*Pages 1--6 from  Microsoft Word - 46516.doc*
 REMARKS  OF  FCC  COMMISSIONER  MICHAEL  J.  COPPS 
 9-  1-  1  GOES  TO  WASHINGTON  CRITICAL  ISSUES  FORUM  FEBRUARY  28,  2005 


 Thank  you,  Greg,  for  that  very  nice  introduction  and  for  all  you  do  to  advance  a  reasoned  and  visionary  telecom  policy  for  all  our  citizens.  Greg  and  I  worked  together  as 
 Assistant  Secretaries  of  Commerce  in  the  Clinton  Administration,  so  I  know  first-  hand  the  intelligence  and  good  judgment  he  brings  to  whatever  he  does.  Let  me  also  thank 
 Steve  Seitz  and  our  friends  at  NENA  for  putting  this  event  together  and  for  inviting  me  over.  Were  proud  of  the  work  NENA  does.  You  provide  a  powerful  and  important 
 voice  in  Washington.  We  find  ourselves  in  my  office  calling  on  Steve  and  NENA  more  than  ever  these  days.  NENA  gives  your  issues  high  profile  across  town;  it  always  gives 
 us  high-  quality  input;  and  we  sit  up  and  take  notice  when  NENA  takes  a  position.  So  today  I  want  to  commend  you  and  thank  you  for  the  hard  work  each  of  you  does  every 
 day  to  make  the  country  safer.  You  have  accomplished  a  lot. 
 At  the  same  time,  I  want  to  recognize  and  talk  about  just  how  much  work  still  awaits  us.  I  am  thinking  especially  of  9-  1-  1  and  I  am  thinking  of  it  today  in  the  context 
 of  homeland  security.  9-  1-  1  needs  to  be  seen  as  a  critical  component  of  the  overarching  responsibility  we  have  to  improve  homeland  security.  We  have  made  progress  on  9-  1-  1 
 specifically  and  on  homeland  security  more  generally,  that  is  true.  But  we  still  have  so  far  to  go. 


 So  first,  let  me  talk  about  the  larger  universe  of  homeland  security  issues,  and  then  Ill  address  some  9-  1-  1  issues  more  specifically.  Were  coming  up  one  week  from 
 next  Friday  on  the  three  and  a  half  years  mark  since  our  country  was  attacked  by  terrorists  on  that  murderous  9/  11.  Its  a  time  for  us  to  pause  and  take  stock,  as  we  should 
 frequently  do.  Its  a  time  to  ask  ourselves  where  we  stand  in  making  our  country  less  vulnerable  and  to  decide  where  we  go  from  here. 


 The  9/  11  Commission  Report  that  came  out  last  year  helps  us  with  both  these  challenges.  That  Report  lays  out,  in  chilling  detail,  a  state  of  communications 
 unreadiness  that  seriously  inhibited  the  countrys  ability  to  respond  on  that  terrible  day.  But,  three  and  a  half  years  later,  it  also  lays  out  a  chilling  picture  of  the  state  of  our 
 communications  unreadiness  today.  Were  not  ready  for  next  time  yet.  There  is  much  work  to  do  to  make  sure  that  our  citizens  particularly  first  responders  like  you  are 
 able  to  communicate  better  when  we  are  attacked  again.  And  most  serious  observers  think  it  is  a  question  of  when  rather  than  a  question  of  if. 


 The  9/  11  Commission  Report  discussion  of  communications  issues  breaks  down  into  three  general  areas.  First,  the  Report  discusses  how  New  Yorks  Fire  Department 
 experienced  massive  communications  problems  on  9/  11.  Its  radios  performed  poorly  because  they  were  unable  to  penetrate  the  steel  and  concrete  floors  separating  fire 
 companies  trying  to  talk  to  oneanother,  and  so  many  companies  were  trying  to  get  in  touch  on  the  same  point-  to-  point  channel  that  communications  became,  in  the  word  of  the 
1
 2 
 Report,  unintelligible.  Second,  the  report  explains  how  interoperability  problems  plagued  rescue  operations  in  both  New  York  and  at  the  Pentagon  and  stresses  how 
 important  it  is  to  find  ways  for  different  emergency  responders,  at  the  municipal,  state  and  federal  levels,  to  talk  to  each  other  no  matter  what  the  situation.  These  are  not 
 problems  for  only  New  York  City,  of  course.  And  New  York  City  has  made  great  strides  in  the  past  few  years.  No,  these  are  national  problems.  We  need  to  create  more  reliable 
 and  redundant  public  safety  communications  systems  throughout  the  country. 
