Hatfield Recommendations through
Rulemaking and other Regulatory Action
In reviewing the Hatfield Report, we identified some regulatory
ambiguities and barriers on the FCC's side of the ledger. To
address these issues, the Commission recently:
Clarified PSAP readiness issues and established a certification
process.
Provided guidance on cost recovery demarcation issues.
Instituted a rulemaking on how the 911 rules should apply to
technologies such as Mobile Satellite Service, telematics
services, and emerging voice services and devices.
Bureau staff also worked on methods to reduce the number of
unintentional or harassing wireless 911 calls, a problem that
had been of growing concern to public safety organizations
because such calls divert scarce PSAP resources. Even without
the pressures of such calls, a PSAP's resources may be
challenged by the cuts in funds from hard-pressed state and
local budgets, an ever increasing number of wireless calls, the
demands of mastering the new technologies required to implement
enhanced 911 wireless services, and the need to find funding
and technical know-how in order to upgrade equipment so that
the PSAP is ready to handle location information from multiple
carriers using different location technologies.
Implementation of Hatfield Recommendation for Greater Stakeholder
Coordination
One of the key issues that the Hatfield Report identified was the
lack of coordination and information flow between and among relevant
stakeholders. In response to this problem, in April, the Chairman
launched the FCC's E911 Coordination Initiative.
The First Meeting of the E911 Coordination Initiative
The first meeting of the Initiative brought together
representatives from the federal government, the public safety
community, wireless carriers, Local Exchange Carriers (LECs) and other
interested stakeholders to address ongoing implementation issues such
as Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) funding, wireless carrier
implementation and prioritization, issues relating to LECs, and the
challenges faced by rural carriers.
The Second Meeting of the E911 Coordination Initiative
The FCC's second meeting of the E911 Coordination Initiative will
take place on October 29 and 30.
At that session, we will sound the call to action to our colleagues
at the state level. There--for the first time--we will convene the E911
designees of each of the State Governors and U.S. territories. These
leaders will provide a key interface for E911 deployment issues in the
states and important points of contact for the vital public education
efforts that are essential to successful E911 deployment. We plan to
provide resources to Governors' State 911 designees to help them
provide leadership and coordinate E911 deployment efforts in their
states. We appreciate the work of our partners at the National
Governors' Association who have been so integral to this unprecedented
effort and to the staff of the Consumer and Intergovernmental Affairs
Bureau of the Commission who have worked hard with them on this effort.
Central to this task will be building support for the idea that
state funds earmarked for E911 deployment should be used for E911
deployment. Consumers have an expectation that fees appearing on their
bills for E911 will be used to further the deployment of these life-
saving technologies, and we must ensure that those expectations are
honored.
The Second Coordination Initiative will also look at current
deployment issues, accuracy challenges, and additional public education
efforts.
Rural Deployment Challenges Identified in the Hatfield Report
Following up on the Hatfield Report's discussion of special
technical and economic challenges facing rural carriers, and the issues
raised with respect to rural carriers in the rural session of the First
Coordination Initiative, we have continued to focus on wireless E911
deployment issues in rural settings, particularly among smaller
wireless carriers. These issues are being addressed in the context of a
broader bureau-wide effort to examine the multiple wireless issues
affecting rural carriers, consumers, and other rural stakeholders. With
regard to the rural E911 deployment issues, we have worked with all
stakeholders to ensure that information is shared between and among the
various interests involved. As you know, we have before us various
petitions for relief from certain implementation benchmarks in rural
areas. The Commission will decide these issues as quickly as possible,
consistent with determining an equitable balance between the public
safety community's needs and the technical and commercial hurdles that
rural carriers face in deploying location technologies that comply with
the Commission's time and accuracy requirements.
We are also taking appropriate steps to ease these burdens wherever
possible. The recent memorandum of understanding between the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau and the Rural Utilities Services of the
Department of Agriculture should help rural carriers with one of their
biggest challenges--funding for necessary infrastructure upgrades
necessary for Phase II deployment.
Addressing the Infrastructure and Standards Issues Identified in the
Hatfield Report
E911 Subcommittee to the NRIC
In addition to the Coordination Initiative, the Chairman has
recently announced that, as Dale Hatfield recommended in his report,
the Commission is going to establish a technical group to focus on 911
network architecture and technical standards issues. Measuring and
improving the accuracy of E911 location information will be a key
priority. This group will be a subcommittee of the Network Reliability
and Interoperability Council (NRIC), which will continue to focus on
homeland security issues under a new charter. We will begin laying the
foundation for these inquiries at the Second Coordination Initiative in
October. In January, we will devote the FCC's Technical Advisory
Committee meeting to 911 technical issues. I am also pleased to
announce that Dale Hatfield has agreed to assist us in all of these
efforts.
Accuracy Issues
We have identified accuracy measurement as an issue that must be
effectively resolved in all environments--rural, urban, or some special
situation such as a coastal environment, so that all are equitably
treated and all consumers are assured of effective location technology
in their service area or when they travel outside it. One area of
investigation is the method by which the Commission will measure
carrier compliance with our accuracy rules. The Emergency Services
Interconnection Forum (ESIF) has established a Working Group to examine
methods for testing location accuracy. The working group's goal is to
develop a set of minimum, practical requirements, that will ensure that
individual test methodologies provide consistent, valid, and
reproducible results in a variety of environments. The Working Group
plans to send its recommendations to the ESIF for review by the full
body by the end of November. The Commission intends to monitor ESIF's
progress as this effort goes forward and to assess their efforts in our
future compliance work. This issue will also be a focus of discussion
at the upcoming Coordination Initiative.
Chairman Powell's Consumer Outreach Initiative
Finally the public has a central role to play in making sure that
E911 is rolled out in their communities. It is the job of all of us who
care deeply about E911 deployment to make sure that when consumers are
at the kiosk at the mall, they don't just ask about price, and how to
download the latest tune from Fifty Cent as a ring tone. They also need
to ask carriers:
``Do you provide E911 Phase II capability?''
``How accurate is the E911 capability in this handset?''
``What is your deployment schedule in my area?''
Wireless is a highly competitive market, and that enables every
consumer including you and me to vote with our respective
checkbooks. Moreover carriers that have invested substantial
resources in deployment schedules that are faster than their
rivals should receive the benefits of that investment.
Consumers should understand that not all carriers are created
E911 equal--and we have a right to know. Our Consumer and
Government Affairs Bureau recently issued a consumer advisory
to highlight for consumers what questions they should ask when
considering wireless service.
Consumers also need to ask whether their state and local government
public safety answering points are Phase II capable. Again, if the
answer is ``no'' we all need to ask ``why not?'' I urge the Congress,
the public safety community, and government agencies to enlist
consumers as an ally in ensuring that E911 deployment is properly
funded and tended to in the political process at all levels. This is a
national priority--that deserves a national dialogue about the
responsibilities of each stakeholder in making this work.
The Commission will remain committed to nationwide Wireless E911
outreach and education. The FCC will work closely with the Governors'
911 designees, our Intergovernmental Advisory Committee, public safety
organizations, and to enhance our role as an information clearinghouse.
The Chairman and his fellow Commissioners will be leading this effort
to ensure that consumers have reasonable expectations about E911 and
can make informed choices about their cell phone service.
III. CONCLUSION
To summarize, the Commission is working formally and informally on
the three ``C's that we believe are essential to solve E911 deployment:
coordination, cooperation, and communication:
Coordination: We have learned that states that have the strongest
coordination of E911 issues, have the greatest deployment
success. To foster coordination between the Commission and the
States, we have identified each Governor's E911 representative
and will be working with them on a number of leadership
initiatives.
Cooperation: We have learned that where interests find ways to work
cooperatively, even in a competitive environment, problems can
be minimized. We are therefore trying to develop cooperation
between carriers, vendors, and LECs to spur deployment,
minimize time delays and maximize economic efficiency.
Communication: We have learned that when rural carriers communicate
early and often with their local PSAPs, they have fewer
problems with coordination and communication. We are therefore
requiring that any carrier seeking a waiver communicate with
the local PSAPs which are affected by the waiver, and discuss
not only what the problems are, but their solutions, so that
together they can work on a sure path to full compliance.
There are several other important ``c'' concepts, such as consumer
awareness and cost recovery. We believe that the consumer can
be a strong advocate for deployment, both with carriers and
with state and local government. Strong State E911 coordinators
and strong consumer interest have been highly successful in
improving the cost recovery picture for carriers and ensuring
that state funds are not diverted to other purposes.
The full deployment of E911 is the work of many hands. The
Commission is only one of many organizations entrusted with a
leadership role. The collective progress has been driven by the
leadership of many individuals and organizations doing their part to
advance E911. First the Congressional E911 Caucus under its superb
leadership has done an extraordinary job heading this effort on Capitol
Hill. Public Safety leadership organizations have also played an
important and creative leadership role. Members of APCO's Project
Locate have worked tirelessly to offer PSAPs assistance with filing
requests for Phase II service and to open the lines of communication
between PSAPs and wireless carriers. Similarly, NENA's SWAT effort has
helped immeasurably in removing roadblocks to deployment. The tireless
efforts of these two public safety organizations are models of
dedicated service in the public interest. I must also mention ESIF's
E911 work, and the Department of Transportation's Wireless E911
Steering Council, which have also brought national leadership and
attention to help accelerate deployment. The ESIF and the DOT-NENA
partnership are examples of how imaginative partnerships can provide
the impetus to progress and innovation.
Working together we can make E911 deployment a reality across this
nation. We will not stop until we have rolled out location capability
in every corner of our nation. Together, we will keep the roll-out
moving towards that goal.
I would like to again thank the Subcommittee for this opportunity
to provide information on wireless E911. I look forward to hearing your
views and answering any questions you may have.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Haynes.
STATEMENT OF ANTHONY C. HAYNES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TENNESSEE
EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS BOARD, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND
INSURANCE
Mr. Haynes. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. I am appearing here today on behalf of the Tennessee
Emergency Communications Board. I am also a member of the
National Emergency Number Association, the ComCARE Alliance,
and the National Association of State 911 Administrators. But,
again, my testimony this morning is on behalf of the Tennessee
State Board.
I applaud your leadership, Mr. Chairman, as well as your
colleagues' and that of staff in crafting H.R. 2898. I also
wish to extend a sincere thanks to Members and the cochairs of
the Congressional E-911 Caucus for your fine and tireless work
here. I also want to thank our own Congressman, Bart Gordon,
for his request to not only have the views of our Board
represented in the record here today, but also for his
continued interest in our State's E-911 deployment progress.
On behalf of the Board, I strongly support the overall
intent of H.R. 2898. If enacted with some minor modifications,
our communities will be more secure, our streets safer, our
property losses lowered, and most importantly lives will be
saved. I am pleased to report that in the State of Tennessee,
we have made substantial progresses in phase II implementation.
