FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

\+ + + + +

E911 COORDINATION INITIATIVE

\+ + + + +

Commission Hearing Room

Federal Communications

Commission

445 12th Street SW

Washington, DC 20554

Wednesday, October 29, 2003

10:00 a.m.

GOVERNORS\' DESIGNEES PRESENT:

Craig Allred(DC) Ken Keim(OR)

Evelyn Bailey(VT) Raymond LaBelle(RI)

Phil Bates(UT) Paul Mallet(TX)

John Benson(IA) James Martin(FL)

Col. Jerry Bussell(NV) Steve Marzolf(VA)

Clay Chan(HI) Robert Oenning(WA)

Randy Daniels(NY) John Patterson(KY)

Laura Demman(NE) Ken Peterson(Navajo Nation)

Peter DeNutte(NH) George J. Pohorilak(CT)

Paul Fahey(MA) R.D. Porter(MO)

Doug Friez(ND) Craig A. Reiner(NJ)

Albert E. Gervenak(ME) Daphne Rhoe(CA)

Brian Grimm(WY) Richard Taylor(NC)

Jenny Hansen(MT) Kristi Turman(SD)

Anthony Haynes(TN) Gary Underwood(AR)

Stan Herrera(AK) Jim Walker(AL)

Bill Hitchens(GA) Derek White(Gila River Comm)

Barbara Jaeger(AZ) Mark Whitlock(DE)

Scott Whitney(MD)

OTHER PANELISTS PRESENT:

Kathleen Abernathy Richard Leicht

Jonathan Adelstein Ken Lowden

Mike Amorosa George Marble

Greg Ballentine Kevin McCracken

Eugenie Barton John McMillan

Bobby Brown Stephen Meer

Bill Cade Susan Miller

Ed Cameron Jackie Mines

Gregory Cooke John Muleta

Bob Currier Jonas Neihardt

Charles Davidson Jim Nixon

Drew Dawson Gustavo Pavon

Tim Duffy Ernie Peterson

Michael Fischel Nancy Pollock

Wayne Gasaway Scott Pomerantz

Jim Goerke Jack Potter

Jeff Goldthorp Michael K. Powell

Kyle Gruis Arthur Prest

John Healy Jeff Robertson

Allen Holder Ray Scheppach

Connie Hughes Catherine Seidel

Bob Johns K. Dane Snowden

David Jones Richard Taylor

David Koon Congressman Fred Upton

Karl Korsmo Jim Wickham

Jerry Wilke

A G E N D A

**Welcome** 5

FCC Chairman Michael K. Powell

Congressman Gene Green

Ray Scheppach, Executive Director,

National Governors Association

**E911 Law and Policy** 22

Moderator: Catherine Seidel,

Deputy Bureau Chief, Wireless

Telecommunications Bureau

**Status of Federal Legislation** 26

Congressman Fred Upton, Chairman,

Subcommittee on Telecommunications

and the Internet, House Committee

on Energy and Commerce

**FCC Regulation and Resources** 32

Eugenie Barton, Wireless

Telecommunications Bureau

**Other Federal Government Efforts**

Drew Dawson, U.S. Department of

Transportation 39

Ed Cameron, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service 45

Bob Johns, U.S. Department of Homeland

Security 51

**Ongoing Industry and Public Safety Efforts to Facilitate Deployment**
65

Moderator: FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein

**National Emergency Number Association**

**\"Strategic Wireless Action Team\"** 68

Jim Goerke, NENA Wireless Implementation

Director

**APCO International \"Project LOCATE\"** 79

Nancy Pollock, Metro 9-1-1 Board,

St. Paul, Minnesota

**Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions - Emergency
Services Interconnection**

**Forum** 89

A-G-E-N-D-A C-O-N-T-I-N-U-E-D

**Federal and State Cooperation on Multi-Line**

**Telephone Systems**

Gregory Cooke, Wireline Competition Bureau 105

Jim Goerke, NENA 111

Nancy Pollock, APCO International 113

**Deployment Issues: Parts I and II**

**What Does it Mean to Upgrade a PSAP? What is involved?** 123

Moderator: FCC Commissioner Kevin Martin

Jim Nixon, T-Mobile USA 124

Michael Fischel, L. Robert Kimball & Associates 132

Bob Currier, Intrado, Inc. 146

**State Leadership** 154

Moderator: Jenny Hansen, Montana State Public Safety Services Office

Daphne Rhoe, California 911 Emergency

Communications Office 164

Karl Korsmo, AT&T Wireless Services 177

**Deployment Issues: Parts III and IV**

**Funding Scenarios** 187

Moderator: Anthony Haynes, Tennessee Emergency

Communications Board

Assemblyman David Koon, New York State

Assembly 191

**State PUC Issues** 213

Moderator: Anthony Haynes, Tennessee Emergency

Communications Board

Commissioner Charles Davidson, Florida Public Service Commission 216

Greg Ballentine, Mid-America Regional Council 225

Commissioner Connie Hughes, New Jersey Board of Public Utilities 233

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G

10:00 a.m.

MR. MULETA: Good morning, everybody. I\'m just going to get everything
started off. For those of you that don\'t know me, I\'m John Muleta,
Chief of the Wireless Bureau here at the FCC.

What I\'ll do is I\'ll turn it over to \-- for of all, it\'s a pleasure
to have you here, but now, I\'ll just turn it over to the Chairman who
will give us some opening remarks. Chairman Michael Powell.

CHAIRMAN POWELL: Well, good morning. I\'m really pleased to be here and
have the great opportunity to welcome all of you to the second meeting
of the Commission\'s E911 Coordination Initiative.

This meeting celebrates a milestone in E911 cooperation and a
significant achievement. As a result of the joint initiative of the FCC
and the National Governors Association and the hard work of our
respective staffs, we\'re proud to announce that every state, tribal
organization, and United States territory has an E911 representative
designated by the governor or the leader of the tribal organization or
territory as the focal point for E911 deployment and today for the first
time, the Commission is convening these state E911 designees.

By joining hands in cooperation, we take steps forward towards
achievement. The entire FCC is involved in the development and
deployment of some aspect of the E911 wireless services.

Leadership, of course, begins with my fellow commissioners all of who
are deeply concerned about E911 deployment and I want to publicly thank
Commissioners Abernathy, Adelstein, and Martin who are going to serve as
moderators over the next two days as well as Commissioner Coffs who will
be participating in other Coordination Initiative events.

I also would like to welcome NGA\'s Executive Director Ray Scheppach.
Ray, good to have you here joining us today and I want to thank him for
his leadership at the state level in helping to bring the Governors\'
designees here today. We really appreciate that.

I also have the great pleasure speaking of great national leadership to
have with me today Congressman Gene Green, one of the principal
cosponsors of the pending E911 legislation and a long-time supporter of
E911 roll-out. Pleasure to have you here, Congressman. It\'s great \--
it\'s great to have you in our house.

And we\'ll be joined shortly by Congressman Fred Upton, the Chairman of
the Telecommunications Subcommittee in the House who will provide us
with an update on the status of this important legislation.

I thank both of them for taking time away from their busy schedules to
be with us.

These men exemplify the strong leadership that Congress is providing on
E911 issues including coordination and funding that are essential to
successful deployment.

I have others I must thank including the leaders of the E911 Caucus,
Senator Burns and Clinton, Representative Shimkus and Eshoo for their
efforts. Their vision and vigorous voice on the Hill have lead to
current legislation.

The Senate and House bills provide matching Federal grant assistance for
special projects to state governments, tribal organizations, local
governments, and PSAPs as well as accountability to citizens with the
proper use of funds collected in the name of E911 deployment. Many of
these caucus members are scheduled to meet with state and tribal
designees at tomorrow\'s sessions.

I also want to recognize the efforts of other Federal agencies that have
sent representatives today. The Department of Homeland Security, the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, and the U.S.
Department of Commerce, the Department of Transportation, the Rural
Utility Service and the Department of Agriculture all have key roles in
the public safety arena of which E911 is a part.

And I want to welcome Mike Gallager, the Acting Administrator of NTIA.
Mike, are you here? I know he\'s here somewhere. Good to see you and
have you with us.

I also want to recognize Bob Johns from the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security. Is Bob here yet? Don\'t see him, but he should be here with us
shortly.

And Drew Dawson from the U.S. Department of Transportation. There you
are. Good to have you with us.

And Ed Cameron from the Rural Utilities Service of the U.S. Department
of Agriculture.

And then there are my friends at NENA, APCO, and ESIF who leadership in
the public safety community has been so instrumental in fostering
cooperation and achieving successful deployment in many regions of the
country.

And we look out and we see E911 coordinators from around the states
whose voices have been heard advocating E911 deployment.

We also thank, of course, members of the industry. The LECs who play a
pivotal role in deployment and state PUC representatives who also have
important roles to play and we note the efforts of stakeholders
including wireless carriers, their associations and who also appreciate
location technology firms and other vendors who will discuss deployment
and wireless technology issues.

The Commission appreciates the presence of all here today.

That\'s five pages of thank yous and for good reason. To succeed in this
effort requires a lot of stakeholders, a lot of variables, and thus the
importance of this strong coordination initiative.

All the stakeholders who have come here today are an essential
connection and the network needed to achieve full E911 deployment.

We all share an extraordinary number of common goals that provide a
solid foundation for the work of the second meeting of the Wireless E911
Initiative. We are all committed to bringing benefits of E911 technology
to as many Americans as possible as quickly as is practicable.

We all recognize that such an effort requires extensive coordination and
cooperation among all the parties, Government PSAPs, carriers, ILECs,
and the public and we all believe that resources for E911 should be
deployed at all levels in such a way that every dollar spent is spent to
save lives and we all believe that consumers need to know and understand
what is possible for E911 and what to expect from their wireless phones.

And finally, we all believe that parties should not obstruct E911
deployment based on unnecessary delay or procedural gamesmanship at the
state or Federal level.

The E911 Coordination Initiative is just that. It\'s designed to
initiate coordination between and among all the parties so division of
full deployment will take root and grow.

I want to note also that homeland security which is one of the pillars
of our strategic vision for the Commission. This Coordination Initiative
is an example of how all parts of the Commission are working together on
E911 deployment and its integration into the nation\'s homeland security
efforts.

E911 wireless services are a central building block of the nation\'s
telecommunications infrastructure which we are working with other
agencies to strengthen and secure. In times of national emergency, E911
wireless services are increasingly the channel through which the
citizens call for help reaches the first link of the nation\'s homeland
security chain, the public safety answering point and from there not
only as the appropriate help deployed to the civilian in need of
emergency assistance, but the alert describing the nature of the
national security threat is challenged \-- channelled to the appropriate
public safety, public health, tele-medicine, and other emergency defense
personnel.

This is a complex task and one that requires thoughtful planning of
spectrum use, policy initiatives to develop and protect our nation\'s
telecommunications infrastructure, vigilance, and innovative thinking
about network security, reliability, and inter-operability and
cooperative efforts across and among the many extraordinary array of
agencies as well as private and public safety stakeholders.

In 1994, the Commission first begun work on bringing the same level of
E911 wireless service to the nation as is provided by wireline services.
It was an ambitious goal particularly in the absence of fully developed
location technologies. Today, those technologies exist and we face other
challenges.

To understand fully what the new challenges were, the Commission asked
Dale Hatfield a former Chief of our Office of Engineering and Technology
to identify the issues and the challenges associated with E911 and among
the key roadblocks to full achieve identified in the Hatfield report was
the lack of coordination among stakeholders.

It was in response that insight that the Commission launched this
initiative last April and at the meeting, we called for a new era of
cooperation on E911 and later at the APCO International Annual Meeting,
I issued a new challenge calling on stakeholders to build more than
cooperation but an era of accomplishment. The era of accomplishment will
springboard for E911 a future which we will indeed create a seamless,
ubiquitous, reliable wireless telecommunications network and enhanced
wireless 911 service that the Congress envision in E911 Act of 1999 and
one to which we can be very proud.

When I spoke to many of you at our first initiative in April, I outlined
the significant progress we had made. At that time, 53 percent of the
approximately 6,000 PSAPs were receiving phase one data. Today,
approximate 60 percent of PSAPs across the country by cell site.

With regard to phase two, 20 percent of PSAPs are now receiving location
information from at least one carrier, a jump from the 5 percent
deployment that existed just seven months ago. At that time, phase two
had been implemented by at least one wireless carrier in 125 markets
such that precise location information was available to more than 300
PSAPs.

I am pleased to report that phase two deployment has jumped 300 percent.
In just two quarters, we have added an additional 355 markets including
900 more PSAPs. There are now more than 1,200 PSAPs across the country
that are receiving phase two data from at least one carrier. According
to NENA\'s analysis, four states, Rhode Island, Vermont, Connecticut,
and Delaware report that they have implemented phase two in 100 percent
of their PSAPs. So, substantial progress is being reported in other
states as well.

What that means is that in these areas the PSAP can pinpoint the call
for help to within 50 to 300 meters, a safety improvement that can save
your life or the life of a loved one.

AT&T Wireless alone added phase two at 3,266 cell sites, a 280 percent
increase.

And my last report, every national carrier using a handset solution had
at least one location capable handset. Now, Sprint and Verizon are
offering customers a choice among at least ten models with an AGPS
capability. Sprint alone has sold more than 11.6 million GPS handsets
overall and half of those, 5.8 million, were sold within the last two
quarters. Sprint now reports that 100 percent of their new handsets are
GPS capable.

These statistics represent good news for the safety of all Americans. We
should see more progress in the next set of reports that will be
released in November. But, there are real risks that this progress could
stall.

Nineteen states and the District of Columbia have yet to deploy phase
two to a single PSAP and in 15 other states, the deployment rate is
below 10 percent. This is why we have to double and redouble our efforts
so that every mobile phone user can quickly and accurately be located in
every region of our nation.

Since the last coordination initiative, the Commission also has taken
additional steps to increase knowledge about what wireless E911 can and
cannot do today to further the FCC\'s role as an information
clearinghouse. You will hear about the efforts of our Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau to provide consumers with an advisory on
wireless deployment issues, to help consumers make informed choices
about their mobile phone services and in addition, the Commission
established a technical group on E911 architecture and technical
standards, issues that have field recognized as potentially problematic
for E911. This group will be created as a technical subcommittee of the
Commission\'s network reliability and inter-operability council.

We also have taken a number of steps to address the unique deployment
issues facing rural communities. The Commission has undertaken a number
of rule initiatives including partnering with RUS, investigating whether
spectrum policies have effectively served rural jurisdictions.

We also are discussing how further efforts can target deployment issues
in rural America through innovative means such as creative use of
secondary markets, multiple uses, and deployment of broadband services.

In addition, the Commission has a proceeding underway to determine how
best to revise the scope of our enhanced 911 rules to clarify which
technologies and services will be required to be capable of transmitting
911 information to PSAPs, specifically, the obligation of mobile
satellite services, telematics, multi-line telephone systems, and other
telephone related services.

This is a unique moment. As the E911 designees gather here for the first
time, it is up to the designees to work together in cooperation with all
of the other stakeholders to create an era of achieve in E911 services
deployment. Today\'s events are designed to provide designees with the
additional resources to lead deployment efforts in their areas. Only
through their leadership can we develop an accurate picture of the
current state of E911.

This initiative will close with a look at the future of E911 wireless
services. We will exhibit some of the latest most innovative
technologies and their applications to E911 and to other public safety
and homeland security issues.

So, as I close, I also want to thank the tremendous efforts of the
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Consumer and Government Affairs
Bureau staff who have organized this two-day event and I know that the
Office of Engineering and Technology Policy and the Office of Strategic
Planning and Policy have also contributed greatly and we thank them and
most importantly, we thank all of you for your commitment to public
service, for your commitment to public safety, and your commitment to
join us in this important initiative for our American citizens.

Thank you very much.

Before we move into the more substantive agenda, one of the great
substantive leaders in the Congress. I want to give him a chance to make
some brief remarks.

CONGRESSMAN GREEN: Thank you, Chairman. Good morning and there hasn\'t
been a coup on the Hill and I\'m not Fred Upton. If you listen to my
accent, you\'ll tell I\'m not from Michigan. But, Chairman Upton of our
Telecommunications Subcommittee I\'m on and the Energy and Commerce and
I work together so much that one of the big difference though is he\'s a
Cub\'s fan and I\'m an Astro\'s fan, but the Cubs actually did much
better than we did this year.

Two years ago on September the 11th, 2001, Chairman Upton and I along
with Senator Burns were actually at a press conference on the Senate
side on E911 and \-- when we found out what happened in New York and
Washington and now the House and hopefully the Senate are very close in
passing what we will see in E911 implementation legislation the most
important public safety achievement in our 108th Congress.

We\'ve sent billions of dollars to Federal agencies and local
governments for homeland security and we hope and pray that many of
these resources like the preparations for bioterrorism will not be used.
But, E911 technology is being used today to save lives. In my own
hometown of Houston, we are phase two complete and using both handset
based and network based technologies and I know a nationwide
implementation won\'t be easy from my 20 years experience in the Texas
legislature to get landline 911 up and running both locally and on the
statewide basis in the \'80s.

And I remember attending an E911 event a few years ago in Houston where
we announced a roll out initiative for E911. Well, that eventually fell
apart with a little bit of embarrassment. So, progress is not easy.

So, I sympathize with my rural colleagues on their troubles with meeting
the standards and deadlines for E911, but achievement of the standards
and the deadlines for all areas will benefit all Americans.

And I made this case even though I have a very urban area when we did
the landline for statewide. If I\'m driving from Houston to Austin or
Houston to Corpus Christi and I have an accident or am a victim of a
crime, E911 will be a lifesaver. So, even those of us in urban areas
have a great deal in our stakeholders and an interest in having a \-- a
seamless network statewide and nationwide.

I wanted to be here today to express my support for all of you who are
here to work on the nuts and bolts and details of the E911 coordination.
Despite the technical challenges, we must keep going forward and help on
the way in the form of grant assistance for our local 911 agencies.

And, of course, I don\'t need to remind you again as a state legislator
for many years don\'t let your state legislators use that funding
because we want to make sure that it\'s used for E911 and because I know
as a legislator when \-- when the budget situation is like we have in a
lot of our states, you\'re always looking for money that you can get. We
need to set aside 911 dollars separate from the state budget.

And it\'s important that you\'re here and we\'ll be pushing the
legislation. Hopefully, it will be enacted soon and will provide
standards and deadlines and Federal assistance to our local 911
agencies, but we can\'t do it without you making sure the nuts and bolts
and we have a system that\'s workable.

And, Mr. Chairman, it\'s been great to work with you and \-- and on this
and lots of other issues and hopefully continue to do it and again,
congratulations for the FCC and your staff for putting this together
today. Because, again, as a legislator, I \-- my standard line is I can
be an expert for 30 seconds on anything, but \-- but, you know, know how
it really has to get done and we can just provide the framework on the
legislative side and the FCC doing the regulatory side.

So, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. SCHEPPACH: First I want to thank Mr. \-- Chairman Powell, for having
us here today to cosponsor this event. I think it is \-- coordination is
the key here and this is a critical meeting.

I think most of us in this room know \-- remember where we were and what
we were doing when 9/11 hit. Looking back, I can say I made one smart
decision and one dumb decision.

The smart decision was I got everybody out of the office because after
the hit at the Pentagon, I was concerned being very close to the Capitol
Hill where the next plane was going. So, I managed to get everybody out
of the office very quickly. I then got in my car, drove across town,
unfortunately ended up about two blocks from the White House, couldn\'t
move for an hour and a half and my cell phone could not work.

It taught me a couple of things. One, coordination is, in fact, key and
second, you\'ve got to fix technology for a crisis. You can\'t wait
essentially until after.

This issue of E911 implementation needs to be done very, very quickly. I
think from a state perspective we\'ve had a tough year the last year. We
had 25 new governors, 36 elections, and major fiscal problems.

However, I think we\'re ready now to step up, take more responsibility.
I think that the people here are making a major commitment to push this
up in priority and attempt to get it done essentially over the next year
or two.

So, again, thank you, Mr. Chairman and we look forward to a very
productive meeting. Thank you.

MR. MULETA: I\'d like to thank Chairman Powell and Congressman Green as
well as Ray Scheppach for their introductory comments.

What we\'d like now to do is to move to the next program which is to
talk about the E911 line policy discussion and moderating it will be my
colleague Cathy Seidel who\'s Deputy Bureau Chief in the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau.

Along with her will be other folks who will be coming up to participate
in the discussion. So, Drew, Bob, and Genie if you can come up and add
as well.

MS. SEIDEL: Welcome to the first panel of the second meeting of the
Commission\'s E911 Coordination Initiative.

My name\'s Cathy Seidel and I\'m a Deputy Bureau Chief in the FCC\'s
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau which oversees wireless E911 issues.

I am pleased that so many of the state designees of the governors\'
designees are able to be here today and we have a very lively and
comprehensive program planned for you both today and tomorrow.

As Chairman Powell said in his remarks, the FCC has taken many steps to
achieve rapid E911 implementation including rulings to clarify
implementation responsibilities, investigation of technical and
operational challenges, outreach and coordination and enforcement
actions. 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 our civilian population.

Our work is part of a much larger picture that involves many Federal
agencies, state governments in every local jurisdiction, enhanced
wireless E911 service is an essential part of the larger interconnected
telecommunications infrastructure that supports homeland security,
public safety, and citizen activated emergency response capabilities.
Strong and knowledgeable leaders at the state and local level are
critical to our success in deploying E911.

To that end, we hope that our speakers on this morning\'s E911 law and
policy panel help further educate you on where they things currently
stand with respect to E911 legislation, the current state of play with
the FCC\'s E911 rules as well as other Government efforts relating to
E911 deployment.

Before we get into the discussion though, I\'d like to tell you a little
bit about the folks who will be up here with me today and also go over a
little bit of housekeeping about how the \-- this panel and all the
panel\'s will work during the initiative and I think it can be seen that
other\'s probably had as bad a commute this morning as I did, it took
about two hours, and a couple of our panelists should be arriving
shortly.

First of all, as I said, we have the Honorable Fred Upton who is the
Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the
Internet. Congressman Upton has been instrumental in E911 issues and we
are pleased that he could join us today to talk about E911 legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Next, we have Genie Barton who is with the Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau with the FCC. She\'s a senior attorney who\'s been very active on
E911 wireless issues. Prior to the \-- working in the Bureau, she worked
in our office as general counsel and prior to that, she worked at the
Commerce Department.

We also have today Drew Dawson from the Department of Transportation who
is the Chief of the Emergency Medical Services Division, Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, a position he\'s held for about five months.
Prior to moving to Washington, DC, he worked for about 30 years for the
state of Montana including about 25 years as its EMS Director.

We also have Ed Cameron from the Department of Agriculture Rural
Utilities Services Advance Services Division. The Division is
responsible for the agency\'s telecom universal services activities
including advocacy for adequate universal service funding and
administration of USDA\'s Distance Learning and Tele-medicine Program.

Finally, we have Bob Johns, hopefully, he\'ll be arriving shortly,
who\'s with the Department of Homeland Security and he will be
representing the Office for Domestic Preparedness.

Now, the ground rules just to let you know how the panels will work so
we kind of stay on track. We have a lot to cover as you can imagine. We
have a very full agenda and so, we\'ll try to keep things on schedule.
We\'ll have a timekeeper both today and tomorrow who is sitting over
here who will be given the approximate amount of time that each speaker
will have and will give speakers a one-minute warning just so that we
can stay on track. It will show up as a yellow light and then once the
time is expired, there will be a red light.

During questions and answers and round-table discussion, both those
asking questions and those answering will have two minutes and there
will be no warning lights.

If attendees who are not speakers or on the round table up front would
like to ask a question, there are index cards at the back table on which
you may write your question. FCC staff are available to collect the
cards and bring the cards forward to the moderators for each of the
panel.

And we do encourage questions. So, to the extent you have them, fell
free to find one of those cards.

With that, I would like to turn the discussion over to Chairman Upton
who will tell us a little bit about the E911 legislative activities.

CONGRESSMAN UPTON: Boy, it is my pleasure to be here. I very much
appreciate all of you being here as well and I must say that I probably
won\'t use my full allotment of time because we are in session this
morning. I just changed parking places with Gene Green outside. I
understand he was here a few minutes ago. So, he\'s ahead of me when the
votes are called this morning. So, I\'ll be here just a little while
before I go back up to Capitol Hill.

Let me tell you a couple of things. As Chairman of the Telecommunication
Internet Subcommittee, we have made this issue one of our top issues.
Gene Green and I were together on September 11th, 2001 that morning. We
were actually doing a press conference. The FCC was there as well. Paul
Jackson back here the chairman\'s able \-- very able man running Capitol
Hill. We were all together doing a press conference about the need for
E911 services in the Hart Building in the Senate and that\'s when we got
the word. With Senator Burns, this has been a bipartisan issue from the
\-- from the get go and that\'s where we got the word.

And for me, I stepped across the hall and saw some of flames on TV in
Senator Lieberman\'s office whose office was across the hall and then my
senator as well next door and we decided to take the stairs down and
figured out the rest of the day and that\'s a day that every second will
remain in all of our minds that is for sure.

But, we are very close now to seeing E911 legislation pass. In fact, I
was hoping that it was going to be this morning and I actually had a
fill-in this morning so that I could help lead the debate on the House
floor this morning, but it looks like it will be up next week. We\'ve
got an agreement I think with the leadership to bring this bill up, but
your help on the front lines has been most useful.

I tell you as we\'ve had our hearings over the \-- the last number of
months and when I look down to my Republican side to the right and my
Democratic side to the left, the witnesses that we had come testify tell
us the need for E911 legislation, I don\'t think that there was a member
on our panel that hadn\'t made a 911 call using a cellular phone.

My district is in southwest Michigan and I\'ve been to our PSAP centers
throughout my district. Some of them actually get calls from Chicago
because they get bounced from tower to tower and they\'ll say they see
an accident on the Dan Ryan and they need some help and \-- but,
where\'s St. Joe Benton Harbor, you know, and we\'re still an hour and a
half drive around the lake.

Just this last month, we opened up a major new PSAP center in one of the
most rural counties in the entire state, but it\'s state-of-the-art and
they\'re doing a wonderful job and what our legislation does I think has
followed exactly what you wanted us to do.

We\'re going to have a national E911 facilitator, an office, really
helped by the NTIA and others in the administration so that we\'ll have
one stop shopping in terms of where we are.

We\'re going to have a grant program to the states, \$100,000,000 a year
for each of the next five years. Obviously, it\'s subject to an
appropriation bill, but we\'re going to try to get this bill done and
passed on the floor this next week so that we\'re in the queue for some
of those dollars.

We\'re also going to have a requirement and we learned this from a
number of states and I don\'t know if anybody here is from North
Carolina. Anybody? But, we heard I believe it was North Carolina that\'s
diverted some of the money that\'s been collected from us the users for
other purposes and I don\'t think that\'s right and as I talk to my
local people on the ground, my emergency folks whether they be
firefighters and I got a sister-in-law that\'s a firefighter or my
police or my sheriff, they don\'t think it\'s right either.

And so, North Carolina just to pick on you, I didn\'t know you were
going to be here, you\'re not going to be \-- you\'re not going to be
eligible for that pot of gold until that practice is changed and my bet
\-- my hope is that the incentive is going to be there so that, in fact,
it\'ll get \-- it\'ll get changed to \-- to where I hope Michigan is, my
state, at the end of the day.

But, the good news is this is a priority. It\'s bipartisan. It\'s going
to help save lives. It\'s going to help on homeland security and God
help us if we have another 911 like we had in 2001, but we\'re going to
be ready.

We\'re working with the Senate. That legislation is just behind us. They
usually are, but we\'re \-- we\'re moving them along. That\'s for sure
and I\'m hopeful that when we pass this hopefully next Tuesday or
Wednesday next week in the House that the Senate will be shortly behind
us so that we can get this thing done, obviously to the President\'s
desk.

But, I want to commend Chairman Powell for the leadership that he has
shown. The FCC has been with us every step of the way. Our local people
and we\'ve got a major conference that I\'ve been to a couple of times
now in Michigan as we brought together all the players to try and make
sure that the legislation that we passed is right and appropriate and I
want to thank our staff, too, both on the Republican side as well as the
Democratic side as we put this bill together.

John Shimkus from Illinois is the prime sponsor of the bill. Anna Eshoo
from California a Democrat. John being a Republican. So, from the \--
from the get go, we\'ve made this bipartisan and it\'s going to happen
and I just want to thank you all for your support.