 Discussing  critical  infrastructure  generally,  the  Report  concludes  that,  despite  the  lessons  of  9/  11,  Americas  critical  infrastructure  remains  all  too  vulnerable.  Industry,  the 
 Report  says,  remains  largely  unprepared  for  a  terrorist  attack.  It  goes  on:  We  were  also  advised  that  the  lack  of  a  widely  embraced  private-  sector  preparedness  standard  was 
 a  principal  contributing  factor  to  this  lack  of  preparedness.  The  Report  refers  to  an  ANSI  standard  for  general  private  sector  preparedness,  but  we  in  the  communications 
 sector  need  to  look  more  closely  and  specifically  at  our  own  particular  preparedness  needs. 


 It  has  been  three  and  a  half  years  since  9/  11.  What  have  we  done  to  shore  up  the  problems  that  have  been  identified?  Well,  in  that  time,  the  FCC  has  allocated  spectrum 
 to  public  safety;  begun  the  process  of  bringing  tools  like  RFIDs  and  ITS  to  the  country;  struggled  with  issues  like  CALEA  and  800  MHz;  and,  of  course,  begun  to  implement 
 E911.  We  have  convened  councils  with  industry.  Advisory  committees  have  had  meetings  and  our  government  partners  have  begun  to  reorganize  themselves.  But  none  of 
 this  is  a  work  accomplished.  It  is  all  very  much  a  work  in  progress.  It  has  already  been  a  long  process,  but  lets  always  remember  that  time  is  no  friend  when  it  comes  to 
 terrorism.  Reorganization  tomorrow  is  not  enough.  Voluntary  best  practices,  if  implemented  quickly,  are  fine,  but  untimely  implementation  may  be  no  protection  at  all. 
 So  when  voluntary  efforts  fail,  mandatory  implementation  may  best  serve  the  public  interest.  We  learned  that  with  the  rules  that  implemented  E911.  The  9/  11  Commission 
 Report  minces  no  words  about  the  lack  today  of  public  and  private  sector  readiness  for  another  attack.  Homeland  security  is  not  business-  as-  usual  or  government-  as-  usual. 
 Meetings,  NOIs  and  draft  best  practices  can  only  take  us  so  far.  We  must  be  focused  on  implementing  integrated  solutions.  And  our  actions  need  to  be  part  of  an  overall  strategic 
 plan.  The  safety  of  the  people  is  always  the  first  obligation  of  the  public  servant. 
 Dont  misunderstand  me.  The  FCC  is  working  hard.  We  have  the  best  people  and  expertise  in  the  government  on  communications  issues.  But  the  government  is  still 
 working  on  developing  a  well-  understood,  aggressive,  nationwide  plan  to  ensure  that  every  public  safety  organization  has  access  to  a  reliable  system  that  they  can  use 
 anywhere,  to  talk  to  any  other  first  responder,  in  any  emergency.  That  just  doesnt  exist  today.  But  it  can  and  it  should  exist  and,  really,  it  must.  Such  a  plan  would  have  specific 
 deliverables  and  timetables.  And  it  would  provide  absolute  clarity  on  where  the  FCC  fits  in.  I  think  we  fit  in  at  the  forefront  in  developing  communications  solutions.  The 
 country  has  waited,  and  we  have  waited,  too  long  for  others  to  get  moving.  The  GAO  states  that  a  fundamental  barrier  to  successfully  addressing  interoperable 
 communications  problems  for  public  safety  has  been  the  lack  of  effective  collaborative, 
2
 3 
 interdisciplinary,  and  intergovernmental  planning.  House  Government  Reform  Subcommittee  Chairman  Christopher  Shays  has  called  on  the  FCC  to  take  a  more  active 
 role  and  says  its  going  to  be  costly  if  we  dont.  There  is  a  void  out  there  to  fill,  and  I  believe  this  agency  needs  to  fill  it.  We  have  seen  some  good  progress  lately,  with  the 
 report  issued  by  DHS  and  the  planned  inter-  agency  organization  on  public  safety  communications.  But  these  efforts  must  have  the  funding  they  need  to  do  a  complete  job 
 and  they  must  make  more  aggressive  use  of  the  governments  best  experts.  These  are  front-  burner  challenges,  but  Im  afraid  they  are  not  viewed  that  way  by  everyone. 