And in my written statement today submitted for the record,
I made four points regarding the deployment of phase II 911.
First, it can be done. Whether it is PSAP readiness or career
deployment, it does take a commitment. Second, many approaches
and resources that enabled the successes that we enjoy in the
State of Tennessee are found in H.R. 2898.
Third, in spite of the appearance of adequate revenues and
near completion of phase II implementation in our State and
others, we still face a challenge, particularly in supporting
the financial stability of rural 911 districts and operations.
And, fourth, the regulations are working. Blanket waivers
to relax deployment schedules are unnecessary. The FCC can and
should address the challenges of deployment on a case-by-case
basis.
With regard to the bill, we strongly endorse its passage
with the following refinements: State 911 boards and entities
should be eligible to receive and distribute Federal funds as
well as coordinate those disbursements with local 911
operations.
And, second, provisions in section 4 and 5 of the bill
potentially create an escape hatch for compliance, and it
should be eliminated. Our Board recognizes the challenges
facing PSAPs and carriers, especially in rural areas, in
providing phase II service. Our Board has provided multiple
extensions to our own requests for phase I and II service when
requested by the carriers, but then only provided when the
carrier has acted in good faith.
As a result of its commitment, fiscal discipline,
coordination role and cost recovery, Tennessee has established
itself as one of the Nation's leaders in E-911 deployment, with
90 percent of our State's 911 districts being Phase II ready,
and many of those, if not most of those, receive phase II live
data from at least one wireless carrier.
This success, however, would not be possible without the
regulatory backstop and support of the FCC. The bill creates a
National Office of Coordination that will be very helpful in
providing a one-stop shop for technical assistance,
troubleshooting, driving new products and technologies, and
needed dialog on all issues arising from 911 implementation.
This would be a great asset to State organizations and
local organizations alike. As we have seen with location
technology solutions, data base management and other services
required to conduct 911 operations, the high demand for product
combined with an oligopoly setting can sometimes suppress the
rise of better products, applications and protocols. It also
results in higher solution prices to the carriers, PSAPs and
ultimately the wireless consumer.
With regard to this office, I would encourage other Federal
agencies, such as the FCC, USDA Rural Utility Service,
Department of Transportation and the Interior's Bureau of
Indian Affairs should also be consulted in Federal
coordination.
Although I commend the bill's sponsors' and cosponsors'
intent for ensuring fairness and cost recovery for rural
wireless carriers, I strongly recommend the elimination of
section 4 and 5 of the bill. If there is one thing that we all
leave here today in agreement, it should be that consumers
living in rural areas deserve the same level of E-911 service
as those living in urban and suburban areas.
Some argue that the FCC standards on accuracy should be
relaxed in rural areas. I am here to tell you today that the
need for accurate location data in rural emergencies is
equally, if not more, important than the more populated
locations.
Current actions and orders of the FCC to encourage E-911
deployment are working. Much of the extent of phase II
deployment in the past 12 months has been due to the possible
threat of enforcement. It is important to note, however, that
despite the best efforts of carriers, PSAPs and State
organizations, there will be some areas in this country where
you cannot attain the accuracy standard, but to simply ignore
the FCC's requirements without attempting to deploy, while
banking on Washington lawyers to obtain regulatory relief in
good faith is not in good faith, nor is it in the spirit of
using the public's spectrum.
I recommend that the FCC and carriers be left alone to
explore and exhaust all avenues to address this situation
before Congress sends a signal which can be interpreted as
encouraging a blanket waiver.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2898 takes one of the
greatest steps toward helping ensure that E-911 service is
enjoyed by all Americans, both rural and urban. Most of the
approaches taken in this bill that the authors have crafted has
had a proven track record somewhere in this Nation in making
phase II 911 service available.
Congress should recognize the valuable role that State
boards and organizations can play in meeting the goals and
objectives of the bill. The FCC should be permitted to continue
working with rural carriers without the intervention of
Congress, and the authors and cosponsors of 2898 can be very
proud of this measure, for with those minor modifications, it
will make great contributions toward public safety and
security, as well as saving countless lives.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your support on E-911. I
appreciate the opportunity to be here today, and I look forward
to any questions that you or your colleagues may have later in
the hearing.
[The prepared statement of Anthony C. Haynes follows:]
Prepared Statement of Anthony C. Haynes on Behalf of the Tennessee
Emergency Communications Board
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is
Anthony Haynes, and I serve as the Executive Director of the Tennessee
Emergency Communications Board (The Board). The Board serves as the
state's authority for all wireless E-911 implementation, advancement
and financial support. The Board also has financial oversight for the
state's 100 local Emergency Communications Districts (ECDs), which are
statutorily defined municipalities in our state. I am appearing today
on behalf of the Board. I am also a member of National Emergency Number
Association, the ComCARE Alliance and the National Association of State
9-1-1 Administrators.
(For further submission to my testimony, I've attached a joint
public safety position paper of both the National Emergency Number
Association and the Association of Public Safety Officials
International, regarding E9-1-1 legislation before Congress.)
I applaud your leadership, Mr. Chairman, as well as that of your
colleagues and staff in the crafting of H.R. 2898. When enacted, this
measure will help facilitate major advancements in the much needed
areas of training, coordination and financial assistance for the
nation's Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) and thus, improve the
delivery of E-911 services. I also wish to extend a sincere thanks to
members of the Congressional E-911 Caucus. Their voice in the Congress
on E-911 issues is helping ensure that all Americans have access to
this essential life-saving service. I also wish to thank Congressman
Bart Gordon for his request to include the views of the Board for
consideration today. The Board appreciates his continued leadership and
interest in the progress of E-911 deployment in our state.
On behalf of the Board, I strongly support the overall intent of
H.R. 2898. Many of its components will put this nation on course to
establish and improve the quality of E-911 service. If enacted with
minor modification, our communities and homeland will be more secure,
our streets safer, property losses lowered and most importantly, lives
will be saved.
Since its inception, the 911 system has been the first responder in
times of individual and mass emergencies. Every day, Americans call 911
at the time of their greatest need. In Tennessee alone, we average over
11 million 911 calls per year. For the caller, the successful
completion of a 911 call can mean the difference between danger and
security, injury and recovery or life and death.
Until recently, calls for help from wireless phones could not
deliver similar location information to that of landline systems. The
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) so well understood the value of
E-911; it required wireless carriers to develop a similar capability in
two phases to provide emergency responders with a 911 caller's precise
location. Under the original FCC mandate, wireless carriers were to be
well on their way of the second phase of the deployment of location
capabilities.
I am pleased to report that in the State of Tennessee, we have made
substantial and meaningful progress in Phase 2 wireless location
capability. In my statement today, I will respectfully make
recommendations to improve the legislation before the Committee and
emphasize these four points related to the deployment of Phase 2 E-911:
First, it can be done. Whether it's PSAP readiness or carrier
deployment, it takes commitment.
Second, many approaches and resources that enabled the successes that
we enjoy in Tennessee are found in the E-911 Implementation Act
of 2003.
Third, in spite of the appearance of adequate revenues and near
completion of Phase 2 implementation in Tennessee, our state
faces increasing challenges, especially in helping maintain the
financial stability of rural 911 districts.
Fourth, the regulations are working. Blanket waivers to relax an
already relaxed deployment schedule are unnecessary. The FCC
can and should address the challenges of deployment in specific
communities on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the
level of effort by carriers and communities.
With regard to the E-911 Implementation Act of 2003, we strongly
endorse its passage with the following refinements:
States and State Emergency Communications Boards should be eligible
to receive and distribute federal funds and coordinate their
disbursement to local PSAPs;
Auditing and accountability requirements should be reasonable and
coordinated on a statewide level; and
Provisions in Sections 4 and 5 of the bill, which potentially create
an escape hatch to compliance, should be eliminated or
substantially modified.
TENNESSEE'S E-911 EXPERIENCE
In the State of Tennessee, 100 local Emergency Communications
Districts (ECDs) deliver 911 services. These municipal districts were
created by state law in the mid-1980s and are governed by a locally
appointed board. Historically, ECDs' primary source of operational
revenue was fees assessed on local wired phone lines. Until recent
years, this revenue mechanism was largely sufficient to meet the local
ECD financial needs. The delivery of 911 service varies by ECD. In most
cases, the local ECD supports its own dispatch operations. A
significant number of ECDs deliver all 911 calls to local law
enforcement or public safety agencies for separate dispatch and
response. Nonetheless, the success of the 911 daily operations in our
state is due primarily to the hard work and dedication of local 911 and
public safety officials.
MEETING THE WIRELESS CHALLENGE
In 1998, the state legislature established the Tennessee Emergency
Communications Board to serve as the state's authority for the
implementation and advancement of wireless and wireline E-911 service.
The Board was also charged with financial oversight of the state's
ECDs, and administering cost recovery for wireless E-911 from the
state's E-911 Fund. This fund, created as a separate entity from the
state's ``General Fund'', was to be used only for providing cost
recovery to PSAPs and wireless carriers for Phase 1 and 2 costs, as
well as grants to PSAPs for enhancing E-911 readiness and operations.
To date, the Board has provided more than $10 million to
telecommunications carriers and PSAPs primarily for Phase 1 E-911 cost
recovery, and approximately $50 million which is pending primarily in
Phase 2 requests. The Board provides 100 percent cost recovery to PSAPs
and carriers for costs incurred associated with providing E-911
service. A one-dollar monthly fee assessed to all cell phone users
supports the board and all its activities, including consumers of
``pre-paid'' wireless phones.
The Board recognizes the challenges facing PSAPs and carriers,
especially in rural areas, in providing Phase 2 service. In adopting
Phase 2 cost recovery policies, the Board gave first priority to PSAPS
and telecommunications cooperatives providing wireless service. The
Board has provided multiple extensions to ``Requests for Phase 1 and 2
Service'' when requested by carriers, provided the carrier has acted in
good faith. The Board works hard to maintain an open dialogue with
wireless and Local Exchange Carriers (LECs), deployment and technology
vendors, and PSAPs. Finally, in addition to annual grants to help
establish and maintain a GIS mapping system in each ECD, the Board
established an annual Rural Dispatcher Assistance Grant intended to
benefit the state's most rural ECDs. This grant would support the full
time equivalent (FTE) costs of hiring one full-time or two part-time
dispatchers annually.
As a result of its commitment, fiscal discipline, coordination with
local PSAPs and cost recovery toward Phase 1 and 2 implementation,
Tennessee has established itself as one of the nation's leaders in E-
911 deployment. To date, 90 of the state's 100 ECDs are Phase 2 ready,
with most receiving live Phase 2 data from at least one wireless
carrier. We will not be satisfied until all ECDs and all carriers meet
Phase 2 requirements; however we are very proud of our progress to
date. This success would not be possible without the regulatory
backstop and support of the FCC.