I know that when I\'ve made my couple of 911 calls using a cell phone,
obviously, I know my district like a blanket, the first time I was on a
rural highway, but I knew exactly where I was. Seven person crash,
couple of kids that should have been in car seats that weren\'t, a lot
of blood, some people ejected from the car, but because our state police
and our EMS folks were there within two minutes, they all lived.

A couple of weeks later, I was here in DC. I confess I \-- in DC even
though I\'ve been a member of Congress for a little while, I sort of
know how to get to the dry cleaners and the gas station, the Safeway,
the airport, and the office. Don\'t ask me how to get to Seven Corners
or other places. I have no clue where they are, but tragically, I saw a
woman that was hit by a car and there was \-- I could not call anybody
because I did not know where I was as it related to the cross streets
and thankfully, I suspect somebody did call, but I \-- I was not of use
because I couldn\'t tell where I was.

And we have kept the \-- the cellular phone industry, their feet to the
fire. The technology is there and we\'re going to see this happen and
Americans all across the land will be far better off because of the
legislation we pass.

And again, I thank you for your support. I\'m going to stay for a little
while. I\'m a little worried about my beeper. Oh, my staff is saying
we\'re going to vote.

Thank you. God bless all of you. Have a great day. Thanks.

MS. SEIDEL: Thank you. Next Genie Barton from the Commission will come
up and talk about the Commission\'s rules and \-- and some of the things
going on at the Commission.

MS. BARTON: Thanks, Cathy.

It\'s a privilege to work on E911 at the Commission. To know that what I
do here can make a difference that may one day save a life.

Some say it\'s rare to catch a lawyer doing good. As a lawyer, I
couldn\'t agree with that, but I know that when I work on deploying E911
wireless services, I\'m contributing to the safety of my community and
the security of my nation.

In doing so, I\'m carrying out the mandate of Section 1 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1934 which created the Federal Communications
Commission for purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in
communication by wire and radio, to make available to all the people of
the United States a rapid, efficient nationwide and worldwide radio and
wire communication service for the purpose of the national defense, for
the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of
wire and radio communication, and for the purpose of securing a more
effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority in one
agency.

Wireless E911 is one of the central regulatory means by which the
commission promotes the national defense and the safety of life and
property. As Chairman Powell explained, wireless E911 serves as part of
the Commission\'s homeland security mission.

Law is a complex matter in the context of telecommunications and
particularly wireless E911. Legal knowledge is not enough to make
wireless E911 regulations effective. Our regulations must be informed by
the technology that makes wireless E911 work and the economic forces
that have an impact on that technology.

Our regulations work to respect the roles of the different branches of
Government. They work effectively within the framework of state and
local jurisdiction. They must be understandable to the consumer and the
small business.

As an E911 lawyer, I, therefore, draw on the Commission\'s incredible
resources to do my work. It\'s engineering staff. It\'s economist. It\'s
consumer and Government affairs specialist and it\'s legislative affairs
expert.

We work cooperatively to create the best regulations we can in
accordance with four guiding principles, to promote public safety in the
public interest, to maintain technical and competitive neutrality, to
integrate the Federal role with the roles of state and local
governments, and to balance the interests of affected stakeholders.

I could like today to give you a brief introduction to how we put these
policy principles to work in our regulations and initiatives. I\'m going
to cover three main topics and given the time, I will be covering them
lightly but telling you where you can find out more if you need to.

First, I\'m going to begin with a brief overview of the history of the
Commission\'s E911 rules, then highlight our current regulation, and
discuss our mandate under the E911 statute to work cooperatively at all
levels to create a seamless web of enhanced 911 services including
advance wireless services throughout the nation, and last, I will
outline the FCC\'s internal structure as it relates to E911 and the
resources that we can provide to you in meeting some of the challenges
facing you as a state leader in E911 implementation.

First a little history. Wireless E911 began as a policy vision of parity
between wireless and wireline telecommunications in the delivery of
emergency information. When the vision was first created at the
Commission and in cooperation with industry and public safety, the
vision was ahead of the technology. Nonetheless, the Commission took the
first step in 1994 to inquire as to the feasibility. That docket number
94102 which many of you know very well is still the prime way to search
for all wireless E911 rule makings in our electronic filing system.

In 1996, the Commission issued its first wireless E911 regulations.
These developed out of consensus agreement between representatives of
industry and state and local safety officials.

The vision was to provide the same enhanced E911s as wireless customers
in most parts of the country already enjoyed, but the history of
wireline and wireless E911 are very different.

Wireline E911 had developed as a private initiative before deregulation.
The wireline technology necessary to provide automatic number
identification and you\'ll hear this in our rules ANI or A-N-I and
automatic location information ALI to the appropriate PSAP with a
stationary landline customer was relatively simple. To do the same thing
with the moving target of a wireless 911 required the development of new
and complex location metric and technology.

The E911 rule makings that followed the first order in 1996 have refined
the original regulations and have adjusted schedules in light of
technological developments and deployment lags.

While the Commission has vigorously encouraged the roll out of E911, it
has not hesitated to use its enforcement authority to prompt compliance.

We have to understand that the \-- the revisions of the original
deployment deadlines were realistically predictable in light of the
ambitious vision of parity between wireline and wireless E911 with which
the rule making process began.

Today as you\'ve heard, we have major roll outs. We still have a ways to
go and we have granted certain stays of our rules while we consider the
merits of potential waivers, but we have also made very clear in our
orders that the burden is extremely high for anyone who is seeking to
delay deployment because of the overriding public safety concerns that
weigh against further delay.

What I\'d like to do now is just take you through some of the reasons
that it\'s so important now to get E911 rolled out as a policy matter
because there are so many 911 calls being made from mobile phones.
Therefore, the realization of the mandate in our regulations is
imperative. In some jurisdictions, over 60 percent of E911 calls from
wireless devices and there are 170,000 wireless calls per day.

So, I want to just take you through what our regulations currently
require. In your materials, we\'ve given you a copy of the regulations
if you want to look at them in more detail or you can find them in the
Code of Federal Regulations at 47 CFR 2018. Just so you know, 47 is the
number associated with FCC rules.

I also want to note that the Commission\'s regulations operate in the
statutory context of the 911 Act of 1999. That Act made 911 the
universal emergency number for both wireline and wireless
telecommunications, protected the consumer\'s privacy rights in it\'s
location information and set forth a vision of emergency service
deployment that I think was ahead of its time. The legislation foresaw
the recommendations of Dale Hatfield for the Commission to provide
assistance to state\'s localities and other stakeholders to deploy 911
effectively.

Under our rules, that is what we are all about and we require deployment
in two phases for advance services. First, phase one E911 requires that
within six months of a PSAP request, a carrier must provide cell site
location to the designated PSAP. This is \-- this is the beginning of
location identification.

Under E911 phase two, carriers must provide phase two location
information within six months of a PSAP request for at least 50 percent
of the PSAPs coverage area and with \-- within 18 months, carriers must
provide phase two location information for 100 percent of the PSAP
coverage area or population.

As you know, we are technology neutral and \-- and a carrier has the
right to choose either a handset-based location technology or a
network-based location technology. The deployment deadlines and the
degree of accuracy varies a bit with the technology chosen, but both
will give you a good measure of accuracy when deployed by the carrier.

I\'d like to close by saying that our resources are quite extensive and
are visitable on the website. If you just go to the FCC website and go
to wireless and then start clicking on E911, you will enter a world of
more information than you can probably absorb.

But, I would also urge you to realize that another great resource here
is our staff. We all stand ready to give you whatever assistance we can
at anytime to help you deploy E911.

Thanks very much.

MS. SEIDEL: Do any of our \-- do any of the governors\' designees have
questions for Genie before we move on to the next panelist? If you do,
feel free to pose them now or if you think of them later, we can do
that, too. Okay. Okay.

Next we have Drew who\'s going to talk to us about some of DOT\'s
initiatives.

MR. DAWSON: Thank you very much. I\'m please to be here.

Certainly like to express my appreciation for my mentors in Montana
about 911 who are here today, Becky and Genie.

And for us, many years actually, I had an opportunity to serve on the
911 Advisory Council in Montana. Had an opportunity to learn I guess
kind of first-hand about E911 implementation on a state level and what I
really learned is certainly to appreciate each of you on a state level
who are 911 coordinators and the very, very important role that you play
in implementing 911 in your respective states.

Certainly, I\'ve seen first hand the \-- the good work that can result
from having an effective 911 office.

The other thing I\'d like to certainly give credit for as I say I\'ve
only been at the Department of Transportation for about five months and
having come there from Montana and I would like to giver certainly
credit to all the good work that has been done in the Department of
Transportation with the Intelligent Transportation System Public Safety
Program.

Craig Allred who is sitting over there, Craig, raise your hand, has been
very involved in helping guide some of the Department\'s 911
implementation efforts. Certainly, it\'s been through the resources of
Craig and his staff that many of the efforts that we have done at 911
have \-- at the Department of Transportation have been possible.

Certainly, Secretary Mineta and I carry his greetings to you. Secretary
Mineta is very interested in accelerating the deployment of 911 and has
taken pretty consistent actions for the past couple of years to focus in
on helping you, all the players in 911, and the nation come to consensus
about what action step each of you and your respective organizations
could take in accelerating the deployment of E911.

Now, that initiative of the Department of Transportation \-- again
realizing that we are interested in transportation safety at the
Department of Transportation and wireless E911 is a key factor in
looking at transportation safety certainly among other emergencies as
well, our efforts at the Department of Transportation are twofold. One
is looking at stakeholder leadership and certainly, many of you have
been involved with that effort and secondly, the provision of technical
assistance.

Now, we generally do that through the provision of contracted services.

I think many of you are familiar with the Wireless E911 Steering Council
and Evelyn Bailey is the Chairperson of that Steering Council. That
Steering Council convened many of the non-Federal partners from
industry, from state, from others to come together for several different
meetings to outline how all of the players could come together, what
steps and actions they could take to accelerate 911 deployment
throughout the nation and certainly, I\'d like to commend Evelyn and the
rest of you who are members of that Steering Council for the good work
that you have done both on the Steering Council and on the expert
working group.

The Steering Council has completed our priority action plan and has
identified six major areas which are listed on the slide for action in
order to accelerate the deployment of 911 and I think what\'s important
is that these don\'t specify all actions that the Department of
Transportation or \-- or FCC or any other agency could take. It
recognizes that the deployment of E911 is complicated, it\'s important,
and that there\'s a role for all of the major organizations and
hopefully what it can do is to provide some guidelines and some steps
that each of the organizations can take to accelerate the deployment of
wireless E911 in \-- in a coherent fashion. So, certainly, that group
has done a lot of \-- of very good work.

In addition, we have contracted with and you\'ll certainly hear
throughout the day I believe with the National Emergency Number
Association for the NENA DOT clearinghouse on 911 for the development of
the wireless deployment profile and map and that actually is an effort
both with APCO and with NASNA in addition to NENA and it just points out
the NENA DOT clearinghouse which there\'s considerable amount of
information contained on that site that should make your lives easier as
state 911 coordinators.

Also, profile and map so you can get an idea of the status of 911
deployment in a \-- in a fairly easy to understand fashion.

Also, funded some activities in New York State to try to involved the
medical community better as kind of a neutral party to facilitate the
deployment of 911 throughout the state.

And on the ITS Public Safety website, there is a considerable amount of
information and resources that may be available to you, that are
available to you to assist you in your 911 deployment roles in your
state.

As I mentioned \-- as Congressman Upton has mentioned, there is \-- are
several pieces of legislation pending. The administration has made some
recommendations concerning a coordinated approach to 911 implementation
office involving both Department of Transportation, Department of
Commerce, Homeland Security, FCC, and others. Obviously, we don\'t know
whether those positions will be reflected in the final bill or not, but
there was a lot of certainly coordination among the Federal agencies in
terms of making recommendations for that bill.

At the DOT, we remain and Secretary Mineta remains firmly committed to
the implementation of wireless E911 as \-- as a transportation issue and
certainly pledges to continue working with all of the Federal agencies.

Again, I\'d like to give credit to the Joint Program Office at ITS for
the work that they have done on implementing \-- helping to implement
and facilitate the deployment of E911. Some of those responsibilities
may be shifting to the Emergency Medical Services Division at NHTSA over
the next several months and we\'re still kind of working out the details
of that, but certainly, we\'re both still involved and both committed to
working with all of you folks to help.

And with that, I\'d be happy to entertain questions.

All right. Thanks.

MS. SEIDEL: Ed, do you want to come up and tell us a little bit about
what is happening at the Department of Agriculture.

MR. CAMERON: Okay.

MS. SEIDEL: Thank you.

MR. CAMERON: Hello, I\'m glad to be here, too. My name is Ed Cameron. I
am with the Rural Utilities Service at the Department of Agriculture.

We are a principled lender of funds \-- affordable funds to rural
service providers, wireline and wireless, and we have entered into a
partnership with the FCC to try to improve the availability of rural
wireless mobile telephone service.

I am a 33-year veteran of this agency and I have to tell you its been a
terrific ride and I want to give my little anecdote about E911 service.

Twenty-five years ago, I was a field engineer for my agency in the state
of Louisiana and I worked long, hard hours and I often would be driving
from one rural town in south Louisiana to another rural town in south
Louisiana over roads that would scare you to death and I \-- I have to
tell you when you\'re out in the dark on a road that\'s an elevated
surface above a canal on one side and wet land on the other, you just
seem like you\'re in the most dangerous place in the world and there\'s
no one who knows where you are or what\'s going on with you and that was
exactly the situation.

If you had told me 25 years ago, I could not only have a telephone that
would work in these areas, which is something we\'re striving to make
happen all over the rural America, but that if something happened to me,
that telephone could tell me where I was at the time, I\'m not sure I
would have believed that.

And so, every time I think of E911, instead of thinking about the
emergencies that I can call in or 911 where I \-- where I was, what was
going on, I think of the general quality of life and confidence and
comfort that E911 gives everyone.

Many of us would never make an E911 call in an emergency situation, but
just knowing that the service is there and knowing that that is a
capability of the wireless network is a tremendous enhancement just in
the quality of our lives.

Now, the Rural Utilities Service is a lender and we provide funding for
rural telephone infrastructure. We lend to service providers.

In 1993, Congress gave us a piece of legislation that put us in the E911
business on the wireline side. RELRA the Rural Electrification Loan
Restructuring Act directed us to make only telephone loans to providers
which were \-- which were equipping their central offices with E911
capabilities. That was not clearly defined, but it was certainly
consistent with what we wanted to do anyway. We have always provided
funding for new services and new capabilities in the network and our
goal is to make the rural telephone customer feel like he\'s in suburban
Washington, DC in terms of service quality and availability of features.

So, RELRA gave us the authority and the responsibility of financing E911
facilities which we broadened from central office to just any kind of
facilities, trunking or anything else, for wireline providers.

In the late \'90s, we began to finance rural mobile wireless providers
and naturally, we went forward with the RELRA initiative and we
certainly would be delighted to finance any trunking, central office
equipment, data storage, data processing, any equipment that a provider
needs to move \-- to move forward with E911 implementation.

Most of the loans that we have made to rural wireless providers have
provided for E911 capability.

This will show you the approximate budget that we have for annual
lending in our telecom program. It\'s about 650,000,000 and the interest
rates are extremely affordable. They \-- for most of the funding
programs, they run at the Government\'s cost of money and then we have a
fairly small amount of money which we call a hardship fund which is
fixed at 5 percent. This is affordable money available to rural carriers
to not only install E911, but extend rural coverages to cover all of
rural America.

So, we have funding. That funding is not particularly oversubscribed
although each year we \-- we essentially lend our budget and so, we are
here with money and capital should not be a problem.

Even though we usually lend to small rural independent telephone
companies, there is no restriction as to who we can lend to as long as
the coverage is rural under our statute.

Now, another thing I want to mention that you might not hear from the
other speakers is that role that universal service support can play in
E911 funding. When we process a loan, of course, we look at the
feasibility study of the applicant and I\'m going to tell you that the
majority of rural telephone companies wireline depend heavily on
universal service support to be able to provide affordable modern
telephone service in rural areas. These are high cost providers serving
very high cost areas.

The wireless picture is the same. The low densities, lower numbers of
customers covered by site cell, higher cost for \-- for communication
between cell sites and \-- and just the general cost picture, cost
profile for rural wireless service is very unattractive and the rural
service providers in the wireless area have begun to qualify as eligible
telecommunications carriers which means they have begun to qualify for
and collect money from the universal service fund and when the FCC first
established the list of supported services which was in essence defining
universal service in 1997, E911 was included in the list of supported
services.

So wireline providers have all this time been including the cost of E911
facilities in their universal service support calculations, the cost
calculations. Wireless providers can do the same thing.

So, these are the resources that \-- that we either bring to the table
in terms of loans or we certainly know about and can talk to you about
in terms of universal service support.

I\'d like to mention that a \-- up until about a couple of years ago,
one of the folks at this front table was a deputy administrator. That
was Anthony Haynes and Anthony Haynes has been a very effective state
representative and leader in the E911 field. I know that is because he
knows a lot about rural infrastructure and the resources that world
service providers have available to them should they choose to exercise
their opportunities.

Thank you.

MS. SEIDEL: Thank you, Ed. Does anyone have a question for Ed at this
point?

One question I had, you talked about the qualifications, who might
qualify to receive support. Could you talk a little bit about
practically how a carrier would go about getting the funds? Step through
the process just briefly.

MR. CAMERON: From our program?

MS. SEIDEL: No, from the \-- yes. Yes.

MR. CAMERON: Okay.

MS. SEIDEL: From the program.

MR. CAMERON: Well, you just file a loan application. The service
providers come to us directly and they \-- they just \-- they develop a
\-- an engineering plan which includes usually the extension of coverage
area in the case of wireless providers and usually modernization of
switches and in many cases, evolution from one modulation system like
TDMA to another like GSM so that they can provide services into the
future and then we process the loan and advance the funds and it\'s \--
you come to us directly.

Instead of giving you our web address, what I always tell people so that
they don\'t have to really remember anything, our name is Rural
Utilities Service. If you do a Google search for ?rural utility,?
you\'ll find us pretty fast. We have one of the most active websites in
the Department of Agriculture.

MS. SEIDEL: Very good. That\'s helpful. Thank you, Ed.

Finally, we have Bob Johns from Department of Homeland Security. Bob.

MR. JOHNS: Sorry, I don\'t have a fancy presentation here with the
overhead.

On behalf of ODP and the Department of Homeland Security, I\'d like to
thank you all for the invitation to speak with you today and serve on
your panel.

I\'ve been asked to keep my remarks, squeeze them to about five minutes
and I had about ten or 12 minutes worth of material. So, just yank me if
I start going over.

I\'d like to provide you all with a brief overview of ODP including our
mission and our support programs, our homeland security assessment and
strategy process, and the use of ODP resources for homeland security
preparedness.

ODP\'s mission is to enhance the capabilities of state and local
emergency service, emergency response, and other homeland security
preparedness entities; to prevent, respond to, and recover to WMD
incidents involving chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and
explosive incidents.

We pursue our mission by providing planning, equipment, training,
exercise support, and technical assistance. Some of this is provided
directly by consortium members. If any of you are familiar with our
programs, I know some SAA\'s sitting around the table, some friendly
faces here.

Some of this is provided directly by members such as NUMETROTEC that
provides bomb training. Louisiana provides biological training. Other is
provide through financial support and this is probably what you all are
most interested in talking about today as our financial support.

We\'ve been in the preparedness business since 1997 when ODP was part of
the Department of Justice.

To understand how support services are used to enhance homeland
security, it\'s very important to understand how our assessment and
strategy process works. I\'m going to talk to you about how we set up
jurisdictions within states and how our state administrative agencies
administer this program.

Beginning in 1999, we asked the governor of each state to designate a
state administrative agency to coordinate ODP resources and services
within that state. At that time, the SAA or State Administrative Agency
divided each state into jurisdictions for the purpose of conducting
assessments, needs and capabilities assessments.

In each jurisdiction and this is typically done, not always, but
typically done by counties. Sometimes it\'s done by region. Sometimes
they break down jurisdictions more specifically to cities and counties.
It\'s up the state as long as the area of the state is completely
covered. So jurisdictions are covering the complete state again normally
by county, but it\'s up to the state to \-- to determine jurisdictions.

Within each jurisdiction, risk and needs assessments are conducted. The
needs assessment reports the current capabilities and existing needs for
equipment, planning, training, exercise, and technical assistance.

All of this information is submitted to the state administrative agency
that analyzes this information and prioritizes needs across the state.
They use this information to draft a statewide homeland security plan,
strategic plan.

Throughout 2003, we\'ve been working with the SAAs and local
jurisdictions to go through the new assessment and strategy \-- updated
assessment and strategy process. Again, this started in 1999. They
developed homeland security strategies. We called them preparedness
strategies at the time and now we call them homeland security
strategies, but we\'ve updated the original strategies.

We have a much more robust assessment process. It\'s on-line. Collects
very detailed and comprehensive information.

We\'re also conducting a parallel and concurrent process with selected
urban areas. That\'s our urban area security initiative and that
parallels again the whole assessment and strategy development process.

The information that\'s gathered through the \-- the urban area
assessments is provided to the state for the state strategy, but each of
those urban areas that\'s selected is also developing their own urban
area homeland security strategy. So, there will be \-- for those states
that have urban areas selected, there will be \-- there will be a local
strategy for the urban area as well as a statewide homeland security
strategy.

When the states develop \-- they\'re in the final stages now of
completing their assessments and

\-- and drafting their strategies. The strategies are will provide goals
for enhancing, prevention, response, and recovery to terrorist
incidents.

We ask that \-- that they provide a goal for each of those, how they\'re
going to address those goals through planning, organization, equipment,
training, and exercise objectives.

Now, ODP program managers work very closely with the states and the SAAs
and local jurisdictions to assist in directing financial and direct
support resources as I mentioned. All of the

\-- the resources that we provide, the training, the exercise, the
equipment.

Some of that is through grants. In each of those categories, there are
\-- there is grant funding. There\'s also direct support. The training
direct support. Exercise direct support.

Our program managers work with the states and with local jurisdictions
to use the \-- that support to address the goals and objectives noted in
those strategic plans.

In fiscal year \'04, ODP will be administering the homeland security
grant program. For the first time, we\'re combining multiple programs.
This includes a State Homeland Security Program, the Law Enforcement
Terrorism Prevention Program, the Urban Area Security Initiative, and
the Citizen Corps Program.

In each case, for each of these programs, at least 80 percent of funding
must be provided to local jurisdictions. The state may retain 20 percent
for activities, statewide initiatives. The remaining 80 percent must be
passed through to local jurisdictions.

Each program has allowable expenditures within the areas of planning,
equipment, training, and exercises.

On thing I should note, if we\'re going to talk about facilities and
building facilities, we are prohibited by law from allowing use of funds
for construction or renovation of facilities. Talking about that.

Again, these resources along with direct training, exercise, and
technical assistance must be directed towards the goals and objectives
that are noted in their homeland security strategies.

And I will cut my remarks short there so that we can get on to the
question and answer. Thank you.

MS. SEIDEL: Are there questions? Go ahead. Richard.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I guess two questions really. One, what is the \-- the
strategy of Homeland Security in dealing directly with E911 centers? I
mean you talk about law enforcement. You talk about fire and EMS
responders, but what about directly with the E911 folks? The \-- the
place where the calls are actually made. Where that first responder
response is. What \-- what is the strategy of Homeland Security to \--
to that?

MR. JOHNS: Well, with regard to our programs, we would allow \-- when
\-- when I was talking about construction of facilities and things like
that, while we don\'t allow construction of facilities, we would support
\-- in \-- in each of these programs there is allowable equipment for
the four programs that I mentioned that are combined.

The two that would cover that would be the State Homeland Security
Program and the Urban Area Security Initiative. Within the equipment
category, there\'s multiple categories of allowable use. Within those
two programs, you would be able to use funds if it \-- if it was in
conjunction with the \-- the State Homeland Security Plan. You could use
funds \-- the equipment funds from those programs towards equipment that
would enhance a 911 system. So, it\'s not \-- we do support it.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: But, there\'s no direct connection between homeland
security and 911 is what you\'re telling me.

MR. JOHNS: Well, if \-- if it\'s identified by the state and local
jurisdictions as a need. Needs are prioritized across each state. So, it
would depend on the needs of local jurisdictions as well as states.

So, we wouldn\'t say \-- we don\'t go out normally and say you need
this, you must focus on this. We believe that the locals and states have
the best idea of where they need to prioritize and address homeland
security needs. So, it \-- if the state and local jurisdictions are in
agreement that funds should be used towards enhancing 911 systems then
\--

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Okay. So, there \-- there will be no direct grants for
911?

MR. JOHNS: These programs do not have direct grants for 911 per se. It
is \-- the \-- the State Homeland Security Grant Program is very broad
in scope. The equipment is one of the allowable areas and again, if
that\'s \-- if that\'s identified as a need by locals and the state,
then I \-- I believe somebody else was talking about a grant program
that was being developed specifically for this, but \-- but our program
would support it again within the context of the homeland security
strategy.

Yes, sir.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I \-- I work very closely with our state homeland
security adviser in the state of Missouri and I can tell you from
conversations with him that the way he understands the grant programs
that 911 is not even considered in \-- in the Federal funding portions
of that. His definition and \-- and his interpretation of the
requirements a first responder is somebody that\'s got a vehicle and
tires and runs around all over the place.

So, maybe there may need to be a discussion with the states homeland
security advisors and directors that this really is not the case.

MR. JOHNS: Well, we definitely want to emphasize that it\'s much
broader. We \-- our program stated in \'97 focused on first responders
\-- \"first responders\" and there\'s always been some contention about
what that means, but it was initially fire, EMS, law. Those types of
first responders.

But, homeland security is much, much broader than just first responders.
So, we \-- while obviously we want to support them to the maximum
extent, there are other elements to homeland security and we recognize
that. Our assessment system collects that and the strategy is definitely
geared to be broader than that.

So, I \-- but, I appreciate your \-- your comment on that.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: How difficult would it be then just to change your
wording and add 911 when you speak of fire, EMS, and law enforcement?

MR. JOHNS: Actually, within our grant program, we have solicitation kits
and we have allowable areas of expenditure within each of the programs
for the homeland security program, for the urban area initiative. Right
now, we\'re developing the guidance. We\'re \-- we\'re finalizing our
guidance for those \-- for the FY04 program.

But, within each of those \-- within the solicitation kit that goes out
to the states, there are lists of allowable uses and that include
inter-operable communications.

Right now, I know that computer-aided dispatch is specifically noted in
there as allowable. We \-- but, we would look at an enhancement of 911
if

\-- again, depending on the application, but it can be tied directly to
homeland security preparedness. So, does \-- does that answer you
question?

MS. SEIDEL: Question over here.

MR. OENNING: In the state of Washington, the first thing we encountered
was a requirement to do a critical infrastructure report to come in to
be reported to Office of Domestic Preparedness what our critical
infrastructure was. Our people believe that 911 and our public safety
answering points are part of critical infrastructure. Yet, we were
unable to even put that on the form meaning that it didn\'t come back to
you to begin the process of saying these are things that needed funding.

I will tell you in our state, we\'ve bought a lot of things, but nothing
has gone in PSAPs. So, we have wonderful radios they\'ve bought out
there with encryption but not one piece of equipment so the person who
does the dispatching can use the same technology and it goes very deep.

We\'ve been trying to figure out how to get around this as a real issue
under homeland security because in our state 98 percent of the time when
you call 911 you reach an agency which is not police and not fire. They
are independent agencies, an independent discipline. Their job is
communications. They do all kinds of inter-operable things everyday with
agencies that have different kinds of radio systems and they feel
completely and totally left out of the picture and they\'re the ones who
gather the information the very first second someone calls and there\'s
an incident.

MS. SEIDEL: Why don\'t \-- why don\'t we take it as something that \--
Richard, perhaps at \-- at one of the breaks, you and I can talk further
with \-- and anyone else who\'s interested and see what we can do in
terms of like, you know, just more of education or see what it is or
whether maybe in the \-- the planning process you\'re undergoing if
there\'s a clear \-- a clear indication at 911 to make it \-- the
process more, you know, perhaps more efficient and easier for both to
get through.

MR. OENNING: Yes.

MS. SEIDEL: Okay. But, thank you for the questions.

MR. OENNING: Okay.

MS. SEIDEL: It\'s a very good point.

MR. OENNING: Okay.