 No  one  entity  can  resolve  the  public  safety  and  interoperability  problems  alone  not  the  private  sector,  not  the  federal  government,  not  local  public  safety  organizations 
 which  are  so  often  starved  for  funding.  What  is  needed  is  a  collaborative  approach.  But  as  part  of  such  an  approach,  I  think  we  have  to  consider  having  the  FCC  play  a  far  more 
 active  role.  I  believe  that  the  FCC  should  create  an  office  that  focuses  exclusively  on  helping  local  public  safety  organizations  to  share  ideas,  vet  proposals,  prepare  plans  and 
 coordinate  them  with  both  government  and  industry.  Why  should  every  jurisdiction  have  to  start  at  square  one  when  others  have  already  done  a  lot  of  work?  If  we  lack  the 
 resources  for  the  Commission  to  do  this,  maybe  Congress  would  help  us.  We  wont  know  unless  we  ask. 


 I  also  think  we  need  to  affirm  in  a  more  tangible  way  that  the  FCC  is  committed  to  doing  its  part.  Toward  this  end,  I  believe  that  the  incoming  Chairman  of  the 
 Commission  should  appoint  one  of  his  fellow  Commissioners  to  lead  the  Commissions  efforts.  You  know,  the  FCC  is  not  mentioned  in  The  Report  of  the  911  Commission. 
 While  some  may  think  thats  because  were  doing  what  we  are  supposed  to  be  doing,  I  would  feel  better  if  our  efforts  had  achieved  sufficient  visibility  to  at  least  garner  a 
 mention  or  two  in  that  comprehensive  Report.  We  need  a  higher  profile  because  the  Commission  has  more  to  contribute  than  it  has  been  asked  or  prodded  to  do  so  far.  There 
 is  precedent  for  what  I  propose  because  this  is  the  structure  that  Chairman  Kennard  created  when  he  appointed  then-  Commissioner  Powell  to  lead  our  preparation  for  the 
 Year  2000  Problem.  That  appointment  gave  visibility,  leadership  and  priority  to  the  Commissions  important  role  in  meeting  the  Y2K  challenge.  I  think  it  is  a  good  and 
 admirable  model  for  us  to  follow  now. 
 The  Report  also  recommends  legislation  to  increase  the  assignment  of  spectrum  for  public  safety.  Freeing  up  new  public  safety  spectrum  gets  us  real  quickly  to  the 
 digital  TV  transition,  of  course,  and  we  all  know  that  the  implications  of  this  transition  will  be  complicated.  The  Commission  needs  to  be  working  with  Congress  on  this.  The 
 FCC  can  help  make  sure  the  spectrum  transfer  is  done  right  by  providing  Congress  with  the  best  possible  understanding  of  what  spectrum  deficiencies  public  safety  confronts, 
 exactly  how  much  spectrum  public  safety  requires,  and  what  frequencies  will  serve  it  best.  It  may  surprise  you,  but  I  have  never  seen  a  survey  of  exactly  what  spectrum  public 
 safety  is  using  today,  which  frequencies  are  working  and  which  are  limited  by  their  physical  characteristics  or  interference,  and,  critically,  where  the  interoperability  channels 
 are.  Nor  do  we  have  a  real  feel  for  how  much  spectrum  public  safety  needs,  what  frequencies  they  need,  which  areas  of  the  country  are  most  overcrowded,  and  how  to 
3
 4 
 make  interoperability  work  better  with  the  resources  we  have  today.  These  are  important  things  to  know  each  of  them  and  it  is  important  to  know  them  now.  We  can  continue 
 to  move  forward  without  this,  I  suppose,  but  why  hasnt  either  the  FCC  or  the  Department  of  Homeland  Security  long  since  given  such  a  survey  to  Congress  so  it  has 
 the  tools  to  do  its  job  as  well  as  possible? 