911'S ROLE IN HOMELAND SECURITY
The Board also understands the critical role 911 serves in homeland
security. To respond to our nation's preparedness against terrorism,
the Board established a homeland security advisory council charged with
identifying the shortcomings and weaknesses of the current 911
infrastructure. The group is comprised of 911 leaders and engineers,
current and former BellSouth employees who helped design the state's
current 911 network 25 years ago, wireless carriers, GIS mapping
experts, and the director of security for the Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA). Tennessee's rural areas host a significant presence of
the nation's critical infrastructure in terms of electric power
reliability. We believe it is imperative that an open dialogue and
joint preparedness planning occur between 911 and the TVA.
TRAINING
The accomplishments of the Board and local ECDs have increased the
confidence of the state legislature in our organization resulting in
the addition of responsibilities. Beginning this year, the Board will
serve as the state's authority for setting all emergency dispatcher
certification and training standards. It was the intent of the sponsors
that the Board create a national model for dispatcher standards and
training, in much the same way it has for E-911 deployment.
Our experience in Tennessee, offers a model of public and private
as well as state, local and federal cooperation. It is an experience
that suggests that enhanced federal involvement will further advance
our efforts in Tennessee and similar efforts throughout the nation.
H.R. 2898--A MEASURE WELL OVERDUE
Government provides many services, some of which are critically
important. Arguably, none is more important than helping people when
they need help the most--when they call 9-1-1. H.R. 2898 recognizes key
issue areas needed to ensure reliable, efficient and comprehensive 911
service for all Americans.
NATIONAL OFFICE OF COORDINATION
Section 158 of the bill creating an ``Office of Coordination''
would be very helpful in providing a one-stop-shop for technical
assistance, troubleshooting, and fostering needed dialogue on all
issues arising from E-911 implementation. This would be a great asset
to state local 911 organizations alike. Phase 2 technology is dynamic.
Almost every day something new is learned about its performance,
applications, and shortcomings. Having such a clearinghouse in the
federal government will help ensure objectivity and that no one company
or technology can use such a clearinghouse as an opportunity to
unfairly position itself in the marketplace. As we have seen with
location technology solutions, data base management and other services
required of 911 operations, the high demand for product combined with
an oligopoly setting can sometimes suppress the rise of better
products, applications and protocols. It also results in higher
solution prices to carriers, PSAPs and ultimately the wireless
consumer. I also commend the provision of reporting annually to
Congress the activities of such an office.
PHASE 2 GRANTS
If there were one core component of this legislation that would
produce quick, substantive results, it would be the creation of E-911
grants. In the end, one would have to have the necessary financial
resources to bring E-911 technology into the PSAP. The technology and
equipment needed for such is expensive. It is difficult for some rural
areas with limited tax base, bonding opportunities or other revenue
sources to acquire such equipment without outside help. Given this, I
recommend that the maximum contribution of the federal match be
increased to at least 80%. This would not only help rural PSAPs and
governments, but also be more consistent with matching requirements of
many federal homeland security grants. Federal agencies such as the
FCC, USDA-Rural Utilities Service, Department of Transportation and the
Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs should also be consulted in federal
coordination and grant determination.
Current landline 911 technologies have been around for 25 or more
years. Most PSAP managers and dispatchers are quite proficient at
trouble shooting the older technology when necessary. E-911 technology
is new, extremely complex and dynamic. Training for dispatchers is
always an item of needed support, especially with new Phase 2
technology. The PSAP dispatcher is most often the first to know if E-
911 technology is not performing properly. The dispatcher is where the
``Trouble Ticket'' begins if equipment or technology is failing, or is
not within the accuracy standard. Therefore, the need for training
supported through grants is required now more than ever.
FINANCIAL CRISIS FACING STATE AND RURAL 911 OPERATIONS
A great misconception exists that if a state has a cost recovery
mechanism and is coordinating E-911 implementation that all is well.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Although state 911 boards and
cost recovery mechanisms enable the potential for greater success, each
state and locality faces its own unique financial challenges in
implementing and maintaining E-911 service.
Rural areas are already financially challenged due to smaller
populations, and fewer businesses and industries--all of which are
added an already small tax base. Adding to these challenges is the fact
that many rural areas receive less favorable bond ratings and loan
rates. This has recently complicated 911 financial support historically
provided by towns and counties. The national trend of decreasing
landlines, another key and traditional sources of local 911 funding,
has made matters even worse. In Tennessee, state law requires that 25
cents of each dollar collected by the state for E-911 be redistributed
among the state's 100 ECDs based on population. The greater the
population of an ECD, the greater the amount of disbursement of funds
it receives. As a result, the more rural a 911 operation is, the poorer
it is likely to be. Although the state Board has increased local 911
fees in some rural areas to the maximum rate permitted by state law,
and provided 100 percent cost recovery for E-911 PSAP costs, an
increasing number of rural 911 operations face a potential financial
crisis in the near future. Based on a review of ECD annual audits, our
staff estimates that over $130 million is spent annually to provide 911
operations in Tennessee. This does not include an additional estimated
$20-30 million annually in non-cash resources provided by local police,
fire and government organizations.
State 911 Boards like Tennessee's could use federal resources to
target support to where it is needed most and produce a coordinated and
integrated emergency communications investment strategy. Therefore, I
would strongly urge the Congress to consider the needs of, as well as
the outcomes that can be attained in providing equal consideration to
state 911 boards and coordinators in grant selection.
I would recommend that in states where wireless or 911 boards
exist, these organizations be used as state-based vehicles for grant
disbursement. This can result in better targeting, matching and
leveraging of federal monies with state and local resources if the
state board is committed to such.
CERTIFICATIONS
The effort to ensure that 911 funds collected from consumers are
used for their intended purposes is important and laudable. We are
concerned that sincere attempts by this legislation to discourage
diversion of dedicated 911 funds may ultimately worsen the financial
fate, not help PSAPs. In states where diversions have been a threat or
a problem, including Tennessee, governors and legislators have been
forced to eliminate state jobs, contracts, divert state highway monies
and other dedicated funds in order to keep states solvent. The
``raiding'' of such political sacred cows indicates that federal 911
matching requirements would be of little deterrence. Further, I believe
the certification language that disqualifies a state's 911
organizations from all grant funding punishes those with little or no
control over the system. I appreciate the need for the bill's authors
to ``close the back door'' that may arise with some states accepting
grants, while diverting dedicated 911 monies. Federal highway and
pollution control and abatement monies may offer a stronger
disincentive for diverting dedicated 911 funds.
ASSESSMENT AND AUDIT
I commend the authors in crafting the provision for the FCC to
monitor taxes, fees and other charges imposed by states on wireless
carriers. However, there needs to be a realization of the real world
implementation challenges of the requirements on the FCC and state and
local governments. A more practicable solution would be to work closely
with state 911 Boards to coordinate the audit and certification process
so that the cost of reporting does not diminish the value of the
federal funds.
Another important element of 911 collections merits review. As
wireless service rates continue to decrease, it is important to monitor
the E-911 fees imposed and collected by individual carriers to recover
their E-911 costs. An increasing number of wireless carriers are not
only collecting their own E-911 recovery fees, but collecting and
remitting the individual state's as well. Although I am not opposed to
such practices if justified to cover the carrier's costs, they should
not be permitted to ``double-dip'' from consumers and PSAP cost
recovery for the same costs and these cost recovery mechanisms should
not be ``profit centers'' for carriers. At the same time, just and
reasonable administrative costs related to carrier and government
collection and remittance of 911 fees to state and local agencies
should clearly be a permitted use of 911 funds. The FCC should work
closely with states and local PSAPs to ensure that state and carrier
practices are properly coordinated.
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
Although I commend the bill's sponsors and co-sponsors intent on
ensuring fairness and cost recovery for rural wireless carriers, I
strongly recommend the elimination of Sections 4 and 5 of the bill.
The provision in Section 4 directs the FCC to ignore the fact that
a PSAP may be able to receive and use live Phase 2 data. Rather, it is
to use the presence of a cost recovery mechanism as a measure of PSAP
readiness. If a state diverts 911 funds, the state is deemed not to
have a sufficient cost recovery mechanism in place. The PSAP most
likely will have no control over the decision to divert dedicated 911
monies in a state. Thus, such a requirement only impairs and aggravates
the advancement of E-911 deployment. The Congress should ensure that
Section 4 does not create an escape hatch for carrier compliance with
E-911 rules when states divert funds.
FAIRNESS FOR RURAL CONSUMERS AND CARRIERS
With regards to Section 5, we are concerned that it could be used
to create a blanket E-911 deployment waiver for classes of carriers,
regardless of their level of effort. Consumers living in rural areas
deserve the same level E-911 service as those in urban and suburban
areas. Some argue that the FCC E-911 accuracy standards should be
relaxed in rural areas. The need for accurate location data in rural
emergencies is equally, if not more important in rural areas than in
more populated locations.
Current actions and Orders of the FCC to encourage E-911 deployment
are working. Much of the extent of Phase 2 deployment in the past 12-15
months has been due to the threat of enforcement. In spite of this
threat, multiple avenues continue to exist at the FCC for carriers to
present unique circumstances impeding their deployment efforts. Those
incurring such difficulties should be separated from those carriers
that simply refuse to even try. From my perspective, the FCC has been
firm, but fair in enforcing its E-911 requirements. It's important to
remember that all carriers, regardless of size, have known for years
the E-911 accuracy standard and of its ultimate enforcement.
It is important to note, however, that despite the best efforts of
carriers, PSAPs and states, there are some areas in where the standard
cannot be attained. The unique characteristics of the terrain, distance
from towers or technology limitations will prevent attainment of the
FCC's accuracy standards. In some cases, the cost of attaining the
accuracy standard may be prohibitive. But to simply ignore the FCC's
requirements without attempting deployment while banking on Washington
lawyers to obtain regulatory relief is not acting in good faith, nor is
it in the spirit of using the public's spectrum.
In late 2001, our Board entered into an agreement with Advantage
Cellular, a small coop, for the purpose of conducting a Phase 2 trial.
Advantage Cellular provides wireless service in some of the most
challenging terrain east of the Mississippi River. Advantage is
considered a Tier 3 carrier by the FCC. The significance of the
Advantage trial was meeting, and in some cases exceeding the FCC
standard in very difficult terrain and a limited number of towers with
which to work. In the end, the trial was successful. Their success did
not happen without months of technological challenges and frustrations.
The bottom line is that it took the commitment of all involved,
especially the carrier, to overcome the challenges and make Phase 2
service a reality for their area.
In cases where carriers have acted in good faith and the standard
is not attainable, the FCC has the ability to verify, extend and
ultimately forebear its requirements imposed on a carrier. I recommend
that the FCC and carriers explore and exhaust all avenues to address
this situation before Congress sends a signal, which could be
interpreted as encouraging a blanket waiver.