MS. SEIDEL: Quick question.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I\'d just like \-- in that \-- in that light, I know my
boss who is also Director of Homeland Security has brought this to the
attention of \-- of the Homeland Security Department that we need more
flexibility. The \-- the funding is great, but there\'s only so much PPE
and so many gizmos and widgets you could buy. We\'ve sort of saturated
that now.

There\'s other needs and 911 is one of those critical needs that \--
that starts the whole thing rolling. I mean that \-- that\'s where the
initial call is going to start and that\'s where we need some
flexibility in this funding so that we can use this money wisely rather
than just keep stacking level A suits on a shelf that are going to set
and dry rot because they\'re not used.

MR. JOHNS: Yes, I think that in our FY03 package, we had within the
equipment categories I believe it\'s 14 categories of all allowable
equipment and one of them is PPE, but we definitely recognize that it\'s
\-- it\'s \-- it\'s much beyond that and that\'s why we do allow for
other types of equipments and that\'s just within the equipment. We also
have allowable planning and exercise and training, but \-- and \-- and
we\'ve opened up the \-- the whole pot so that within that whole realm
you can use funds as you need to. They\'re not necessarily directed
towards equipment or specific types.

MS. SEIDEL: I \-- I hate to cut the discussion off because I think it is
\-- certainly is interesting, but we do have so much on the agenda I
hate to \-- to take much more time. But, if you do have questions, talk
to folks off-line.

I want to thank each of our panelists today for their insights and for
their efforts and the efforts of each of the states to insure that our
citizens can be located and assisted in the times of emergency. We
applaud your efforts. The FCC values your continued commitment and
leadership in speeding full implementation of wireless E911 service and
we look forward to continuing to work with each of you to insure that
E911 deployment continues at pace.

Now, I\'d like to turn the podium over to Commissioner Adelstein who
will be moderating our session on ongoing industry and public safety
efforts to facilitate deployment.

Thanks to each of you.

COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I think we\'ll get started. You\'ve \-- you\'ve
been hearing today about the work underway by the FCC and Congress and
other Federal agencies to promote E911 services and now, we\'ve
assembled some key leaders to fill us in on some of the outstanding
efforts by public safety organizations and by industry to move E911
deployment forward.

I also want to thank and we appreciate the presence of some
representatives of tribal nations who have been here today for their
work in bringing this process forward. Especially glad to have here as a
South Dakotan and somebody that comes from \-- from Indian country to
have you here today and we appreciate your presence.

This issue I think of E911 is one of the most critical issues we face at
the FCC. As I\'ve \-- I\'ve said, I think that we handle so many issues
that get so much attention, but this is really one of life and death and
the \-- the key people that we brought up here on this panel today are
\-- are some of the \-- the best and brightest in the field. They\'ve
done some great work and they really merit our \-- our closest and
highest attention. I want to thank each of them for coming and joining
us to be with us today to join us and give us their insights.

The way we\'re going to organize this is to hear short presentations on
four major projects that are now underway from each of the panelists and
we scheduled about 20 minutes for each panel. So, we\'re asking that
panelists limit their presentations to about ten minutes or so so we
have time for some give and take and some questions or comments from \--
from those of you who are here today and the governors\' representatives
in particular.

So, if you would, please ask questions of each individual panelist.
After they\'re done with their presentation, then we\'ll wrap that up
and move on to the next presenter.

We\'re going to start with \-- with NENA. As all of you know NENA\'s
created a strategic wireless action team or SWAT team to tackle this
E911 issue and they\'ve done a great job. The SWAT Initiative is
bringing together all of the relevant stakeholders, leaders of public
safety groups, state and local government, wireless and wireline phone
industries, and many other experts in a cooperative effort much like
what we\'re doing here today to try to overcome so many of the obstacles
that are facing us.

I think John Melcher got it about right when he said it\'s about getting
the right people, the right information to solve wireless E911 problems.

We\'re going to start with \-- with Jim Goerke who\'s the Wireless
Implementation Director of NENA. He\'s \-- he\'s the Wireless
Implementation Director where he\'s been doing that for the last two
years. Prior to NENA, he spent ten years working for the Texas
Commission on State Emergency Communications which is the Texas 911
agency.

While with the Texas Commission, he held the position of Executive
Director for seven years and prior to that, he was Executive Director of
the Council of Governments in northeast Texas for 19 years and during
that time, he helped to implement 911 services throughout that region.

So, Jim will give us an overview of the SWAT and its latest efforts.

Okay, Jim.

MR. GOERKE: Thank you, Commissioner. Let me see if I can \-- F5? So, I
pushed F5. Okay.

Welcome, everybody. As Commissioner Adelstein indicated, I spent the
better part of \-- of the decade of the \'90s as one of you and \-- and
there are so many friends of mine that are out in this front row that
have been in this business as long as I have that it\'s like speaking to
family to a large extent.

During that period of time in Texas, our state had the opportunity to be
involved in several things that we\'re talking about today. Most
notably, I guess, is that \-- that our state agency along with other
state 911 agencies in Texas and along with the three national
associations filed the original petition with the FCC that ultimately
lead to the 940102 docket. So, in \-- you know, in a very real way,
we\'re all here today because of \-- of a lot of that work.

We also had the opportunity during that period of time of passing two
key pieces of legislation in Texas both of which relate obviously to \--
to activities that we\'re talking about today. One of those dealing with
our wireless cost recovery statute and then the other dealing with
private switch and we\'ll be talking about that a little bit more in
just a second.

The \-- the SWAT Initiative is something that \-- that many of you are
involved in or have been touched by either directly or indirectly,
either involved in the project or the initiative itself or have been
impacted by its \-- its research activity, Ron Wintery and some of the
work that he\'s doing or the Monitor Group interviews which I\'ll be
talking about more in just a second or one of those activities.

But, really the \-- the origin of SWAT was much more straightforward and
I think, you know, much more simple in the beginning. As we are learning
today, there are a number of wireless initiatives that are out there all
of which, I think, are doing a great job helping foster the deployment
of \-- of 911. We heard about some of those earlier today. The USDOT
project, for example, is one that NENA\'s directly involved in and
certainly, all of that work is \-- is critical to what we\'re trying to
achieve.

When we started out with the SWAT Initiative, the intent was not to
duplicate or overlap with what those other initiatives are attempting to
do, but \-- but truly to coordinate with and to supplement that
activity.

We understood that \-- that all of those activities couldn\'t do
everything for everybody and we also understood that many of the
barriers while we could maybe conceptualize or generalize on the nature
of those barriers at a very high level ranging from cost recovery to
technical issues to equipment upgrades and others that how those
barriers came together often they came together in a unique way from
state to state, from locality to locality.

So, the original thought was that \-- that maybe what we could do if we
really want to help foster deployment is to put together action team
folks that would be tailored to address specific arrays of problems in
\-- in specific states and localities. Hence, the word SWAT and that was
a phrase I think that John Melcher brought much of the original energy
and passion to this project point and we kind of backed into the acronym
the Strategic Wireless Action Team piece of that, but that was really
the \-- the original focus.

The other idea that \-- that, you know, was kind of the underpinning of
\-- of SWAT was what if we got all of the right people, the constituents
that are involved in deploying wireless 911 from public safety to the
carrier community both landline and wireless to other third party
support entities that are \-- are essential to the process, what if we
got all of them as John phased it the collective intellect together in
one room at one point in time, what could we accomplish? What if we
started out and said everything was possible. We understand that
there\'s some very high level critical issues that are out there some of
which are vested very clearly in matters of public policy both at the
Federal level and at the state level and that\'s what we did.

The \-- and I\'m not going to go through these one-by-one. You can read
those and I think you\'ll have access to the \-- the presentation a
little bit later on, but essentially the over-arching objectives dealt
with facilitating the deployment of both landline and wireless 911.
Landline because we found out through our work with our DOT project that
we have approximately 5300 PSAPs out there in the country, but we have
some 200 counties plus or so that really don\'t have 911 at all and part
of our goal is to implement ubiquitous wireless 911 out there. We\'re
going to have to deal with the landline issue first and so, starting at
that what we called the green field arena and working our way all the
way through phase two, that\'s the process that we\'ve been involved in.

There was another piece of that, too, that really dealt with the future
proofing piece of that. It seems like in our industry we\'ve spent most
of the last two decades always trying to catch up with technology and
new ways to \-- to communicate and obviously, those challenges are only
accelerating today. They\'re not slowing up.

What can we do once and for all to really put the infrastructure in
place that has the flexibility to deal with those kind of challenges.
Another big piece of what we\'ve been attempting to deal with in SWAT as
well.

And then, of course, a key piece of the SWAT effort was the deployment
of those resource team. Many of you or a number of you have \-- have had
some contact with some of that effort.

I think Ron \-- where are you, Ron? He\'s over here. Has been the point
person for a lot of that activity out there and I don\'t know what the
state number is now that you\'ve touched. Ten states maybe? At least.

In terms of organization, we essentially organized ourselves around what
we felt like were the \-- the key, the obvious key functional areas.
When we look at barriers, they generally fall into one of these four
areas.

We discovered real quickly that when we talk about financing 911 that
that generally involves a \-- a policy issue either at the state level,
local level or at the Federal level and we ended up several months into
the project consolidating those two committees, policy and finance into
one.

We also discovered too that if we were going to do a credible job really
taking a \-- a detailed and concentrated look at some of the issues that
are out there dealing with that, that \-- that we were going to need
some help and we didn\'t have the ability in an organized way to bring
capacity to the table that would allow us to do the research necessary
to give us the information we felt like we needed to make an ultimate
consensus recommendation about the best way to address those objectives
that I described.

What came out of that was the employment of a third party facilitator.
That\'s the monitor group and many of you\'ve had the opportunity to
have discussions and dialogue with the monitor group. They\'re based in
Cambridge, Massachusetts. They are a, pardon me, David, a think tank
that we felt like had the experience and the capability to \-- to
support us in this effort and they felt provide some structure to our
\-- our activity and I\'ll talk about that a little bit more in a
second.

Just very quickly in terms of where we\'re at today, if we\'re going to
be making recommendations regarding cost recovery and financing 911 both
today and into the future if we\'re dealing with this future path or
future proofing idea, then we\'re going to have to know something about
what it\'s going to cost to implement phase one, phase two, and
ultimately an infrastructure out there that would support that \-- that
future migration.

That required that we do a lot of financial modeling and the technical
track or \-- or portion of our group has spent the \-- the last 12
months or so essentially going through a very detailed and a very
consecrated cost modeling effort to essentially identify what those
costs are and I think for the first time. Because that\'s always the
question we\'re always asked whether it\'s by a member of a state
legislature or a member of Congress or somebody else, you know, tell me
how much it\'s going cost. If I\'m going to be asked to pass a piece of
legislation that\'s going to provide the basis for cost recovery, then I
need to have some feel about what that cost is going to be. So, that\'s
\-- that\'s been a big piece of what we\'ve been attempting to do.

On the operations side, just very quickly, the kind of operational
impact that both deploying phase one and phase two will have on our
PSAPs as well as preparing the future. Our operations track has \-- has
been a long time analyzing ways to \-- to take a look at a PSAP and
identify how prepared they are to move both into phase one and phase two
and into the future.

They\'ve looked at things like staffing models and other things of that
sort that can be used to help facilitate that process.

And there\'s just one final comment on the \-- on the consensus piece
and really the first bullet here is the most important one. Developing a
detailed legislative regulatory and administrative strategy and most of
the other bullets under that really help support that activity. For the
better part of a year now, we have pulled together all of those
constituents that I referred to earlier and the goal has been to see if
we can get them all in one room and we could come to a consensus about
how to deal with very high level national issues of cost recovery
incentives to implement or \-- or foster wireless deployment and other
activities of that sort.

Our goal is to essentially bring that to a close, the initial piece of
that, by the end of this \-- this calendar year and essentially release
in a public way a consensus recommendation that\'ll identify what we
feel like is the best approach to addressing the many barriers that are
out there. Much of which is vested in public policy.

Now, the challenge \-- once we do that, the challenge then, of course,
is to implement it and hopefully that will provide some information
basis and some data for you all as you go back to your state
legislatures and begin to talk about either enhancing or improving the
state statutes that you have if you feel like you need to do that or in
many cases, addressing that issue for the first time.

So, Commissioner, I\'ll be glad to answer any questions anyone has.

COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I\'d like to start one off myself. Just \-- just
from the SWAT team\'s perspective, what are you \-- what are you seeing
as some of the biggest challenges now facing 911 deployment? Where do
you think the SWAT team\'s going to come down on how we \-- how we
approach maybe the biggest one or two challenges that you see?

MR. GOERKE: Well, I think it\'s \-- when we have these conversations,
one of the first items that always comes up, of course, is cost recovery
and the cost of \-- of \-- of implementing phase one and phase two.
That\'s an issue not only for the PSAP but the carrier community as well
and we\'ve spent a lot of time kind of working through what might be the
best approach to balancing those two needs and in the process of doing
that, fostering wireless deployment.

Once you get beyond that, then in many states, I think Ron over there
would tell you that in many states they\'re really just beginning to \--
to move through this process. They don\'t know where to start, you know.
So, that kind of hand-on guidance giving them some \-- some feel for the
first steps to take, you know, the kind of coordination issues that are
out there is going to be critical in those parts of the country where it
hasn\'t really even begun yet and \-- and the Chairman referred to that
a little bit earlier today.

Now, I\'m sure everyone in this room has their own thoughts about those
issues, too.

COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No further comments or questions? Thank you very
much. Thank you very much, Jim.

And now we\'re going to hear from Nancy Pollock about Project LOCATE.

Now, Project LOCATE\'s a multi-year commitment by APCO and its members
to work with the FCC and carriers within the new rules to accelerate
E911 deployment.

At the heart of Project LOCATE are the model PSAPs in every state that
serve as a case study for deployment activity and through their
commitment to PSAP readiness, they provide, I think, to us valuable data
detailing the complexities and barriers associated with phase two
deployment.

Nancy Pollock who we\'re going to hear from is Executive Director of the
Metropolitan and 911 Board in Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota. That \--
that board coordinates and oversees the E911 system through the
metropolitan area of Minneapolis which represents a population of about
2.4 million people. Their coverage includes seven metropolitan area
counties with 26 PSAPs with regard to 911 network engineering. So,
she\'s a great person to hear from about how you bring all that together
and coordinate it.

She works on service performance and wireless E911 deployment and data
base integrity issues. So, we look forward to hearing more from Nancy as
soon as she has that all \-- hear at the FCC, we often have issues with
technology. My phone wasn\'t working yesterday for example, but we
won\'t get into that.

Anyway, here\'s Nancy with no further ado.

MS. POLLOCK: Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you for your introduction
and for the opportunity to speak to you today on APCO\'s behalf.

Genie Barton said it this morning. You know, we get involved in this 911
business and pretty soon it sort of gets in our blood and we know that
what we\'re doing is really important and critical for public safety and
I think that at least for me, that\'s what gets me over the challenges
that we\'re going to be hearing about throughout the day today. Is that
we know that what we\'re doing is \-- is critical and critically
important.

APCO\'s Project LOCATE is as Commissioner said a multi-year commitment
on the part of APCO and

\-- and the LOCATE acronym really stands for Locate Our Citizens at
Times of Emergency.

It is a nationally recognized effort to monitor the deployment of
enhanced wireless 911 technology deployment in all the fifty states and
the District of Columbia. The focus of Project LOCATE remains to assist
those designated model communities to learn from their experiences and
then to extrapolate that information and offer that checklist or that,
you know, how to guidance for implementation across the country.

Those LOCATE model communities are Public Safety Answering Points from
local small jurisdictions to large metropolitan areas to regional
programs to state programs as well. So, they run the whole gambit and
the whole spectrum of public safety throughout the country and we work
on those many issues that have been identified and are going to be
identified throughout the day today.

The efforts, challenges, and lessons learned from these representative
throughout the nation provide APCO with a unique perspective. We can
report actual facts from the field concerning the need for those
innovative strategies and true collaboration for the benefit of all
users.

The model community managers were brought together at APCO\'s annual
conference this summer in Indianapolis and that special meeting of that
group really focused on a couple of \-- several important items and
produced a couple of very important documents. This experienced group,
half of which by the way had already deployed phase two wireless service
in their communities developed a top tips for deployment urging their
peers among other things to learn more about current Federal and state
legislation, learn more about wireless technology, learn more about
location determination options as well as recognize the very, very
critical important role of a strong working relationship with local
exchange carriers, wireless service providers as well as vendors of
telephone, computer-aided dispatch, and mapping equipment.

The model communities managers also at that conference developed and
defined pre-deployment, active deployment, and post-deployment
challenges to be recognized and resolved by all those seeking to reach
our shared goal, full deployment of enhanced wireless 911 service to
save lives, reduce pain and suffering as well as mitigate damage to
property and disruption of public services. These challenges have
existed since the days of the earliest efforts of deployment.

Today based on those practical experiences by the model community
mission, we can provide clear and convincing support to those still
challenged by the common problems of inconsistent information, dramatic
local cost variables, and data delivery configuration which still delay
the rate of implementation.

We are particularly please to report that Project LOCATE has initiated a
collaborative effort for a national public education program aided at
the wireless service consumer. Beginning in early 2004 is our \-- our
hope and our goal. This is an important interim step in managing public
expectation. Managing the anxiety and frustration of the reported 70
percent of wireless 911 users who believe to this day that we can still
actually locate their call on all situations when they dial 911.

Since only about 10 to 12 percent of the PSAPs across the nation
actually have phase two deployed, it\'s critical to alert callers to the
importance of enhanced 911 service the questions they must answer to
assist the prompt dispatch of emergency services as well as the options
that each of these consumers has in the matter and we\'ve just included
a little bit of information of what this call \-- 911 call card looks
like.

We do have printed copies of my text in the back of the room for any of
you who want to \-- to pick that up on your way out. It\'s a two-sided
\-- a two-sided card for the wireless consumer.

The Project LOCATE team will also dedicate its resources to deliver
regional information seminars to those areas of the country in
particular that are experiencing significant difficulty in reaching the
goal of deployment.

Commissioner Powell this morning talked about, you know, 19 states that
haven\'t even deployed phase one yet. We\'re talking about those
particularly under-deployed areas that we\'d like to \-- to get to and
hold these regional information seminars.

Aimed at educating and assisting and facilitating deployment together
with the local PSAP manager, these local intense sensitive focus groups
are intended to break the barriers that prevent well intentioned but
still struggling PSAP managers to resolve political, fiscal program
management issues which are delaying the deployment of phase two.

Jim talked a little bit earlier about they don\'t know where to start
sometimes and these regional focus groups and informational seminars are
intended to perhaps hold their hands a little and \-- and yes, indeed it
\-- it does seem like holding hands, but we find that among our 16,000
members that\'s indeed what we need to do and we need to use the
collective knowledge of those who have been through the experience, our
model communities in some cases, to \-- to go forward with that
particular effort.

The challenges identified across the nation will be addressed from a
local perspective focusing on the particular roadblocks of that locality
or region, deal with the specific barriers of that particular locality,
and using the experiences and lessons learned of other 911 professionals
as the road map to successful deployment.

The involvement of policy makers, governing boards, and political
leaders will be essential to this successful outcome.

The success of APCO\'s Project LOCATE effort is measurable in many ways.
First of all, the \-- compressing the time line for deployment of
enhanced 911 services, the emphasis of a \-- on a thoughtful
collaborative approach to solutions based on experiential evidence of
what works, what doesn\'t work, what approaches have been successful
throughout the country, the increased awareness and participation of the
wireless 911 user as a critical political and market force for changing
\-- for change and as an impetus for achieving phase two deployments is
also part of Project LOCATE seeking collaboration.

And the continued identification and resolution of challenges such as
those the Rural Services present, accuracy of data delivery to the PSAP,
disparity of data configuration as well as the inconsistency of cost
elements across the nation are also goals of Project LOCATE.

The model community managers recite episode after episode of delayed and
even denied emergency response due to the absence of accurate location
data from wireless callers. Citizens die, they suffer longer, damage is
more severe and disruption of normal, all result from the emergency call
that cannot be accurately and quickly located.

In addition, the dispatch of traditional first responders to the wrong
address certainly creates an additional risk to them as public servants
as well as to the general public they encounter in route.

Project LOCATE joins all of you as a part of the required solution for
this national crisis and has reconstituted our efforts with ever great
vigilance and commitment.

And I am available for questions on APCO\'s Project LOCATE.

MS. HANSEN: I\'m Jenny Hansen. Are you finding through the model
communities a common thread in the delays of the funding, strictly with
model communities and if so, are there commonalities more between rural
and rural and urban and urban centers?

MS. POLLOCK: Thank you, Jenny.

Yes, we \-- we are. The \-- the common threads in some of the items that
both those who have been through deployment and those who are in the \--
you know, in the process.

First of all, some of them don\'t know where to start. They \-- they
don\'t \-- they don\'t know even who to contact sometimes in their
particular communities and where to begin that process.

And I do think in cases they\'re undereducated on what the rules are,
what they can ask for, what they can demand, and that the fact that, you
know, in many cases public safeties in the driver\'s seat of asking for
what it is they need in order to do their jobs.

And I think that because there\'s somewhat of a lack of knowledge,
they\'re afraid. You know, these \-- these guys are not \-- they\'re not
the enemy, but we \-- you know, they\'re afraid because they don\'t know
where to start and that\'s \-- that\'s been part of the problem which is
why LOCATE is focusing on, you know, getting into a region especially
that which is under-deployed and trying to assist them with the process.

I think the other thing is \-- is cost recovery. It\'s expensive for
public safety to implement phase two and many states do not have a
cost-recovery mechanism for public safety. For this endeavor, perhaps
what they have in place today might be sufficient for wireline 911
services, but it certainly doesn\'t take into account some of the
additional effort, equipment set up and implementation costs for
wireless.

And I \-- I think that, you know, some of the \-- the testing, the
monitoring, the \-- the very intensive planning for implementation on a
\-- you know, a cell site by cell site basis and how that all gets
tested and \-- and so forth is sort of \-- is a \-- a daunting task for
public safety and we \-- we need to tackle that. We need to educate
ourselves better and that\'s, you know, part of the mission certainly of
Project LOCATE.

Does that answer you question?

MS. HANSEN: It does. Do I have time for one more?

MS. POLLOCK: I didn\'t get to your urban versus rural challenges, but
we\'ll get \--

MS. HANSEN: If there are \-- if there are inherent issues there, I \-- I
would certainly like to hear those, but you mentioned the testing issue
and that brings about discussions we\'ve had on a national 911 committee
discussion level on standards for those testing and accuracy reviews.

Are you finding difficulties because X isn\'t X from one PSAP
jurisdiction to another and would you recommend or are you looking at
suggesting national standards for those tests?

MS. POLLOCK: The \-- the data accuracy that I \-- you know, I talked
about the inconsistency and data accuracy is certainly a challenge.
It\'s a challenge for training a 911 call taker that from this carrier
you\'re going \-- you\'re going to see this and from this carrier,
you\'re going to see something different on a call and it means \-- it
means here one thing and it means something different over here.

I think Jim is going to speak to ESIF and their work and APCO is a part
of that. NENA is a part. Certainly been a co-convener of the ESIF group.

So, public safety has come to the table with ESIF to work on \-- I know
one of the subcommittees that \-- that we\'re on is the testing piece
and the accuracy of that data.

It\'s a huge challenge. You\'re absolutely right. They \-- the wireless
carriers need for that to be accurate all the way to the PSAP and we\'re
certainly working those issues in partnership with them on \-- on that.

MS. HANSEN: Okay. Thank you.

MS. POLLOCK: Anybody else? Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thanks a lot. Well, thank you. You\'re doing a
\-- and we appreciate your \-- your efforts.

Next as Nancy said, we\'re going to hear about the ESIF from Jim Nixon.

As Nancy mentioned, ESIF is a primary venue for \-- for the
telecommunications industry, public safety, and other stakeholders to
develop and refine technological and operational interconnection issues
and that I think this will insure that this lifesaving service is
available to everyone in as many situations as possible.

ESIF allows many different telecom entities to fully cooperate and
interconnect with each other in order to determine the best practices
and solutions necessary to effectively deploy E911 services.

Now, Jim Nixon who\'s going to present on this is the Director of Public
Affairs for T-Mobile USA and Governmental Affairs. Right?

He\'s responsible for the national E911 policy within the company and
works closely within the FCC with national, state, public safety
organizations as well as communications industry groups.

His public safety background includes positions as 911 Coordinator for
the state of Maryland, supervisor of 911 county center in Nevada, and a
patrolman on the local police force for New Jersey. So, he\'s got all
the different levels on it, but most importantly, he holds a Masters of
Public Administration from the University of South Dakota, in my own
home state.

So, Jim\'s going to give us a quick update. Thanks for \-- thanks for
being here.

MR. NIXON: Okay. Thank you very much, Commissioner. I\'m very happy to
be here.

I\'m actually giving this presentation on behalf of Susan Miller the CEO
of ATIS. She\'s unfortunately tied up in a board meeting and \-- and
asked me as the Chair of ESIF to make this presentation.

A couple of things, number one, I think we\'ve established and I\'m \--
I\'m not Susan Miller. I apparently am not all that technology savvy
either. So, there\'s a second thing and a third, maybe more surprising
for many of you, I\'m not the enemy. Thank you very much, Nancy.

I think that\'s a very \-- I think that\'s a very \-- a very important
point and make light of it just to \-- to \-- to kind of bring it up
again, but, you know, we all are in the midst of working together on
this. I think we\'ve gotten past a lot of initial misunderstandings et
cetera and making some really significant progress and \-- and I think
it\'s critical for us to continue forward with that.

So, with that, I\'d like to start the presentation here. Do I need to
hit anything particular for this? Up arrow. Down arrow. F5. Okay. So,
either we\'re going to have slides or I\'m going to talk from these
slides. So, in either case, we\'ll go.

Again, I\'m Jim Nixon. I\'m the current Chair of ESIF and I \-- I work
for T-Mobile USA representing them on ESIF.

ATIS is the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions as you
may know. Is working together with NENA and \-- and host of others to
make ESIF a very viable and \-- and vibrant functioning body. ATIS being
a leader in standards development through the USA which is developing
the very technical standards of how phones work and \-- and things work
together, talk to each other, has a lot of very good experience to bring
to this table.

Their executive board which is made up of a number of representatives
from across the communications industry made 911 a top priority and
they\'ve been working very hard in supporting the ESIF effort very well
I might add.

NENA obviously a leader in the technology advancement for 911 issues and
representing public safety has for some time had a series of technical
committees which address various \-- did I? Okay. I got to remember.
Multi-tasking.

Another \-- as I say, NENA has been working on technical issues for some
time and together ATIS and \-- and NENA formed ESIF largely to create a
\-- a forum where we could resolve issues without FCC filings. As you
know in the past, if we had a \-- a dispute between the parties, very
often it ended up on a commissioner\'s desk needing a resolution to an
issue which in many cases probably didn\'t really need to go there. It
would have been much better for the parties to work cooperatively on a
solution and that \-- that whole concept was the genesis of ESIF.

We have a \-- a wide cross-section of stakeholders. I\'ll show you the
list of members in a moment and the goal is \-- the reason I mentioned
we initially began our focus on the FCC mandates and the technical
issues kind of falling out of that or growing out of that, but the scope
of the ESIF work could certainly grow and is growing a little bit into a
little bit farther realm than just the FCC mandates.

The list here as you can see of ESIF memberships is a very, very good
cross section of both industry, public safety as well as government
involvement. FCC participates in some of our meetings that \-- when we
have them in locations that are convenient for their travel. We have a
lot of guest appearances or guest participation.

As we move the ESIF meetings around the country, we invite local folks
to come in and participate in that. The last meeting was in San Antonio.
We had several local Texas area 911 representatives for entrance in \--
for instance that were able to participate simply because of proximity
of the meeting.

We\'re very interested in \-- in getting all the players to the table.
So, we\'re \-- one of our intentions coming out of today\'s meeting is
to take the contact list for the state representatives and \-- and
provide you all who are not already centrally involved in ESIF with some
information about it, what it\'s \-- it\'s goal is, mission is, et
cetera. Meeting \-- meeting schedules, et cetera. So, that if you have
the resources, you can be involved. Certainly everyone is welcome to be
involved through the website and to follow our activities, make
suggestions, et cetera.

Next, I\'d like to show just a sampling of the issues that are currently
being worked in ESIF or have already been worked. We worked through PSAP
readiness issues early on and came up with a list that\'s jointly
published or release with NENA.