 There  is  one  other  homeland  security  concern  we  are  not  adequately  addressing,  and  that  is  how  to  integrate  our  hospitals,  health  centers,  and  doctors  much  more  closely 
 into  the  emergency  response  communications  system.  If  this  isnt  part  of  what  interoperability  should  be  all  about,  then  I  dont  know  what  is.  I  have  visited  hospitals 
 and  emergency  responders  in  big  cities  and  small  towns,  and  I  have  also  visited  the  CDC  in  Atlanta.  All  these  facilities  recognize  the  importance  of  fast  and  reliable 
 communications,  especially  in  the  event  of  a  biological  attack.  But  I  dont  see  that  many  hospitals,  especially  in  rural  America,  have  a  reliable  two-  way  communications  system 
 that  allows  them  to  communicate  with  local  and  federal  law  enforcement  and  emergency  personnel  in  a  crisis.  Even  when  they  do  have  dedicated  systems,  they  are  seldom 
 redundant,  and  most  are  based  on  the  public  network,  which  is  unreliable  in  emergencies,  as  9/  11  and  the  more  recent  East  Coast  black-  out  proved.  Can  you  imagine  what  would 
 happen  in  a  biological  attack  if  our  hospitals  were  unable  to  communicate  with  first  responders,  911  call-  takers,  federal  authorities  and  each  other?  The  FCC  should  address 
 this  problem  and  help  find  a  solution,  and  while  have  done  good  work  in  updating  the  rural  healthcare  funding  mechanism,  its  going  to  take  more  than  that  to  get  this  larger 
 problem  solved.  We  can  also  play  a  helpful  role  here  by  acting  as  a  facilitator,  a  convener,  or  a  clearinghouse  for  ideas  being  a  place  where  health  care  providers  can 
 share  and  vet  ideas  and  talk  with  oneanother.  As  I  mentioned  with  regard  to  other  public  safety  responders  earlier,  why  should  every  such  facility  have  to  start  at  square  one  when 
 they  could  be  building  on  the  lessons  learned  by  others?  Wouldnt  bringing  people  and  ideas  together  and  sharing  experiences  save  the  country  both  time  and  money  not  to 
 mention  the  possibility  of  saving  many  lives? 
 Now  let  me  spend  a  few  minutes  on  9-  1-  1  issues  more  specifically.  We  have  a  big  year  ahead  of  us.  First,  we  have  the  December  31,  2005  deadline  for  handset-  based 
 E911  roll-  out.  Ninety-  five  per  cent  of  the  embedded  base  of  the  nationwide  carriers  phones  must  be  E911-  compliant  by  then.  FCC  Wireless  Bureau  Chief  John  Muletta 
 recently  said  at  the  January  Open  Meeting,  in  response  to  a  question  from  me,  that  the  reports  we  have  received  show  that  the  carriers  will  meet  this  deadline.  I'll  be  watching 
 that  closely  because  this  is  critical. 
 Second,  we  have  to  make  sure  that  PSAPs  have  the  resources  they  need  to  be  ready  to  accept  Phase  2  E911.  Too  often  states  have  taken  money  that  should  go  toward 
 this  preparation  and  used  it  for  other  purposes.  We  need  a  more  consistent  9-  1-  1  system  throughout  the  country,  especially  for  wireless  because  traveling  callers  may  be  surprised 
 to  find  the  level  of  service  they  receive  on  the  road  is  different  from  what  they  have  at  home.  We  worked  hard  to  get  the  companies  to  spend  a  lot  of  money  to  get  their  systems 
 ready,  and  many,  many  PSAPs  have  worked  incredibly  hard  under  tight  budget  conditions  to  do  the  same.  When  9-  1-  1  funds  are  raided  for  other  purposes,  the  whole 
4
 5 
 system  suffers.  So  the  FCC  should  be  using  its  bully  pulpit  more  effectively  to  educate  everyone  as  to  why  taking  this  money  away  from  PSAPs  creates  perils  for  public  safety. 
 The  message  should  be  clear--  raiding  public  safety  funds  endangers  the  public  interest. 