The cost incurred by small and rural carriers serving rural areas
is a valid consideration. We are pleased that four out of five rural
(Tier 3) carriers in Tennessee are underway, or have completed their
Phase 2 deployment. Two of these four are currently receiving Phase 2
cost recovery. In states and localities where cost recovery is absent,
there are financial opportunities available to the carrier in meeting
deployment costs. The USDA Rural Utilities Service, Rural Telephone
Bank, CoBank and the National Rural Telecommunication Finance
Corporation are examples of a few rural lenders whose mission is to
bring essential services to rural America. Carriers can also recover
part, if not all, of their costs by directly placing a line item on the
consumer's monthly bill and prepaid cellular service.
CONGRESS AND THE FCC
Congress can provide appropriations through the USDA Rural
Utilities Service and other rural development programs to assist rural
carriers and PSAPs. Such authorizations already exist in the Farm Bill,
Rural Electrification Act and other legislation. The FCC can help as
well. As more and more wireless carriers apply for ``Eligible
Telecommunications Carrier'' (ETC) status in order to receive
``Universal Service'' support, the FCC could condition that support on
deploying E-911.
CONCLUSION
H.R. 2898 takes one of the greatest steps toward helping ensure
that E-911 service is enjoyed by, and available to all Americans--rural
and urban. Most of the approaches taken in the bill have a proven track
record of facilitating positive outcomes in E-911 deployment,
maintenance and advancement in both urban and rural areas. The grant
opportunities created in the bill are desperately needed by state and
local 911 authorities alike. However, the resulting action from the
proposed certification requirements could hurt PSAPs that need help the
most. State wireless or 911 boards, where they exist, should serve as
the administering or authorizing agency for 911 grants in order to
promote targeting based on need, matching opportunities and leveraging
with other sources. State 911 boards should also be eligible to receive
grants for regional E-911 initiatives, dispatcher training, securing
technical support and other needs unforeseen at the current time. The
FCC should be permitted to continue working with rural carriers without
intervention from the Congress. Congress should also support other
opportunities to assist rural carriers and PSAPs through rural
telecommunications financing and grants.
The authors and co-sponsors of H.R. 2898 can be proud of this
measure. With minor modifications, it will make great contributions
toward public safety and security, as well as saving countless lives.
On behalf of the millions of 911 professionals and all involved in
supporting their work, I thank you for your support and the opportunity
to be here today.
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
We would also like to acknowledge that Bart Gordon is a
valuable member of this committee. He has probably gone back to
Tennessee with no votes.
Mr. Addington, welcome.
STATEMENT OF TERRY W. ADDINGTON, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, FIRST CELLULAR OF SOUTHERN ILLINOIS
Mr. Addington. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee. I can't tell you how honored I am to be in front of
you today. I am going to speak from the heart. I am going to
depart from my text. I am going to speak from the heart very
briefly. Phase II. I want it. I have been trying to get it
since 2001. And I am so close that I can taste it.
First Cellular is a small rural wireless carrier serving
the lower 24 counties of Illinois. We cover about 10,000 rural
square miles and have a population density of approximately 50
people per square mile. Our largest city is Carbondale,
Illinois, at about 30,000 people, when the university is in
session. The rest of our coverage area is made up of small
towns, farmland, freeways and very rural back roads. I employ
150 people. We are represented by Congressman John Shimkus, and
are proud of him as our Congressman, and appreciate his efforts
for the people of southern Illinois. It is my privilege to be
able to publicly thank you, Congressman Shimkus. We appreciate
your good work.
I support H.R. 2898, and I thank you for considering it.
This legislation will help wireless carriers in a variety of
ways. I support the review of accuracy requirements in rural
areas, and the provision that requires States to certify that
they are not diverting E-911 funds collected from the public.
In my case, these two requirement are paramount and key to this
legislation in their benefit to First Cellular and other rural
wireless carriers.
I also believe there is value to the creation of an office
for E-911 coordination, as many of the issues causing delays
for my deployment are a result of communications coordination
and compatibility issues with vendors. Coordination with public
safety answering points is also essential. I would like to note
in our area, our PSAPs have been an absolute joy to work with.
Of all of the government mandates we are trying to support
at this time, E-911 is the one that saves lives. As such, this
mandate deserves the special attention called for by H.R. 2898.
This legislation calls for an amendment to the Communications
Act of 1935 to include a provision that requires States to
certify that they are not diverting E-911 funds. I support this
wholeheartedly.
As of August 11, 2003, the Governor of the State of
Illinois signed a law that provided for the recovery of costs
for phase II of E-911. Unfortunately, rumors are already
rampant that prior to its effective date of January 1, 2004,
the E-911 fund will be raided by the State to provide money for
the State general fund. This must not happen.
The funds were collected at a rate of 75 cents per month
from every wireless subscriber in the State since August 2000.
These funds were collected under the premise that they were
destined to enhance the safety of the individual wireless user
by funding the deployment of a wireless E-911 system. In my
opinion, the use of those funds for anything other than for
what it is intended would constitute a fraud upon the wireless
customers of the State of Illinois.
H.R. 2898 is exactly on target in addressing the diversion
issue. I would like to raise a real Catch-22 that I am facing.
Passage of the Illinois cost recovery statute happened to
coincide with our final vendor and technology decision. As we
began the process of issuing a purchase order to move forward
on deployment, we were told by the State Central Management
Services Agency, the agency that administers the fund, since
the law is not effective until January 1, 2004, any expenses
incurred before 1/1/2004 were not recoverable.
So the Federal Government tells me on one side we must
deploy soon, or we can be fined, while the State government
tells us, if you want to recover your costs, you need to wait.
This make no sense to me, and is a clear disincentive to a
timely deployment of a system that could save lives.
Finally, for carriers who serve rural areas, flexibility in
the application of accuracy requirements is a critical
provision of this legislation. Next to cost recovery and
nondiversion of funds, this is probably the most critical
element of the legislation because it could be the difference
between reasonable investment and an investment that is simply
infeasible.
Rural networks are different from those in urban areas.
Many rural carriers cover very remote areas with low population
densities, and only one side covering them. This makes
triangulation to meet accuracy standards extremely difficult.
In urban areas the increased density of cell sites permits
triangulation to work well. This fundamental difference could
require the addition of several cell sites in a rural area
situated not for customer service needs, but simply for more
finite and possibly, possibly, unnecessary accuracy results.
Getting within a few hundred feet of someone in need on a
rural back road may more than suffice to locate that
individual. In other words, the need and ability to meet the
required accuracy standards in these areas may not balance
against the cost of building additional sites, especially
without cost recovery.
Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee, once
again I offer my support of this legislation. Thank you so much
for allowing me to air my views and to submit to you my story.
Again, I would ask for your support. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Terry W. Addington follows:]
Prepared Statement of Terry W. Addington, President and CEO, First
Cellular of Southern Illinois
My name is Terry Addington and I serve as President and CEO of
First Cellular of Southern Illinois. I have served in this capacity
since 1994. I also hold positions on the Boards of Directors of RCA,
The Rural Cellular Association, CTIA, The Cellular Telecommunications
and Internet Association, and ITA, the Illinois Telecommunications
Association. I am a past president of RCA and am currently sitting as
Vice-Chairman of CTIA.
I am here today speaking only on behalf of my company, First
Cellular of Southern Illinois. I am simply a small business owner and
operator from Middle America. I am not a lobbyist nor am I an
experienced ``Washington insider''. I have no Washington office nor do
I have any regulatory staff. A lawyer or a consultant did not write my
testimony and written statement. My ``special agenda'' is only that of
a business trying to stay in business and deliver a fair return to my
shareholders. The perspective I share with you is from one carrier and
is one person's opinion based on my experiences in trying to implement
phase II of the E-911 mandate.
First Cellular is a small rural wireless carrier servicing the
lower 24 Counties of Illinois. We cover about 10,000 rural square miles
and have a population density of approximately 50 people per square
mile. We sit between St. Louis, Missouri and Evansville, Indiana. Our
largest city is Carbondale, Illinois at about 30,000 people when the
University is in session. The rest of our coverage area is made up of
small towns, farmland, freeways and very rural back roads. I employ 150
people. We are represented by Congressman John Shimkus and are proud of
him as our Congressman and appreciate his efforts for the people of
Southern Illinois. It is my privilege to be able to publicly thank
Congressman Shimkus. We appreciate him and his leadership.
I am here today to discuss the pending legislation on wireless E-
911. I support this legislation and thank the committee for considering
it. It will assist wireless carriers in a variety of areas. I
especially support the review of the accuracy requirements in rural
areas and the provision that requires states to certify that they are
not diverting E-911 funds collected from the public. In my case, these
two requirements are paramount and key to this legislation in their
benefit to First Cellular of Southern Illinois and other rural wireless
carriers.
I also believe there is value to the creation of ``An Office for E-
911 Coordination'' as many of the issues causing delays for my
deployment are a result of communications, coordination and
compatibility issues with vendors. Unlike other carriers, vendors have
been my biggest obstacle to a timely deployment, not the PSAP's. In my
area the PSAP's have been a joy to work with.
Of all the government mandates we are trying to support at this
time, this is the one that saves lives. I made the decision in 2001
that we would not only comply with this mandate; we would get behind it
with all of our resources and even included it in our 2002 and 2003
marketing plans. We wanted to be first to market and tout the life
saving commitment this technology provides to our customers. We were
first to deploy phase I of E-911 by many months, being in full
compliance for eleven out of thirteen PSAPs by June of 2002 with the
other two not capable of accommodating our data at that time. Because
phase II offers an incredible improvement to the safety of our
customers, we felt an early deployment was best for First Cellular and
for our customers. We budgeted almost 22% of our capital budget for a
solution and were prepared to deploy it even without a State of
Illinois law providing phase II cost recovery.
We began exploring solutions in 2001 and hoped to initiate a
contract by mid to late 2002 for a 2Q 2003 in-service deployment.
Things have not gone as we planned, or hoped, or wanted. We feel a
network solution works best for our customers because of the choices
the competitive marketplace has allowed them to make. A handset
solution is a fine solution, and I'm sure will work wonderfully for
many carriers and their customers. First Cellular made a commitment to
ourselves, for our customers, to not only meet the letter of the
mandate, but to meet the intent of the mandate. I believe the intent of
the mandate is to provide enhanced safety and security to as many
subscribers as possible. In our marketplace, over 15,000 subscribers
have made the decision, over time, to continue their analog service. In
fact, I recently received E-mail from a gentleman quite angry about
rumors he has heard about the discontinuation of analog service. After
several years of incentives and promotions designed to move people off
analog and into digital, 15,000 of my customers and citizens of
Southern Illinois have said, ``no thank you'', analog is fine. Also, I
serve about 100,000 roamers a month. A network solution serves all my
customers, digital, analog and roamers. A handset solution requires a
handset swap-out and cannot serve all my roamers unless they just
happen to have a compatible system. The marketplace has spoken. 20+ %
of my customers want to keep their analog service; I think they deserve
phase II service with E-911.