I believe NENA, APCO, and NASNA all have it available to \-- to the
various public safety folks so they can take a look at what the basic
criteria is for \-- that makes a PSAP ready for phase one or phase two.

Essentially, someone mentioned earlier that not everyone has the time to
\-- to read through and become intimately familiar with all of the FCC
rulings and \-- and the various policies and et cetera that drive this
whole process. This was simply an attempt to kind of boil all that down
to the key features so that it would be most helpful to public safety so
that they could know what they needed to do to get their PSAP ready or
when they could make a request and have everything go as smoothly as
possible.

We\'ve also addressed issues on non-service initialized handsets. The
handsets that don\'t have current service and what happens with
identification of those handsets as far as a call-back number since

\-- since they cannot be called back at this point. How would they be
identified to the PSAP so they can identify a recurring nuisance caller
and not waste a lot of resources on them.

We\'re currently working on a number of other issues. Location and \--
location reliability and confidence factors are two optional parameters
that are in the standard for location technology to be \-- as part of
the data that could be delivered to the PSAP. We want to make sure that
that\'s meaningful data. It\'s consistent data as was mentioned earlier
and that the PSAPs have an understanding of what it is.

You can see a number of these things are driven by \-- by phase two.
Obviously mid-call location update is one of those. We\'ve got issues
before us about how you handle call-back capabilities for international
roamers whose numbers don\'t meet the \-- or comply with the ten-digit
North American numbering plan scheme that we have. Some standard text
messaging in what signals go to the PSAP again for clarity and
consistency. Contact lists so that for follow up on \-- on harassing
calls. Those are some of the things that have been and are being worked
in inside of ESIF.

By far, the most passionately discussed items is the \-- the issue that
Jenny mentioned earlier about the location testing guidelines and there
is an issue before ESIF right now whose goal is not to develop a single
wireless testing program or accuracy testing program that must be
applied nationally because there\'s so many varieties, local factors, et
cetera. The carriers have different technologies.

The goal of this group in this issue is to identify the major pieces of
a \-- of an appropriate and reliable testing program so that each
carrier can look at their internal testing regimen and compare it to
that list. The more that a carrier meets those suggested standards or
suggested elements and mirrors those, the more that \-- the implication
is that the more that testing regimen would produce reliable consistent
results that we\'re secure in relying on when they get the data into the
PSAP.

So, there\'s \-- there\'s components there about, you know, how do you
do \-- how do you do the testing? Is it mobile or is it all static
testing? What are the statistical elements of a test program which I
mean my eyes glaze over when I pull out the calculators on this stuff.
So, I\'m happy to have that all in the back room and have a product as a
result of this that we can all agree is a reasonable, logical,
consistent, and reliable approach to validating location accuracy and a
list of terms to describe the various pieces of that whole accuracy
testing process so that when we\'re talking about test calls and issues
that we\'ve seen or problems that come up, we can be using the same
vocabulary and not wasting time talking past each other. Okay.

So, finally, I just wanted to reiterate again that, you know, ESIF is
made up of components of \-- of a very broad spectrum of players in the
whole 911 arena. We\'re very active in the NENA SWAT, the DOT, the 911
Institute and ATIS and ESIF are very, very concerned about 911. We share
the Commissions desire to make it work properly and \-- and quickly and
look forward to working with all of you along the lines of achieving
that goal.

Be very happy to answer any questions about the ESIF process.

I thought I had stunned silence for a minute there, Bob.

MR. OENNING: No, I had to do something. On none of your slides did you
mention anything about number portability which, of course, is \-- is
coming in days now and how \-- is ESIF fairly confident that we\'re
going to go through this without problems?

MR. NIXON: Yes, actually, the \-- I mentioned the \-- the NENA technical
committees and then NENA had a very, very robust number portability
effort under Rick Jones able guidance that I \-- I think many, many of
the players in ESIF were involved in. That issue never arose to a
specific ESIF issue because I think it was handled so well and so
thoroughly through cooperation of all the player even before ESIF got
started. Because that \-- that group had been going on for several years
as I recall and had some \-- had some very good interaction. So, a very
good question.

Any other questions? How are you doing, Ray?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: What is your success with the un-initialized phones?
The un-initialized phones where we have these wacky callers calling \--

MR. NIXON: I missed the first part of your question, Ray.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I said what success have \-- have you achieved through
your committee in studying the non-initialized phone problem?

MR. NIXON: Okay. What we did was we looked at the calls have to be
completed. Have to be passed on to the PSAP.

There is no solution currently technically that would allow a temporary
call-back number to be uniformly provided for those types of phones.
Again, there is a \-- a technical effort going on concerning that that
NENA has taken the lead on. ESIF is monitoring and providing support on.

So, the whole ability to call back those handsets still is not \-- not
there for us technically.

What we did as far as the question of how do you represent those calls
when they arrive at the PSAP, there had been an FCC filing in process
that suggested perhaps it would be better for public safety if you had a
standard number that came in to identify non-subscribed handsets. I
think the Commission on the strength of the information that was in the
docket at the time suggested that 01234 up to 9, the whole ten digits up
to 9, would be sent back to the PSAP to identify a handset that was not
\-- did not have call-back capability.

ESIF had just started at that time. We asked the \-- the Commission and
they very graciously granted a stay on that while we considered it a
little bit more and we \-- we came out with a solution that was
recommended and \-- and has been enacted pretty widely that in order to
identify those handsets a little bit more uniquely is you would have 911
as the first three digits on a call-back number and then the last seven
digits of the handset\'s own serial number. So, you wouldn\'t
continually get just 0 through 9. You would get 911 plus seven digits
that you would be able to recognize if they were, you know, consistently
if you \-- if they made a number of calls. You tell it was about the
same handset that was making the calls, help a little bit and again
helped the \-- the PSAP operators identify that it is a problem call.

So, that\'s \-- that\'s where we are on it today with that 911 plus
seven, the last seven digits.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Right.

MR. NIXON: There is technical investigation going on into the \-- the
overall capability of being able to return calls to those handsets at
some point in the future.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: And, Jim, that\'s what we\'re getting now. We\'re
getting 911 and seven digits, but \-- but no other call-back
information. So.

MR. NIXON: Yes, that \-- that\'s \-- yes, there\'s \-- there\'s very
little that we \-- any of the carriers even have on the \-- on the call
back.

One of the issues that we\'re addressing as well on here and I\'m not
sure if it made it to the slides is the \-- the whole issue of
congestion control and thank you, Jim, for bringing that up and that is
how do we \-- how do we avoid flooding a 911 center with calls from the
incident? How do we \-- how do we more closely mirror the congestion
control process that\'s in place on landline 911 networks? How do we
more accurately mirror that in the wireless side to try and give some
relieve in that area?

So that \-- and there are a number of \-- a number of issues. I think
we\'re up to issue number 27 now that we\'re working on. We\'ve
completed some of those. So \-- so, it\'s a very active forum.

If you have any questions or issues and you want to submit them to us,
there\'s a form on the website where you can put those in. You can call
me. You \-- many of you have my phone number already, but I\'d be happen
to give it to anyone who doesn\'t.

Yes, ma\'am.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Off microphone) Do you see any help to process the
work related e-mails that goes \--

MR. NIXON: I don\'t think that that hold

\-- where you have the \-- the one number that \-- for the Internet
numbers, I\'m not sure that \-- where that issue is being address. Rick
may have some information on that that \-- that he could help us with.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Off microphone) Won\'t be using those e-mail numbers
when \--

MR. NIXON: Okay. That is in \-- the NENA has a voice-over IP packet,
Communications Committee that is looking at that particular issue and
again, the \-- there\'s a split between NENA and ESIF about which issues
go where based on a joint decision concerning workload, technical
capability, membership of the folks on the various committees to try and
make sure they get most \-- the most thorough and \-- and timely review.
So.

Thank you. Rick, I learned.

I think one \-- one last question.

MR. WHITNEY: Jim.

MR. NIXON: Hi, Scott.

MR. WHITNEY: Scott Whitney from Maryland. With respect to the
recommendations for a testing strategy, do you anticipate making
recommendations to the Commission that those be adopted nationally since
they\'re already established the accuracy standard?

MR. NIXON: I think that testing strategy as in whether you start at one
end of the country and go to the other, whether you do it at a PSAP
level or a national level or a market level or those type things, is
that \--

MR. WHITNEY: Yes.

MR. NIXON: \-- the strategy you\'re talking about?

Those issues are being considered in the

\-- the ESIF work group. That\'s \-- that\'s view more as kind of a
policy issue than the \-- than the technical accuracy components. So,
they\'ve \-- they\'re \-- they\'re spending most of their time right now
trying to identify the individual pieces, the statistical pieces, the
\-- the site selection pieces, et cetera, et cetera to \-- to lock those
down so we have something to work with. The \-- the policy issue I think
will probably start in ESIF growing out of that \-- that discussion.

I\'m not sure the ESIF would be the final place to make a recommendation
of that and it will be another form, but that\'s \-- all of those
options are open at this point. We\'re just more focusing on the
technical pieces at this juncture than the policy pieces.

So, you know, I wouldn\'t be surprised if they came up elsewhere, but
they could also come up in ESIF. It\'s just too early to tell. It\'s a
\-- it\'s a big world.

Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you all very much.

COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Well, thank you, Jim and we do especially
appreciate all the times the ESIF has kept off our desks. It\'s best to
work it out that way.

Finally, in the last 15 minutes, we\'ve set aside some time to give you
a brief update from FCC staff about the situation surrounding E911
capabilities of multi-line telephone systems. We\'ll get some commentary
on that from Greg Cooke who\'s with the Commission. He\'ll provide a
report and hopefully, afterwards, we\'ll get some commentary from some
of our other panelists especially Jim Goerke and Nancy Pollock I believe
are going to respond in depth on that.

Now, Mr. Cooke is currently a Deputy Chief of the Wireline Competition
Bureau\'s Competition Policy Division where he\'s worked on E911,
carrier discontinuances, 271s and other matters. He joined the FCC in
1995 as a staff attorney and he\'s now a key player for us on all these
MLTS issues regarding E911.

So, Greg.

MR. COOKE: Thanks, Commissioner Adelstein.

I know that today is pretty much wireless E911 issue, but I think the
overall theme that we\'ve heard throughout a number of these panelist
discussions so far is accurate location information. So, we thought
we\'d take a few minutes and shoehorn in something that is currently
before the Commission and that is the provision of E911 over multi-line
telephone systems or more commonly known as PBXs.

And I\'m sure that anybody from any of the states, I noticed Bob Oenning
with whom I worked a number of years ago on this matter, has stories of
people whether they are in a \-- an office cubicle, a dormitory room, a
hospital room, a hotel room, perhaps a bank branch making an E911 call
and then having the emergency responder come to either the main office
or the location of the switch. A location that is not the location of
the emergency.

And \-- and this is an issue that was first brought to the Commission\'s
attention in the \-- in the original rule making that was going on in
1994 from which a lot of the wireless issues have \-- have developed and
it is an issue of \-- of great concern to the commission and one that at
the time back in 1997 we had a two-day meeting with \-- with folks from
APCO and NENA and \-- and I know Bob was there. A number of the folks
from the business operator community were there to \-- to discuss what
the issues were, try to air them out, and \-- and take next steps.

And a number of the parties have made tremendous \-- made tremendous
strides afterwards to try to reach some level of consensus among the
parties. Did a lot of work in that and most recently NENA and APCO made
an excellent effort which they included into the docket that the
Commission is concerning right now of model legislation.

Now \-- now, this is a different animal from most of the other 911
landline issues you will hear. Because certainly for any of us at our
homes, if we call 911, all of the determination of what is the
geographical coordinate to our particular house is something that \--
that doesn\'t implicate us at all. It\'s there. It\'s something that the
carrier does, the PSAP does. It\'s our of our hands.

When you have MLTS 911, however, it\'s \-- it\'s quite different and it
does implicate the \-- the operator of the system and the manufacturer
of the unit in a very particular fashion.

I\'ll just run through that very, very quickly.

In order to have this work that particular business or other kind of
MLTS owner/operator has to be able to \-- to transmit data that \-- that
is specific to that number that is being called through their PBX to the
PSAP and also somehow update the data base with information that
coordinates those \-- that data with an actual physical location.

Now, this implicates certainly issues that are before the Commission
having to do with our rules. There are requests for us to revise our
rules to insure that all PBXs are E911 capable for example. There are
requests in front of us right now to \-- to insure that carriers who
have to transport this data are able to do so and actually do transport
it to the PSAP.

But \-- but, underlying all of this is the issue of do \-- what do the
\-- the providers have to do, the actual operators have to do to \-- to
supply this information to the \-- to the PSAP and as I mentioned
before, this is something that \-- that a lot of the commentators in
this area feel quite strongly about because they realize that for them
it\'s a significant expense and it\'s also sometimes that they are
looking at \-- that either technical difficulties in \-- in implementing
this as well as they might feel that they have other options. I mean say
well, look, you know, I\'ve got old equipment. We really shouldn\'t have
to be compliant or look, I\'ve got my own in-house emergency response
team. Why should I have to go through all of the time and the expense to
become E911 compliant?

What we have noticed, however, is that when we took a look at the most
recent docket, the \-- the Commission was asked a number of questions
and \-- and one of the things that it asked was whether the state action
had been sufficient to implement Commission on 911 and might say
vis-a-vis this model legislation and one of the things that we noticed
in the interim period from let\'s say 1997 when we last had meetings on
this to now is that very few states have enacted legislation.

Now, I will tell you that \-- that it\'s a fair amount of controversy in
front of the Commission as to whether the FCC has jurisdiction over
private entities such as an IBM or a \-- or any other private company
operating a PBX and that\'s obviously not an issue I\'m going to discuss
today. It\'s on the record, but there\'s no controversy that the states
have \-- have jurisdiction over these entities through their state
police power.

And the question then is well, what do they do with this jurisdiction.
Do they do \-- take some kind of action to insure that this gap in the
\-- in a national deployment of effective E911 implementation is somehow
filled and that\'s where I think NENA and APCO have done a tremendous
job by \-- by drafting this model legislation, copies of which are in
the back.

Because what it does is it \-- it addresses each of the issues that are
of particular interest to a \-- to a locality. Should a particular
locality, for example, regulate all of the MLTS within \-- within the
state or should it limit it to \-- to perhaps multi-tenant dwellings or
\-- or dormitories or should it actually include businesses. States \--
the states that have enacted this legislation vary in this regard.

What about companies that have older equipment? Should they be
grandfathered in?

What about companies that, for example, have in-house call centers
alternative emergency response teams? Should they be allowed to have
waivers?

These are very locally driven, locally determined questions. All of
which I think to a greater or lesser degree are \-- are addressed in
this model legislation and so, it is something that \-- that we wanted
to sort of shoehorn this issue into the otherwise wireless discussion
today to bring to your attention and \-- and urge that you take copies
of it and review it and consider what actions if any would be
appropriate for individual states to take in this regard.

And that pretty much closes my remarks. But, I\'m happy to have any
input from the folks at APCO or NENA on the \-- on the model legislation
and to open it for questions.

MR. GOERKE: So, I\'ll make \-- so, I\'ll make just a few comments.

And I \-- I certainly agree with \-- with what Greg had to say.

As I indicated earlier, our state took a shot at this in, you know,
early on in the middle 1990s and that\'s always \-- you know, being, you
know, early on something like this, that\'s always a good thing/bad
thing.

I mean it\'s good that you\'re showing initiative and that you get out
there and you provide your citizens a level of service.

On the other hand, you may discover subsequently, you know, later on
that there is a better way to \-- to approach it.

So, I would dare say that if we had to do it over again, that we would
approach this issue in a more comprehensive way than we did.

What we ended up doing was we ultimately passed legislation that
addressed specifically and Greg kind of referred to that to what we
labeled or characterized as shared tenant services.

We discovered that we had a growing industry, that we had shared tenant
service providers that were actually marketing private switch telephone
service to apartment complexes in our state and that we had a growing
number of \-- of large apartment complexes that were switching over to
private switch-type service. That was attractive to apartment complexes
because ultimately, they could offer cheaper telephone service to their
\-- to their tenants.

And so, that became an issue for us and the statute that we ultimately
passed dealt specifically with what the model legislation characterizes
as shared residential service, but it in way touched on the \-- the
whole commercial arena and in some cases, that\'s an even larger issue I
think that\'s out there.

I would encourage you to pick up a copy of the model legislation. I
think the position that NENA and APCO if I can represent both for just a
second has taken on this that \-- that the most effective approach to
ultimately resolving this issue is a balanced approach between states
assuming their responsibility, passing legislation that deals with kind
of the \-- the local public policy part of that, and then as
appropriate, the Commission dealing more with the part 68 standard piece
that\'s \-- that\'s associated with the PBX equipment itself.

So, the \-- the PBX issue was originally part \-- way back when was part
of the \'94 \-- the original \'94 102 documents \-- docket. So, it has a
\-- another connection technically with our \-- our wireless activity
here today and then the Commission I think rightfully so ultimately
separated that from

\-- from the wireless portion as they move on with the latter.

Nancy.

MS. POLLOCK: Thank you, Jim.

I don\'t have anything really new to add except to reiterate what has
been said.

It is true that this issue \-- you know, we\'ve been talking \-- this
whole two days has focused on wireless location technology, but location
has been a problem on multi-line telephone systems with the 911
community since 911 began. We have been dealing with this for 20 years
and I think we\'ve been negligent frankly in not being more vociferous
about the problems.

We\'ve \-- we\'ve sort of allowed this to happen. Have \-- and \-- and
we overcompensate for it in our \-- in our communication centers.

And it is true. This has been on the Commission\'s table since 94102. I
think it\'s time we do something about it and, you know, we \-- we know
how \-- the Commission knows how effective location is for improved
public safety response. This is no different. It\'s just a different
animal and it is a

\-- it is a bigger animal.

If \-- if we thought regulating wireless location technology was
different, this is bigger because it\'s private business and \-- and
that\'s what makes it difficult. The FCC doesn\'t have \-- doesn\'t hold
licenses for private \-- private public safety \-- excuse me \-- for
PBXs.

So, it \-- it is bigger and there are \-- there are two responsible
parties I think for the most part. Certainly, the FCC can do their part
via acting on part 64 and part 68 and I \-- I think it\'s appropriate to
\-- to move forward with that.

Greg is right. There\'s lots and lots of stories.

We are also in Minnesota starting to see this in residential service
where they are bundling not only telephone with the rent but high-speed
Internet, cable TV, telephone, all a part of the rent. Makes it very
attractive for the renter, but we also have the stories where their
responders are running up and down the halls of an apartment complex at
3:00 in the morning trying to find the heart attack victim. That is
absolutely inappropriate service for our citizens and we need to do
something about that.

The states, Jim is absolutely right, have I think a responsibility to
move forward on legislation. The model legislation that NENA developed
is \-- is very \-- is a very good starting piece and a basis.

I have to report that we have been unsuccessful in Minnesota and I think
that\'s why we see so few states, Greg, having acted on this although I
know Florida was successful this year and Maine I believe was successful
this year in legislation.

In Minnesota, it\'s another issue of they want less Government. They
want less regulation. You know, private business doesn\'t want to be
told what they have to do.

But, this is a public safety issue just as sure as wireless 911 is a
public safety issue and I think we have to as state representatives and
as public safety people and as Federal Government that have a piece in
this, we have to step up to the plate and do something about this issue
which has plagued us for far too long.

So, I would encourage you as Jim has indicated to pick up a copy of the
model legislation. APCO and NENA are very consistent on this issue in
\-- in trying to move this forward and it \-- it is something that I
think we need to tackle.

Thank you.

COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Any response or questions or comments on
multi-line \-- yes, go ahead.

MR. OENNING: Oh, I \-- I can\'t \-- I can\'t patent this. You know, I
\-- it\'s been on our plate for so long.

In the state of Washington, we have legislation that\'s fairly close to
the model. I wish ours was the model because it reflects some errors we
made. So, that would have been helpful.

We have a very high compliance rate in the state from just about
everybody. Those who are required to and from business because we\'ve
been going to business and saying you ought to really do this and the
telecommunication manager doesn\'t have any money. We then walk over to
the risk manager and say what do you think about this and the risk
manager says I think that he better find the money and \-- and they both
go up to the CEO and we\'re having a very high compliance.

So, we\'re having a lot of success. It\'s a lot of work, but we still
have a couple of problems and they go right back to the FCC and the
biggest one is that some of the local exchange carriers still haven\'t
got the hint that they need to be really cooperative on providing
connectivity.

It isn\'t just, you know, the old style camma trunks will work for this.
There\'s others \-- other technologies that business users use on a
regular basis and they need \-- already buying stuff that will work if
they\'re allowed to use it and so, we need to push for the carriers to
do their part.

Now, our local \-- our state commissions have been very helpful on that
on a couple of fronts and we\'ve really made some progress, but they
were looking for guidance, too.

And the other thing is something I run into which I have a whole pile of
e-mails on that \-- that one of my school districts called me because
they allied for some money that comes from National Exchange Carriers
Association and they asked for money for their PBX and they put a
specific item on there, 991 interface, and that was denied and I stepped
in line and said why is it denied and they said well, because the FCC
hasn\'t included interface to 911 as something that\'s permittable when
you use those universal service fund monies for school PBXs.

And that has been an ongoing problem and I haven\'t been able \-- been
able to get around it other than a minor issue of it. We just make them
all include it in their specifications and don\'t list it separately so
no one knows.

But \-- but \-- and I\'ll tell you in our state, school safety is a huge
\-- huge issue. We\'re going out and mapping and taking pictures of the
inside of the schools and \-- so they know where every phone is located
and can go. The responders can click on their PC and see what that room
looks like and all the routes to it. So, we\'re doing a lot of work, but
if we can\'t reliably get the phone interface there, one so it\'s
affordable and two, so that they, you know, it\'s a real problem for us.
So.

COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Just to show you on behalf of the FCC that
we\'re going to do everything we can to insure that that kind of model
situation you have in Washington takes place throughout the country
using what resources we have to \-- to make this \-- make this work.

Any other thoughts on multi-line systems?

Well, with that, I\'ll just thank our panelists for an excellent
presentation. We\'ve learned a lot and we\'ve arrived at that magical
hour, lunch hour, and so, we\'re not just going to leave you hanging.
We\'re going to fill you in on \-- those who aren\'t familiar with our
facility where you might go for lunch from our own Lauren Patrich.

MS. PATRICH: Hi, there. I might have spoken with almost everyone in the
room at some point in the last month. I\'m Lauren Patrich from the
Wireless Bureau.

I have a few basic pieces of information. Before we do the lunch stuff,
we\'re going to do the other stuff.

If any speakers for today or tomorrow have Powerpoint slides and you
haven\'t sent them yet, I needed them yesterday. So, just find me and
hand them to me or Cindy Sheiber in the back from the Wireless Bureau
who\'s waving her hand.

I want to remind people also we have lots of interesting handouts at the
back table. Some FCC documents. Some legislation. Some things from APCO
and NENA. Please feel free to grab those.

I also want to remind people we have the index cards on the back table
for any public questions or comments that you would like sent up to the
moderators.

I\'ll be in every session. Other FCC staff will be in every session.
Feel free to hand the questions to us and we\'ll be \-- we\'ll bring
them up to the moderators if you like.

In addition, tomorrow, we will be having a number of panelists speaking
about the future of public safety communications in the next ten years
and those panelists are setting up exhibits in Hearing Room B just down
the hall here. I think there\'s a sign up there now that you can see and
one or two of them are actually set up today. I know Com Care Alliance
is set up today. I think Global Locate was setting up today. So, please
feel free to walk by and look at the exhibits.

And now, onto lunch. We actually \-- if you haven\'t been to this
building before, you probably thought to yourself on your way down here
where the heck am I going to eat lunch?

There are two very decent cafeterias here. They are on the courtyard
level.

For those of you who do not have blue frequent visitor badges for the
Commission, you have the red like Evelyn has the red V badge, just want
to let you know that you\'ll have to give that badge in to the nice man
at the security desk to go to the courtyard because that is not a FCC
secured space. That\'s actually public space and then when you go back
into the building, you\'ll have to get your badge back. Just wanted to
let you know that.

We\'ve told the security people there will probably be a lot of people
coming through in the next few minutes. So, I apologize if there\'s a
wait, but that \-- that\'s our process.

If \-- if it\'s not raining and I have absolutely no idea what it\'s
like outside right now and you don\'t feel like eating in the cafeterias
on the courtyard level, you can go straight up 12th Street either
walking about 15 minutes or a five-minute cab ride if you can find one
and you usually can on 12th Street, on Pennsylvania Avenue about, you
know, just a 15-minute walk up the street \-- up 12th Street, there are
lots and lots of restaurants and since we have an hour and 45 minutes
for lunch, that should be \-- that should be doable.

I think that\'s it and at 2:15, Commissioner Martin will open this up to
talk about what\'s involved in a PSAP upgrade.

Thanks.

(Whereupon, the hearing was recessed at 12:38 p.m. to reconvene at 2:15
p.m. this same day.)

A-F-T-E-R-N-O-O-N S-E-S-S-I-O-N

2:19 p.m.

COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Thank you all for coming \-- for being back this
afternoon to continue the discussions today and this afternoon, we\'re
going to focus particularly on E911 deployment and for the next 45
minutes, we\'ve got a panel discussing the upgrading of Public Safety
Answering Points, the PSAP, from both the technical, financial, and
operational standpoint.

We\'re pleased to have each of the three panelists with this morning. I
know some of the issues have been alluded to already this morning, but
\-- but I think each of the panelists will have at least an initial
ten-minute presentation followed by questions and answers from \-- from
everyone here.

Just a couple housecleaning details. If you have any questions, please
make sure and identify yourself for our court reporter and as we go
through, I\'ll try to keep \-- remind everyone of that and also that the
panelists have said that they\'re all open to questions during and
immediately after their presentation. So, if you have any questions, you
can feel free to go on and try to alert \-- alert the panelists to the
questions you might have immediately and then we\'ll have questions and
answers for all three of them after the three panelists have all
finished.

Our first presentation this afternoon will be from Jim Nixon who\'s the
Director of Government Affairs for T-Mobile. He\'s responsible for the
national 911 policy at T-Mobile. He works with many of the national and
state public safety organizations as well as communications industry
groups. He\'s formerly served as 911 coordinator for the state of
Maryland and he\'s also supervised 911 accounting center in Nevada.

So, Jim, if you want to come up and start our presentations for this
afternoon.

MR. NIXON: Thank you, Commissioner.

I\'m very happy to be here, brought back up again because there\'s still
some lingering question about whether I\'m Susan Miller or not and I
assure you all that I just did her presentation for her. So, those of
you who keep referring to me as Susan can probably stop doing that.

Very happy to be her, sir, and thank you for the kind introduction.

I would like to \-- to talk about some \-- some issues here that have to
do with deployment, et cetera and I \-- I think I\'ll just get right
into the slides.

Basically, this is the real 100,000 mile view down on the overall
architecture of how the whole 911 system works generally. There\'s some
\-- certainly a lot of variety across the \-- the nation in the way
it\'s been implemented in \-- in different localities, but typically,
this is kind of the way it\'s divided into the carrier piece, the \--
the current 911 service provider piece which does the interconnection
between the carriers and the \-- the PSAP or 911 center piece at the far
end.

For purposes of today\'s presentations, I\'ve \-- I\'ve talked to my \--
my fellow panelist here and I will cover the carrier part. Bob Currier
from Intrado will cover the \-- the \-- the LEC piece in the middle and
Michael Fischel from \-- from L. Robert Kimball will cover the PSAP
side.

So, as \-- as the Commissioner said, anytime you have any questions for
me, certainly give me a holler.

Basically, the \-- for phase one, the wireless providers have to do a
particular set of work as described here. Need to collect from data on
who the PSAPs are or where they are or where the \-- where the sites
are, how they match up with this PSAPs and PSAP boundaries, how we\'re
doing to do addressing to make sure that the \-- a good 911 record shows
up at the PSAP when a call comes in, how we\'re going to route those
calls, which PSAP is going to get a call from \-- sector A of a site for
instance might cover two or three different PSAP geographical footprints
simply because the two are not meshed, RF being RF and cellular being
essentially a radio technology. You just kind of go over boundaries
without \-- without thinking very much about it.

After the \-- the sites, all this data is collected and coordinated with
PSAPS, we turn the site up for phase one, do some testing, and
everything is good to go. On an ONNES, we make major changes to the 911
network in particular and \-- and most \-- most currently that\'s what
happens.