 Third,  we  have  work  to  do  on  the  rural  front.  Some  small  carriers  have  unique  problems  that  make  meeting  our  requirements  particularly  difficult.  We  need  to 
 recognize  these  situations  and  face  up  to  the  challenges.  On  the  other  hand,  we  are  talking  about  public  safety,  and  that  must  be  our  top  priority.  So  I  believe  that  a  case-  by-case 
 approach  to  this  problem,  with  guidelines  so  people  know  what  we  will  be  looking  at,  may  serve  us  best  here.  There  will  be  some  circumstances  where  we  will  have  to  be 
 flexible.  There  will  be  others  where  the  rules  must  stand.  In  either  case,  the  FCC  has  instituted  a  system  wherein  rural  carriers  and  PSAPs  can  share  best  practices  with  carriers 
 and  PSAPs  that  have  successfully  upgraded  their  systems.  That's  a  process  I  hope  to  see  used  even  more  because  it  makes  available  to  everyone  examples  of  plans  that  can  be 
 accomplished  effectively. 
 Fourth,  we  have  a  real  challenge  with  VOIP.  A  recent  tragedy  in  Texas  reminds  us  all  that  the  stakes  are  very  high.  Press  reports  indicate  that  a  family  in  Houston  was 
 attacked  by  a  burglar  last  month.  The  father  and  mother  were  shot.  While  the  attacker  was  still  in  the  house,  their  daughter  tried  to  dial  9-  1-  1  on  their  VOIP  line  and  a  recording 
 informed  her  that  9-  1-  1  was  not  available.  We  are  still  gathering  information  on  exactly  what  happened  and  on  the  circumstances  of  9-  1-  1's  unavailability.  Let  me  be  the  first  to 
 say  that  I  do  not  have  a  ready  answer  for  the  VOIP  911  question.  Certainly  we  need  to  understand  that  VOIP  doesnt  use  the  same  technology  as  the  circuit-  switched  network 
 and  this  should  be  reflected  in  our  rules.  And  we  need  to  figure  out  when  one  player  offers  an  application  and  another  is  a  service  provider.  But  let  me  also  say  this.  This 
 problem  has  to  be  fixed.  And  it  has  to  be  fixed  soon.  It  is  simply  unacceptable  that  a  child  can  pick  up  a  phone  and  dial  9-  1-  1  to  get  the  police  in  an  emergency  and  instead  she 
 gets  a  recording  saying  that  9-  1-  1  is  not  available.  A  9-  1-  1  call  can  be  the  single  most  important  call  that  child,  or  any  of  us,  ever  makes.  So  it  is  our  solemn  and  pressing 
 obligation  to  make  sure  that  it  is  available  and  that  it  works.  I  know  you  are  working  on  this,  and  I  want  to  commend  NENA  and  the  VON  Coalition  for  the  serious  effort  they  are 
 making  to  get  us  what  the  country  needs.  It  is  a  partnership  that  can  make  a  real  difference.  Keep  up  the  good  work;  keep  us  posted;  and  let  me  know,  please,  how  you 
 think  I  can  help  the  effort. 
 Finally,  and  this  is  important  as  we  proceed  on  all  this,  lets  keep  the  needs  of  Americas  disabilities  communities  very  much  in  mind.  Millions  of  Americans  in  these 
 communities  stand  to  benefit  greatly  from  advances  in  technology  generally  and  from  E911  in  particular,  but  as  you  proceed,  make  sure  theyre  included  in  your  planning  from 
 the  get-  go  and  make  sure  your  systems  work  for  them. 
 Let  me  conclude  by  saying  that  I  am  eager  to  assist,  in  any  way  I  can,  making  the  FCC  a  more  central  part  of  the  solution  to  each  of  these  problems.  The  extent  of  its 
 involvement  will  vary  from  instance  to  instance,  but  ensuring  the  public's  safety  is  all  our  jobs.  And,  when  terror  strikes  its  ugly  hand  again,  we  should  have  compiled  the  record  to 
5
 6 
 make  clear  that  neither  the  private  nor  the  public  sector  was  asleep  at  the  switch.  We  have  a  lot  of  work  to  do.  We  have  interoperability,  critical  infrastructure  protection,  the 
 integration  of  our  healthcare  system  into  our  emergency  communications  system,  the  2005  E911  deadline,  E911  for  rural  carriers,  and  emergency  calls  on  VOIP.  We  need 
 your  help  on  each  and  all  of  these  challenges.  We  need  it  now.  I  hope  you  all  know  that  my  door  is  always  open  to  you.  Together,  we  can  get  this  job  done. 


 Thank  you. 
6