Additionally, to prop up declining roaming revenues, we have
decided to deploy a GSM overlay on our current CDMA and analog system.
I'm sure you are aware there is not a handset solution for GSM. By
deploying a network solution we can offer one solution for our whole
marketplace thereby avoiding the need to deploy a handset solution for
our CDMA network and a network overlay for our GSM system. It makes
sense operationally and it makes sense economically.
I mentioned earlier that my biggest issue with obtaining a
deployable solution was because of vendors. As you are well aware,
First Cellular is just a cellular service provider. In order to deliver
a phase II solution, two things were needed, cooperative PSAPs and a
phase II solution from a vendor. Our relationship with our PSAPs has
been wonderful. Early on we established a relationship with the
unofficial PSAP area coordinator. With regular and honest dialogue we
kept them informed of our progress every step of the way. They have
been patient, understanding and easy to work with. I applaud the
efforts and attitude of our local PSAPs led by Mr. Ken Smith, PSAP
administrator of Williamson County, Illinois. We have letters of
request for phase II service from 5 PSAPs of which only 3 are capable
of accepting data at this time. Those PSAPs have worked with us and
have been patient as we have searched for a solution that will work for
all our customers.
The Creation of an ``E-911 Implementation Coordination Office''
The creation of an ``E-911 Implementation Coordination Office'' has
the potential to assist all stakeholders in early coordination of E-911
implementation and accountability. If carriers are to be held
accountable for deploying a phase II solution, why are some suppliers
of those services not held accountable for performance and follow
through? If carriers are bound by a Federal mandate, why is the switch
manufacturer not required to provide compatibility to the solutions
that are generally available in the marketplace? It seems to me the
onus is solely on the carriers, PSAPs, and, to a lesser degree, the
LECs.
I began contacting location vendors in late 2001. Calls were placed
to the two network location providers, Grayson Wireless (now Andrew)
and TruePosition. Both were invited to make presentations on their
products. Our first meeting was with Grayson Wireless on March 11,
2002. After many unsuccessful attempts to get TruePosition on site we
decided to move forward with Grayson. Soon after this decision was
made, it was discovered Motorola had certified interoperability with
only 1 of the 2 network providers, TruePosition. We finally established
dialogue with TruePosition and on August 26, 2002 were able to get the
full presentation of their product.
Shortly after our meeting in August we initiated contract
negotiations. To say this was an arduous undertaking would be a gross
understatement. After months of difficult communications we finally
received a contract for execution at the end of February 2003. First
Cellular executed the agreement on February 24, 2003 and sent the
document to TruePosition to do the same. For the next 60 days the
contract was mired at TruePosition and communications virtually ceased
unless we called or E-mailed repeatedly. During the middle of March
2003, First Cellular was assured, repeatedly, that a contract would be
in our hands within ``a few weeks''. It was at the end of those ``few
weeks'', on or about April 23 that we learned TruePosition had
developed a new version of their product, and, the new equipment was
now not compatible with our Motorola switch and they refused to sell us
the version of their product that is compatible.
Our Motorola switch remains incompatible with both current versions
of the TruePosition and Grayson solutions. In fact, in a letter from
Motorola, dated August 4, 2003, they state, ``In early June of 2003,
Grayson and Motorola entered into discussions regarding the feasibility
of offering a Network-Based Wireless E-911 Phase II compliant solution.
A technical exchange meeting was conducted to discuss the inter-
operability capabilities of both Vendors' platforms. After reviewing
all documentation presented and information exchanged, it was concluded
that, with the current product offerings of both companies, a product
that would meet the technical specifications of the Wireless E-911
Phase II standards could not be provided.''
To rectify this situation, Motorola states that they will require
enormous research and development resources and considerable time. In a
presentation to First Cellular on September 5, 2003, they conclude that
their portion of a solution, to deliver the proper messaging to one of
the two location vendors, would cost between $2.5M and $3.3M dollars,
just to develop, and would only be valid for one carrier, First
Cellular. The Motorola estimated schedule for the earliest possible
deployment was first quarter of 2005. Clearly this would not serve the
intent of our initiative to enhance public safety with an early
deployment. Motorola also states the cost from TruePosition to merge
their narrow and wide band products on a common platform is estimated
to be $2.4M! This is in addition to the $2.5 to $3.3M cost from
Motorola. So, for a network solution from TruePosition, First Cellular
would have to pay between $4.9M and $5.7 for development costs in
addition to the over $1M originally quoted as purchase and deployment
costs. A total of $5.3 to $7.1M for a network based solution from
TruePosition.
First Cellular has an annual budget of approximately $7M each year,
give or take, depending on the projects and their scope and size. If
the same was true of Grayson, it was clear we had no choice but to
pursue a handset solution. While acceptable to meet the specific
requirements of the mandate, we remained concerned about falling short
of the true intent, real enhancements to public safety to all our
customers, including roamers.
In the last few weeks, Grayson has stepped up and are telling us
they have found a way to work around the Motorola shortfall and for a
much more modest development fee, can deliver a solution in about 6
months. Their solution would provide one solution for our CDMA network
and our soon to be installed GSM network and would serve our analog
subscribers and all First Cellular roaming customers as well. We hope
to be online by 4/1/04 or preferably before.
I believe there must be more accountability for all parties
involved. I have heard many anecdotes about the failure of the wireless
carriers to implement this mandate. I have heard the PSAPs are to
blame. In my case, the PSAPs have been a joy to work with, and, I feel,
we have expended tremendous amounts of time, energy and management
resources in a sincere and almost desperate effort to not only meet
this mandate, but also meet its true intent and truly work to save
lives. In my case, the roadblock was from the vendor community. Where
was their accountability during this process? As for Motorola, why are
they allowed to not support a standard that is required for a mandate
we must deliver? Their response was to tell me to adopt a handset
solution. It would work, but was it the right solution for my customer.
Unequivocally, no!
I would hope, with this legislation, and the creation of an office
to oversee the deployment of this life saving service, accountability
for all, rather than some, would result. Misinformation could be
challenged, performance claims could be verified and success stories
could be shared. I do not regularly support the creation of new
bureaucracies, but after my experience, I can only conclude, somebody
needs to manage the multiple facets of meeting the mandate and provide
leadership and accountability to the process.
Diversion of E-911 Funds
The availability of cost recovery is a major incentive to deploy
advanced E-911 services. I truly believe government, both at the state
and federal level, does not completely comprehend the viciousness of
competition and the impact it has on the abilities of carriers,
especially the small carrier, to provide a consistent return to
shareholders. Risk is inherent in this industry because of the capital-
intensive nature of the business and the competitive environment we
perform in. If economic uncertainty is added into the mix, as is
currently the case, risk multiplies. Risk rises and competition is
threatened when costly government mandates enter into the mix.
Some mandates make great sense, like Wireless E-911, because it
saves lives. Others, like Wireless Local Number Portability (WLNP),
simply cost money and drain resources. A typical new cell site costs
First Cellular in the neighborhood of $250,000 to deploy. To implement
CALEA with a Motorola solution costs $605,000, and I have never, in 13
years of operations, had even one request for a wiretap.
So far, WLNP has cost me $790,600 with an estimated $210,000 of
annual operating costs. E-911 phase II will cost me $2M. That is 14
cell sites I will not be able to build. While I fully support E-911,
the diversion of capital, including human capital, is significant. All
this comes at a time when competitive pressures are causing cash flows
and profitability to decrease; all this at a time of economic
uncertainty and difficult capital markets.
In 2004, First Cellular will experience our first decline of cash
flows in our history at approximately 19%. At the same time, 20% of my
debt is coming due. Since shareholder value will decline, capital
expenditures will have to be cut. No new cell sites will be scheduled
for construction in 2004. If the impact of WLNP is significantly higher
churn as some project, then this model I've just described becomes much
worse. Un-funded mandates truly impact the business model, for all
carriers, but probably more dramatically for the small rural carriers.
We have less access to capital and much lower buying power for phones,
network equipment and enhanced service platforms and, something people
never consider, we have far fewer human resources and expertise to
develop, test, and support any new service, mandate or not. The quest
for an acceptable E-911 solution has taken many thousands of man-hours
of time over the last couple of years, time we could've spent bringing
other services and higher quality to my customer.
This legislation calls for an amendment to the Communications Act
of 1935 to include a provision that requires states to certify they are
not diverting E-911 funds. I support this wholeheartedly. Cost recovery
on E-911 is an incentive to overcome all the obstacles and devote the
resources necessary to get the job done. With cost recovery, I can rest
assured my capex will be protected and that money can go to the
deployment of additional cell sites for better coverage, and that is
what customers ask for everyday, better coverage. With cost recovery, I
can recoup my operating expenses and offset further declines in company
value and negate any risk I might have with lenders and shareholders.
I am thankful that as of August 11, 2003 the Governor of the State
of Illinois signed a law that provided for the recovery of costs for
phase II of E-911. Unfortunately, rumors are already rampant that prior
to its effective date of 1/1/04, the E-911 fund will be raided to
provide funds for the state general fund. This must not happen! The
funds were collected, at a rate of $.75 per month from every wireless
subscriber in the state since August of 2000 under the premise that
these funds were destined to enhance their safety by funding the
deployment of wireless enhanced E-911 and nothing else. In my opinion,
the use of these funds for anything other than for what it is intended
would constitute a fraud upon the wireless customers of the State of
Illinois.
Curiously, another anomaly arises that makes one wonder what is
truly driving this process. As soon as the State of Illinois
reimbursement legislation was passed and we were finally offered an
acceptable solution from our new vendor of choice, Andrew Corporation,
we began the process of issuing a purchase order to move forward on
deployment. We began paving the way for cost recovery on costs already
incurred for phase II (mainly legal costs) and were told by an
administrator with the State Central Management Services (the agency
that administers the fund) that since the law was not effective until
1/1/04, any expenses incurred before 1/1/04 were not cost recoverable.
So, the federal government tells me I must deploy and that I must
deploy soon and if you fail you could be fined, while the state
government gives me a clear signal that if you want to be paid you need
to wait. This makes no sense to me and is a clear disincentive to
deployment.
This aspect of the legislation is critical. As an industry, we need
cost recovery. In states where cost recovery exists I would suspect
deployment would be expedited. In states that have funds already in
place it is crucial they are not diverted for uses other then what they
are intended for. Wireless carriers will meet the mandates, funds or
not, but the damage to a competitive business will be less and the
customer will benefit sooner from enhanced E-911, as well as more and
improved coverage if the funds are not diverted.