As we make changes to the carrier network, I\'m sorry, we add a new
site. We reorient the site. Whatever we do to change our configuration
of where that site footprint actually falls on the PSAP maps, we need to
do ongoing maintenance with the \-- the PSAP following those other rules
\-- other \-- other processes to identify the site and keep the data
current.

From an engineering perspective, carriers need to identify the router
that we need to connect physically with trunks. We need to also identify
which alley database or automatic location information database we need
to connect to physically with trunking. Put those trunk orders into the
provider whether it\'s a LEC or IXE or whichever way we need to go to
get the trunking in place.

Internally, we need to do translations to make sure that the switch
knows how to handle each 911 call from each sector. Theoretically, each
sector in a \-- off of a switch could theoretically have a different set
of 911 routing instructions. So they each have to have individual
translations to handle that.

The site 911 database that we maintain internally is very critical to
us. It represents all the information that we\'ve coordinated with the
PSAPs and the LEC as far as PSAP identification, addressing,
information, and format, et cetera, et cetera. So, we have to maintain
that and use that internally to drive our 911 service and \-- and
maintenance operations.

So, there are a number of \-- of steps here that we need to do to \-- to
simply provide phase one.

Phase one has been \-- has been deployed pretty widely to several
thousand PSAPs across the country and more being added every day. I\'m
\-- I\'m very comfortable in saying and we\'re making good progress on
that.

When you got to phase two, the rest of the \-- the work for phase one
remains as already described because we build on phase one by \-- when
we provide phase two. Essentially, we need to add to that that bit of
work that we do for phase one. We need to add the \-- the data
collection about \-- more precisely perhaps about the boundaries and \--
and PSAPs, et cetera so we can incorporate some additional information
that may be necessary for the phase two data.

Certainly, we need to add the location determination element or position
determination element to our network and connect that in our network so
that when a 911 call comes in it will know to \-- through our
translations as I mentioned earlier that that\'s a phase two provision
site. So, in addition to sending the rest of the phase one data, it will
also trigger a phase two location estimate which data would eventually
be set \-- sent forward to the PSAP for their use.

Engineering-wise I\'ve already talked about the additions. You have to
add on the equipment. You need to verify the \-- the location of the
equipment itself obviously. You need to verify the \-- the trunking
capability. The trunks that you already had in place to the PSAP for
phase one may or may not be capable of handling the phase two data flow.
So, you need to verify that. You need to verify the signaling. You need
to verify a whole host of new technical and engineering issues that are
arise from the addition of that phase two to the phase one stream.

Additionally, with \-- each carrier has a choice about whether they\'re
going to go with a handset-based solution or with a network-based
solution. So, there\'s different \-- there\'s a different pace of
deployment for each carrier depending on their choice and on a whole
range of other factors within the \-- the different carrier
environments.

In the case of the \-- the carriers who have chosen handset solutions,
many of them have already deployed throughout their networks nationwide
the software and hardware capability to handle the additional data and
the location capability that\'s generated by those handsets that \--
that they are selling to provide location.

So, some of that work is \-- is already done on a national scale again
in that \-- in that carrier slice of that earlier slide. Some of that
preparation work is already done. They\'re simply waiting now to do the
remainder of it which is get the respect, identify the PSAPs, do all the
engineering and \-- and data work essential to these two locations, to
the PSAPs.

With the \-- the network-based solutions, the network typically has to
have something added to each site or each switch throughout the country.
So, as you \-- you go along, maybe \-- maybe the carrier has deployed
that location technology in Richard\'s PSAP area because they\'ve
already deployed for a neighbor and they might get a little bit of a
jump of deploying future requests or follow-on request such as Richards
because they have that site infrastructure already in place.

In other cases, they\'re going to have \-- where they\'re going in
fresh, it may take a little bit longer for them to actually get out to
each site, hang that equipment, optimize it, test it, and validate it
all.

So, you\'ll see different time scale presented by each of the carriers.
The major carriers, the big six as they \-- they call them, pretty much
all have agreements with the FCC on how they\'re going to deploy these
things. So, there\'s \-- there\'s some pretty good information on
scheduling, et cetera that you can get from them.

The \-- the best thing that you can do, however, is have a very good and
open line of communication with your carrier, your LEC, your PSAP
equipment suppliers, and any other folks that you have involved in your
whole 911 system from the get go. Because this \-- this is a \-- a very,
very powerful improvement, the phase two capability and it touches a lot
of pieces of your existing equipment and infrastructure both inside the
PSAP and outside.

So, with that in mind, I\'m getting ahead of myself a little bit on the
slides here. So, I\'ll go through with this one faster.

One of the \-- the items that \-- that has been pointed out from the
beginning of this whole process is the gold plating of \-- is not
required of any of the pieces in this whole system to make phase two
work. So, no party needs to necessarily hold out beyond the point where
they have the basic capability to receive and use the phase two data.
You don\'t necessarily need to wait until you\'ve got the newest bells
and whistles to deploy it.

If you choose to do that, that\'s completely your choice, but that\'s
not a basic \-- one of the basic requirements from our perspective
that\'s necessary for deploying phase two.

The last thing on my side here, of course, is to encourage you all to
get more from life with T-Mobile service.

Oh, I\'m sorry. That was a commercial. I\'m not allowed to do that.

I\'d be very happy to \-- to answer any questions anyone has now or \--
or later on.

Excellent. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Thank you, Jim. Our next presentation will be from
Michael Fischel who\'s a senior consultant with Robert Kimball and
Associates. He also has extensive experience in the E911 system
implementation. Currently, is recently retired after serving as the
Public Safety Communications Center Director for Fairfax County,
Virginia, the largest PSAP dispatcher in Virginia.

So, with that, we appreciate Michael.

MR. FISCHEL: Thank you, Commissioner. How do I get this one up? I broke
it. Here we are. I got it. Just close that out? Yes, move it up. Okay.

Well, what I\'m going to try to talk about today I\'m going to be
repetitive of some of the things that have been said this morning and
\-- and just now, but I\'m going to try to give you some perspective
being on the ground, being a \-- being a PSAP director having gone
through this, and being involved with a consulting firm that is
assisting PSAPs and states in implementing the provisions of phase one
and phase two and I\'m going to try to \-- to key on the more practical
aspects of things.

I\'d first like to make one distinction. There \-- you have the FCC
requirements and you have the need to meet them, but for a PSAP
director, it really means incorporating that technology and
incorporating the data into your everyday operation and think Jim
mentioned it. Is that though you don\'t need to be gold plating, you do
need t be sensitive about the impact it is going to have on your
operations and things like do you need a mapping system? Do you need
CAD? Probably not to comply with the regulations, but in many PSAPs,
without those tools and without all the other supporting things, you
can\'t really make it work.

So, let me go through my slides here. PSAP readiness environment, we
talked about some of this. Obviously, you have to have basic ENOM on one
operation to begin. I know in many states part of the wireless is trying
to get those localities and jurisdictions in the state to be in 911
compliance so they can move forward through the whole process.

Another important thing for the PSAP right in this environment is you
need to have local commitment and you need to have authority and they
can set up the funding whether it\'s from the state or whether it\'s
from your local jurisdiction.

We find that one of the \-- one of the big issues here and we\'ve spoken
about it this morning is time, resource, an expertise. I got to you
wireless 911 is very, very important,but it\'s not the only thing on the
plate for a PSAP director and we tend to go \-- come to these things and
focus on that like it was the only thing that as a director you have to
and I think we need to keep in mind that there are a lot of things going
on when you\'re \-- when you\'re trying to run a local PSAP.

Program management is essential here whether it\'s internal or it\'s
achieved from the outside. This is a fairly complex thing in terms of
knowing how to incorporate into your operation. The technology is there.
PSAP directors really don\'t have to worry as much as they think they do
about the LEC and the wireless service providers although there are some
basic things, but they need to focus more on what they don\'t know and
get over that fear and then, of course, you have to make the formal
request.

We also talked about the cooperation and it\'s absolutely essential
between the PSAPs, the wireless providers, and their local change
carriers. You need to maintain the contacts and they need to be
accessible among each other and to the PSAPs.

You need to go through the process of identifying the technologies that
the wireless providers are using and the LEC\'s ability to support those
technologies.

PSAP director often finds himself in the middle trying to \-- to get
that cooperation going and that\'s another area where we need to
emphasize.

At the PSAP level, you know, there are a lot of PSAPs out there that
still do not understand what phase one and phase two requirements are
and the impact that it\'s going to have or could have on its operation
and I think somebody mentioned earlier the fear. The fear of trying and
changing and I think that is one of the impediments to moving forward
with deployment.

And then, of course, we\'ve talked about establishing and maintaining
lines of communications. Again, program management.

PSAP readiness in terms of your telephone equipment, many PSAPs are not
\-- their telephone equipment is not able to utilize the information
that is provided from wireless E911 and they need to go through that
assessment. Do they need to upgrade their equipment or do they need to
replace it. That\'s money.

Telephone trunks, we\'ve talked about that. How many? What kind? Should
they be separate from wireline? Should they not? What\'s the impact on
your operation? ALI screen the data. How \-- how to incorporate it into
your ALI screen and incorporate it into your telephone system cold
processing operation and then integrate it with CAD and mapping.

One area we haven\'t really talked a lot about is voice logging. A lot
of PSAP, they\'re voice logging equipment is not sufficiency large
enough to record the additional trunks. Another area of expense. Another
area of integration.

And, of course, we\'ve talked about alternate and default routing.

Computer aided dispatch, this is one of the areas, you know. Not \-- not
essentially an FCC requirement but in most centers and particularly in
the larger centers, it\'s essential to making effective use the
information that\'s provided from wireless phone calls. You need to be
able to interface your telephone equipment with your CAD system and with
your mapping so that you can effectively process the calls and get
people to the right place on time.

That involves looking at your geofile information, your mapping systems,
your mapping information and then, of course, the issue of re-bid
whether you do it from your telephone equipment or whether you can do it
via a CAD system and how that affects your CAD system in terms of how
you collect the information, keep track of it through a cap of the call
in case there is a real need to get to that data quickly.

Mapping and GIS, somewhat important in phase one. Absolutely critical to
phase two. It basically optimizes the effective use of the wireless
location information. We need to remember we can\'t send somebody to an
XY coordinate. We need to send them to a point \-- a locational point,
an address, a point of interest. Mapping and GIS is \-- is key to doing
that.

PSAP has to have the available map data and the supporting database to
make that happen. So, that\'s part of being ready and then have to make
decisions with their mapping systems. If they don\'t have one, if
they\'re going to upgrade it, well, whether it will be part of their
telephone system, part of their CAD system or a stand-alone system and
how it will be integrated.

And you talk about initiation of service. This is one area we really
haven\'t talked a lot about. When you \-- when you start bringing
wireless calls into your center for the first time, presuming you
haven\'t taken them at all, they\'re different procedures. You\'ve got
to train your people on how to deal with the unique aspects of wireless
calls and also the differences among the wireless service provider
technologies. What you do with the different information? When you can
bid? When you can\'t bid re-bid? You know, if you have a one or two
person operation, it\'s one thing. If you have a huge operation, it\'s a
tremendous impact on your operation to train your people so they know
what to do with the wireless phone calls.

Public education, I think we\'ve talked about that. The public really
does need to know what the differences are between wireless and wireline
to assist the PSAPs when they call and then testing. When you\'re
bringing \-- bringing on new service from a wireless service provider, a
PSAP has to ensure that all the things that I\'ve talked about
previously work together and are tested effectively until they
incorporate them into their operation.

I guess one of the \-- one of my pet peeves is the PSAP operation
support issues. We haven\'t talked about staffing. If your \-- if your a
911 center and haven\'t been taking wireless calls, it\'s going to make
a tremendous impact on your operation and the volume of calls and it\'s
going to have an impact on service levels. You have to be sensitive to
the staffing requirements.

So, if you need new staffing, then you probably need new console
positions for your call takers to use. So, that\'s a cost issue and an
equipment issue.

And then I \-- I think I\'ve touched on the call processing differences
between wireline and wireless and even among the different wireless
service providers and the wireless calls.

Database maintenance, with the wireless service providers 24-hour
notification in case you have troubles. Those kinds of things.

I guess to sum it up, I mean, what we found is the key to success is
leadership. State leadership I believe is very, very important, but also
at the local level. Above the PSAP managers somebody has to \-- the
stakeholder has to take charge and say we want to go there. We need to
do there. I\'ve seen regional approaches that work quite well where
there have been regional leaders that have pushed the ball and that\'s
an excellent way of going about things.

Program management, again, most PSAP managers particularly those in the
smaller jurisdictions, it\'s a matter of having the time to coordinate
the expertise and know what to do \-- know what to do and not \-- when
not to worry about it which is probably one of the key things and the
time to do that and like I said, this is not the only thing on their
plate.

And then we have mentioned funding whether it comes from the state or
the local levels, how much, and who\'s going to pay.

That\'s about it. Any questions? Okay.

MR. KEIM: I\'m Ken Keim, state of Oregon.

I\'m glad to hear you talk about the training issue. We\'re finding
we\'re on the verge of deploying phase two. That training issues are \--
are a major source of \-- of concern, irritation to the personnel, to
the PSAP, et cetera having to do with a lot of the issues you\'re
talking about as far as the different \-- different wireless service
providers giving different data and I \-- I really think we dropped the
ball somewhere along the way where we let that happen. Because we\'ve
taken a problem that, you know, that \-- that\'s brand new, just caused
enough issues already, but by letting people do it however they want to
do it and give us whatever they want, the issues of CAD interface and
all sort of stuff has basically brought us to a standstill until we can
resolve that.

And one of the things we\'re trying to do in our state or we\'re going
to do is \-- is pass administrative rule that you\'re going to deliver
the information this way no matter who you are and if you don\'t, then
you\'re not going to do business in Oregon. Because we\'re not going to
go through that issue with six different carriers, three different
service providers having different data streams, et cetera.

So, I think that\'s something that \-- that I\'d like to see more being
done on than \-- than I think is currently being done, the re-bids, et
cetera.

I mean once you get this up and running, you have a whole other set of
headaches to deal with. I\'m glad to see you bring that up.

MR. FISCHEL: Yes, we have to keep a \-- keep in mind that this all comes
down to a \-- a call taker sitting there \--

MR. KEIM: Right.

MR. FISCHEL: \-- that\'s infused with all this information and we\'re
expecting them to do certain things under certain conditions. I think we
have to keep that in mind as a \-- as an ultimate goal where we\'re
trying to go here.

MR. KEIM: Yes.

COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Michael, I actually \-- Michael, there\'s one
question from \-- there\'s one question from someone in the audience for
you and actually for Jim as well. I just wanted to see if either of you
could elaborate anymore on what you mean by gold plating in phase two
solutions.

MR. FISCHEL: Jim, I\'m not \-- I\'m not going to presume I knew what you
meant, but \-- but what \-- what I assume you meant is a lot of PSAPs
don\'t want to move forward because they don\'t have the best map system
that will get you down to the, you know, think of some arcane thing,
but, you know, the process and not \-- not an end goal and I think, you
know, there is \-- there is a philosophy.

Let\'s get this stuff into the center, but you have to keep in mind that
you have to be able to use it, but this is going to develop, you know.
Mapping systems are going to develop. Re-bid technologies. How are \--
how are you going to provide that to somebody\'s running street and you
have a call taker there trying to re-bid? When do I re-bid?

And I\'m sure there\'s going to be technology that comes along in the
future that will allow that to happen, but I don\'t think we can wait
for the very best all the time or we won\'t get \-- we won\'t go
forward. I mean we have to make that judgment.

MR. NIXON: Yes, that\'s \-- that\'s pretty

\-- pretty accurate to \-- to what my reference was to. You know, there
are some PSAPs today that have requested phase two from all the \-- the
big six carriers. The big six carriers are waiting to deploy and because
of some issue within the \-- inside the \-- the \-- I think it\'s inside
the PSAP, but it\'s certainly beyond the carriers piece of the network
that they control.

There\'s some issues that seem like they could be addressed after the
deployment is done. Meanwhile, you have a lot of \-- a lot of effort, a
lot of resources, a lot of investment that\'s been put in to provide a
better level of service to our customers frankly that we would like very
much to see deployed and the approach \-- deployed with the approach
that the finer things, the, you know, the \-- the best bells and
whistles, the best alternatives or \-- or not alternatives but optional
equipment or capabilities would be deployed after the basic \-- basic
phase two sounds like an oxymoron to me because we\'ve been in this so
long.

But, after you start getting the basic phase two data, if you want to
polish it and \-- and improve the systems to make it even shinier,
that\'s fine, but we don\'t think that withholding the service where
it\'s \-- it\'s there and available and waiting for customers and \--
and citizens is the best idea.

MR. FISCHEL: I would agree with that except I have experienced some
incidents where some of the providers think something is a very minor
issue and to them \-- and from the \-- sort of the policy point of view,
you may think so, but when you\'re sitting there with 25 call takers and
you say well, for the next year, you have to do it this way because we
\-- we just don\'t have our CAD system set up quite right or there\'s
\-- it can have a \-- a very, very large impact on operations.

MR. NIXON: Yes, I absolutely agree and that\'s \-- you know, fall back
again on the \-- on the criticality of communications in this whole
process. You know, if we can \-- if there\'s things that we can do to
\-- to change the \-- the call flows or I think all the \-- all the
carriers that I know of at least are using NENA standard data flows and
data streams, et cetera. So, how they\'re \-- how they\'re ending up and
confusing factions and \-- and presentations at the PSAP and \-- is kind
of disturbing and we \-- we should really all be kind of looking into
how that is actually happening and \-- and what piece of the system is
not handling that data appropriately to give consistent information.

But, I\'d \-- I\'d certainly agree that, you know, that we are \-- we
are not the \-- the \-- the PSAP experts and we \-- we certainly would
like to get feedback from \-- from some of the PSAPs a little bit more
strongly and directly on what exactly the value of some of these things
are that seem to us to be kind of ancillary and \-- and second tier.

COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Are there any other questions?

Thank you, Michael, for that.

Our final presentation is by Bob Currier, Industry Relations Liaison for
Intrado. Bob provides support for the PSAP community with the focus on
wireless education and deployment. He previously served as the Director
of Communications and 911 Project Coordination for St. Clair County,
Michigan. He also received the Emergency Number Professional Designation
from NENA in 1999 and he serves on the National APCO Corporate Advisory
Committee.

So, with that, welcome Bob Currier for our final presentation.

MR. CURRIER: Thank you, Commissioner Martin.

Good afternoon. It\'s a pleasure to be here.

In some of the earlier versions of the agenda for this event, you may
have noted that Mary Boyd was scheduled to present. Mary is the Vice
President of External Affairs with Intrado and do to a family emergency,
she was to able to be here with you today. She sends her best to the
audience and asks that I appear in her stead.

You\'ve heard a lot of common themes already today. Coordination,
education, PSAP readiness. The message that I\'d like to put across
today are those lessons that we have learned as a third-party providers
or vendor to the wireless carriers and the local exchange carriers in
deploying and helping them to place E911 wireless services out there for
the public.

Over the past few years, we\'ve been engaged actively in deploying on
behalf of our wireless carrier customers, supporting the PSAPs, doing
education and we\'ve learned some very critical and important lessons.

Probably the most important thing we\'ve learned and you\'ve heard this
many times already today, both Jim and Michael touched on it, but we
think the education at the PSAP level, those that are actually taking
the calls, the folks that are deploying the service in their communities
is something that we need to enhance.

It\'s already been done quite a bit at national forums. Both the APCO
and NENA national conferences have had several forums on what it take to
become ready, but in our data collection efforts and surveys throughout
the country that \-- that we\'re dealing with and in some projects that
we have going on where we\'re assisting states to determine their levels
of readiness, we\'re finding that that message still has not gotten to a
majority of the public safety communities in certain parts of the
country.

It was mentioned earlier by Chairman Powell, Nancy referred to it, that
there\'s still 19 states that have not even begun to deploy phase one
services. So, we think it\'s very critical that this education take
place.

There is a commitment to do this at regional conferences, within
publications. We\'re been active on national committees both NENA, APCO.
Jim made his presentation on ESIF earlier today and we were actively
involved in the readiness checklist to roll out. So PSAPs know what they
need to do to become ready to accept wireless calls.

What this has really shown us in this data collection, the education
process, and so on is that while we\'re doing an education effort, the
largest issue that the carriers site and this was reenforced at a recent
carrier forum, the number one reason the deployments are lethargic and
are not moving forward as they should is there is a misunderstanding or
a fear that the PSAP community has about moving forward. So, we think
that the readiness education is still something that\'s very necessary.

The PSAPs understanding of the capabilities of wireless, they\'re still
sorting that out. The roles and responsibilities that must take place.

In these next few slides while I will not go into detail on them, just
briefly go over the individual roles and responsibilities that are
required for the public safety agencies, the local exchange carriers or
the 911 service providers, the wireless carriers themselves and the
third party vendors, they talk about project management and support.
Michael touched on that as being critical.

Boundary verifications, who is going to provide service to what areas of
their particular parts of geography?

The data formats that come from the 911 caller through the network and
ultimately show up at the Public Safety Agencies. Equipment
configurations, there are several items on this project task list that
need to be managed and then ultimately maintenance once the systems are
up. Who is responsible for which roles?

We agree that the state coordination is a key issue. We have found that
the deployments that we\'ve been involved in that move smoothly and seem
to do a much better job or don\'t lag quite as often are those areas
where the states have stepped up and there is a coordinating office or a
statewide 911 coordinator that\'s helping to manage that process and
assist the local agencies as necessary.

The local involvement from a funding statement. Michael talked about the
equipment that may need to be put in place. That probably is the key
issue on the PSAP side. We need to do this. Where are the dollars going
to come from?

The impacts of PSAP education, the differences between phase one call
delivery and what the call takers will see on their screen for phase one
calls and then as we transition to phase two, the technologies that are
used dependent upon the carrier, whether they use a hybrid non-call pass
signaling system or a traditional non-call pass signaling system, those
differences present differently to call take and while we don\'t have
the time to go into the deep technical discussion of that, they are
different. The call takers see different things and they present
differently and we need to help support that education process. As Ken
mentioned, we\'ve dropped the ball on that.

This education can help us. The more educated the folks are at the call
taking positions, the more efficiently we can deploy testing and
ultimately deploy that life service.

Probably first and foremost as we move forward to echo the comments that
other have made, the things that we feel are most important are the
commitment of all the resources in this partnership. It\'s a team
approach. No one does it individually. The PSAPs understanding of the
roles and responsibilities, their education, the more educated the
industry is, the faster this will move and of course, the bottom line is
the dollars and sense that it takes to do this. The committed funding
that needs to be there to support PSAP upgrades, the PSAP education, and
the ability to deploy this service for the consumers and the users out
there so we can provide the best possible service to our citizens.

Those are my comments. Any questions?

Thank you very much.

COMMISSIONER MARTIN: We\'ve got just a few more minutes \-- just a few
\-- just really a few brief minutes before. I don\'t know if there\'s
any \-- if there are any questions for any of our panelists following
any of those presentations.

But, if \-- if not, if we go on and get our next panel to \-- to come on
and come up and take their seats.

Oh, I\'m sorry. I\'m sorry.

MR. KOON: Yes, just a quick question for Jim. I know there is a lot of
talk at least I\'ve been a part of it over the years with these
carriers. If I have \-- I\'m just going to name a couple of names.
Verizon Service but I\'m at a T-Mobile location where the only wireless
service is T-Mobile and I call 911 and I have a digital or an analog
phone, will T-Mobile pick up that 911 call and what is being done to
make sure that that happens? It\'s not \-- I\'m not just blaming
T-Mobile, but I mean all of the providers.

COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Could you \-- actually, could you just tell us who
you \-- your name and who you\'re with again?

MR. KOON: I\'m New York State Assemblyman David Koon.

COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Thank you.

MR. NIXON: Thank you, Assemblyman. It\'s a good question and I \-- no
\-- no offense taken at all on the name choices. You got to have some
points of reference for the \-- for the examples.

But, certainly, all the carriers deploy their 911 systems such that they
will answer and complete 911 calls from any handset capable of reaching
their network.

So, the \-- the issue you start running into is different air \-- air
interface technologies. T-Mobile\'s a completely GSM interface which is
different than CDMA say. So, even though they \-- the antennas may be
located right on the same site, actually co-located as many of them are
today, a CDMA handset will not see the GSM antenna and vice versa. So,
there\'s no technical capability to complete the call.

But, the system from the ground up, from the beginning and the FCC\'s
rules has been that a carrier who gets a 911 call must deliver that call
and that\'s what we \-- we do today. I feel very, very comfortable that
all the carriers understand that and \-- and comply with that.

And \-- and we do, in fact, see that in practice occasionally with calls
that we get to our \-- our investigations\' lines or \-- or other \--
further information is needed on a 911 call, say it was a prank call, a
bomb threat or something like that that was called in on \-- on a
roamer\'s network. The initial contact from the PSAP will be that
roaming carrier because that\'s what comes up on the screen and then
they\'ll be referred back over if there\'s a telephone number available
that they can identify with the appropriate carrier, they\'ll refer them
over and we\'ll follow up on that route.

So, I know that that\'s the practice out there. It\'s absolutely the
rule.

COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Are there any \-- any other questions? Anyone that
I missed?

Well, please join me in thanking all of our panelists this afternoon and
appreciate all of their \-- their time and effort and if \-- if Jenny
Hansen could come on up who\'s going to moderate the \-- the next panel
and our panels come on up, we\'ll \-- we\'ll be going just momentarily.

MS. HANSEN: Good afternoon. We\'re from the state government and we\'re
here to help.

I\'m Jenny Hansen. I manage the Public Safety Services Office for the
state of Montana and I\'m also the FCC\'s point of contact for wireless
issues. This includes all 911 network issues as well as spectrum and
radio infrastructure and wireless projects that are occurring in our
state in public safety.

I\'ll give you an overview of how we\'re going to discuss the state
leadership portion of the panel and how the format is going to work, but
feel free to interject any questions and we\'re here to provoke thought
and promote more participation and Q&A more than anything else.

We\'re going to begin with an overview of the legislation especially
what\'s before us today in the House bill and Senate bills focusing on
enhanced 911 and while we\'re at the threshold or the \-- nearing the
end of dropping the gavel on where that\'s going to end up, state
leadership is certainly one significant point of that legislation no
matter which one is left standing, the Senate version or the House.
State leadership is certainly an integral piece and significant
importance to the Federal Government above all.

And then focus on the points of contact for enhanced 911 in general
looking at E911 caucus, the program office from the Hatfield inquiry and
subsequent report, and then the E911 Institute and representative task
forces that came out of those discussions primarily due to focus on
enhanced 911 and Federal discussions.

Then looking at the distribution of funds or the funding aspect of state
leadership in what we do, how that works, perhaps discuss best
practices, this gold plating idea, and then identify where we need some
assistance, where we need some perhaps more empowerment instead of
protecting our funds to no avail in some of our cases of these state
offices when we talk about the state raids as an example. Empowering
those state offices if we have state leadership. Giving them the \-- the
power and the authority to say no, we have to protect these for these
reasons and \-- and let\'s collectively come up with ways perhaps by
educational means in our state legislatures, but collectively and
collaboratively on best practices, what\'s worked, and where we need
some \-- some help perhaps even from the Federal Government.

Also in strategizing, having a plan and streamlining processes for local
public safety answering points. Even as simplifying the process right
down to a boiler plate form that goes out to the PSAP that says sign
here and Daphne Rhoe will talk about that, how that works very well in
California.

And then talking about project management. Michael just talked about
project management and how beneficial it was to have that piece
identified in every role of the Public Safety Answering Point. The
maintenance and the upgrades that come with every piece of technology in
a PSAP. It\'s not just here is your initial one-time nonrecurring piece
of Federal money that comes your way. What happens thereafter? Are we
building a Cadillac and only able to maintain a GEO product or
something? I\'m sorry for all the car. I shouldn\'t have used that one.
But, any \-- my dad\'s retired GM. I can start using Cadillac.

But, are we building something that we cannot maintain or that will
become obsolete in five years. We\'ll look at that from a coordination
standpoint from the state office level.

And resources, coordinating funding. We talk about how this cost
recovery is now becoming a four-letter word, but a business plan
includes a fiscal line item. We have to include the bottom line no
matter what we do. We all have chains of command and identify options on
what we need to buy. Federal Government certainly is going to ask
you\'re asking us for money. What is this going to buy? Where are the
options? What will it do for us and what will you need to maintain it?