FCC Review of Accuracy Reauirements In Rural Areas
For rural carriers, this is a critical provision of this
legislation. Next to cost recovery, this is probably the most critical
element of the legislation because it could be the difference between
reasonable investment and an investment that makes no sense at all.
Rural networks are different than networks in urban areas. In urban
areas you have a density that requires many cell sites in a grouped
configuration to be mutually supportive. They overlap and are densely
packed. As such, they provide a superior backbone to overlay technology
on. The ability of multiple cell sites to ``see'' the subscriber and
thus be able to locate them by triangulation is high.
Rural markets are different in that population centers usually
follow freeways or major highways. As such, it is not unusual to see a
network that is strung out along a road, hence the phrase ``a string of
pearls''. The network of First Cellular is somewhat different in that
early on we decided to overbuild the network so even rural roads and
many of the smaller towns have coverage. In our small coverage area of
24 counties and approximately 10,000 square miles we deploy over 80
sites today. A more typical build for this area would normally be
around 50 to 60 sites. Even with our large build and dense rural
coverage we still have at least one area that will be a significant
challenge to meet the current accuracy standards. In the county where
we have this significant technical challenge, First Cellular has only
has one main site, supplemented with peripheral service from two
others. Therefore, it is conceivable, under the current guidelines, one
or two additional sites may have to be built to meet the accuracy
standards. Customers have simply not demanded additional coverage or
quality in this area. However, if the accuracy standards are to be met,
then towers may have to be built, at a significant cost solely to meet
the 911 mandate.
It is very likely, even with reduced accuracy standards, a customer
needing their location to be identified could be located. The rural
nature of the area does not require the customer to be pinpointed with
an accuracy that is needed in a densely populated area. I would argue
it is necessary to locate someone in an office building at a particular
address in the City of St. Louis, but getting within a few hundred feet
of someone in need on a rural road would be more than enough to locate
that person. Many rural carriers have this problem in an exaggerated
fashion. They cover very remote areas that only have highways running
through them with very low population densities. The need and ability
to meet the accuracy standards in these areas do not balance against
the cost, especially without cost recovery. The ``cookie cutter''
approach of a ``one-size fits all'' solution does not make sense for
rural America. It is not good business and I am not sure if public
safety will be enhanced. I would ask for your support of this provision
of the legislation. It is a critical issue for all providers of service
to rural America, small and large.
Other Issues of Concern
I sincerely applaud this legislation; I support it and ask for your
endorsement. Do I think legislation could and should address other
issues? I think it could, but let me emphasize how grateful I am to its
sponsors and supporters for listening to us and giving us legislation
that really does help the wireless community and public safety.
I would recommend these additional measures be considered:
Cost recovery is the most critical issue. I don't understand why
federal legislation cannot be enacted, similar in nature to USF
fees, which mandate the collection of E-911 fees from all
wireless customers, superceding the states, thereby insuring
funds for all critical entities and no diversion of funds by
the states.
Many rural carriers have networks with obsolete technology. In the
early days of digital deployment many small and rural carriers
deployed the TDMA standard. This standard was cheaper and
easier to deploy over legacy analog networks. With no future
migration path this technology is now obsolete. Changing out a
complete network from one technology to another is a massive
and expensive undertaking. Delaying the E-911 deployment
requirements until the new network technology is installed will
ultimately aid the implementation of E-911. It will insure the
correct E-911 solution is deployed for the right network and
that it will work the way it is intended to work the first
time.
Finally, I would ask that the waiver process currently in place today
with the FCC which is, at least to this date, working
effectively, continue. I applaud the FCC in this effort. They
have given carriers, like First Cellular, a venue to explain
their circumstances and ask for relief from deadlines. So far,
at least from my perspective, the FCC has been sensitive to our
issues, granting extensions where warranted. We truly
appreciate this.
Thank you for allowing me to air my views and to submit to you my
story. Again, I would ask for your support.
Mr. Upton. Well, thank you all for your testimony. At this
point we will be asking questions from the panel. We will limit
the questions to 5 minutes from here.
And I just want to say, Mr. Addington, I completely agree
with your assessment with regard to the charge that you pass on
to the users. And one of the provisions, of course, in this
bill--and I have to say that when I first started in Congress,
I began to serve on the Public Works and Transportation
Committee, began to work on the highway bill, and I found and
believed that my constituents, as we pay our taxes at the pump,
we don't mind those taxes, knowing that, in fact, those--all of
those dollars are to go into the trust fund to be used for
bridges and roads and highways. And we had a big battle, I
guess it was in the 1980's, as to whether we should have all of
the funds collected. We finally won on that provision.
And, Mr. Berry, I am very disturbed to hear, and I wish my
colleague Mr. Burr were here, though he is not a member of the
subcommittee, from North Carolina, that they have now diverted
$58 million being collected for something else.
I have to say, I think about my State legislators, knowing
that it was done in their State capital, mine, of course, being
Lansing. But I will tell you this. If any of my State
legislators would support raiding those trust funds and
diverting those dollars for something else, I think there would
be hell to pay, and they would have a very tough time. As you
look at my district in southwest Michigan, you can tell I am
from Michigan, and Mr. Stupak would add the upper part, and
down here. But, you know, my district is very diverse. We have
got rural and urban needs. We have got Kalamazoo, a city of
100,000. We have got another county without a four-lane road,
very much the rural side, as Mr. Addington described to
Carbondale, I guess.
But as all of us have cell phones, and we pay that fee, we
want it to enhance our 911 service. And I will tell you--$58
million goes a long way. As we look--we are having some very
tough budget constraints here. We are talking about,
particularly with Iraq and the economy the way that it has
dropped, we are looking at a new program to help State and
local folks.
And I guess it is very much along the lines of the highway
bill, when we look at bridges and roads, that the State has to
make a commitment, too, if you are going to benefit from the
Federal dollars that are going to be added. In the House bill
we have $100 million each year for the next 5 years. The Senate
bill is a little bit higher. As we move this, we are going to
have to agree to that. But I guess our sense is that if we are
going to embark on that program, the States have to make it a
priority, too. And I can't comment probably for North Carolina
folks, but if they divert those dollars for something else,
then they must decide that maybe it is not the priority that
other States have, and that is the reason why--why every one of
us up here is a cosponsor of the bill as well look at this
particular section, section 4 of the bill; that if, in fact,
they divert it, we have got other areas that can benefit.
North Carolina is going to take that money and use it for
something else. Michigan, California, and Illinois will be--
will take those dollars. And so what we are trying to do is
tell the States, forget it. It is a priority. Constituents are
going to believe that, too. If we are going to have a new
Federal program, then the States need to be partners in this,
too.
And I have to say, at least from my point, that I will work
very hard to stop efforts to take that section out, because we
want to keep their feet to the fire so that we can avoid
precisely what has happened in Illinois with Governor
Blagojevich in terms of what he has had to do.
I don't know if Indiana is planning to--has diverted
dollars, but I know that as we have had some other hearings on
oversight on this, we have been pretty tough on those States
that have used it for projects that are not related to E-911,
where, you know, again, as we had our very first hearing on
this issue, I will bet that just about every member of this
subcommittee has made a 911 call from a cell phone, and we
might not have been in our district, and we didn't know
necessarily where we were. I remember Mr. Terry, who just left
to catch his plane to go to Nebraska, I think he described his
call in Colorado, a State adjacent to his. And, you know, we
just assume often that those calls, they know where we are.
And, boy, if--you know, if helping the PSAPs is so important,
we have got to have that.
I know my time is about ready to expire, but maybe I will
let you comment in terms of where you are maybe from your heart
on this. But relating to where things might be in your State
capital, Mr. Haynes as well, and then I will yield.
Mr. Berry. I certainly am proud that in Indiana we have not
diverted our funds.
Mr. Upton. So you would benefit from North Carolina's
problem?
Mr. Berry. So we have not. But I think what is also
important is that when we create legislation, we create
legislation and make those sticks, and mean those sticks for
the appropriate individuals. And certainly those sticks need to
be faced directly at the States, not at our PSAPs. It is the
PSAPs that need to make the commitment of dollars, it is the
PSAPs that need to improve and upgrade their systems, and they
should not be held accountable for decisions that the State
legislators and Governors have made in many States across the
country. And, as a result, I think we need to encourage our
PSAPs to make those investments in capital investments, in
upgrading of equipment, so that they can respond to their local
citizens' desires to have wireless enhanced 911. And we should
then make other reprehensible sticks toward those States then
that would not utilize the funds appropriately.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Haynes, do you want to comment?
Mr. Haynes. Mr. Chairman, I am also pleased to announce
that for the last 2 years under that threat, we have not had
any funds diverted either. In the State of Tennessee, it is
against the law to use 911 moneys. But simply the legislator
passes a law to break the law, to be able to raid the fund. It
is very easy. As you know, it can be done with legislation.
Fortunately, that has not happened yet.
It is probably fair to the Governors of this State to
recognize at least in our State we have got a balanced budget
constitution. On June 30 if the bills are not paid, we are
illegal. If you don't--like here in the Congress, if you don't
honor your Constitution, you are nothing. Nothing is worth
anything. So our Governors take very serious that role.
I am pleased at the leadership our Governor Phil Bredesen
has taken on this issue. Early coming into his administration,
he said there are no sacred cows. That was highway funds, you
name it. And the road builders are a very powerful lobby in our
State. In doing that, they all came out in the end--the
Governor said, at the end of the day, if we are about to turn
out the lights on the State, so to speak, then I will look at
using those 911 moneys. And the commitment that he gave a
senator was, we will only do it then, or I will only take the 2
million in reserves that your board is not allowed to touch by
law. So I would just like to commend our Governor for the
leadership that he has shown on this issue. It is a problem.
But from what we have seen in Tennessee politically, if you
are going to touch those very politically powerful sacred cows,
I am afraid that the language in this bill will do little to
deter, because we have cut back on departmental efforts across
State government that generate revenues for the State of
Tennessee. That just goes counter to your revenue crisis.
So I would say if Congress is looking for that disincentive
for States to do that, you may have to look to areas that are
not within the jurisdiction of this committee, such as Federal
highway matching funds, EPA pollution abatement control moneys,
for point source and nonpoint source.
I am not advocating that, but what I am trying to get the
message across is a sincere attempt in this bill, as Tim
mentioned, will only hurt those that need it the most. We have
got to figure out some other creative way that serves as a
disincentive to stop this practice.
Mr. Upton. Well, I only dare to say that $100 million is
not enough in terms of what is needed. We recognize that. It is
a start. We have competing priorities for sure in lots--in
different areas, whether it be prescription drugs or highways
or national defense, you name it. And what, in essence, we are
trying to say is that we are going to help those States who
also make it a priority, knowing that much of their funds is
collected from us on our own bills.
And as we try to pick and choose, we will reward those
States that, in fact, do make it a priority, and make it a big
disincentive for other States not to drop it.
At this point I will yield for questions to our colleague
Ms. Eshoo. Again, and she missed my statement at the beginning,
but a very able member of this committee and very grateful for
her leadership on this particular issue as a sponsor with Mr.
Shimkus.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your generous
words. I appreciate it very much.
I want to start with Mr. Muleta and then open it up to the
rest of the panel.
As you know, section 5 of the bill asks the FCC to review
the accuracy requirements for rural carriers. I have always
been a proponent of, you know, the carrot-and-the-stick
approach, and I think that when it comes to getting this done,
you know, that that--I think I would characterize that that is
part of it.
Do you have any suggestions about the whole issue that
somehow we are weakening the accuracy requirements for rural
carriers, and that that is a nonstarter? And I wanted the rest
of the panel to weigh in on this as well. Would you comment on
that?
Mr. Muleta. I think that the first thing to note is that in
order for something like E-911 to work, and to work seamlessly,
the standards are going to have to be national, and they have
to be uniform. So that is the starting premise.
Now, stepping back from that, I think that the next set of
questions that we have to address are, are there geographical,
technical parameters or conditions that make it difficult to
implement to a set standard.
The answer is that, apparently, there are.
However, should we depart from 100 percent compliance at
some point is a separate question from addressing the technical
issues that come up in between. So I think, you know, as I
mentioned in my testimony, the FCC is already engaged in a
dialog with both vendors, carriers, the PSAP community to
identify, A, what are the issues, under what circumstances do
these issues come into play, and then, you know, sort of what
is the basis on which we need to depart from them while still
getting to 100 percent compliance on the national standards.
So, I mean, I think the bill is asking those sets of questions.
We are already engaged in that discussion, as I mentioned.
We are also doing it in a much broader context, the National
Network Reliability and Interoperability Council, because we
need to understand how does this all fit in with all the other
public safety issues and homeland security issues that are in
play.
Ms. Eshoo. I appreciate what you are saying. Would an
additional study help you in what you are describing or not?
Mr. Muleta. I think that is what we are already engaged in.
I think the chairman announced we are going to do the NRIC
analysis. We are going to have this presented to the technical
advisory community in January that the FCC has to advise it. So
we are already engaged in that discussion.
However, I think the commissioners and the staff working on
this matter believe that this is part of a a uniform national
standard. We need to get 100 percent compliance, and we need to
have a dialog between all the various stakeholders to make sure
that to the extent that there are hurdles that we limit them to
the extent, you know, the scope of these hurdles and then, as
we implement them, make sure that we get to 100 percent uniform
compliance at some point.
That is what we are striving for. I don't think we want to
depart from those principles. I am not sure from my review of
the bill that there is actually any debate about this broader
goal, so----
Ms. Eshoo. Anyone else like to comment?
Mr. Addington. Sure. I think it is real appropriate for me
to comment on that. You know, I think what we are talking about
is----
Ms. Eshoo. I love your energy.
Mr. Addington. Thank you. It is an energizing topic.
This is an exciting topic because of all the things that we
have to do that the government is telling us to do right now
this one does save lives, and we appreciate that. The
flexibility--we are asking for flexibility, and I think the FCC
in the waiver process has shown a real ability to work with us
and understand our issues, and I applaud the FCC.
I told Chairman Powell Tuesday morning at a meeting of the
CTI executive committee specifically that it has been so
helpful for small and rural carriers to be able to state our
case.
We all have different cases, and that is the weird thing
about this. There has always been this--you know, it is not the
same issue across the board. So I think the waiver process--you
know, thank you, it has been working well. Flexibility is what
we are asking for.
Because I have built networks in urban areas and rural
areas. I am not necessarily in a position where I am going to
be--have difficulty to meeting the accuracy standards. However,
a lot of my counterparts who have remote areas that they have a
highway traveling through their territory and there are truck
stops and towns down the highway and basically their cell sites
are just placed every 20 miles or so and digital every 8 miles
or so. The difficulty in trying to triangulate off of that is
high and what we are fearful of is having to build all of these
sites that are not customer driven for quality coverage and
capacity and things like that. And many of the small rural
carriers are very capital strapped.
So, you know, I think, really what we are looking for is,
and maybe on a case-by-case basis, is the understanding, the
flexibility that they have shown so far anyway with the waiver
process. And I believe that would work.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think my time is up.
Is it?
Mr. Upton. Mr. Haynes wanted to say something.
Ms. Eshoo. Oh, all right.
Mr. Haynes. I was just going to add that your question was,
are we weakening the accuracy standard with some of the
measures in the legislation? Truthfully, no. Potentially, we
are putting it at one heck of a risk.
The way that the language is written it kind of puts the
gun to the head of the FCC, and it pretty much says in so many
words--I worked in Washington for 11 years. I read that as a
lobbyist. I read that as a former agency deputy director. It
tells me what I need to be doing, and it tells me what your
desires are in that language, and that may not necessarily be
what you are trying to convey with this overall scope and
intent of this bill.
I would just note that the process is working, and it is
working very well. If we had exhausted all the opportunities
all throughout the process, that would be one thing. But we
have just begun. The carrier discussions have been productive
with the FCC. I have been engaged in some of those, and I just
appreciate the opportunity that the Congress potentially is
looking to give by letting the FCC do its job.
Ms. Eshoo. Well, this is valuable testimony. That is why
these hearings are so important. I think that some of the
language that is in the bill may be actually redundant, that
the FCC, given what Mr. Muleta has said, that they are moving
along.
So thank you very much for your cooperation and your
enthusiasm and your constructive comments and thank you again,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
Recognize Mr. Shimkus from Illinois.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just--first, just a comment to our elected treasurer. I
used to be a county treasurer, and I know you probably know our
State treasurer, Judy Barr Topinka, who is quite fun.
But as an elected treasurer you understand that I took a
little bit of exception at your opening statement when you said
you can't penalize people for what the legislature does because
they have no control. Well, this is--here we have a
constitutional republic, people do vote; and I would always
take exception that the public has no way of enforcing any
discipline on elected officials because they do so in our case
every 2 years at the ballot box. That is why we have
associations and that is why we have organizations to let
elected representatives know the needs.
So I would hope that when funds are being robbed for
purposes and the people really get upset that they make that
point known. We are held accountable with that on a lot of our
budgetary antics all the time here. I have to answer tough
questions every election cycle on why we are doing this to the
highway trust fund or why we are doing this to the Social
Security trust fund or this--and so I just want to put that on
the table.
Mr. Muleta, my good friend Terry suggests in his testimony
that vendors of E-911 location technology should be held
accountable for performance and follow through. How responsible
are vendors for delay in E-911 deployment?
Mr. Muleta. Thank you for that difficult question.
Mr. Shimkus. I have got great staff.
Mr. Muleta. How responsible are they? I think what I would
like to start out with is, first, that you know our approach in
the United States has been to let competition work in the
wireless sector in terms of the evolution of the services so
that over time as technologies improve that we are getting
better and better services. The kind of standards that we are
setting are the benchmark, the floor, as opposed to the ceiling
of what we expect people to be able to do. As such, our
approach has never been to specify a particular technology
choice or solution.
So, for example, in wireless E-911 there are two
approaches, basic approaches. There is a handset approach, and
then there is also the network-based approach. Both have
tradeoffs in terms of cost-benefit, in terms of timing of
deployment as well as the cost to deploy.
So I think what I am encouraged by is that we are
constantly hearing from vendors about new and improved
technologies, both from existing vendors and new potential
vendors coming into the marketplace. So it is very difficult
for me to say that vendors are responsible for some sort of
this.
I do think it is important to note that all of us have a
role in doing this, making this roll out. What probably needs
to happen is a dialog between people that are aware of
technology, such as the vendors, the carriers, the PSAP
community, to determine what is possible in terms of
deployment. So I don't think it would be a fair representation
to say that the carriers are responsible for the delay. I think
it is important to say that we----
Mr. Shimkus. No, I am trying to say the vendors are
responsible for the delay.
Mr. Muleta. Are or are not?
Mr. Shimkus. Are, in cases. And what are you doing about
acknowledging that fact? The carrier can do all they want, but
if the vendor is not following through and there is a possible
date certain, then how is the FCC trying to reconcile that
problem with what the carrier has to deal with?
Mr. Muleta. I think it is important. What we are doing is
we are having the stakeholders communicate so the vendors are
communicating with us, also with the carrier and also with the
PSAPs so that we are trying to match the timing and
implementation deadlines with what is possible with the
available technology. There are multiple choices for
technologies and what we are encouraging all of the
stakeholders to do is to communicate so that the community's
expectations about the availability of this technology matches
the availability of the technology in the marketplace.
Mr. Shimkus. So the FCC does not plan to take any action
against vendors that are clearly causing delays in E-911
implementation.
Mr. Muleta. I think our authority right now is primarily
with the carriers. But we are engaged in discussions on a daily
basis with technology providers to make sure that they
understand----
Mr. Shimkus. Terry, can you tell us the problem?
Mr. Addington. Certainly, Congressman. My issue has been
with vendors.
Mr. Shimkus. I am not surprised.
Mr. Addington. I am not alone. But, you know, it is not a
prevalent problem certainly with the large carriers because
that is who the vendors courted first. As a small carrier,
early on in 2001 when I wanted to get hot and heavy on this
project we couldn't even get certain vendors--quote, unquote--
certain vendors to return our phone calls. It took months and
months to get certain vendors to even return our phone calls
just to get a presentation to see whether their product could
deliver. It has been an ongoing problem with certain vendors.
I am gratified that I finally found a vendor that will work
for me. I choose a network solution, because it is right for my
customer. I could have chosen a handset solution. It wouldn't
have been right for my customer. I would have left 15,000
analog subscribers uncovered that want analog service that have
chosen not to go digital, and I would not have served 100,000
roamers that I service every single month on a handset
solution. Network solution, I service all of those. So I
focused particularly on a network solution that would serve my
customers.
The issue with the vendors is that they need accountability
as much as I need accountability, and that is where I hope the
office of E-911 coordination will help.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I am not sure of the rules you are operating
under. Are you going to allow us to ask another question or can
we----
Mr. Upton. You can.
Mr. Shimkus. [continuing] just extend our question time for
a minute?
Mr. Upton. Keep going.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Haynes, what technological solutions have Tennessee's 2
or 3 carriers employed to successfully meet the FCC accuracy
requirements?
Mr. Haynes. Most of those are using network solutions. We
may have carriers--we still have one carrier I think is
undecided on what technology they want to use. As we have
mentioned in our written testimony, regardless of your
solution, whether it is handset, whether it is network, you are
going to have challenges. You are going to have issues.