Especially, we cannot afford to do anything wrong. We, you know, are
49th or 50th. We kind of beat out Alabama once in a while on that
monetary bottom line element and we just can\'t afford to do anything
incorrectly. We\'ve got to do the best bang for our buck no matter what
and I\'m sure that\'s true of everyone. It\'s not to say that we do
frivolous spending, but especially when we have much much less and we
don\'t expect it to get better anytime soon, we\'ve got to make sure to
stand true to that less is more and work with \-- work more with less of
course.

And then with project coordination. From a state leadership standpoint
especially in \-- in areas where we have clean slates. We have \-- we
inherited few enhanced 911 landline PSAPs in Montana. So, we have to go
from zero to 60 literally from a landline to wireless deployment
schedule and our strategy is aggressive, but we\'re going to get there
in probably light speed considering where we are today. But, by doing
that and \-- and having a leadership role, we\'re able to coordinate and
connect the dots between respective public safety projects whether
they\'re 911 related or spectrum related or public safety radio just
because we have to and because the local PSAPs don\'t have the resources
by way of people or funding to get those project management pieces off
the ground.

And coordinate the networks. We have with the state offices a large
electronics network and we share real estate. We share real estate with
local, state, and Federal agencies. If it\'s a \-- if it\'s microwave
site, if it\'s a telecommunication\'s network or a microwave or
telephone back hall equipment, we\'re there to share not only in those
land-lease agreements with the ranchers as an example, but perhaps in
the upgrades or bring in the industry to put power into those sites.
We\'re able to coordinate those efforts as well from our offices.

And then the technology. Where is it headed? We mentioned voice-over IP.
That\'s playing the leap frog over many of these E911 efforts and who\'s
to say we should stop. Where was that eight-track tape player that we
have in the attic? Well, that was kind of a device that maybe we should
have held off and some of us did hold off and waited for the next best
thing and it took over.

Perhaps \-- and I\'m comparing voice-over IP to eight-track tape, but
it\'s not as simple as that. It\'s just the \-- the way technology works
and we\'re \-- we\'re following technology through respective APCO,
NENA, NASNA groups and associations and in also working with the
Nortex\'s, the Sisco\'s, the scientists that were let out of the closet
with us to understand operationally what do you need and we educate them
and then from a telecommunications world, electronically you tell us
what\'s available. Because we don\'t know how to ask those questions.
Likewise, they don\'t know what we do.

So, we have a reciprocal-type of agreement in education and that\'s
what\'s so exciting about working in this industry now is that we\'re
able to show the need and identify solutions on the ground.

And before I bring my respected colleagues up to the \-- the lectern
here, talk a little bit about Montana just because I\'m going to bring
up California and we have some extremes here shoulder to shoulder.

While I had 20 years in \-- in urban California as most of my public
safety career, moving to the last best place for balance and never being
so busy in my entire life because of the need, but more importantly
because of the exciting time we\'re and the champion that I\'m so honor
to be practically adopted by in the Federal office and that\'s our
Federal delegation in Montana and Senator Burns, Baucus and Congressman
Rehberg, they\'re all now chiming in, but especially Senator Burns in
his efforts on the telecommunications issues and the enhanced 911
issues.

I haven\'t seen anything like it and now sweeping in issues and groups
like the E911 caucus with Senators Clinton and Representatives Eshoo and
Shimkus and Representative Koon and all of their efforts. It\'s
definitely exciting to participate in these Robin Hood like efforts in
bringing these issues and funds and legislation back home.

Chairman Powell mentioned spectrum and it\'s just not about 911. In our
business, we talk about how we need 911 technology. Yet, most of us in
this room represent PSAPs that do it all. I don\'t know of a dispatch
center who handles just 911 and no component of radio or other kind of
transferring if you will and just letting the call go. In large
metropolitan areas like where I\'m from, there was \-- there was
component of that.

Congressman Upton talked about the accident in Michigan where the state
trooper was there within two minutes. It\'s likely that that same PSAP
handled the 911 call and \-- and fortunately, the 911 infrastructure was
in place to appropriately receive the call. The dispatch then dispatched
the call to get those troopers out there and guess what? The state of
Michigan just put in a statewide inter-operable public safety radio
system that they\'re offering up to the local agencies to plug and play.
They have a comprehensive public safety network that they took on from a
state leadership role.

So, again, it\'s not just about 911. We all talk about convergence. I
submit to you we have a 911 program office. Those intersections of
technology in getting things done will happen more and more every day
the more we improve and increase technology.

Let me get now to the reason why we\'re here. Even though soap boxing
\-- my colleagues always talk about I hired a new 911 program manager in
our office and she\'s got a bell-shaped head as her background. So, it
was perfect and we\'re going to that zero to 60 overnight deployment
plan in our state and her telecom folks gave her a call when she was
first in the office and said hey, this is \-- Becky, this is great.
Because what we really want are for the PSAPs to all do the same thing
the same way and she responded to them, you know, that\'s really
interesting because I just had a PSAP call me and they said wow, this is
going to be great, this state point of contact, because the PSAP wants
the telephone industry to provide the same level of service the same way
and give them the same data in the same format.

So, we got the same request. Now, how do we do this. We\'re often in the
middle of \-- of making people happy and making it work and that\'s what
a state coordination office can do, too.

Before I bring up Daphne and talk about her incredible résumé, I \-- I
would like to remind you all and we\'re away from the outside world, but
to put in your thoughts and prayers \-- can I say prayers in this \--
okay, the fires burning in the state of California. I was part of a
search and rescue effort when \-- in my past life and we used to call
October Black October just because the month would go never go by in
California without a disaster. So, please put them in your thoughts and
prayers all the first responders and all the first first responders in
the 911 industry battling those blazes and in some cases firefighters
fighting and losing their homes in this effort.

So, let me introduce Daphne Rhoe who\'s the Chief of the California 911
Emergency Communications Office. Daphne began her career in telecom more
than 20 years ago, starting when I did when she was seven, and then she
came to work to a small office of dedicated people who were there just
introducing 911 to California cities and counties.

After about three years, Ms. Rhoe joined a team responsible for
developing telecom strategic planning and policy for the state of
California. She later went on to work in other areas of
telecommunications primarily dealing with public safety radio, in
contracts, cost recovery, budgeting, fiscal service, human resources
management, and training.

Finally, in 2000, Ms. Rhoe returned to 911 to head the California 911
office.

Ms. Rhoe is a member of the National Association of State 911
Administrators or NASNA, the National Emergency Number Association NENA,
and the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials
International or APCO.

She has a Bachelor of Science Degree in Business and an MBA in Strategic
Management. Daphne Rhoe.

MS. RHOE: Thank you and thank you, Jenny for that very generous
introduction.

If you\'ll give me just a moment to bring up \-- I have one slide and
hopefully I can get this up.

First of all, I\'d like to say that it\'s truly an honor to be here
today and to share with you California\'s experience with regard to
planning and implementation of wireless E911. I appreciate the
opportunity to participate in such an incredibly valuable initiative the
results of which will form the future of public safety communications
across the country.

There are a lot of thanks yous that we\'ve heard today and I\'m not
different. I\'ve got a lot of thank yous. Certainly, I\'d like to thank
my staff for their support, I\'m not quite ready for it, and in
particular most of you who have dealt with wireless E911.

Obviously, you know John Marengo who is our statewide wireless E911
coordinator. He\'s done tremendous things in our state practically
single-handily. So, we\'re very proud to have him as a member of our
staff and probably a lot of you have sought him out for his expertise.

I\'d like to start out by giving you a little background on the
California 911 program and how we\'re structured. We\'re probably a
little bit different from some of the other states. We are centrally
structured. We have a 911 program office and it\'s administered out of
Sacramento. It\'s a fairly small office.

We are part of the Telecommunications Division which is part of the
Department of General Services and General Services is part of State and
Consumer Services Agency which is cabinet level in state government.

Cost for the 911 network, database, and PSAP equipment are funded
through a surcharge on all intrastate telephone usage. This surcharge is
currently set at .72 percent and is collected from both wireline and
wireless telephone subscribers without distinction. We don\'t have a
separate collection of revenue for wireless subscribers. Everything is
collected from both wireline and wireless at the rate of .72 percent and
it\'s all deposited into the state emergency telephone number account
for use for 911 support and maintenance and upgrades regardless of
whether it\'s wireless or wireline.

Getting onto to planning, collaboration, and communication. Given the
sheer size, complexity, and number of PSAPs in California not to mention
just the complex issue of wireless which strikes fear in the heart of a
lot of people just when you say wireless because it is so complex. There
are a lot of issues technical and operational. A lot of people have a
lot of questions and someone mentioned earlier the fear factor and a lot
of it is the fear factor. A lot of the PSAPs have a lot on their plate
just managing their centers and here now, they have to address something
totally different, new, new technology. They have no idea where to
start.

We\'re here to help. We\'re the central office. We developed a \-- a
group that provides some central support and information to provide
planning, collaboration, and communication.

Initially, we had to change the \-- the law. In California by law up
until January of 2001, all wireless calls had to go to the California
Highway Patrol. We didn\'t have a choice in that and at the time that
the law was \-- went \-- went into effect, that made sense. Because most
of the calls were generated from \-- from cars and the cars were on the
highways. So, obviously, California Highway Patrol would be the logical
agency to receive those calls and to respond.

The new law allows wireless calls to be routed to other than the CHP if
the call originates outside the CHP\'s jurisdiction and only if the CHP,
the local PSAP, the wireless industry, the ILEC\'s, and the state office
all agree that it\'s in the best interest of the public to do so.

This means that local PSAPs are not required to take wireless calls. It
is strictly voluntary in California which presents its own sort of
interesting situation.

Understanding the daunting challenge ahead of us, we knew extensive
planning was absolutely key and because of the massive effort involved
in just understanding the issues and coordinating all the parties who
would need to be involved, it was essential that there be a central
coordination point. The state 911 office provided that central point for
cities and counties, wireless service providers, third-party database
providers, and the ILECs. Our office shares information. We act as a go
between, a referral point, distribution center and we basically just
make sure that obstacles are removed so that whoever has questions gets
the answers they need to stay on course.

For example, Jenny mentioned a little bit ago that we developed a \-- a
template. We try to make the administrative part of it easier so that
the local PSAPs don\'t have to deal with \-- with relearning the things
that we\'ve already gone through. We developed a template for requesting
wireless phase one and phase two that we send out to the PSAPs that are
interested in ordering the service.

They don\'t have to think about what needs to be in their letter, who
needs to sign the letter, who does it go to. We do all of that for them.
Which sounds like a small thing, but when you\'re dealing with 500 PSAPs
and each PSAP has to go through that whole learning process, it becomes
really invaluable to go to one resource within the state that can answer
your questions, that can provide that simple kind of support just to
keep the project moving.

It was our desire to deploy phase one and phase two to PSAPs in the most
densely populated areas first. Just as Chairman Powell mention earlier,
we wanted to do it as quickly as possible to deliver it to the greatest
number of people possible. So, we developed a regional deployment plan
that called for implementation beginning in the Los Angeles and San
Francisco Bay area regions first.

We began regularly scheduled planning and implementation meetings that
involved everyone from the California Highway Patrol, the local PSAPs to
wireless service providers, ILECs, third-party database providers.
Basically, we included everyone and probably a lot of you off and on
have been involved in some of those monthly meetings.

You probably are also on our mailing list. If you\'re \-- if you\'ve
expressed any interest at any point in time with California\'s
implementation of wireless, then John Marengo has you on his mailing
lists and you probably get the minutes of all of our monthly meetings
and any major issues that come up with regard to wireless implementation
in California.

Communication is absolutely key.

Our concerted effort to communicate at all levels on many issues has
paid off. It is only through the collaborative and cooperative efforts
of all these individuals and groups that we are beginning to see real
progress. Rather than duplicating effort and cost 500 times over, which
is the number of PSAPs about that we have in California, we are \-- we
are accomplishing statewide deployment with the least amount of cost,
confusion, and effort through the use of centralized planning and
regional coordination.

What I have here if I can get it to come up is a map of California\'s
deployment. She\'s going to have to do it. Okay. Thanks. Thank you. To
press F5.

This is the California plan, our latest and greatest. We\'re very proud
of it.

California \-- we \-- we spent about two years in just planning alone
and we feel that that planning has really paid off. I think we probably
were criticized a bit because people kept saying well, where\'s
California? Where\'s California? You haven\'t done anything. You
haven\'t implemented. You haven\'t deployed phase one even. Where are
you?

Well, we spent a great of time up front planning and the reason we did
is because we wanted to work out all the bugs. We wanted to work out the
technical issues before trying to deploy it in one jurisdiction and find
out oh, okay, it works for that jurisdiction. Now, we go to a different
jurisdiction or a different PSAP and they have totally different issues
that we could have addressed up front. Meanwhile, we\'ve already worked
this all out with the \-- with the LECs, the wireless service providers,
and the third-party database providers and they\'re going down one
particular path only to find that later we should have gone down a
different path.

So, what we\'re trying to do and what we\'ve basically accomplished is a
standardized deployment process that has included all the parties and
we\'ve asked what are your limitations? What can you do? What can\'t you
do technically? And we\'ll live by that.

What we\'d like to do is make sure that when we do deploy that the PSAPs
can use that information and that it works for their operation.

We\'d like it to be fairly standardized. We have a standard ALI format
and by the way, all of this is on our website which I think is going to
be made available to everyone attending here today.

As you see, our entire state is scheduled to be deployed to state being
deployed no later than 2005. WE\'ve already got some major deployment in
Los Angeles and Los Angeles County looks like it\'s fairly small, but I
think as everyone knows, that\'s a huge population area and we\'re
making really good process. We\'ve got almost 4,000 cell sectors
deployed in California and that\'s just with the city and county of San
Francisco and parts of the California Highway Patrol and Los Angeles
County and a few other cities in Los Angeles.

So, you can imagine. WE\'ve probably got somewhere close to 50,000 cell
sectors in California overall. So, we\'re making really good progress
now that we\'ve gone through the planning process.

Costs for implementing wireless are generally paid for by \-- by the 911
\-- state 911 office. The cost for PSAP equipment upgrades if needed for
wireless, additional incoming trunks, network, database costs are all
paid by the 911 funds.

About three years ago, we developed and received approval for a budget
augmentation to accommodate the implementation of wireless statewide
over a multi-year period. That essentially set aside the funds that we
would need for wireless deployment and for the ongoing costs.

A regional deployment has also given us the opportunity to address
associated network issues such as passing data intact from a PSAP being
served by one selective router to another PSAP being served not only by
another selective router but by another service provider. This tandem to
tandem feature is currently being deployed in Los Angeles and will be
used through California where it\'s needed.

That network issue I believe is best served from a central state
coordination point where you can see from the 50,000-foot level what the
needs of the whole state might be not just within one jurisdiction.

And that\'s all I have. I\'d be happy to entertain any questions that
anyone might have.

MR. OENNING: (Off microphone) Why \-- why Los Angeles first? It just
looks like they\'ve got an enormous \--in Los Angeles.

MS. RHOE: That\'s a very good question, Bob. Thank you very much.

That\'s exactly why we went to Los Angeles first. Because ever
conceivable scenario that could possibly occur in California would occur
in Los Angeles. So, we \-- we intentionally went there first because we
knew it would be the most complex, would have the most issues that we
would have to resolve. So, if we got it right in LA, then we felt fairly
confident sort of a proof of, you know, service if you will then it
would work in the rest of the state.

So, the rest of the state would be fairly easy in comparison.

Yes, Ken.

MR. KEIM: Are you getting a lot of PSAPs that are opting out other than
the Highway Patrol in taking wireless? Not wanting to do it or they want
in service.

MS. RHOE: Well, and that\'s another very good question.

Because they are not required to take wireless calls and by default, the
California Highway Patrol would continue to receive. California\'s
answered \-- all the wireless calls are answered by \-- by CHP.

MR. KEIM: Right.

MS. RHOE: And if no one opted to take their wireless calls, CHP would
continue to take those calls.

We are getting more and more PSAPs to take the calls \-- their calls. A
lot of it is fear. We are also providing some financial incentives
through providing GIS funding, mapping funding, and that is enticing
some of the PSAPs to \-- to take their calls and we\'re hopeful.

John Marengo\'s out there marketing it everyday. Certainly, the best
selling point is that you want to provide the best customer to \-- best
service to your customers and his is the best way to do it to get the
calls to the point where they need to be originally.

Yes, Barbara.

MS. JAEGER: Hi, Daphne.

MS. RHOE: Hi.

MS. JAEGER: Barbara Jaeger. The only question I have is are you
deploying your wireless services on separate networks? Are wireline and
wireless on separate networks to the PSAP actually adding network
trunking at the PSAP maybe double in some cases? Are you letting them
make the decision whether they want to go with one set of trunking for
both or diverged trunking systems?

MS. RHOE: By and large, it\'s the same trunking and if the traffic
indicates that they need to add additional trunking, then we will add.
It\'s \-- it\'s over the same network.

MS. JAEGER: So, the wireline and wireless calls will be coming in on the
same trunks?

MS. RHOE: In some cases, yes.

MS. JAEGER: You\'re letting them make that decision?

MS. RHOE: What we\'re suggesting to them is to \-- to partition them so
that they can determine which calls are wireless and which ones are
wireline. Because we don\'t want the wireless calls to overtake the
wireline calls or vise vera.

Thank you very much.

MS. HANSEN: Daphne mentioned mapping incentives and for rural areas, I
know nationally there are no mapping standards for rural addressing. We
provided federal funding assistance to our state GIS office and a local
PSAP who just deployed enhanced 911 wirelines and did an outstanding
best practices product on mapping. So, we are embracing that and using
that as a standard for the state of Montana and helping those cities and
counties with their planning and mapping efforts and providing full
funding for those efforts.

Naturally, we have such few resources in the people. Typically, we get
somebody calling our office that drew the short straw and said, you
know, I \-- I was this school teacher and now, I\'m \-- now I have to
serve as postmaster and now, oh, yes, they just assigned planning
commissioner to me and I don\'t know how to do that. What do you
suggest? And we offer up these services for E911 deployment. So, that\'s
a significant difference, but it\'s an incentive nonetheless. It\'s just
how we handle it differently than California.

Karl Korsmo is the Vice President of Government Affairs for AT&T
Wireless in Redman, Washington. Karl\'s team works with public safety
and the AT&T Wireless deployment team to meet the objectives for
wireless enhanced 911 service.

Karl.

MR. KORSMO: Thanks, Jenny and thank you and the Commission for inviting
AT&T Wireless to share our observations today about state leadership.

I truly feel up here like I\'m preaching to the choir. That classic
saying, you know, because I see a roomful of leaders that I\'m
addressing about leadership and why they asked me to do that, I\'m not
quite sure, but I\'ll do my best.

I\'m going to give you some wireless carrier observations collected over
the last several years as we work with you, with public safety officials
all around the country. I want to emphasis that these are merely my
observations and that I really want to give credit for the good ideas
you\'ll hear in my observations to where the credit goes and that\'s to
the leaders in the state and local government in public safety who
generated the type of leadership I\'m going to give examples of.

Finally, when we talk about leadership, of course, we\'re not here to do
an academic conference about leadership. We\'re really talking about the
next phase of wireless 911 which is taking it to a ubiquitous deployment
around the country.

Can we all agree about that? Right. That\'s what we\'re talking about
when we talk leadership. Deploying this thing ubiquitously, seamlessly
around the country. Okay. That\'s \-- that\'s the \-- the code word when
I \-- that\'s my objective when I say leadership. Okay.

As background, AT&T Wireless is using a network based, you know, in the
cell sites sort of location technology for wireless 911 in both our
national digital networks. We have a older TDMA network and our
relatively new GSM network. With a network-based location system, of
course, one does not need to purchase a new handset in order to take \--
in order to take advantage of wireless 911 phase two when it becomes
available in their area.

We\'ve made a lot of progress and Monday, November 3rd, we will file our
latest quarterly report with the FCC and \-- and you\'ll be able to
download that from the FCC\'s website and you\'ll see the types of
progress we\'re making with our public safety partners.

I\'ll just give you a brief summary of some of that progress that we\'re
\-- we\'re making with \-- with you all. First, on our TDMA network,
over 15,000 PSAPs receive phase one service today around the country on
our TDMA network and approximately 600 PSAPs on phase two and I say
approximately because every day every week we\'re deploying more phase
two. We have a small army of people across the country deploying phase
one and phase two service as do, you know, my \-- my other carrier
counterparts in the wireless industry.

On our new GSM network, we\'ve deploying dual mode GSM and TDMA
equipment in our cell sites for the past ten months. We completed
successful testing of that equipment in midyear and we\'ve been roaring
ahead with deployment ever since and we currently have approximately 350
PSAPs up and running on GSM.

And I know some of you have gone through the growing pains with us and
thank you. They\'re right in the front here and they\'re looking at me.
They know what I\'m talking about. Okay.

When I spoke here six months ago, I observed that state and regional
leadership by public safety officials significantly speeds phase two
deployment. That\'s what I said six months ago. I still believe it. I
pointed to examples of statewide leadership in Tennessee, in California,
Indiana, New Jersey, Minnesota, North Carolina, Florida among others. I
also pointed to large districts in Texas and the Metropolitan Area
Regional Council Regional System in the Kansas City area as good
examples of regional leadership.

Now, ought to elaborate on those comments a little bit in this talk,
brief talk about leadership.

Tennessee is a great example and here\'s Anthony over here from
Tennessee. It\'s a good example of statewide leadership. We provide
phase two today to most PSAPs in Tennessee because of Tennessee\'s
foresight in funding, planning, scheduling 911 network upgrades and
working closely with us very flexibly. We had some bumps in the road,
Anthony, I understand, but we got there. They were very flexible or very
good working with as we deployed 911 phase two statewide in \-- in
Tennessee.

They gave us a schedule. They were flexible about, but, you know, they
kept our feet to the fire and we currently have over 800 cell sites
deployed in Tennessee and just a handful \-- a small handful of PSAPs
waiting to be upgraded and then we\'ll have a full statewide deployment
there and that\'s a great example of state leadership.

California is another good example. I can only say thank goodness for
Daphne Rhoe and John Marengo for the extensive planning and upgrading
and testing that Daphne talked about in preparation for phase two
service in California.

Our California wireless network includes thousands of cell sites
covering hundreds of PSAPs as well as extensive areas with the
California Highway Patrol. Anything other than a statewide plan would be
extremely inefficient. I think would be a train wreck and would really
slow ultimately 911 \-- E911 deployment in the state of California.

That little yellow rectangle that Bob was referring to why LA? In that
little yellow rectangle down in Daphne\'s map called LA, we have close
to a thousand cell site. I mean that\'s one of the most \-- most
complicated areas of the country and without a plan that we were working
with them on, it would have been extremely difficult to deploy in those
places.

We already have approximately 700 location equipped cell sites in LA, in
the Bay area and that number is going to more than double by midyear
next year to over 1500 cell sites in LA and the \-- and the Bay area as
we follow the state\'s plan. So, we\'re roaring ahead in California.

Now, all of the examples of statewide and regional leadership I\'ve
cited require good and have used good fiscal management as a
prerequisite for success. The leaders I\'ve talked about have had the
resources at their disposal and they\'ve used those resources wisely to
make the prerequisites for phase two service widely available in their
states.

From a wireless carrier\'s perspective, now efficiency is great. I like
efficiency. Of course, that\'s my perspective. I\'m a wireless carrier.
But, how does this deployment efficiency that goes with statewide
leadership, how does that help public safety? Well, I have a couple of
comments on that.

While up front planning takes time as Daphne pointed out, it appears to
yield few results at the front end. When that \-- when you kick that
plan in if it\'s a well-coordinated deployment plan, that allows for
rapid deployment, well-coordinated deployment when you finally get
ready.

So, like in the state of Tennessee when \-- when we went through the
state of Tennessee, it was relatively rapid. That is the longest state
I\'ve ever seen by the way from east to west, but we \-- I forget which
end we started at, Anthony, but we got there. But, without a
well-coordinated plan, it would have been a bit chaotic and we did it
quickly.

Second, the coordination involves gaps in PSAP by PSAP phase two
coverage. That could limit the effectiveness of emergency response, you
know, between \-- as between adjacent political jurisdictions and third,
when we get gaps in phase two coverage for sort of willy nilly requests,
those are difficult to explain to our customers. You know, where is
phase two? Where do I get phase two? Customers are starting to ask this
because of awareness and it\'s difficult to answer if it\'s kind of
here, there, and hard to \-- everywhere.

Okay. As an example of these kinds of gaps, I was talking about, I would
offer the following situation just as an illustration. Paradoxically, we
have phase two coverage today in PSAPs which cannot receive phase two.
Let me say that again because I think that was confusing. We have today
phase two network coverage with PSAPs that can\'t receive phase two.

You say well, what are you \-- what are you, Karl, stupid? Well, why is
that? All right. Well, how does that happen?

Because their PSAP neighbor\'s requested phase two and they received \--
now, they\'re receiving the phase two service and to get location
accuracy in those requesting PSAPs, we had to build all around them.
Right. We build in adjacent jurisdictions with our network based
service, okay, and then we have coverage outside that area, but they\'re
not ready, even though we have coverage, they can\'t get the phase two.
So, we have 911 assets sitting there unused.

I think that\'s bad. It\'s bad for the public and it could be solved I
think by a little more regional and statewide planning as to where
we\'re going to go.

Now, this is not a criticism. I hesitate to add. This is not a criticism
of local leaders who took the initiative to request phase two and to get
ready for phase two. I\'m not criticizing those people. In fact, there
are some of them. My \-- my shins bear the dents of their \-- their
boots. Right. They were kicking me in the shins. They were leaders to
get phase two going originally.

I think of Norm Forsee in the state of Illinois. Right. Richard\'s
laughing. Yes, I\'ve got the dents in my shins because he was leading.
Right. And others were leading, too, and they were single PSAP
implementations, but they led in their own way.

Now, we want to take it to the next level. Right. We are where we are
and we\'re taking it to the next level and saying how do we get the rest
of the nation deployed. Okay.

Now, because carriers are required by the FCC\'s rules to deploy
wireless E911 in response to PSAP request, wireless carriers alone
cannot provide state and local leadership or state and regional
leadership, excuse me. We stand willing to assist with pre-deployment
efforts, your pre-deployment teams, pre-deployment planning, training.
We stand willing and our vendors \-- I\'ve talked to our vendors. They
are willing to work with you in your states in that pre-deployment
planning, training, et cetera, but we can\'t do it alone. Only the state
and regional leaders can establish that initial framework and sustain
that effort over time.

So, in summary, based on our experience over the past couple of years, I
believe state and regional leadership on wireless 911 makes sense for
all of us, for public safety, for wireless carriers, and for the
citizens we all serve. It\'s going to hasten the day when wireless E911
is \-- is a reality for all of our citizens.

Thank you.

MS. HANSEN: Does anybody have any questions about state leadership for
either Karl or Daphne? Pros? Cons? Haves? Have nots?

You know how to reach them. They\'re state leaders afterward and
especially now in the next day. Network with them and each other on
trade secrets.

Thanks very much for your time and enjoy the conference.

MR. PATRICH: We have a 15-minute break and then we\'re back for parts
three and four of deployment with Anthony Haynes.

(Whereupon, at 3:44 p.m. a recess until 4:05 p.m.)

MR. HAYNES: Well, now for our last session of the day, thank you for \--
for coming back. My name is Anthony Haynes and I serve as the Executive
Director of the Tennessee Emergency Communications Board and unlike some
states, we not only do or are the sole authority for wireless E911
implementation, maintenance, and advancement, but we also have some
degree of authority over local landline 911 operations and have total
financial oversight over the state\'s local 911 districts which total
100 in Tennessee and each one of those are statutorily created and
defined municipality.

We are \-- we have a great sessions \-- a couple of panels coming up for
you this afternoon, but just as we\'re coming back and Lauren, if
you\'ll be so kind to let me deviate from the program here just a
moment, I think it would be an appropriate time for us to recognize the
hard work of the staff of the FCC particularly the Wireless Bureau.
They\'re upstairs cranking on a number of items now and we never get to
see these people when we come here to work with people at
commissioner\'s level and \-- and really that\'s where the work is going
on upstairs and I think we ought to offer them a round of appreciation
through applause for all the hard work that they do.

Anyone that has done this work before where you\'re Steve Marzolf in
Virginia trying to coordinate it or you\'re the wireless carrier that\'s
trying to implement it with the PSAPs, just imagine, at least you\'ve
got a first-hand view of what\'s going on. Imagine being the staff
that\'s having to deal with nothing but white papers, position papers,
filings, and conflicting stories from all over the place and trying to
do the right thing.

So, we really appreciate the hard work they do and if the FCC staff that
is here with us this afternoon would pass that along to them, we would
most appreciate it.

I\'ve had the great opportunity during lunch today to meet a very fine
individual that I think a lot of and \-- and coming from 11 years in
Washington, some of you will appreciate what I\'m about to say. It is
always an honor to meet an honorable that\'s truly honorable and we have
that here today with Assemblyman Koon.

He has really become a champion for us in 911 and has a personal story
that he may choose to \-- to share with us, but he\'ll also share with
us some of the things that\'s going on in New York that relates to
funding and as many of you know, all this technology is great. It\'s
wonderful, but unless you can pay for it, it is very difficult to put it
to work particularly in the more rural areas of the particular states
and jurisdictions that you may be working with.

What I\'ll also do right after Assemblyman Koon\'s presentation is maybe
call on a \-- a few people to give some of their personal experiences
from around the states particularly for the benefit of those of you that
may not be worshipping at this church of 911 all the time. This may be
your first meeting and your first experience interacting with some of
our pioneers that are scattered around the table working in E911.

Assemblyman Koon was elected to represent the 135th district in a
special election in 1996 and that following November has been reelected
ever since. He serves as a member of the Alcoholism and Drug Abuse
Economic Development, Job Creation and Commerce and Industry, Local
Governments, Small Business, and \-- and the Library and Education
Technology Committees.

Is also a Chair or also the Chair of the Government Administration
Commission and Vice Chair of the Legislative Commission on Toxic
Substances and Hazardous Waste. Very active in the legislature as you
can see.

He is a graduate of Fairmont State College in West Virginia and in 1982,
he joined Baush and Lomb and was an industrial engineer and that took
him to Oakland, Maryland and there was an Executive Board Member for
Scouting where he received Scouting\'s high \-- or the Scouting Award
Merit and then later on, Baush and Lomb took him to Fairport just
outside of Rochester in 1989 and that\'s kind of where his political
career began.

He is very active in his church there and he \-- he and his family
received the Faith in Action Award there from the Greater Rochester
Community of Churches.

In 1994, Dave was appointed to Mayor William Johnson\'s Transition Team
on Crime and Violence and he then became the Co-chair of the Task Force
to Reduce Violence.

Dave helped to organize the Rochester Challenge Against Violence, a
grassroots campaign that brought up to 2,000 volunteers into the city
and the volunteers spent about 15,000 hours providing the \-- proving
that people can stop the violence by getting involved.

He was given the Peacemaker Award from the Center for Dispute
Settlement, selected for the \'95/\'96 Class of Leadership in Rochester
and a recent graduate of the Rochester Citizen\'s Police Academy and he
was recommended for the New York State Crime Coalition\'s Crime
Prevention Award and President Clinton\'s Task Force Against Youth or
President Clinton\'s Task Force Against Youth Drugs, and Violence.

We\'re very fortunate to have him here with us this afternoon. So, I\'ll
turn it over to Assemblyman David Koon. David, than you for being with
us.

MR. KOON: Thank you very much, Tony. I appreciate that, your kind words,
but I\'m really honored and I want to thank the FCC for inviting me and
allowing me the time to speak before this very distinguished audience.

I know a lot of you are involved in E911 and I know there\'s some of
your that are really committed to E911 and I\'m not sure you know the
difference, but I\'d like to tell you just a little story that may bring
that home to you. I don\'t know what you all had for breakfast this
morning, but I had bacon and eggs and for that bacon and egg breakfast,
the chicken was involved and the pig was committed.

And I really truly believe that you had to be committed to make
something happen and I\'ll tell you why I\'m committed.

My daughter had a car phone in 1992. I installed that car phone in her
car and in 1993, she needed that car phone. She was abducted and she
called 911 on her cell phone, her car phone, and the poor dispatcher
that took that car could only listen to what was going on in the car. My
daughter could not explain where she was. He abductor had control of the
car and was driving the car at the time and that dispatcher along with
others at the E911 or at the 911 center in Rochester, New York listened
to that call for 20 minutes before Jenny was shot three times and
killed. They could not locate her.

So, am I committed? You bet I\'m committed. Can we make a change? You
bet we can make a change. It has happened. It is happening across this
country.

In Rochester, we had a simulated terrorist attack just last year to
train \-- make \-- see how trained our first responders were. The call
to start that simulation came from a cell phone in a park at a music
fair where they said a tank of gas has been released and people are
falling. Had that gentleman been overcome by gas before he could tell
the dispatcher where he was located, they would not have been able to
find what was going on and the terrorist attack would have continued and
people would have died.

My local PSAP in Monroe County is up to phase one and they will be at
phase two complete and total with all of the vendors in January. So,
I\'m very happy with that. Our county legislature and our county exec
has been very good at getting the money and the funding because it did
not come from the state.

In 1992, the state of New York enacted a law that said a 70 cent
surcharge would be collected on every car phone or wireless device. That
70 cents is still being collected today and in 1992, what they did \--
they said that in order to answer those, that 70 cents would go to the
New York State Police and they would set up the PSAPs to answer wireless
calls. That took place. By 1993, they were answering the calls and
everything was fine.

That\'s 70 cents today still goes to the New York State Police. That 70
cents is probably around \$100,000,000 a year right now or pretty close
to it and instead of taking that money and using it, they\'ve allowed it
to go to the state police general fund and taken money from the New York
State general fund that went into the state police and lower that. So,
the amount the state police gets is still the same even though most of
their money now is coming from the enhanced 911 surcharge.

That monthly surcharge was increased in August of last year I think.
Right. Yes, last year from 70 cents to \$1.20. Well, an extra 50 cents
surcharge was added. That goes into the New York State general fund. So,
last year, we were able in the assembly and the senate and the governor
signed it in the budget to get \$20,000,000 set aside for enhanced 911.

That most was to be used to give back to the counties of the PSAPs,
repay them for what they had already put in to E911. It was an incentive
to get them to move forward and some of our counties have not even began
to install phase one.

Thanks to a lot of leadership in New York States, especially the speaker
of the New York State Assembly Sheldon Silver and my Assembly colleagues
especially Bob Sweeney, Rowanda Stedo, and Tom DeNapoly, we were able to
get money this year put into the budget for \$100,000,000 in the state
of New York.

Now, that \$100,000,000 is not coming from the surcharge. So, it took
some creative thinking to find out how to come up with the money to get
the project going and what we did, we found that out of all the money
that was being collected in the state, there was about \$40,000,000 that
wasn\'t being designated so to speak to other areas of the state budget.
What we did, we said in our budget, we\'re going to take \$100,000,000.
We\'re going to make that capital money. We\'re going to go out and
borrow that \$100,000,000 because we want to implement this now, not a
year from now, not two years from now, but now.

So, we did that and we\'re running it through the dormitory authority in
New York State. That 100,000,000 is in 2003/2004 budget and will be paid
for \-- the debt service on that \$100,000,000 will be paid for through
the enhanced 911 surcharge.

So, in a way, it is paying for that, but it is a way to get the money
right up front and this \-- this part of the budget goes back and does
what last year\'s 20,000,000 didn\'t do. It creates an incentive to the
counties to set up a PSAP to phase one and phase two. Is it money that
can be used. You can come in and apply for it in all your counties.

One of the things that I\'m pushing for is \-- and I don\'t \-- I don\'t
know how California and some of the other states are, but I know in our
state, one county has 59 PSAPs. Another one has 18. For us to fund every
PSAP in the state of New York would be ludicrous.

I know in talking to Ray LaBelle in Rhode Island, Rhode Island, the
whole state of Rhode Island\'s got one PSAP. So, my suggestion is let\'s
put \-- let\'s fund one PSAP in each country at least not 59 in one
county and one in another county. That\'s not fair to the county. So,
those people are going to have to come together in the counties and
decide which PSAP to fund, but at least the funding is there and the
incentive is there to move this program forward.

It\'s called the Local Incentive Funding Enhancement or LIFE Program and
this funding will help saves lives, I think, in the state of New York.

The wireless LIFE will encourage the development of enhanced 911
services in providing funding to the local emergency dispatchs or the
PSAP. The money goes to the local. Not to the state, but it is being
overseen by a 13-member board and with us here today is the Secretary of
the State of New York Randy Daniels and he is the chair of that board
and this is what the driving force is for that money, making sure that
it\'s being used properly, making sure that the people are applying for
it properly, and creating the incentive to get this done rather than
sitting back and just being involved and not committed.

So, all the approvals will go through that \-- through that board and
the other piece that I want to mention and \-- and when people think of
New York, they say oh, my god, how do you live in that big city? Well, I
don\'t live in that big city of New York, but everybody when you mention
the state of New York thinks that. Well, we have a very, very diverse
state not only its citizens, but also it terrain and New York City does
have 12,000,000 million people, but we have a county in the state that
has 2500 people.

We have the Adirondacks which is 600,000 acres \-- 6,000,000 acres.
Okay. I just missed it by one zero.

And to try and get all of those counties to set up a PSAP, some of them
don\'t even have a PSAP. So, what they need to do is work together and
put one or two counties together, two or three counties together to set
up one PSAP.

So, it\'s \-- it\'s like everybody\'s talked about here today. It\'s
working together and coordination that we need to continue to push for
to make sure that the funding is there. It\'s such a key piece to this
whole puzzle and, you know, the \-- the providers, they have to do their
things. The PSAPs have to be ready to accept it.

It\'s all working together and I can\'t stress that enough and the thing
is that this \-- this money is there now and is being used now and it\'s
my goal and I\'m hoping \-- I know it\'s \-- the Secretary of State\'s
goal is to get up as quickly as possible. My goal is to hopefully have
all of the state of New York up on phase two before the \-- by the end
of 2004 and I\'m not sure we can do that, but it\'s going to be \--
going to be tough to push, but let\'s try and do it.

One of the things that I was really impressed. I\'ve been down to my
local PSAP hundreds of times and John Merkelinger who \-- who runs that
does such a superb job in finding money and getting things and moving
things ahead without having money basically from the state until this
year.

But, one of the things that he showed me was a mapping thing and I found
out that the people that do that are right in Monroe County. It\'s
called Tectonics and it\'s absolutely a phenomenal mapping device that
they have that\'s not only just for E911, but they\'re using it for \--
if they have a drug house in the city of Rochester and they want to go
in and \-- and do a bust on that drug house, the police now have access
to the mapping in Monroe County and they can look at all four sides of a
house and determine exactly, you know, where the entrances and exists
and driveways and the whole nine yards are for that home before they
ever go in to do that drug bust.

There \-- the technology today is just mind boggling to me and
everything must be meshed together to save lives and that is the key
here and that\'s why I\'m here and that\'s why, you know, I try and do
everything I can do to push this forward.

And if anybody has any other questions about New York and how we finally
put \$100,000,000 together, I\'m not sure that 100,000,000 even going to
be enough yet, but it\'s like everybody said here today. Nobody knows
how much money it\'s going to cost to put everything in place and we\'re
going to have to take it a step at a time. But, let\'s take those steps
at least. Let\'s start moving forward and doing the things we have to do
in every state so that we can save lives.

Thank you.

MR. HAYNES: Thank you very much, David.

Are there any questions for David at this time?

I would just ask David if you would have some advice for some of us
non-electeds in the group, the increasing pressures that state
governments face both in the general assembly and with the governors in
balancing state budgets. Some budgets you and I talked about over lunch
have a constitutional requirement to \-- to balance the books every June
30 regardless of the situation.

Would you have any advice for us as well as maybe those states that
might be listening of how we can possibly deter this effort? What could
we do to influence people like you in our respective states?

MR. KOON: Well, I can tell you, you know, having been a program manager
before going into politics, you need to really be prepared when you go
in and talk to, you know, because I\'ve been on both side of that now. I
was, you know, I \-- I\'m now \"a politician\" I guess, but I don\'t
call myself that. I\'m an elected public servant and that\'s what I want
to look at myself as.

But, what you really need to do and I truly believe this is if you go
into your representative whether it\'s Senator or House of
Representatives or Assembly or whatever it\'s called in your state and
don\'t go in and just say this is what we need, but go in and say this
is what we need and this is how we can get there. Have that plan in
place when you walk in.

That\'s the key here and there\'s so many legislators that have so many
issues that we\'re trying to deal with on a daily basis that if somebody
comes into my office and said look, I\'d like to have this bill
introduced and here\'s the bill and I can read through it and say hey,
this is good. I send it to bill drafting. It\'s \-- it\'s much easier
than requiring my staff and myself to sit down and draft a piece of
legislation to get money or to get into the budget or whatever.

So, you know your states better than I do, but even if you have to have
a balanced budget, Anthony, as we do in New York State, it\'s \-- it\'s
part of our constitution, it\'s got to be a balanced budget, but there
is ways of borrowing and as long as you have a funding stream to pay for
that borrowing, you can get it up front and get this thing in place now.

The piece is if you wait until you get the funding collected over the
next five or ten years, you may never get there. With New York having
had \$11.5 billion deficit last year, you know, it was very difficult,
but we got the \$100,000,000 because we were able to put it in as a
capital bonding out. So, we \-- we \-- we got that done and that to me
is one of the things that is so important is getting the funding and
getting it up front.

MR. HAYNES: I think we had one question first and I\'ll go to someone
right over here, but the question from the audience was is there a
long-term goal to move state police away from 911 funding?

MR. KOON: Is there a long-term goal to move state \-- oh, police.

Not that I\'m aware of. The state police are still getting that funding
and it is in statute in law that was created in 1992 that the funding
would go to the New York State Police.

I can tell you that what happened last year when we got the 20,000,000
was the governor said he would allow the counties to collect an extra
surcharge of 30 cents per month to take it to \$1.50 in some of the
counties and 18 counties in New York State decided to do that and raise
that surcharge by another 30 cents.

When I saw the legislation coming in from the 18 counties last year, all
it said was that the money had to be used for public safety. It did not
specifically state enhanced 911. This I found out the last day of
session in 2002 and I guess I went to the mat. I walked to the
speaker\'s office and I was very upset that we were going to allow the
counties to do the same exact thing that the states had been doing for
ten years, collecting the money and not putting it on enhanced 911.

I was told that we would fix it this year. Well, we have. All the other
counties that have come to us this year, the language says for enhanced
911 only and I think that\'s what you have to look at as you\'re going
forward.

If you\'re starting a surcharge, make sure that it\'s used properly.
Make sure the language is written properly in the law so that the
counties or the PSAPs, the people that really need the money that are
going to make the difference get the money.

MS. JAEGER: Barbara Jaeger, state of Arizona. I have a question.

You envision putting this enormous amount of money on the table to
deploy the services which I understand and commend you for. How do you
expect to sustain them? Because this equipment only lasts for a given
time period. You need the technology refresh capabilities, network
enhancements. What do you look as a way to sustain this project long
term?

MR. KOON: Well, I know my governor won\'t like what I have to say about
that, but it is going to be somehow prying funds out of that enhanced
911 surcharge and I think the answer is that 30 cents to the counties.
Even if the state still has uses for the \$1.20 a month and that\'s not
just per wireless telephone, it\'s for wireless device and so, they\'ve
kind of covered everything that\'s coming out now with \-- not \-- for
everything from pagers to computers that are running wireless and so on,
but that 30 cents if we can get that dedicated.

Like in New York state, for the wireless 911 we have a 35 cents I
believe it is per month charge on the hardwired 911 service and a lot of
the money in Monroe County actually came from the wired services, that
35 \-- 35 cents, and was used for the \-- to upgrade the PSAPs so we
could get to the enhanced 911.

So, there\'s ways of doing it and you\'re absolutely right. As we go
forward, it\'s going to require more and more. Not more and more money,
but at least some upkeep of the equipment and upgrading the equipment as
we go.

MS. JAEGER: Thank you.

MR. KOON: Any other question? Yes.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Off microphone) I\'m editor for a publication called
[Homeland Security Funding Report]{.underline}. I\'m curious about two
things. How 911 calls are routed to those counties that don\'t have
PSAPs and secondly, 100,000,000, have you got estimates of how many
PSAPs we can serve by that 100,000,000 for the E911 \--

MR. KOON: The \-- let me take the second question first. The \-- when I
sat with the supervisors in the PSAPs and the providers of the wireless
services and so on and try to come up with a number as to how much it
would cost to really put E911 in place across New York State, the number
was around 300,000,000. The thing that is so difficult to get your arms
around is that some PSAPs have already started and some PSAPs are
already up to phase one. Some of our counties are already up at phase
two. Only a handful, but some of them are.

So, it\'s almost impossible to know the exact dollar figure. So, what
\-- in the negotiations between the Senate and the Assembly in the
budget this year, we decided we\'d start with the 100,000,000 and see
how far that got us and then go back and finish that once we were able
to get our arms around how much it\'s really going to cost to get the
whole state up and running.

I\'m not sure. I\'m not, you know, really up on how small counties or
rural counties work. So, I\'m not sure. I assume that there\'s a PSAP
somewhere in a county around them that\'s taking all those calls for
them. I don\'t think \-- I know that there\'s no a county, there may be
part of a county that still doesn\'t have the wired 911 in New York
State and up in the Adirondacks somewhere, but I think we\'re pretty
much \-- the whole state is up on wired 911. It\'s the E911 we\'re
really working on right now.

Yes.

MR. PORTER: R.D. Porter, state of Missouri. Assemblyman, my question
would be how did the New York State Police or their lobbyists or
\"public safety\'s\" lobbyists looking at setting aside \$100,000,000
for enhanced 911? Was there any issues with that?

MR. KOON: I did not get anybody fighting for that that I\'m aware of. I
mean most of the citizens in New York State and I think that it \-- at
least the citizens in my district, I have educated on 911 wireless that
you cannot be found and it\'s been stated here many times today that
there are so many citizens out there that believe they can be found on
their cell.

And another piece of legislation that I\'m working on and I don\'t know
if anybody else wants to take it back to your states and I know the
providers \-- I\'m working with the providers on this, but it\'s still
an issue in my opinion. That my legislation says that when a provider
sells that phone, that they must educate that citizen whether their \--
whether or not they can be found in the county that they\'re buying the
phone in or that they live in. That I think is a key piece.

We\'re a little late in getting started since there\'s already I think
nine or ten million cell phones in New York State, but at least when
those people go in an upgrade and so on, if we can get that legislation
passed, the providers will provide some of that education to make sure
that everybody\'s well aware of that.

But, I didn\'t have anybody, even the state police have said, you know,
that they want E911.

The biggest things that we ran into was that the state police and the
governor want a statewide wireless network for police, fire, and
ambulance so that they are not in any dead areas and I agree
wholeheartedly with them and will help them fight for the money to get
what they want and the way that I explained it on the floor of the
Assembly when we were talking about this was that sure we definitely
need to protect all the police officers, all the fire fighters, and all
the ambulance and \-- and everybody else in New York State, but we look
at the population. It goes back to what California was doing. You take
the numbers. We\'ve got 19 million citizens in New York State. I would
rather protect, you know, 18,750,000 than the 200 or, you know, 500,000
or I don\'t know how many fire and police and so on. Probably maybe
100,000 of those.

So, which one do we go for first and in my opinion, it\'s E911 and it
wasn\'t too hard to sell on that basis.

In any other questions? Yes, Ray.

MR. LABELLE: I\'d like to ask you your opinion of the pending federal
legislation and what impact it would have on a diversion state such as
your own?

MR. KOON: Well, I assume everybody knows the pending federal legislation
that the Senate I think has one out there, a bill out there that says
that they would create a \$500,000,000 pot a year to help finance E911
and the Congress or the House of Representatives has 100,000,000 or
whatever, but I think the real kicker in that is that, and I\'m not sure
it\'s in the House \-- House of Representatives bill, but I know it\'s
in the Senate bill, that if the states collect an E911 surcharge, they
must use it toward E911 or face the penalties from the Federal
Government. Meaning withholding some of the dollars that normally come
from the Federal Government to the states and I\'m not sure how \-- what
dollars they\'re talking about. Whether it\'s highway dollars or
homeland security or whatever it may be.

But, if look at \-- quick example. All the states I think now are at .08
on DWI driving and the only way it got there was because the Federal
Government stepped in and said well, we\'re going to withhold highway
dollars unless you take your laws and make them uniform across the
country and that happened.

So, I\'m hoping that one of these bills or a negotiated bill between the
House of Representatives and the Senate will be forthcoming this year
and get something in place so that states like New York will have to use
that E911 surcharge to get us up to phase two and then at that point, if
they want to continue to collect and \-- and fill the budget gap or
whatever they want to do with it at that point fine, but there still has
to be some money there to keep the systems upgraded.

MR. HAYNES: I think just to kind of wrap things up here, there was a
couple of people in the round table here I wanted to pull upon some of
their expertise. I know we\'ve got one of the pioneers in setting up
state boards and wireless E911 in the country. John Patterson here from
Kentucky.

And, John, I think there\'s probably this misconception out there that
if you have a wireless fee in your state and you\'re able to collect
some monies from landlines that just getting to that point if you can
ever make it there, everything\'s going to be fine.

You and I have had some conversations related to that especially maybe
some of your ideas, but could you just briefly share with us the
Kentucky perspective in how diverse the money is that you collect to
support 911 operations and some of the challenges you see not only for
you maybe, but coming down the pike for us around the country.

MR. PATTERSON: I think \-- I think the \-- the real problem from my
perspective from the state of Kentucky\'s perspective is that the
current funding paradigm, the way we fund enhanced 911 is broken.

Folks are migrating from strictly wireline telecommunications to a
diverse array of telecommunications devices. We have pinned a lot of our
hopes and dreams for the future on surcharges for wireless and I think
that as we go forward, we need to recognize that a wirelines/wireless
surcharge is not the only way that this can be done and we need to
attack this problem with a similar diverse array of funding mechanisms
that embraces the full range of technology that people are using today
or are likely to use in the future.

At the same time, we have to understand that deployment of enhanced 911
is \-- wireless is the tip of the iceberg. I worry about what\'s
underneath the water that we can\'t see. I worry about leaving counties
behind when we talk about a seamless 911 system across the nation and I
look at my state with 25 counties that don\'t have enhanced 911.

Well, it\'s all good and well to say that we\'re going to have enhanced
911 for wireless consumers everywhere we go, but about the little old
lady in the mountains of Kentucky who has a heart attack and needs to
call 911 and she doesn\'t have 911 service in county. Why is her heart
attack less important than the agile mobile traveler with the
sophisticated telecommunications device and suddenly wants to report a
highway accident? I don\'t think that that person\'s problem is any less
important.

I think if we\'re really going to talk about a seamless ubiquitous 911
system, public safety network across the nation, we need to look at a
complete network that leaves no community left behind and at the same
time, we\'ve got to discover funding strategies that really allow us to
pay for it.

To \-- to pin all our hopes and dreams on phase two wireless and that\'s
what House Bill 2898 says I think is the role model. I really think that
that has to be done, but we also got to look at the big picture and look
at the whole scope of what\'s needed and then develop a vision for that
entire problem.

MR. HAYNES: It\'s a good point, John.

At this time, are there anymore questions for Assemblyman Koon before we
move on to the next panel?

Well, Assemblyman Koon, we\'ll thank you for not only your dedication
and in our fight and now your fight, but we appreciate your strength in
sharing with us some of your own reflections over some of the things
that\'s happened in your life and we\'re just \-- we\'re glad that we
have you on our side.

So, on behalf, if I make take the liberty, on behalf of the 911
community across the country, thank you for what you\'re doing in New
York and \-- and thank you for what you\'re doing nationally. So, thank
you for being with us.

If I could, I\'ll ask our last panel to \-- members to come on up at
this time.

We\'re going to go ahead and start. One of our three panelists is \-- is
in route here today. Had a prior commitment up in New Jersey, Connie
Hughes, and she\'ll be arriving just a few moments late. Probably in the
middle of this \-- this panel, but we\'re going to go ahead and get
started.

And the first person \-- the way I\'m going to \-- to handle this is
that I will go ahead and introduce each person first and let them give
their presentations and then if you would be so kind to maybe hold you
questions until the end of the \-- until all panelists have finished,
we\'ll move to questions and answers at that point, but we\'ll just move
right onto you after that, Greg.

Our first person to my \-- to my right here is Charles Davidson who is
Commissioner with Florida\'s Public Service Commission. He was just
recently appointed to a four-year term that goes into 2007 by Governor
Jeb Bush.

He has relocated from New York. I guess probably like a lot people in
Florida, but he is \-- he came down in October of 2000 to serve in the
Office of the Governor as Executive Director for Florida\'s Information
Technology Task Force and in 2001, Commissioner Davidson was recruited
by the Florida House of Representatives to launch the state\'s first
ever committee on information technology.

He currently serves as an ex officio member of the Board of Directors of
IT Florida, a not for profit that is focused on developing sound
technology and related public \-- public policies.

Prior to that from 1993 to 1999, Commissioner Davidson was an attorney
and resident at the New York Office of Baker and McKinsey one of the
world\'s largest law firms if not the world\'s largest law firm and in
1999, he joined the New York Office of Dwayne Morris with other
attorneys from Baker and McKinsey to form a new international dispute
resolutions practice group and while in private practice, Davidson was
responsible for an array of regulatory, commercial, international
technology matters in the United States and abroad.

His work also included international tribunal claims against the
government of Iraq before the United Nations Compensation Commission. He
also had worked with claims against the government of Iran before the
Iran/United States Claims Commission and while in New York, he was also
a special professor of law at Hofstra University\'s School of Law.

He speaks frequently on technology and public policy issues and recently
in 2003, this year, he testified before Congress on regulatory treatment
that should be afforded to broadband technologies.

And he is a phi beta kappa graduate. He holds a Masters in Law and Trade
Regulation from New York University. He also hold a Masters in
International Business from Columbia University and he received his
Baccalaureate and Juris Doctor degrees from the University of Florida
where he served as a Fellowship Instructor at the College of Law.

If you would, please welcome Charles Davidson.

COMMISSIONER DAVIDSON: Thank you so much. I would like to extend a
special thanks to Lauren and all the staff here at the FCC for \-- for
the hard work on this issue.

I appreciate the opportunity to be here. I think we wouldn\'t be here
today without the leadership of \-- of Chairman Powell. So, a special
thanks and appreciation of gratitude to him as well.

The Florida Public Service Commission like perhaps many of the utility
commissions across the country is not responsible for E911. Rather, we
have a \-- a centralized state technology office that \-- that works on
most of the E911 issues.

I \-- I can tell you that the PSE coordinates with that office and from
our standpoint and I think from the state\'s standpoint generally,
Florida has a very successful enhanced E911 program.

Florida is perhaps one of \-- it\'s geographically one of the largest
states. It\'s perhaps one of the largest states in terms of number of
counties. We have 67 counties.

Currently, 99.8 percent of our population is served by enhanced 911
service. We expect to be fully enhanced by March of 2004. Roughly 52 of
the 67 counties or 51 of the 67 counties are phase one compliant, fully
phase one compliant, and the others are \-- are coming on-line very
soon.

About half of those 67 counties are phase two compliant with one or more
carriers. So, overall, I \-- I think the Florida program can be
characterized as \-- as very successful.

As I was going over materials and I have to thank my aid. She prepared a
\-- a notebook that\'s about 12 inches thick of \-- of enhanced 911
materials, but as I was going through, I ran across a quote form William
Todd a Senior Executive with Telecommunications Systems, Inc. who states
that states must make E911 a priority and he suggests two ways of
getting there, appointing E911 czars to oversee the upgrade to enhanced
services and he said federal lawmakers should also lean on states to
protect E911 funds.

As I was going through and \-- and studying Florida\'s E911 regime, I
thought what \-- what makes this state different? What characterizes why
Florida is so successful?

And the first thing that came to my mind and for anyone who has worked
with \-- with Governor Bush, you\'ll know what I\'m saying. We are so
successful because of the leadership of Governor Bush on this issue. He
has really done two things and they\'re both the things that \-- that
the quote just referenced.

One, he has tasked one of his top team members, the state CIO Kimberly
Baramie and his state technology office with the primary responsibility
for oversight and planning of the state\'s E911 system. He has also been
very aggressive in protecting the state\'s trust fund dollars from the
aggressive actions or attacks of \-- of many state legislators. So,
he\'s been able through that protection to avoid scenarios like a
\$53,000,000 diversion in California; \$162,000,000 diversion of \-- of
funds in New York; the \$9,000,000 diversion in Oregon and I have no
doubt that it\'s through that aggressive action that the citizens and
the counties and the businesses in Florida have been protected by E911
system.