I would just like to add to what Mr. Addington had
commented on. He is absolutely right. A carrier can easily be
at the mercy of the technology vendor. We ran into that on our
phase II trial.
Other carriers have run into it in our State. They have
asked us on behalf of their carriers they represent for 6-
month, 12-month extensions to our own State requests for
service. We wouldn't give it to them. We would give them 30
days at a time because we knew that they would take every inch
to the goalpost, so to speak, in running out the clock.
So what we did was address things on a case-by-case basis
with the carriers as long as they were acting in good faith,
and that has worked. It has served us well.
I think it is also imperative to point out in this
discussion that there is this umbrella called rural carriers in
this country. Then you have got good guys like this fellow
right here that is just knocking the sky out trying to do the
right thing. Then you have got some people in that group, in
all honesty--and I have talked with some of them in my State--
that have said oh, yeah, we are just like him. We are just like
him. It is like, well, what have you done? I don't know--you
know, the FCC has given us an extension on this so far. We are
Tier 3, so we will get back with you.
There are people taking advantage of the situation and the
work of people like Mr. Addington here, and that is where I am
saying we need to separate these folks out, look at them on a
case-by-case basis and then decide who is acting in good faith
and who is not.
Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Chairman, if I can finish up. My last
question is really for Terry again and Mr. Muleta. Why can't
the success of Tier 3 carriers in Tennessee be duplicated
across the United States?
Mr. Haynes. I would argue that it can. It just takes
commitment. It does take money. But it--first and foremost, it
takes the commitment of that carrier. I will give you an
example.
One of the two first Tier 3 carriers, a co-op that deployed
in our State, did not want to do it at first. They wanted to
wait. And their response was--and I know these people
personally. They are old friends of mine. They said, well, our
counsel--come to find out their counsel in Washington was
telling them that, you know, they are probably not going to
have to do this because of the unique circumstances. This was a
year or more ago.
I said, I will tell you what. If you will deploy, I will
make sure that you do--we do the best to give you 100 percent
cost recovery, like we do all carriers. Consequently, our State
board passed a policy saying that member-owned cooperatives
should receive first priority, not last priority to cost
recovery from the State of Tennessee with the PSAPs.
So it takes a commitment. It can be done. But in all
fairness to Mr. Addington, just like we found in Tennessee,
there are going to be places in this country you will never
meet that standard. Physics will not allow you. But it has got
to start with the commitment from the guys and women out there
exploring the opportunities to see can we do this. We are going
to try to do this, and if we fail then we will go and try to
request assistance.
Mr. Shimkus. Does Mr. Muleta or Mr. Addington want to add
to that?
Mr. Addington. Yeah, I do.
It can happen. Two or three carriers are every bit as
committed as anybody else. We have a little bit different
issues than the big guys. You know, we are not as wealthy and
powerful. We don't have the buying power. We don't have the
resources, the human resources.
Right now, I have got two people in my office that focus on
government mandates. Right now, they are fully focused on local
number portability. E-911 is something else they all do.
I have become the champion of the E-911 cause. We have--
Verizon's Washington office has more people as lobbyists than I
do as employees, I suspect; and that is a big issue. We are
committed. I am committed as the kind of unofficial leader of
Tier 3 carriers in the country. I am committed to this project.
We will deploy E-911 phase II. I wish it was 6 months ago or a
year ago. We will do it.
Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Muleta, do you want to add?
Mr. Muleta. Yes, I think it is possible. I think we need to
make sure that it is approached on a case by case and not
provide a blanket statement. What we are trying to do right now
is to ascertain in the sort of individual circumstances what
are the timelines that achievable, how do we get to 100 percent
compliance and how do we get the information that is necessary
both to the PSAP community which has to implement it as well as
to the carrier community that has to purchase and deploy the
technology.
So we are working very hard on that. I think it is possible
and I encourage all of us not to depart from trying to achieve
that sort of full compliance of E-911 deployment in all parts
of the U.S. .
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, if I may, I notice my friend, Mr. Markey, has
arrived. We want to welcome him to the hearing. But I do want
to--he is my partner when I did my kids.us advertisement at the
beginning--he is my partner in crime on that. And I just want
to let him know that I did my advertising sequel, so you can
skip it. It has already been done.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Shimkus.
Recognize Mr. Markey, the ranking member.
Mr. Markey. Thank you so much.
We only have, on our dot kids site, though, kind of caped
crime crusaders. It is all cartoons. It is all, you know,
pretend. It is not real.
So my question to you, Mr. Muleta, is we are focusing on
the so-called phase II E-911 implementation, where the public
safety answering points can obtain the location information of
an emergency caller. My question to you is, where are we on
implementation of phase I, the first phase? What percentage of
the country is covered by phase I and are some of the carriers
just going to skip phase I and go right to phase II, or should
we amend the pending bill to make grants available for both
phase I and phase II?
Mr. Muleta. I would defer on the sort of percentage
information. I am not prepared to provide that information
right now.
Mr. Markey. Have you got some ball park estimate? I mean,
it doesn't even have to be Fenway Park. It can be Yellowstone
Park. I mean, just some number that is broad enough to give us
a range of an idea of how much of phase I was ever completed.
Mr. Muleta. Okay. I believe based on--it is around 65
percent of the communities are phase I compliant. I think to
address the issue all of the underlying premises of all the
discussion that we have been having is--really applies to both
phase I and phase II. You know, to the extent--you know, what
drives this process is the readiness of the stakeholders. If
the PSAPs are not ready to implement phase I, then we never get
to phase II. If they are not ready to implement phase II, they
are not ready to implement phase II.
So in terms of funding and those type of issues I think it
is right on track. In terms of trying to address the issues, I
defer to the Congress as to how to craft the language. But I
think all the issues that we are talking about apply equally to
both phase I and phase II. It is obviously necessary to have
phase I before stepping up to phase II.
Mr. Markey. So you would fund phase I as well.
Mr. Muleta. I think as part of this sort of national broad
goals, yes, I think it would be necessary--it would be, I
think, helpful to provide funding for those communities that
can't get even to phase I to provide them with funds. I defer
to the folks from the States to also provide guidance on that
issue because they are much more----
Mr. Markey. I could go with a show of hands here. How many
believe that phase I should also be funded? Mr. Addington. And
Mr. Haynes. Mr. Berry.
Mr. Berry. In Indiana, we are 100 percent phase I compliant
or 99 percent phase I compliant.
Mr. Markey. So you are saying, why should the good States
be punished?
Mr. Berry. We are already there.
Mr. Markey. You are already there so you can't support--so
let me--Mr. Haynes, you would like to comment.
Mr. Haynes. Mr. Markey, I would just say that in Tennessee
we have been getting the cake with the icing. The two have come
together. Our State has insisted on both. Because, technically,
as you know, phase I is the default if something goes wrong and
phase II does not work. So we have approached it with our
carriers that, hey, it is a--E-911 is a package. It is just for
your convenience from a regulatory standpoint that you get to
implement it in one of two phases.
Mr. Markey. Okay. So let me just follow up; and then I will
come back to you, Mr. Addington.
Mr. Haynes, I have a question again about the public safety
answering points where these 911 emergency calls will come in.
Perhaps you can't speak to this, but my question is about
redundancy and power backup. What is typical for the public
safety answering points in urban and rural areas with respect
to contingency plans for these public safety answering points
in the case of a blackout or if the public safety answering
point itself is the target of an attack, God forbid? What is
the capacity to keep going through that kind of a situation
where it is not operable?
Mr. Haynes. My experience in Tennessee is that urban and
rural PSAPs alike are all on backup emergency generation, ready
to kick in at any given point in time.
In terms of losing a PSAP--and I will give you an example.
Earlier this year, Jackson, Tennessee, close to where I grew
up, a tornado took out two of the three PSAPs serving that
entire county; and it is one of the more heavily populated
counties in the State. Luckily, they had a backup PSAP that
they just established. They took a lot of criticism over it
because you have to make the investment, and all of a sudden
this volunteer fire department that served as a backup PSAP was
serving a pretty sizable urban/rural area in Tennessee.
So I would say in terms of the electricity generation is
there in most cases, I would think, across the Nation; and then
it is most of the practice, too, that there are backup PSAPs
that you can shift to.
I would just add to that that the board that I work for is
the State's authority that approves the increase of local 911
rates that are collected by the local 911 districts. They do
not approve a single increase unless that facility has not only
backup generation and means to deal with the issues you are
talking about but that it is adequate of handling the call load
that can potentially happen in that area.
Mr. Markey. Okay.
And, Mr. Addington, the good news for you is that Verizon
has fewer and fewer lobbyists the more successful they become
in driving their competitors out of business.
Mr. Addington. They are successful, aren't they?
Mr. Markey. They have needed fewer people here in town. So
perhaps only by them coming down to the level of your employees
you don't have to go up to them.
So can you give us your comment on the issues which Mr.
Haynes was just commenting upon?
Mr. Addington. On the emergency backup plan.
Mr. Markey. The backup plan.
Mr. Addington. Yeah, it is very important. All of our cells
that we invest in a backup infrastructure, all of our cell
sites have I believe it is 4 hours of automatic battery backup.
Then we deploy mobile generators. We have a limited number of
mobile generators to provide ongoing backup for individual cell
sites to go back beyond their battery backup.
Our cell site--I mean, our switch is in a huge old AT&T
bomb shelter--that is the best way I can describe it--that I
think could withstand a nuclear blast. And it has a huge diesel
backup that--you know, I am really not sure. I guess as long as
we have diesel it will run. So--I mean, it is quite extensive.
Mr. Markey. Okay. Great.
And a final word, Mr. Muleta. What would you like us to
take out of this hearing?
Mr. Muleta. I think, first of all, that--to thank you and
your colleagues for the leadership that you have demonstrated
in this area and the initiative that you are taking with the
legislation and that, you know, we need to encourage all the
stakeholders to work together. This is a very complicated set
of issues. It is not something that can be easily divined. So I
ask for that level of support.
Mr. Markey. Thank you.
Well, I can tell you without any question that Chairman
Upton and I are committed to working with Congresswoman Eshoo
and Congressman Shimkus and all of the members of the committee
along with the community that all of you represent to make sure
that we put in place something that will be there when the
American people need it. We thank you so much for all of the
work that you have committed to try to create something that
can help to protect the public safety in our country.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing,
especially on this momentous day, anniversary. I think if we
could do something with 911 to commemorate 9/11 we would have
done something quite important. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Markey.
Again, I want to thank all of you for being here this
morning and the work of our colleagues.
I would like to say though we are not prepared to announce
a markup date, but we fully intend to do it as early as next
week and work with Mr. Markey and others to make sure we have a
good day and time. We appreciate your enthusiasm, your input;
and we look forward to getting this bill out of the
subcommittee and to the House floor as quick as we can.
Thank you very much. We are now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]