Beyond the leadership of the governor, I think there are several
structural type of factors that one can point to for why the state has
been so successful and I \-- I\'m focused on these factors in the hope
that if there are other states pursing new courses of action, trying to
figure out what they need to do to their regime that perhaps Florida can
serve as a \-- a type of best practices model for those states.

The first factor that I would point to is that Florida has a \-- a clear
and a strong legislative mandate that does several things. I won\'t bore
you with the detail of \-- of that legislation. We have a \-- a
representative from the state\'s wireless board here who can \-- who can
help with those specific questions if folks have them.

But, one the \-- the legislation tasks our statewide technology office
with primarily responsibility for this program.

Two, it establishes a very meaningful, a very functional, a very diverse
and representative wireless board.

Third, it sets forth the parameters for a trust fund that makes sense.
You\'ve got a certain amount of dollars coming in. Those can only be
used for very specific purposes. The legislation itself makes clear that
there cannot be the diversion of funds that \-- that other states have
witnessed.

The second distinguishing factor I think and it\'s \-- it\'s referenced
in the legislation and it\'s part of the governor\'s efforts to manage
this project is the involvement of the state technology office.

Jim Martin who many of you know and probably work with on a daily basis
is here. He\'s sitting right \-- right here at the round table and he
works with coordinators everyday and I think can fill you in in greater
detail.

But, the state technology office in Florida I think is \-- is unique. It
takes on an array of technology issues, a truly statewide
enterprise-wide approach to the delivery of \-- of public services,
delivery of technology to Floridians. It\'s enabled Florida\'s
government to be more responsive, more effective, and substantially less
costly in the past few years that it has been in years \-- years past.

The state CIO is bizarre for E911 services in the \-- in the state of
Florida and as a result of this relationship between the state\'s
technology office, the wireless community, the wireline community, local
government, and how the governor has tasked this organization with
accomplishing its mandate, the STO I think has brought a number of \--
of very positive benefits to this initiative in the state.

First, the state technology office has brought statewide, truly
statewide oversight by reviewing and approving requests to implement 911
systems and by regularly auditing those systems. The S-T-O or STO as we
call it has also brought standardization to the table by developing
technical specifications for 911 equipment and services that are
deployed and utilized in the state.

Importantly from \-- from a funding perspective, STO has brought the
buying power of the state to the table by establishing statewide
contracts for 911 services and equipment, that counties, that local
government can benefit from.

Importantly, and \-- and I\'ve heard this theme echoed today, they bring
information sharing and strong collaboration amongst the industry, local
government, and state\'s law enforcement to the table.

Again, Jim Martin is here at the table and he\'s \-- he\'s an invaluable
resource to the state of Florida.

The next factor and it\'s related to the preceding ones, the
legislation, the role of state technology office, is that there is a \--
a very strong culture of collaboration and success and working hard on
our state\'s wireless board. Our board is comprised of three reps from
the wireless industry appointed by the governor for staggered terms.
Three representatives from local government, a small county
representative, a medium county representative, and a large county
representative as well as the state coordinator.

The board, and \-- and I believe we\'re \-- we\'re somewhat unique here,
this board meets every month for 1.5 days for a total of 18 days every
year. That\'s a lot of meetings and I can tell you firsthand that the
board is very, very productive and hardworking. They \-- they get a lot
done.

The next distinguishing factor is that Florida has a fiscally sound and
for now, safe trust fund. The trust fund is fiscally sound because it\'s
regularly audited by the state auditors. It\'s also sound because the
trust fund relates specifically to the cost recover \-- cost recovery of
items that are enumerated in the legislation. Dollars can\'t be used for
boots or shirts or pens or pencils. There are a specific number of
factors for which state funds can be used.

I say the trust fund is safe because under this administration, the
governor has protected that trust fund from raiding by other agencies,
by other groups that \-- that are seeking that money.

It\'s also safe because the wireless board and I listened closely as
Assemblyman Koon made this point, the wireless board is capable of
explaining to our elected officials why this money is needed, how it was
collected, specifically what it\'s to be used for. Here\'s the budget
plan for that. These are the expenses we anticipate in a few years.
They\'ve done a great job of educating the legislature and I can\'t
overemphasize the \-- the importance of that \-- that educational
effort.

One additional factor that I think has been critical to Florida\'s
success is that we are a high growth state. Month after month, year
after year, the number of wireless users is increasing. So, there is a
steady stream of \-- of money coming in which allows for greater
resources to be spent by Florida\'s 67 counties on equipment services.

And \-- and with that, I think I\'ll wrap up. Those were really the key
factors that I think makes Florida successful and different as a state
among states.

MR. HAYNES: Thank you, Commissioner Davidson.

At this time, we\'ll move onto our next panelist, Greg Ballentine. Greg
is the Director of Public Safety and Emergency Services for Mid-America
Regional Council in Kansas City, Missouri.

His responsibilities include administration, coordination of multiple
jurisdiction, public safety, and emergency service programs in the
Kansas City metropolitan area including regional 911 system,
pre-hospital EMS coordination, homeland security planning, hazardous
material response, and coordination with \-- of the areas of emergency
\-- with the areas of various emergency managers.

The Kansas City metropolitan area covers eight counties and more than
100 cities and serves in the area a population of nearly 2 million
people.

Mr. Ballentine has 20 years experience in various emergency service
communications operations including managing large multi-agency public
safety communication centers in Florida and Texas. He is the current
President-Elect of the Association of Public Safety Communications
International, also referred to as APCO, commonly referred to as APCO
and has held officer positions at the Texas, Florida, and Missouri
chapters of APCO.

Previously, he served two terms on the APCO Institute Advisory Committee
and was instrumental in the development of APCO\'s membership assistance
program and homeland security initiatives.

He holds a seat on the U.S. Department of Transportation\'s Public
Safety Advisory Group and recently appointed by Government Holden to
fill a vacancy on the Missouri Governor\'s Advisory Committee for 911
Oversight.

If you would, please welcome Greg Ballentine.

MR. BALLENTINE: Thank you very much. I\'m please to be here with you
this afternoon in my capacity as President-Elect of APCO.

APCO International is the largest public safety communications
organization in the world and is really the only association that
handles the entire scope of public safety emergency communications
ranging from public safety spectrum to 911 issues, training, and a
variety of other activities.

APCO 16,000 members represent public safety agencies in all 50 states
and the District of Columbia.

We applaud the Commission for bringing together the appropriate parties
today to talk about wireless 911 deployment across America. The
Commission has been very strong in oversight of wireless 911
implementation and the public safety industry is please with the
priority that the Commission continues to place on 911 matters.

APCO supports the Commission continuing to hold strong to current
wireless deployment time lines established under previous orders. Our
public safety members are united in the belief that wireless service
providers must be compelled to complete deployment within the
established guidelines. Having said this, we understand that public
safety agencies also have a responsibility and that we need to ensure
our own readiness.

Since this panel is primarily focused on PUC issues, I\'m going to spend
the majority of the five minutes that Lauren allows me to speak today
talking about local exchange carriers.

The importance and impact of local exchange carriers toward successful
deployment continues to be the least defined and control aspect of this
complicated implementation process. One of the main factors in readiness
is the ability of the local exchange carrier specifically those that act
as 911 service providers to be able to deliver the enhanced 911
attributes to public safety agencies in an effective and cost-efficient
manner.

Many PSAPs are still struggling with being able to certify that the
local exchange carriers are, in fact, ready for phase two deployment.
Even those that may verbally claim that they\'re ready, some of them
have been either reluctant or unable to produce the documentation that
allows PSAPs to avoid readiness challenges.

Another major part of the struggle at the local level is being able to
identify the true cost of implementation. Many of the costs quoted by
local exchange carriers are bundled, meaning that selective routing,
database transport, p ante costs are offered as one rate making it
virtually impossible to identify the true cost of each component.

Several years ago as you all know, the Commission removed the
prerequisite for full cost recovery as a condition for implementation
mandates. The removal of that cost recovery requirement does not extend
to the local exchange carriers. In fact, APCO believes that today this
is the primary obstacle to deployment.

In many areas of the country, there are lingering questions as to the
legitimacy of data transport, database, and pseudo ante or p ante
charges.

As you know, these charges are regulated by the states and we urge the
public service regulatory commissions to take a strong look at all 911
charges.

There\'s been a lot of talk here today about where is the money going to
come from? How are we going to create new legislation or find additional
resources? APCO urges the commissions that have regulatory
responsibility to not just accept that the costs that are on the table
today are necessarily appropriate. Rather than focus solely on finding
the money that is \"needed for implementation\" we urge all of the
commissions to take a close look at whether that is the appropriate
amount of money that is needed.

APCO has received and you heard the term this morning, facts from the
field. We have received information from our various model communities
that really support the fact that this cost issue at the local level is
a \-- an impediment to deployment.

In fact, some examples. Seven counties in Georgia are not moving forward
with implementation due to the recurring costs quoted by the local
exchange carriers. We have reports from 11 counties in Florida that are
not implementing for this same reason. The entire St. Louis metropolitan
area, the state that \-- that I work full-time in has not deployed
enhanced wireless 911 because of continuing disagreements between the
public safety agencies in the area and the local telephone companies on
who is responsible for the p ante or the pseudo ante charges.

Maui County, Hawaii is another example. Maui County has been ready for
phase two deployment for the past two years, but is involved in ongoing
disputes with the local telephone company over the cost structure.

At the last FCC Coordination Initiative, a presentation was made on our
deployment in the Kansas City metro area where we bypassed the local
exchange carrier and created a direct connection to wireless service
providers thereby by eliminating the costs that local exchange carriers
charge to most public safety entities.

The fact of the matter is in the Kansas City metro area since both
Kansas and Missouri are non-cost recover states, we would not have been
able to deploy phase two or phase one had we not come up to some \--
come up with some alternative to the local exchange carriers costs.

I understand that several major population areas of the country are also
moving toward a direct connection with wireless carrier. It\'s an
excellent solution for major population areas, but it is not cost
effective for everyone. State regulatory entities must insure that
affordable deployment opportunities exist in all areas of the nation not
just hose with large major population areas.

There been a lot of talk lately about the decline in PSAP requests. We
believe that the local exchange carrier cost issues are responsible for
this decline. We talked earlier about the fear factor of PSAP managers
and how many PSAP managers are unsure or somewhat intimidated by the \--
the process that\'s before them in order to begin deployment.

While we don\'t disagree with that concept, we also are aware of
numerous PSAP manager who know exactly what they need to do. Who know
what steps need to be taken in order to start this process, but frankly
are embroiled in a budget crisis within their agency without embarking
on this new initiative and simply cannot afford the costs that are being
quoted by the local exchange carriers.

In summary, I\'d just like to \-- to end with a \-- a recommendation.
APCO does identify the local exchange carrier cost issues as the current
biggest stumbling block to wireless 911 deployment because of their
attempt to charge what some would call outrageous pricing. We encourage
the FCC to work with each state regulatory body to either remove the
cost recovery at the state level and require local exchange carriers to
deploy 911 services as a cost of doing business or at a minimum require
that the provision of wireless 911 services by the local exchange
carrier be mandated in a nondiscriminatory un-bundled and cost recovery
model pricing. The cost recovery model pricing is what\'s crucial in
that statement. 911 lifesaving services should not be a profit center.

I look forward to the questions and comments.

MR. HAYNES: Thank you very much, Greg.

And last we\'ll move on to our last speaker who has been running to get
here quite literally. Connie, thank you for being with us. We appreciate
it.

Connie Hughes, Commissioner Hughes, was nominated to the New Jersey
Board of Public Utilities on July 16, 2001. She serves \-- she served as
acting president from that time through October 3rd and then president
until January 15th, 2002.

When you think of NARU telecommunications, think of Connie. She\'s on
every telecommunications subcommittee working group, but chairing a very
\-- she\'s also on the Ad Hoc Committee for Critical Infrastructure
Protection. She\'s also a member of the NARU Washington Action
Committee. So, those of you here in Washington probably see Connie from
time to time.

Prior to her appointment, Commissioner Hughes was the acting governor\'s
at the time Chief, Management and Policy or Chief of Management and
Policy responsible for policy development implementation for \-- across
all state agency. She also oversaw the Office of the Chief Information
Officer, the Office of Employment Relations, Office of Constituent
Reactions, and the governor\'s Washington, D.C. office. It\'s pretty
obvious that the governor has a lot of \-- a lot of confidence in
Connie.

Formerly, Commissioner Hughes was Assistant Commissioner of the Work
Force New Jersey responsible for administration of the Department\'s One
Stop Career System and the Director \-- Director of the Division of
Employment and Training.

She has also co-authored three books and authored over 30 articles on
demographic and economic issues including Anticipating Census 2000, New
Jersey\'s Emerging Demographic Profile which she co-authored with her
husband.

She was \-- she was Chair of the National Electronic Technology Board,
NET Board, and Chair of the National State Data Center Advisory Board of
the U.S. Bureau Census. She\'s a member of the International Women\'s
Forum, National Association of Female Executives, Women Executives in
State Government, the New Jersey 300, Central Jersey Women\'s Network,
and Women Executives of New Jersey.

She has received a Bachelor of Science Degree from East Strasberg
University and her MCRP from the Edward is it Balstein School of
Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers. She also attended the Kennedy
School of Government.

If you would at this time, please welcome, Commissioner Connie Hughes
from New Jersey.

COMMISSIONER HUGHES: Unfortunately, they gave you the exaggerated
version of my biography.

Good afternoon and my apologies for being late. I did literally get off
the train, race into a cab, and race out of the cab and drag my luggage
up here and somewhere is my luggage, my pocketbook, and my coat, but the
topics far more important than any of that certainly.

As was just mentioned, I\'m honored to be the Chair of the NARU Ad Hoc
Committee on Critical Infrastructure Protection and I\'m also the NARU
designee to the U.S. Department of Transportation\'s E911 Steering
Council.

This topic is \-- is particularly interesting to me when we talk about
the cost recovery because I\'m not sure that regulators have figured out
yet how to recover costs for new and inventive technologies, needs and
my friend Charles here is shaking his head yes. If you don\'t know
regulation of the utility industry has been around about 100 years and
then that\'s just about where our \-- many of our formulas are in terms
of determining how to recover costs.

New Jersey\'s I think and I\'m always going to have to brag on things
like that implementing ES911. It\'s currently facing, of course, many
operational and technical challenges as many of them has.

Originally, it funded quite a bit of the technology, but now Verizon is
paying for a lot of the improvements and I\'m sure our representative
from New Jersey can go into the very, very details of that, but as a
regulator, that \-- that makes me pause somewhat when our major
telecommunications company in the state is picking up the tab for
something like this because it causes a little bit of \-- in my mind, a
bit of a \-- of a conflict.

I\'m always a little concerned when the regulatory company out of the
\"graciousness of their heart\" picks up the tab for something. So, I
think the cost recovery needs to be addressed heads on.

One of the things that illustrates the importance of wireless 911,
almost half of the 911 calls in New Jersey last year according to our
annual report were from wireless phones. Almost half. It was almost
equal between wireless and landline calls from 911. Just imagine that.

Now, New Jersey\'s the most densely populated state in the nation.
Finding any of us at any particular time isn\'t always easy. At the same
time, however, this is \-- it\'s critical that we put the second phase
totally in place and that wireless 911 is totally effective, but it\'s
just as important that we figure our cost recovery.

The previous speaker has some interesting thoughts when he talked about
the cost recovery model proceeding \-- processing. Is that what you
said? Is that the phrase that you used, Greg?

MR. BALLENTINE: The cost recovery model?

COMMISSIONER HUGHES: Yes. I\'ll give you a two-second course in rate
making. I actually went to a five-day course in \-- in Utility
Commissioners\' Rate Making. If you\'re a utility commissioner, it\'s a
good idea. If you\'re not, it\'s \-- it\'s don\'t \-- don\'t bother.

But, two of the things they put into your head over and over again, you
don\'t have to put in the rate base anything that\'s not already in the
ground. So, in other words, if someone is planning to implement the
second phase or full thrust with ES911 but hasn\'t even started it yet,
a utility commission can say that\'s not going to be recovered in the
next rate case.

So, imagine that kind of rate making, I mean cost recovery where
anything that\'s in the future, if somebody\'s planning to do something,
they can\'t start recovering costs until it\'s already paid for. Which
means in my mind, it\'s going to cost even more because somebody has to
borrow some money and money costs money and then the cost of the
ratepayer\'s going to \-- the consumer is going to cost even more.

I think it\'s definitely time that we start as \-- as regulatory
commissions looking at this out front and this last week, I had a day
and half coincidentally workshop on cost recovery for critical
infrastructure protection and in New Jersey, 911 systems has been
designated as critical infrastructure.

So, that falls right under the category of it\'s something different,
it\'s something we never anticipated, it\'s something our forefathers
never anticipated, and it\'s something when the legislation in New
Jersey was written establishing the Board of Public Utilities never
anticipated because at that time, we were regulating railroads. We
don\'t regulate railroads in our \-- on our board anymore. We regulate
telecommunications, water, gas, and electricity.

So, I think that this panel is particularly opportune. I would like to
build on whatever the discussion brings out today and \-- and bring that
back to the work that I\'m doing with my committee that also has Charles
Davidson from Florida on it on cost recovery for critical infrastructure
because the ES911 system is part of the critical infrastructure
devastation.

Thank you.

MR. HAYNES: Thank you very much, Commissioner Hughes.

We have a \-- a few moments for questions. Is there anyone in the
audience who would have a \-- a questions for either Commissioner
Davidson or Hughes or Greg on any of the subject matter that they
covered?

Did you have one? Okay.

I see \-- if I could call on Jim Rian just a moment. We were talking
earlier about the different roles that state entities can play whether
it\'s an office of technology, the role of the PSCs can play.

Jim, if I might could just call on you for a minute. For states that
have not gotten as far down the road as maybe your state has or my \--
my state has, maybe Steve\'s in Virginia, what\'s some of the
recommendations that you would have from where you sit at the state
level in terms of working and starting the 911 operations \-- E911
operations for this whole wireless and cost recovery issue? How would
you \-- what would be your advice to them in working with the public
utilities commission which in some states some of us work very closely
with and others we do not, working with state offices of technology?

How would \-- what would be your advice in how they should start with
trying to recover their E911 wireless cost, work from scratch, and
working with all these different entities and state government from
state to state? What would be your advice?

MR. RIAN: Well, a lot of this is kind of tautological or truisms, but
it\'s \-- it\'s a necessary mix.

As you\'ve heard so many times, you have such a number of stakeholders
and you want to make them into partners and obviously, the biggest
players are the major WSPs. They\'re the ones that are going to have to
spend the most money. They\'re the ones who are going to have to do most
of the work.

Obviously, as a lawyer, you\'re always trying to figure out who your
client is while you\'re doing your job and ultimately the clients here
are primarily the wireless subscribers. Sometimes I think either the
WSPs \-- some of us forget that \-- that\'s who they\'re serving rather
than the PSAPs when they provide these services.

I \-- we \-- we found when we started off in South Carolina, we
initially were trying to get the wireless subscribers to contribute to
the existing 911 structure. Our wireline 911 law, requires that the
PSAPs handle wireless calls and at the same time, the \-- most of the
costs was borne by the wireline subscribers in the form of county
surcharges. The rest of it went from county funds and we \-- we didn\'t
have any success when we were just trying to get a surcharge applied to
the wireless subscribers.

After the FCC passed its order and cost recovery became a prerequisite
to implementing phase one and phase two, then we \-- we got in a team
with the WSPs, the LECs, the PSC in \-- in South Carolina and \-- and
major PSAPs and under the sponsorship of a State Senator and a State
Representative and \-- and that \-- that team and that team approach has
continued throughout our whole implementation.

When \-- when \-- the most effective way to deal with that obviously is
to take a \-- an attitude that there are umpteen different issues and
principals that you\'re pursuing and you can\'t always accomplish all of
them, but you try to find congruence, convergence, ways in which you can
do two things at once.

For instance, we had to do a cost study for the legislature and
ultimately, we determined that the only way we could get halfway decent
figures was the cost recovery applications. So, we combined the cost
study and the cost recovery applications and \-- and did it all at once.

At the same time, it \-- the \-- the way we sort of deal with all this
is sort of like the middleman, coordinator of whatever and we have all
these different interests that we have to balance. We have to be fair to
everybody and \-- and whatever we do, we try to use the model of chess
rather than poker and \-- and whatever moves, whatever actions or
strategies we\'re \-- we\'re taking, we \-- we try to do it right out in
the open and at least be \-- don\'t tell any lies and be honest about
what some of your reasons for the moves are and they can\'t always
necessarily figure out the rest.

In that way, ultimately you kind of get the \-- the WSPs and all the
players get the attitude that you\'re trying to look out for
everybody\'s legitimate interest, the business interest, the bottom line
and the cooperation becomes much better than \-- than you might expect.
911 being the cleanest endeavor that most of us have ever even heard of
let alone participated in.

People actually do really \-- it\'s kind of like the Great Gatsby said
\"The rich are different.\" So, are people who work in 911 and that
applies to all over.

So, it really is a case where if you deal with them honestly in good
faith that they\'ll pretty much reciprocate and you just try to figure
out ways to operate where you can serve a lot of different purposes with
the same actions.

As far as cost recovery itself is concerned, if \-- if \-- in the
drafting of the statute, you could provide a little flexibility in
anticipation that things might change for instance such as the FCC
removing the prerequisite of WSP cost recovery. Then, you can be in a
little bit better position to deal with things like diverting some of
your funds so that you really might not end up enough \-- with enough
money for the PSAPs and the WSPs and obviously, the PSAPs are the first
in the chain and they\'re also the poorest. For the most part, they are
going to have to have money from some source. They are not going to be
able to make the changes they need to effectively handle phase two data
without a lot of assistance from the state.

I\'ve gone on. I don\'t know whether I answered your question or not,
but \--

MR. HAYNES: Well, it was a tough question to answer. So, I think you did
a yeoman\'s job of trying to answer it.

I would just shift very quickly \-- did you have something, Bob? Bob
Oenning from Washington.

MR. OENNING: A comment and first of all, I want to say that the state of
Washington our utility commission has really really been good to work
with particularly the last couple of years. They\'ve really started to
understand and work and for instance, they just came up with a whole new
set of rules for telecommunications companies. They after all of this
decided to throw out all of the rules they had and write a new set and
they drug us in right up front to be partners in that and a couples
times, we \-- we sat and had to sort of mediate other issues that had
nothing to do with this.

But \-- when in that, there\'s some things they did that I think are
important particularly here. Outage notification, for instance, is a big
item there. Where when they have a outages that impact an area, now we
hear about it. There \-- the carriers are still trying to get it all
together, but they tell the PSAP they\'ve got \-- not just the 911
outage, but other outages because people can\'t call 911 and so, the
whole set of that.

Other things like the reverse search rule. We\'ve had reverse search
rule in place where we could do it for a long time. They cleaned it up
because with multiple carriers and competitive carriers, the old rule
was messy and hard to use. The new one is clean and so, there\'s a lot
of things like that that commissions can do looking at them, working
together to make it go.

There\'s one item we think we may have gotten over, but has been out
there forever in this wireless piece and that is that the carriers for
various reasons and various rules have different sections of their
companies doing different things and they can\'t cross some magic lines
that have been built and 911 crosses those magic lines. So, many times a
wireless carrier is trying to order services and simply can\'t get them
from the people they normally work with because those carriers are in
another piece of the regulation on the LEC side and it \-- and we get
around it, but it is really disruptive to the process and slows you
down.

So, encouraging carriers to come in and work around those up front
really helps that work. So.

MR. HAYNES: Thank you, Bob. Yes, Jenny from Montana.

MS. HANSEN: Jenny Hansen from Montana. For the Commissioners, we are
having some interesting and innovative discussions on finding funding
opportunities and we\'re noting an increase in ETC status filings with
tier two and tier three carriers and while we\'re now in the midst of
these interesting and sometimes lively discussions with our public
service commissions and carriers, we\'re going to see and my hunch is
we\'re going to see an increase in these filings. I\'m wondering if
you\'ve experienced increased filings in your respective jurisdictions
and what kind of discussions and/or outcomes you\'ve had?

MR. HAYNES: Good question. Thanks, Jenny. Connie, do you want to take a
shot?

COMMISSIONER HUGHES: I have a very short answer. We haven\'t had an
increase of ETC filing at all.

COMMISSIONER DAVIDSON: And my answer is similar. Is that on?

MR. HAYNES: I think so.

COMMISSIONER DAVIDSON: My answer is \-- is similar. By statute, Florida
does not regulate wireless companies. So, it lacks the jurisdiction in
the first instance to make the ETC determination. So, those applications
\-- and we just ruled on this jurisdictional issue a couple of weeks ago
and now, those applications with that order as an attachment are going
to be ruled upon by the FCC.

But, it does raise an interesting issue because there is not a pressure
on the universal service fund because of these additional application.
So, at \-- at some point, how that interplays with carrier of last
resort obligations roll out of E911 will have to \-- have to be
addressed in some type of

\-- of comprehensive manner, but we won\'t see an increase because we
don\'t have jurisdiction.

MR. HAYNES: Go ahead.

MS. HANSEN: As a follow-up \-- as a follow-up to that \-- thank you.
I\'m waiting for the mike to turn on.

As a follow-up, I see a connection because of no filings in New Jersey
and some filings in tier two/tier three with urban and rural
environments certainly to make up for that windfall.

Additionally, it\'s offering us as state leaders an opportunity in an
intervention mode depending on your governor\'s office and your rules
and policies on intervening and taking a position on these particular
items.

We \-- we just met with our respective chief information officer as an
example to identify do we have an intervention process to work with our
public service commission and weigh in on our position, taking a
position on ETC filings, and what would that be and it could be as
specific as we support as long as it plays for and is earmarked strictly
for E911 procurement and get even more specific than that depending on
what your specific needs are.

So, that when the subsequent filings occur, it\'s not paying for an
expanded infrastructure of a carrier to increase business and/or
revenue. It\'s to enhance what they have in place and meet accuracy
standards, E911 standards that we all need in the outcome.

But, thank you.

MR. HAYNES: Go ahead, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER DAVIDSON: If I may just one follow-up point. You \-- you
hit on a key element and that\'s leadership. It\'s simply and \-- and
leadership is sense is binary. It either exists on a particular issue or
it doesn\'t.

I mean I can tell you just with reference to Connie, the Critical
Infrastructure Committee of NARU would not be 5 percent along the path
of where it is without Connie\'s leadership. I mean she\'s sort of taken
the reins and she had propelled us forward like it or not. I mean we\'re
\-- we\'re working. We\'re handling issues, but Connie has led that
issue.

You\'ve got to have leadership at every level. I mean I spoke about
Governor Bush, but he\'s really taken an interest here.

Jim Martin, he leads everyday on \-- on this initiative by working with
folks across the state.

So, the leadership is essential, but \-- but I think also creativity in
how to deal with these funding issues is really important.

Florida\'s wireless board distributes revenue in this manner: 44 percent
of \-- of what comes in to counties; 54 percent to providers; 2 percent
to counties via supplemental monthly grants of \-- of \$3,000 and last
year, because of \-- of some just creative funding and \-- and being
able to \-- to deal with some money, there was a million dollars handed
out last year to small counties for assistance in buying 911 PSAP
equipment.

So, you just \-- if you have an interest in this as \-- as Assemblyman
Koon spoke to, you just \-- being involved is good, but being committed
is better. So, if you commit with leadership and commit with creativity,
I think you\'ll have different solutions and until there is a national
\-- a fully national program if indeed that would be a desirable goal,
you\'re going to have different strategies and opportunities and
outcomes in different states.

MR. HAYNES: Let\'s give all our panelists here a round of applause for a
very find program.

At this time, I think Lauren\'s going to come back up and maybe have
some announcements that \-- about this evening and possibly tomorrow.

MS. PATRICH: My announcements are very simple. Just thank you everyone
for being here today.

We\'re starting tomorrow morning at 9:15 and just so everybody who\'s
sitting around the \-- all the governors\' designees know, actually,
tomorrow, we\'re going to switch out the round table and we\'re going to
have different stakeholders sitting in a smaller group of round tables.
So, you\'re not going to find your tent cards in a big circle like this
when you come in tomorrow, but we\'ll see you tomorrow at 9:15.

(Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned to reconvene tomorrow at 9:15
a.m.)